Do you "Document" your training?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey_Booklet.pdf

for a case where training came up. If you get hyper-picky about 'records', you miss the point, that training can be an issue and documentation is a good thing.

From a well-known article on self-defense:

http://www.aware.org/legal-articles/8-content/73-defending-the-self-defense-case-by-lisa-j-steele

Ideally, the client will also have some formal training in the use of deadly force which will allow the client's teacher to testify about the client's training in order to show that the client's actions were subjectively reasonable. If the client has not had any formal training, counsel may still seek an expert to testify about use of force issues. However, the attorney may encounter difficulty showing that the expert's opinion is relevant if it was not the basis for the client's subjective decision. The attorney could offer expert testimony to show that the client's actions were objectively reasonable.

These should answer the common cliche that I never heard of case, blah, blah.

There are more. Frank Ettin has posted a list of interesting cases several times.

BTW, in the legal literature there are discussions of martial arts training and legal issues in self-defense.

 

[OldMarksman]

This will remain one of those nebulous questions/issues where there is not enough data or documentation to validate one side or the other.

The principles of justification for the use of force are well established and are not "nebulous". They are defined in law--black law and case law.

I maintain that there is no valid reason to bother with keeping training records other than for your own use.

That is not an informed opinion.

I have not seen, nor heard of, a case where such records played any part in a court situation.

Others have. Glenn has pointed out a case in which the records proved very unhelpful to a defendant, and Masssad Ayoob tells of a case where the lack of verifiable records prevented the introduction of exculpatory evidence in a trial.

I'd venture to say that the vast majority of folks that have used a gun in self defense did NOT have training, were not 'gun guys', and still came out on top. Both in the encounter and in court. If it ever came to that.

Probably so. But the "vast majority" is not meaningful in real cases.

 

[Sharkbite]

Again, its what you can PROVE you knew at the time of the shooting.

Tueller drill?? Prove you knew about proximity vs time
Failure to stop shot??? Prove you knew about handgun failues.
Why didnt you just shoot him in the leg like on tv? Prove you knew about the problems with that concept

Expert witnesses are GREAT, but if you cant show that YOU knew AT THE TIME of the shoot, their testimony about what THEY knew is not relevant.

So, without training records showing YOUR knowledge, how do you show the Jury what you knew? Remember, with the “Reasonable man doctrine” that Reasonable man had all the knowledge AND training you had at the time of the shooting. Without records, that “Reasonable man” is kinda ignorant.

 

[FireForged]

Again, its what you can PROVE you knew at the time of the shooting.

If someone wants to assert that I didn't know something I claim to have known at the time of the incident, .. let them prove that I didn't. If I can speak intelligently about it, let a jury decide.

It gets comical at some point. Heck, I cant prove 90% of what I know on any subject. "how did you estimate the speed of the vehicle without an instrument".. well, I know the distance between telephone poles and I did some rough math based on the the number of seconds it took the vehicle to pass 4 poles. PROVE IT SIR!! prove that someone didn't tell you that during the last recess!!! Come on, it just gets silly at some point but if it makes you feel better to amass your training certificates.. have at it. I will stick with the common layman/good Samaritan standard and roll the dice with what they believe or don't believe.

 

[OldMarksman]

If someone wants to assert that I didn't know something I claim to have known at the time of the incident, .. let them prove that I didn't. ...

PROVE IT SIR!! prove that someone didn't tell you that during the last recess!!!

I wonder if the defendant in the actual case that Ayoob talks about, in which expert testimony regarding the Tueller drill was not admitted by the judge due to lack of verifiable documentation, wondered afterward why that kind of interpretation of legal procedure did not work for him.

I will stick with the common layman/good Samaritan standard and roll the dice with what they believe or don't believe.

There can be a whole lot at stake on such a roll....

 

[FireForged]

There is a difference between wanting to establish that you know something more than the average person and a circumstance where you may not want to invite being held to a higher standard than the average person.

 

[OldMarksman]

There is a difference between wanting to establish that you know something more than the average person and a circumstance where you may not want to invite being held to a higher standard than the average person.

What is that supposed to mean?