OldMarksman
Staff
What you do not seem to understand is that evidence relating to other things can be crucial. Foremost among those things are the defendant's state of mind, and anything that could shed light on the reasons for his stated belief that he had been faced with an imminent threat requiring the immediate use of deadly force.Posted by Snyper: Evidence of the details of the event has nothing to do with what he "knows" as far as any training, and is merely a description of observations at a specific time, along with any forensic evidence
Training RE: attack and response distances would fall into the latter category.
Your continuing to insist otherwise does not change that.
I hate to put it quite this way, but it seems to me that there has been ample explanation of the subject in this thread already. Perhaps you should spend some time rereading the above posts carefully and reflecting upon the content. Pay particular attention to the links to the writings of Lisa Steele--study them very carefully. Watch the video linked in Post #111 a couple of times, too.
If after all of that you still do not understand it, take my advice and attend MAG-20. Better yet, do it anyway.