Training & Legal Reprecussions

G

gvf

Moderator
I always thought SD training - or any training with weapons - would be a plus legally in any "incident" - in that it would seem you knew what you were doing. (And I know questions to that effect were part of Defense strategy in at least one well-known case involving a CCW shooting since the CCW had had such training - then again the Defense Attorney was horrible and the CCW lost, so maybe it wasn't a good idea. )

Anyhow, when mentioning to an attorney and gun-savvy friend that I had possible plans for some training his response was unusual: "That's nice - but for heaven's sake if you ever get involved in a "situation" don't tell THEM (cops) that!"

His point: "they" could then start to find fault as if you were a professional, "so, why didn't you do this, or not do this" etc. - same in a civil case.

Though odd reaction, I can see his point. We are in the same position as housewife who stabs a would-be rapist/killer intruder with a kitchen knife: we are victims who use a particular means available to stop a lethal attack even if it results in death of the attacker. She is not required or expected to have had "kitchen knife defensive training". Nor are we gun trainng.

Our CCWs are permission to Carry. In NY State and I believe most states there is no mention of shooting anyone. As well, there is no mention in SD Law about shooting anyone. Carrying violations are violations of Gun Law. SD "violations" (inadequate legal reasons) are violations of Homicide Law. And the two don't overlap. You need education in gun safety and gun operation to get a CCW, including knowing how to aim, and that's it - at least in NY. You don't need SD training -nor do you need to demonstrate a particular degree of accuracy. Nor in SD Law is there any such requirement - nor any requirement for proficiency in any means or method of SD, no means are mentioned.

So, I can see that my attorney-friend had a point. Any thoughts on this?

(I'm not negating training for its own sake - for us and our abilities, by the way. Neither was my friend. Point was simply about the way such training could be viewed by others in any "case" we became involved in)
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that being capable of articulating why you believed your actions were reasonable and proper would be of tremendous value for a defense. A qualified instructor with a solid lesson plan can be used as support that you did your due diligence in an attempt to be as competent and knowledgeable as possible. In other words, although said training may not be mandated, you went above and beyond to ensure your actions were driven by research,fact and logic, not the most recent episode of "Law & Order." A quality training program should be able to refute the types of issues you mentioned. For example, "Why did/didn't you .....?" "My instructor, duly certified by the state of ? and an expert in this area, taught us ....."

This presumes you participated in quality training and that you behaved in a manner somewhat comparable to what you were taught. Obviously, if your training was from Fred, the nice guy at the lube shop who likes to shoot but has no credentials or you do something materially different than the lesson plan, you lose the ability to use this argument.
 
I think the issue here isnt so much training in "lethal force" or "self defense involving lethal force", but actually the opposite. If you have 12903883 training diplomas/bragging rights, then you have 12903882 other options to defend yourself with.

If, however, you are trained in proper firearm saftey and defense techniques, I really dont see how that can go against you. Especially if you have been taught how to analyze threats and different levels of conflict/threats.

Just my thoughts.
 
The law, as well as each individual case, is fact sensitive. You cannot broadbrush it into get trained/don't get trained. Individual circumstances will determine how things turn out.

Many times this would be more of an issue in a civil case. The attorney for the plaintiff(the one you shot in self-defense) is going to try to damage your credibility to the jury. He has convinced the plaintiff to try to get money from you, on the chance that you'll either settle, or the jury will be so prejudiced against gun owners that they'll award him something. However, as a matter of law the defendant can request a bench trial (no jury, just a judge).

If it is an issue in a criminal trial, it means you are accused of a crime, either a homicide related charge or assault related charge (actual names of charges will vary on severity and on the state's terminology). In a criminal trial, you are not obligated to testify. Instead, let your lawyer do your talking, along with the expert witnesses (i.e., your instructor(s)). Be sure to use an attorney who is not afraid of affirmative defenses (an affirmative defense is where you admit to your action, but that your action is not a crime).

Have an attorney selected ahead of time. Don't wait till an incident to start searching through the yellow pages. The best attorneys in cases like these are former prosecutors, judges, and police officers. After an incident, consult with your attorney about what your rights are, as well as what the rights are of the person you shot. Ask about filing a civil suit against him while he is facing criminal charges, then settle it on the condition that he agree not to bring litigation against you later.

If you are involved in an incident, cooperate with the police who arrive at the scene. This means obey their instructions, do not resist or fight with them, just let them do their job. Chances are they are going to treat you like a criminal, so just accept it. When they start questioning you, ask if they spoke to any witnesses (who you will point out). Then ask if they will be charging you with a crime. Unless they say "not at all," then by all means, STFU and request to speak with your attorney. Once you start talking, you can't take anything back. Let your attorney, who is not emotionally connected to the incident, do your talking for you.

In Florida, the new "Stand Your Ground" law has nullified civil lawsuits against people who have used a firearm for self-defense. That means, if you try to rob someone and they shoot you, you have no legal recourse against them. How do you avoid that scenario?--don't rob, rape, attempt to murder, or commit any other crime against another person. This is the kind of law we need to see more of. Courts should not be rewarding people who are engaging in criminal activity.
 
"Anyhow, when mentioning to an attorney and gun-savvy friend that I had possible plans for some training his response was unusual: "That's nice - but for heaven's sake if you ever get involved in a "situation" don't tell THEM (cops) that!""

"My life was in danger. I need to talk to my attorney."
This is ALL you need to say.
NOTHING more.
No matter how 'friendly' the officers seem.
Even police involved in shootings get an attorney.
 
I think Brickeyee gives us the main point: don't tell THEM your life's story. They are not your understanding buddies. They are at the scene of a homicide and will act appropriately. So should we.
 
It's not the police you worry about, it is the jurors if it goes to trial. Depending on the circumstances, training can help or hinder. Training can show that you had a clear understanding of the law and use of a firearm defensively which if you have a clear cut case and a good attorney is a plus. However if you have an ignorant jury and a bad lawyer, it could be used to support the contention that you didn't have to shoot or shoot to kill the assailant. Also, if you have a higher level of skill the jury could look at it as you being a trained professional should have been less scared or had time to retreat, etc., etc..

At the time of the incident, you don't need to tell the cops about your training. The only thing you need to tell them is "I would like to speak to my attorney before answering any questions."

If you have the training, it is best to document it, not try to hide it.
 
Consider this. A CCW license exempts you from that part of the law that bans carrying concealed weapons. That is all. Period. It does not convey any other right or privilege you do not already have.

I find it hard to imagine a defense attorney allowing a prosecutor to get away with claiming that seeking training changes self defense into a criminal action. Something smells about that report; either the defendant did something more than simply take training, or the defense counsel was totally incompetent.

(By "something more", I mean such stupid actions as bragging that "now I got a CCW, I am going to shoot somebody", or talking about "going hunting." Anyone with that kind of mindset deserves what he gets.)

Jim
 
brickeyee +1
First and foremost know your state laws, then pray it never happens but if it does "Lawyer up" and let him do the talking.
Police are usually good people like the rest of us, but even in a traffic stop I only answer question and never volunteer any other info. Yes Sir and No Sir answers. They are just good the guys doing their job, but minimal answer are best for all parties involved.
 
I find it hard to imagine a defense attorney allowing a prosecutor to get away with claiming that seeking training changes self defense into a criminal action. Something smells about that report; either the defendant did something more than simply take training, or the defense counsel was totally incompetent.
Click to expand...

No, the Defense used the defendant's prior training as a plus in the Defense phase of the trial. I don't know if the Prosecution responded to that. But the Defense in other parts of the trial appeared terrible:
e.g.: they allowed prosecution (this was a criminal case by the way) to paint picture of defendant as being brutal because he used hollow-points. Later, after verdict (Guilty of 2nd Degree Homicide - sentence: minimum 10 yrs) one or more jurors said that was a significant element in their verdict. No counter-testimony or evidence by the Defense that I am aware of challenged the Prosecutor's negative use of the HP Ammo factor - and we all know it is standard to use such ammo for SD for everyone, including police - and has very logical reasons to support it. At least in the TV documentary on the case, this was a gaping hole (among others) in the Defense, least to my mind. The CCW was a retired school teacher, who shot an unarmed man, that he said he believed was going to kill him. I believe it was Arizona or Nevada and within 5 years ago. There were no witnesses to the event.

This was a FYI post, I didn't mean to turn this thread into one about the above case, since the topic is: "training and its legal implications"
 
I think it depends on how you acted in the "situation".

If you followed everything you learned in your training classes, I would imagine being able to show you followed training from a paid professional would HELP your case.

However, If you royally screw the pooch and make stupid mistakes, that might not be the case. You might still be justified in defending yourself, but if they can show you had training but didn't follow it properly, I imagine it would work against you. After all... you are a well trained person and SHOULD have reacted correctly.

These are just thoughts of mine, I have nothing to back them up.
 
In my career I investigated a lot of LEO shootings. In civil cases one of the very first things asked for by the defendant's attorney is the officer's training records. I've never seen a LEO get jammed up for having too much training but I've seen quite a few times where lack of training has become a major issue. The issue isn't whether you know too much but whether you didn't get enough training to know what you were doing.
 
Thanks for info.

That may be true for LEOs and it may practically occur for civilians, though weather or not it does is the topic. Legally it should make no difference as long as the training you've had fulfills the requirements of your state for a CCW. If you have a CCW, you've had the required training. As far as SD, you don't need training for SD Law to protect you. It protects everyone. You just need to fulfill the tests of that Law in your state, which deal with proper justification. No training beyond that needed for CCW, in other words, is necessary in a self-defence action involving a legally concealed weapon, any more than it would be if you hit a lethal attacker over the head with a log to stop the attack. No log training required.
 
I've given this a lot of thought, and my conclusions are as follows: The world is full of horror stories. Believe them if you want, or don't believe them. But, the law is the law, and the rest is baloney.

You'll hear plenty of "urban legends" about conceal carry. For example:
1. You shouldn't ever use hollow points, because the prosecutor will blast you for using "especially deadly ammo."
2. You shouldn't ever take special training (martial arts), because then the prosecutor will second-guess your decision making in use of deadly force.
3. You shouldn't carry certain types of guns, because the prosecutor will question whether you went looking for trouble.

All of this is HOGWASH! There have been a FEW cases where lawyers, at the FIRST trial, tried to use some of these tactics with the jury. In some, RARE cases, the judge allows it. In some, even MORE RARE cases, the jury convicts based on it. But, these types of situations are NOT upheld on appeal, because these inquiries are not relevant and are prejudicial to the defendant.

What you need to remember is as follows:

1. If you are threatened with deadly force, you have the right to use deadly force ONLY TO THE POINT of stopping the threat.
2. You are required to obtain proper licensure before carrying a concealed weapon.
3. If you are the first aggressor (if you started the fight), ALL BETS ARE OFF. You are in the wrong.

Remember these three things, and all will be fine.
 
gvf said:
You just need to fulfill the tests of that Law in your state, which deal with proper justification. No training beyond that needed for CCW, in other words, is necessary in a self-defence action involving a legally concealed weapon, any more than it would be if you hit a lethal attacker over the head with a log to stop the attack. No log training required.
Click to expand...

For those states where a qualification of proficiency is required to receive a concealed firearm permit, the state has a mechanism in place to ensure you can swing the "log" with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Public safety... etc.

You're tested by the state, not trained... but the test is in place to ensure you're capable. Choosing to become more capable via additional training is not a liability.

That could be the basis for refuting this ridiculous argument concerning your training history. Not that I can imagine even the most green prosecutor going this route... but this is a lawyer we're talkin' about here.

For those states with no such proficiency requirement... I'd have to see case law supporting your attorney-friend's concern with regard to a righteous civilian self-defense scenario before I'd consider this in the Top 100 Stuffs To Worry About.

IMO, if we act with the Reasonable Man test in mind.... there's no need to give pause to such a scenario.
 
Last edited:
Legally it should make no difference as long as the training you've had fulfills the requirements of your state for a CCW. If you have a CCW, you've had the required training. As far as SD, you don't need training for SD Law to protect you.
Click to expand...
While that is true the point being that the more training you receive the more proficiency you can demonstrate that you received more than adequate training and that you acted in accordance with that training. What the additional training also does is enable you to subpoena the trainers in your defense to explain what they trained and why. I used one in one of the cases where I was sued for 1983 Civil Rights action. I brought in the trainers who put on one heck of a great presentation of what, how, and why they trained what they did. The plaintiff's attorney couldn't shake them.
 
"In civil cases one of the very first things asked for by the defendant's attorney is the officer's training records."

LEOs are acting under government authority.
The rest of us are relying on self defense law (in whatever form is present in the jurisdiction).
Training would only be an issue if you are trying to claim an accident, and not a lawful self defense shooting.
All the testing does (if even present) is establish you can shoot the gun and maybe have a basic understanding of the self defense law in the jurisdiction (as viewed by whomever gave the presentation).

Means, intent, ability.
If the incident has all three, and are in fear of your life you are allowed to use deadly force.
Some places have additional circumstances, but every place allows these.
Retreat varies, and does the standards that may be applied ('reasonably believe' varies).
Know the basics in the areas you carry.
Pay your attorney for an hour to discuss them.
 
Training would only be an issue if you are trying to claim an accident, and not a lawful self defense shooting.
Click to expand...
Not so. What your training records do is help establish that you recognized the threat for being a viable threat and that you responded in accordance with accepted standards that are taught by trained instructors. Valid instructors will have the legal research available to support the actions taken. That's not only for LEOs but non-LEOs as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top