Consider administrative priorities in the context of civil liability. Cities have insurance policies to shield them from liability, but not intentional actions. If a line officer is actually trained and encouraged to be a fine marksman, "the police are being taught to shoot to kill!" will be the warcry of the crybullies when the wrongful death case hits the courtroom. If the officer dies because the suspect was not stopped by the poor shooting, it is a lot cheaper. If the training is enough for the officer to be "average" the city can claim they met or exceeded the minimum standards of competency. If the entire departmentshoots like an "average" SWAT operator, then that is an intentional action that might break that nice insurance protection. Administration is not your friend.
You make some great points, however, you're too generous. Attributing low training levels to some purposeful design by administration due to liability concerns is given them too much credit.
Attorney Andrew Branca (@LawSelfDefense, http://lawofselfdefense.com) has stated, "I agree that there would seem to be little liability in retaining copies of shooting performance (unless, I suppose, that performance were truly horrific–people who can’t hit the broad side of a barn arguably shouldn’t walk around in public with guns)."
Formal large-scale public sector qualification programs are about two centuries old. If range/qualification and/or competition scores demonstrating heightened skill were likely to be successfully used against someone in an otherwise legit use of force incident, they would have been. I think we’re better off focusing on ways to help people improve skills rather than worry about a “problem” that has never happened.
"If range/qualification and/or competition scores demonstrating heightened skill were likely to be successfully used against someone in an otherwise legit use of force incident, they would have been."
Maybe. But there is a disturbing trend vilifying training. Too much training as a citizen, and a prosecutor might try to paint you as a cop/soldier/"operator" wannabe.
So, are you advocating for people to purposely be less knowledgable and skilled as a defense against litigation?
Opposing counsel will attempt to spin any aspect of your prior training/experience (or lack thereof) against you. The best defense is to abide by what a responsible person would have done in your position, which you start by first learning and practicing what that is. Prudent actions by a well-trained person are the most easy to justify.
"So, are you advocating for people to purposely be less knowledgable and skilled as a defense against litigation?"
Absolutely not. However, taking every "operator" course known to man, and plastering such across social media is probably not a sound strategy. Having said that, I seriously doubt that anyone engaged in a gunfight ever wished that they had less training. I would advocate to get as much training as you want, but don't advertise it.
Consider administrative priorities in the context of civil liability. Cities have insurance policies to shield them from liability, but not intentional actions. If a line officer is actually trained and encouraged to be a fine marksman, "the police are being taught to shoot to kill!" will be the warcry of the crybullies when the wrongful death case hits the courtroom. If the officer dies because the suspect was not stopped by the poor shooting, it is a lot cheaper. If the training is enough for the officer to be "average" the city can claim they met or exceeded the minimum standards of competency. If the entire departmentshoots like an "average" SWAT operator, then that is an intentional action that might break that nice insurance protection. Administration is not your friend.
You make some great points, however, you're too generous. Attributing low training levels to some purposeful design by administration due to liability concerns is given them too much credit.
Attorney Andrew Branca (@LawSelfDefense, http://lawofselfdefense.com) has stated, "I agree that there would seem to be little liability in retaining copies of shooting performance (unless, I suppose, that performance were truly horrific–people who can’t hit the broad side of a barn arguably shouldn’t walk around in public with guns)."
Formal large-scale public sector qualification programs are about two centuries old. If range/qualification and/or competition scores demonstrating heightened skill were likely to be successfully used against someone in an otherwise legit use of force incident, they would have been. I think we’re better off focusing on ways to help people improve skills rather than worry about a “problem” that has never happened.
"If range/qualification and/or competition scores demonstrating heightened skill were likely to be successfully used against someone in an otherwise legit use of force incident, they would have been."
Maybe. But there is a disturbing trend vilifying training. Too much training as a citizen, and a prosecutor might try to paint you as a cop/soldier/"operator" wannabe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vXeUUEDpvM
I watched the video you shared. Your concerns are even more unfounded than I thought. Both attorneys stated:
- De-escalation is an important part of self defense (it should already be)
- Don't be a vigalante (you already shouldn't be)
- Juries prefer proof of training (CCW class/permit)
- Attending training might be used against you, but so will a lack of it.
- Other factors are more likely to come into play: Guy regularly carrying 4 handguns "and he kinda was begging for that scenario"
Both attorneys in the video still recommend taking training.
So, are you advocating for people to purposely be less knowledgable and skilled as a defense against litigation?
Opposing counsel will attempt to spin any aspect of your prior training/experience (or lack thereof) against you. The best defense is to abide by what a responsible person would have done in your position, which you start by first learning and practicing what that is. Prudent actions by a well-trained person are the most easy to justify.
"So, are you advocating for people to purposely be less knowledgable and skilled as a defense against litigation?"
Absolutely not. However, taking every "operator" course known to man, and plastering such across social media is probably not a sound strategy. Having said that, I seriously doubt that anyone engaged in a gunfight ever wished that they had less training. I would advocate to get as much training as you want, but don't advertise it.