Can too much training be a liability?

[AFTII]

Can too much training become a liability if you are involved in a self-defense shooting? Some food for thought:

[CheapBloke]

It'd suck to spend thousands on training and be killed by a 22 crackshot luckshot from a crackhead.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[gsparesa]

This brings up the question: Does a “well-regulated militia,” have the right to train? Does the right to train also pertain to a “Citizen Malitias” which was described by Benitez as an “informal assembly of able-bodied, ordinary citizens acting in concert for the security of our nation.”?

[RickD427]

This same video is also being discussed on the THR forum.

Rather than re-type of whole bunch of text, here's my thoughts from that forum:

To give a very direct reply to the question, "YES", your training can be used against you.

But also keep in mind that your absence of training can also be used against you. It goes both ways.

The real danger in the OP's posting is not the suggestion that you shouldn't train. The danger in the OP's posting is the perpetuation of the thought that one should conduct their affairs in a manner that would negate only one legal theory of liability. Every law school has a class titled "Trial Advocacy." The purpose of that class is to train their students how to present cases in court, in a way that is most advantageous to their clients. Please note the object is not to give the most effective, or balanced, presentation of the case.

The agency that I retired from has defended hundreds of use-of-force cases at trial, and overall with some pretty good results, but also with some very significant losses. Nearly all of the claims involve allegations that the deputy's training was inadequate, and also that the supervision given to the involved deputy(s) was inadequate. Such claims can be very persuasive. You can never "measure" the effect of training or supervision that was never provided, and folks tend to believe that more of either would make a difference. Once a plaintiff's attorney has successfully transported the jury from the real world, into a fantasy world (where they can make-up the desired outcomes), their case becomes quite easy.

But if you try to counter that strategy by changing your conduct, you're doomed. The next case will be one where your alternative conduct becomes faulted. Then you have to change your conduct again, and pretty soon you're like the cat chasing it's own tail in your effort to control liability.

The Los Angeles Police Department recently had a shooting, and lawsuit, that exemplifies this. They also have a long history of defending suits, and where issues of training and supervision were at issue, and with a long history of allegations being made that training levels were inadequate.

Then there was a shooting involving a officer who was extremely well trained in the defensive use of handguns, and who was featured on the cover of Dillon's "Blue Press" magazine, along with an article describing her prowess with the handgun. Now here, is where that "Trial Advocacy" class kicks in. The plaintiff's attorney argued that this was an officer who was actively seeking to become involved in a shooting, as evidenced by the extreme amount of time she spent in apparent preparation for the event.

The best advice here is not to seek refuge from the latest legal attack, but rather be able to fully justify the actions that you take and to ensure that you can effectively communicate the reasons for those actions to the trier of fact.

[RandyD]

As a follow-up to what RickD427 posted.

I have litigated cases in court for 29 years, and I also had Trial Advocacy training both in law school and in numerous follow-up continuing education courses. ALL FACTS ARE A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. Give me a fact and I can make it cut for you or I can make it cut against you. The deciding factor should be which perspective is most truthful, logical, and reasonable, but you have a trier of fact be it a judge, arbitrator, or juror that is a flawed human that will decide which perspective wins the day. This is our legal system.

Just live your life. Live by a set of proven principles. Try to do what is right. The result is you won't have to concern yourself to the Nth Degree about what others may think or do to you.

[hermosabeach]

Nope

Skilled people are not a liability

[AFTII]

When I watched the video, I immediately thought of its relevancy to me. I have multiple CCWs, am a NRA certified self-defense instructor as well as other disciplines, regularly shoot competitively (the lawyers in the video never even addressed that factor) and am an attorney licensed in multiple jurisdictions.

None of the above really have anything to do with a self-defense claim, i.e., did the shooter have a subjectively reasonable belief that he / she / some third party was in IMMINENT DANGER of DEATH or GREAT BODILY HARM (e.g., mayhem, rape, kidnapping)? But how do you make a split second decision as to whether you or some third person are subject to an imminent threat of death or GBH?

The subject is too complex to deal with in a post. I really suggest anyone who is going to carry, receive legal training respecting the use of deadly force in addition to firearms training. It may save your life.

[Dirtlaw]

This same video is also being discussed on the THR forum.

Rather than re-type of whole bunch of text, here's my thoughts from that forum:

To give a very direct reply to the question, "YES", your training can be used against you.

But also keep in mind that your absence of training can also be used against you. It goes both ways.

The real danger in the OP's posting is not the suggestion that you shouldn't train. The danger in the OP's posting is the perpetuation of the thought that one should conduct their affairs in a manner that would negate only one legal theory of liability. Every law school has a class titled "Trial Advocacy." The purpose of that class is to train their students how to present cases in court, in a way that is most advantageous to their clients. Please note the object is not to give the most effective, or balanced, presentation of the case.

The agency that I retired from has defended hundreds of use-of-force cases at trial, and overall with some pretty good results, but also with some very significant losses. Nearly all of the claims involve allegations that the deputy's training was inadequate, and also that the supervision given to the involved deputy(s) was inadequate. Such claims can be very persuasive. You can never "measure" the effect of training or supervision that was never provided, and folks tend to believe that more of either would make a difference. Once a plaintiff's attorney has successfully transported the jury from the real world, into a fantasy world (where they can make-up the desired outcomes), their case becomes quite easy.

But if you try to counter that strategy by changing your conduct, you're doomed. The next case will be one where your alternative conduct becomes faulted. Then you have to change your conduct again, and pretty soon you're like the cat chasing it's own tail in your effort to control liability.

The Los Angeles Police Department recently had a shooting, and lawsuit, that exemplifies this. They also have a long history of defending suits, and where issues of training and supervision were at issue, and with a long history of allegations being made that training levels were inadequate.

Then there was a shooting involving a officer who was extremely well trained in the defensive use of handguns, and who was featured on the cover of Dillon's "Blue Press" magazine, along with an article describing her prowess with the handgun. Now here, is where that "Trial Advocacy" class kicks in. The plaintiff's attorney argued that this was an officer who was actively seeking to become involved in a shooting, as evidenced by the extreme amount of time she spent in apparent preparation for the event.

The best advice here is not to seek refuge from the latest legal attack, but rather be able to fully justify the actions that you take and to ensure that you can effectively communicate the reasons for those actions to the trier of fact.

Rick, you hit the nail on the head. As to all of the arguments that you shouldn't do this or that because someone will argue that what you did proves you are a blood seeking killer, there is an argument in opposition. The job of the attorney is to argue the facts in the way that benefits his or her client. Thus, the same facts can be argued in different ways. For example, the training argument. On one hand you can argue that training shows that you were seeking to be the fastest draw in the land (so you were looking to build your reputation by killing someone). But the other argument is that what you were doing was preparing yourself to be the best you could be if you ever had to defend your family.

[HKAllTheThings]

Then there was a shooting involving a officer who was extremely well trained in the defensive use of handguns, and who was featured on the cover of Dillon's "Blue Press" magazine, along with an article describing her prowess with the handgun. Now here, is where that "Trial Advocacy" class kicks in. The plaintiff's attorney argued that this was an officer who was actively seeking to become involved in a shooting, as evidenced by the extreme amount of time she spent in apparent preparation for the event.

The best advice here is not to seek refuge from the latest legal attack, but rather be able to fully justify the actions that you take and to ensure that you can effectively communicate the reasons for those actions to the trier of fact.

I know a few people that followed the McBride investigation and lawsuit. The plaintiff's attorneys arguments .. .. if more officers followed Officer McBride's practice regimen, LA would be out a lot less money from lawsuits.

[therealnickb]

Can too much training become a liability if you are involved in a self-defense shooting? Some food for thought: