OC Advocate Arrested

[Ruger]

What a lying sack of ****

I have heard that Abraham Lincoln said, "I will stand by a man as long as he is right, but if he is wrong he will stand alone."

If that's the case, then "honest" Abe should have been standing right by his lonesome... :banghead:

 

[Ruby]

No problem here and Ruby I did not fully quote as I and others read what you said and you were not directing it at me.

I do read each and every post a couple of times to try and gather the points they are putting across, some I agree with and some I don't as with anyone else on the forum.

Ruby if I had the cash right now to send you to a class at FAS I would and let you find out for yourself, who knows there maybe a Santa around the corner.

Maybe instead of handing out guns as prizes on these events maybe a prepaid training class may come in and there would not be an issue of a CPL or not.

BD, I appreciate the thought. I had some pretty good training with my instructor last year. He had me shoot at different distances, how to use cover, how to change out a mag one handed in the event of being wounded, strong hand and weak hand (I'm a lefty by the way) multiple targets, point shooting when someone is on top of you, etc. so I understand the importance of training, I really do. And training may have made a difference for Tyler Visser, IF, the account we have actually happened. Not so much training with the gun, but training in the legal aspects of when you can use it or not, brandishing, etc. that kind of training.

I like your idea of a training class being the prize, so long as the winner can choose the class he/she wants to take. We are all at different levels in our skills/abilities and there would be no "one size fits all."

I respectfully ask that we leave the training subject behind and get back to the original thread topic. Does anyone here know of a way to get more information about this incident?

 

[Ruby]

I see this is another thread that has wound up no where close to the OP. Every person has the right to defend themselves and anyone who argues that is wrong. If that person uses a gun to defend themselves then that is their right no matter what amount of training they have. However if the writeup in the OP is anywhere close to correct it was not a case of someone defending themselves. It was a case of someone helping someone else involved in a fight. The third party in the story tried to break up the fight and the person with the gun stopped her from doing that and held the gun on her. That was not a lack of training but stupidity and helping with the fight. The third party did not need a gun to try to break up the fight but was stopped by someone with a gun. This was not a case of self-defense and not a lack of training issue.

He then fires a shot into the ground. That may be a lack of training issue but is also a lack of common sense. This whole story was not about training or lack of training but a lack of good judgement. I don't know the entire story but when two people are fighting an someone tries to break it up and you threaten to kill them if they do then that is being part of the fight and you deserver to go to jail.

None of us know FOR A FACT, that this is what happened. And yes, it is a training issue, training in the firearms laws of this state, such as knowing when you may and when you may not use your firearm.

 

[amlevin]

Since the thread has focused on training, which is appropriate considering the OP, I offer this for thought.

Some advocate training, training, training. Not just the basics of Safe Firearm handling and storage, understanding the laws governing self defense, and how one should conduct themselves after a shooting, but even more. They often advocate training that is more suitable to professionals like LEO's and perhaps even Special Operations "Operators".

Something to think about though is how will all this training be viewed should you end up in court? Consider a similar scenario where someone arrives at the scene of an accident. There are injured that need assistance. A person that who has only basic First Aid skills will be judged far differently than a Doctor trained in Emergency Medicine. Each will be judged on how the performed according to their training. A jury will schooled by the prosecution (or plaintiff's attorney in a civil case) on what would be expected from each person and their trained skills. The higher the level of training the greater the expectation and higher liklihood of negligence.

Training is great. Just remember, the more you get, the higher the standard you will be held to when the "anatomical waste product hits the high speed air circulation device". Just like it makes sense for everyone to take basic First Aid and CPR, it is very wise for a gun owner/carrier to obtain basic Safety and Legal training. Unless it is your profession, and you can practice/renew your training on a regular basis (just like the pro's do in just about every profession) you might want to give some thought as to what standard you might be held to in case of trouble, an amateur who defended himself as a last resort or a highly trained pro?

 

[Ruger]

Interesting...

Since the thread has focused on training, which is appropriate considering the OP, I offer this for thought.

Some advocate training, training, training. Not just the basics of Safe Firearm handling and storage, understanding the laws governing self defense, and how one should conduct themselves after a shooting, but even more. They often advocate training that is more suitable to professionals like LEO's and perhaps even Special Operations "Operators".

Something to think about though is how will all this training be viewed should you end up in court? Consider a similar scenario where someone arrives at the scene of an accident. There are injured that need assistance. A person that who has only basic First Aid skills will be judged far differently than a Doctor trained in Emergency Medicine. Each will be judged on how the performed according to their training. A jury will schooled by the prosecution (or plaintiff's attorney in a civil case) on what would be expected from each person and their trained skills. The higher the level of training the greater the expectation and higher liklihood of negligence.

Training is great. Just remember, the more you get, the higher the standard you will be held to when the "anatomical waste product hits the high speed air circulation device". Just like it makes sense for everyone to take basic First Aid and CPR, it is very wise for a gun owner/carrier to obtain basic Safety and Legal training. Unless it is your profession, and you can practice/renew your training on a regular basis (just like the pro's do in just about every profession) you might want to give some thought as to what standard you might be held to in case of trouble, an amateur who defended himself as a last resort or a highly trained pro?

I've never really thought about that. So, are you advocating intentionally not obtaining training that could be otherwise helpful? Ignorance won't hold up as an excuse in court, and in a worst-case-scenario could potentially cost you your life.

 

[BigDave]

As to the training issue of what is to much and how it may affect you down the line.

One issue to consider is that if you are involved in an incident then your training can greatly enhance your ability to prove that you acted according to law and accepted practices for self defense.
I am sure everyone has heard as to evidence "what you knew at that point in time".
This encompasses prior experience and training that would be accepted into evidence and you and your attorney could call upon experts in the field to testify on your behalf, with out it you may well not be able to use that in your defense.

Then we go onto areas of outside what is considered personal self defense and goes into the realm of Military and Police type actions which may work against you, depending how you can convey the purpose of the training.

Of course this is all based on the issue of acting with in your training and state law.

 

[amlevin]

I've never really thought about that. So, are you advocating intentionally not obtaining training that could be otherwise helpful? Ignorance won't hold up as an excuse in court, and in a worst-case-scenario could potentially cost you your life.

Did you miss this part?

Just like it makes sense for everyone to take basic First Aid and CPR, it is very wise for a gun owner/carrier to obtain basic Safety and Legal training.

My point was simply that you will be held to the standard established by your training. No where did I suggest avoiding training or that one should claim ignorance. Certificates on the wall are great when attempting to impress friends too. If you go to the extra training, great!

 

[Jeff Hayes]

I have to agree with BigDave on this one, a record of training will help you more in court than it will hurt you. That dosnt mean you have to have training to before you can defend yourself with a firearm.

 

[massivedesign]

Training doesn't invalidate a bad shoot..

Training with your firearm can only take you so far, it's learning to control your temper and emotions that will help dictate when to physically pull that trigger.

 

[amlevin]

I have to agree with BigDave on this one, a record of training will help you more in court than it will hurt you.

There are a lot of people that claim this. Now for the challenge, can anyone cite a court case where this was the case?

massivedesign's post is on target.

 

[BigDave]

There are a lot of people that claim this. Now for the challenge, can anyone cite a court case where this was the case?

massivedesign's post is on target.

Can anyone cite a case where it did not help? :lol:

It is a matter of introducing evidence or not, based on what you knew prior to the incident.
After the incident you come across information that would support your position for acting in Self Defense, would it be admissible? doubtful as with finding out this guy has an extensive background for violence would likely not be admissible because you did not know it prior to the incident and it was not a part of your decision to act.

So in response to your question, one would have to be able to search material relating to what was allowed or not do to prior knowledge.

 

[oneeyeross]

Normally, in civil cases (at least from what I remember from our class on Tort and Malpractice) everything is based on what is called the "reasonable man."

In other words, what would a man (generic word, not meant to leave women out here) with the same education, training and experience do in this situation?

Now, as a former military person, with countless "deadly force" briefings under my belt and having been trained in the safe handling of a hand gun, and combat marksmanship, I will be held to that standard.

For those who go to some combat course, or are shooting IDPA or some such on a regular basis, they will be held to that standard.

Oh, edited to add - I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
The question to be asked at trial will be "What would person X do, with the same training? What would a reasonable man do?"

Of course, in the firearms community, nothing will beat some whiz bang course offered by the flavor of the week, given by the guru of the year (who ever that turns out to be) with only the handgun of the century (for this month's issue, anyway)... I guess I'm too old and have read too many magazines and articles from too many mystic masters to take much of this doom and gloom real seriously. But then I also don't live in California or New York, where lawyers crawl out of the woodwork at the drop of penny....

 

[Gray Peterson]

I'm waiting for the official report and Tyler's defense testimony before making a judgment. I encourage others to do the same.

 

[amlevin]

Normally, in civil cases (at least from what I remember from our class on Tort and Malpractice) everything is based on what is called the "reasonable man."

In other words, what would a man (generic word, not meant to leave women out here) with the same education, training and experience do in this situation?

Now, as a former military person, with countless "deadly force" briefings under my belt and having been trained in the safe handling of a hand gun, and combat marksmanship, I will be held to that standard.

For those who go to some combat course, or are shooting IDPA or some such on a regular basis, they will be held to that standard.

Oh, edited to add - I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
The question to be asked at trial will be "What would person X do, with the same training? What would a reasonable man do?"

Of course, in the firearms community, nothing will beat some whiz bang course offered by the flavor of the week, given by the guru of the year (who ever that turns out to be) with only the handgun of the century (for this month's issue, anyway)... I guess I'm too old and have read too many magazines and articles from too many mystic masters to take much of this doom and gloom real seriously. But then I also don't live in California or New York, where lawyers crawl out of the woodwork at the drop of penny....

You have reinforced my point, exactly.

Of course, in the firearms community, nothing will beat some whiz bang course offered by the flavor of the week, given by the guru of the year (who ever that turns out to be) with only the handgun of the century (for this month's issue, anyway)...

My major issue with the current offeringis in Firearm Training is that they all follow their own curriculum with little or no standardization. As for the "advanced" training, at best they are introductory classes in advanced techniques. How many months of training does a Law Officer receive in order to be considered competent in his firearm skills? Likewise for military? As for those pseudo "operator" classes, how many hours/days/weeks/months of training does a SEAL operator receive. Likewise for all the other Special Operations "operators".

Get some quality Basic Training. The trick is there are no consistent standards save NRA, perhaps. As for the rest, go for as much as you want and can afford. Like I said earlier, those certificates on the wall are bound to impress someone.

 

[arentol]

This is not addressed at anyone in particular.

My handgun "training" consists of about 30 seconds of familiarization with the .22lr I was renting at Champion Arms, provided by the armorer after I told him I had never fired a pistol before.

If that information makes you assume that I don't know what I am doing with a pistol you would be mistaken.

I first fired a pellet gun, and later a rifle, when I was in the cub scouts. I got more rifle time in the boy scouts, then far more rifle experience in the US Army. These experience with firearms, and training for combat, prepared me to understand the massive responsibility that goes with having a firearm. Before deciding to purchase a pistol I spent some time thinking about my own reasons for doing so, and evaluating whether I was truly ready for the responsibility, which I consider to be the second greatest responsibility I have taken on in my life (the first being deciding to have a child... creating life followed by being prepared to preserve someones life by taking another's life).
When I decided to purchase a pistol I first rented a few to familiarize myself with them. Then I purchased a few and practiced with them, and continue to do so. I also spent a lot of personal time learning the ins and outs of each of my pistols, and learning all the relevant laws for my state. I also keep my self updated by visiting forums such as this one where all the newest laws and changes to laws are easily found.

Training is a nice idea, and important to many gun owners, but it is really not necessary for everyone, or even most. In my opinion those who want to carry lawfully and need training will likely acquire it whether the law says they have to or not. Those who don't need formal training, because of experience, their own work ethic and confidence, or because of the availability of quality informal training to them (like my child will have), should be able to decide for themselves if the want it.

 

[BigDave]

Attend a good civilian professional course and see if you still have the same opinion afterwards, likely not.

 

[amlevin]

Here is an article on how Fear can effect one's survival skills, even those gained through Training.

http://www.lwcbooks.com/articles/anatomy.html

This article involved 85 TRAINED Police Officers and how they performed in a scenario where a subject, armed with a knife, attacked them.

The attacker, who was dressed in a combatives suit, was told that during mid contact, they were to pull a knife (that they had concealed), flash it directly at the officer, yell "I’m going to kill you pig," and then engage the officer physically. The results were remarkable:



3/85 saw the knife prior to contact


10/85 realized that they were being stabbed repeatedly during the scenario


72/85 did not realize that they were being assaulted with a knife until the scenario was over, and the officers were advised to look at their uniforms to see the simulated thrusts and slices left behind by the chalked training knives

The article goes on to explain the results of Heart Rate on the body from it's effect on hearing and vision to how one is unable to perform tasks requiring fine motor skills. The body goes into total survival mode.

Remember, in the scenario quoted, these were 85 Police Officers with extensive training. (for example, NYPD recruits get 9 weeks of skill/ability training and 2 weeks of firearms training.)


For the average citizen any training beyond Knowlege of the Law, Firearm Safety, and Basic Firearm Skills will most likely be a major expense without benefit (except for the cool certificates).

A 2007 Rand study of NYPD showed that those 2 weeks of firearm training and subsequent qualification requirements (78% hits on targets) only yielded an 18% hit rate when they encountered a shooting situation.

My point is not to shun training but to merely point out, again for the average citizen, all these Advanced classes will not yield the benefits that those selling the service will tout. The only exception might be for those who care to spend the time and money for many more hours than the one or two day classes will provide. To train to a level that will overcome one's basic survival instincts takes far longer than what you'll get for even, to use one school's price list, $750 which gives 5 days of training.

In the end, just like the number one rule in Combat, (No Battle Plan survives the first shot). When your heart rate goes up due to fear instinct will take over. Unless you are a "Professional" I seriously doubt that you will have invested the time and money necessary to make a difference in an "unscripted SD Scenario".

For the majority (average citizens), training in the basics like Law, Safety, and Simple marksmanship, with tips on maintaining situational awareness, will go a lot farther to keeping you safe than spending a ton of money on all the advanced "tactical" training that is now being pushed. I'd be pleased if every gun owner received some form of formal training in the essential basics. Beyond that it's a matter of choice. In a take-off of an old Platoon Sergeant's statement, "Spend it if you got it".

 

[Ruby]

Very enlightening, amlevin. Thank you for sharing! I always suspected that some of those classes were hyped just a tad too much!

 

[amlevin]

Very enlightening, amlevin. Thank you for sharing! I always suspected that some of those classes were hyped just a tad too much!

Another old saying, "Stick to the basics".

 

[amzbrady]

Any new news?