Is the new USCCA Training Scenarios video fear mongering?

I just finished watching the 2 scenario training video sent to me as a USCCA member. I have no particular comment about scenario #2, but I found Scenario #1 and the perspectives of Mr. Grieve a former prosecutor to be alarming to say the least.

As a retired PD Investigator I strongly disagreed with many of his comments. However, I realize that today his positions quite probably do reflect those of prosecutors in places like New York City, Los Angeles County, and so forth.

Acknowledging this, I now encourage USCCA members to add to their situational awareness profile the added awareness of the political climate of their local District Attorney’s Office. Will they likely or unlikely follow the direction that Mr. Grieve outlines in his comments?

God help the USCCA member who fails to appropriately respond in the first scenario situation.

Just for a counter perspective I would like to mention just a couple of points of view I would take if i am the responding Detective to a scenario 1 scene.

  1. How many bullets do you think you fired will not even be close to my first question. I want to know was this truly an armed robbery? (Yes, it was). Is the perp hit by gunfire? (Yes). Is he deceased? (Probably). Who was he and what was his criminal history? (Probably a total scum bag).

  2. I really don’t care too much if the guy was hit in the back when I am advised by witnesses that he was running and shooting at people in the cafe, and that he was hit a lot more in the front.

  3. The main trainee had a bunch of people who were in danger from this bad guy from the second the bad guy drew a gun. Let’s start with the trainee’s girlfriend. She was sent out. Grieve said the trainee had the chance to flee as well. Really? He would have turned his back on the perp to do so, and his fleeing had absolutely no guarantee that he would have avoided being shot (along with his girlfriend) in so doing. The trainee took the correct position to defend his girlfriend. Secondly, no matter how you cut it, every person in that cafe was at significant risk. The perp’s demeanor was VERY agitated. Third, when the trainee realized the guy on the couch was armed, he then quickly determined that that guy was engaging the perp as well. Now the guy on the couch is in elevated danger as well.

  4. If the trainee was a police officer, he would have gone after the perp to make sure the guy was put down (stopped) ending the threat continuum. A bad guy that jacked up, firing his weapon, running out to the exterior is now a threat to harm other civilians as well as responding officers. The fact that the trainee ended his engagement when he did, shows an honest fear for his safety and the safety of others justifying his actions, and that he was not “playing cop”.

I think a lot of fear mongering came out of the first scenario,

I guess that when it comes down to answering “do you remember how many shots you fired”? Perhaps the best answer might have been, “I don’t know. I pulled the trigger 12 times but I think only 8 bullets came out”. (Tongue firmly in cheek).


I will cooperate 100%, but first I need my attorney


Just watched it too and came to the same conclusion. Lots of gun control ideas, MHO, came out in the first after action interview.


Interesting perspective from a former detective. :thinking:

My take on this is we’re second-guessing everyone… except the thug.


The USCCA is only advising you defend yourself. Are you looking at this through the lenses of a police officer with qualified immunity or are you looking through this with the lenses of an ordinary citizen with their conceal carry license, that is subject to criminal and civil litigation?

The USCCA is only advocating for you to defend yourself, and protecting you legally. The court system is one that even if you win, you lose.

Tom Grieve has stated over and over the amount of phone calls that’s he gotten from family members, and the tremendous cost of defending yourself, which is your family tearing apart.

Their best advice is if you can avoid getting into a gun fight, DO SO!

Chasing a suspect down, only increases your chance of getting hurt, we’re not trained to chase after somebody and gun them down.

When Grieve asks how many times you pulled the trigger, he’s trying to make them realize, when you answer that question you may be wrong, and when it comes to questioning they’ll spend hours asking you over and over and your stories can change slightly every time. He stated that he’s had clients not remember the street they were on at the time of the incident.

Now we have to think of civil litigation, maybe in the criminal trial, you were justified, but in the civil trial in civil court, the family has plead the case since he was running away, the threat has ended, and that one shot in the back caused a series of medical problems, or that last shot contributed to this man’s death. Which has now possibly costed this family’s lost in financial support, increase in the families mental health cost, funeral expenses, and whatever they may claim.

You can win the criminal trial, and then lose everything in the civil trial, because criminally you may not have done anything wrong, but civilly you may have.

I wouldn’t call it fear mongering, but if you’re not afraid of the legal system, and everything after it and remain clueless you shouldn’t be carrying a gun. You’re the ones that makes all of us look bad. You did something you thought was justified, but it wasn’t.

To understand the USCCA, and their training, you have to understand their mission.

As a civilian, your mission is to get home to your family, so the idea is prioritized to make it where you leave alive, out of jail, with as much as a minimal cost as possible.

To be added: Your questions are about the person, who was attacked by the trainee, and other people in the area. Does the trainee have any kind of legal duty to protect the man on the couch? He doesn’t.
The man on the couch put himself in that position, and he will also be singly judged by his actions.


A hearty AMEN to this! I was in a defensive shooting class just yesterday and this exact topic came up. “What’s the best time to shoot someone? NEVER!” If you can avoid being in a position to have to draw your weapon, then avoid it.

The instructor told stories of how people would say “Well, I don’t feel particularly safe when I go to that bar or that area, so I want to have a gun with me.”

Wrongo! If you don’t feel safe there, don’t go there! Going to an unsafe place with a gun is looking for trouble.

As I mentioned in a post elsewhere, it seems there are many people who are looking for a reason to use their gun. We should be looking for ways to never having to make that decision.

  1. Avoid
  2. Escape
  3. Defend

In that order.


The fact that I pointed out that the trainee did not chase after the bad guy, and you addressed this in the opposite direction demonstrates that you did not read my post very carefully,

Would you have turned your back on an agitated armed robber along with your girlfriend in a sudden dash away? Is that really a safe escape? Or is that asking to get both of you shot in the back?

I remain firm that Mr. Grieve’s comments represent the radical shift in attitudes coming from certain Soros minded DA’s. It is imperative to determine the climate of the local DA where a USCCA member spends his time.
What they don’t represent is how an actual investigator is going to approach the shooting scene. I would have pushed for not presenting this scenario to the DA at all. It is true that such cases do get presented for rejection as a matter of course, and the accompanying interviews would have looked much different.

In all seriousness, the comment about speaking to an attorney before saying anything beyond, “I intend to cooperate, but will need to speak to my attorney first.” is the best advice.


This is the update to the USCCA card I was talking about on the back. Or very close to it.


What makes that better?

Yes it does. “I intend” isn’t “I will”.

Even better: I need to talk to my attorney before make any statement.


I’ve heard lawyers recommend will cooperate. Don’t recall a lawyer recommending intend instead. Was this your lawyer who said intend is better?

No, going by word definition and the phrase anything you say will be used against you and the twisting of what you say. The less said to a cop the better until your lawyer shows up.


But that’s not less, it’s actually more words, not fewer

How is it it better to day you intend to cooperate vs you will cooperate?

Had a lawyer ever stated they found one better than the other?

Has saying you will cooperate but need your attorney ever been used against someone?

Don’t know, do you. What I’m trying to tell you which seems to keep going over your head is that the police aren’t your friends. I get it now, you must be a cop. I bet you’re a tyrant when confronted by a person that knows their rights. You ever lock anyone up because they stood up to you?

It’s the meaning and intent of what you say that is important not the number of words. Bet you’ll push to have this reply removed too if you’re not a moderator and do it yourself.

Not that I am aware of, and I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is that it cannot be.

I… Have no idea how you get that I am a tyrant out of my belief that the current wording on the back of the uscca membership is card is good lol

1 Like

Not what I said and exactly the reason why you shouldn’t talk to cops without your lawyer present. You read what you thought I wanted to say, not what I actually said.


This is what I read

And you apparently think that because I find the current wording on the back of the uscca membership card to be good

“I will cooperate 100% but first I need my attorney”

1 Like

And you left out the part that said: I bet you’re a cop. Which leads into the next statement: I bet you’re a tyrant when a person stands up to you (meaning as a cop). You read into it what you wanted to read into it, not what I said nor the reason why I said it. I would hate to be pulled over by you. How many times have you gone looking for a reason to arrest someone?

1 Like

You literally said it word for word but okay

And you literally left out the defining sentence in front of it, not okay.