Question for the Attorneys!

If someone is certified in use of force to a State Standard and they end up in a self defense incident (a legitimate one), what is the likelihood a liberal prosecutor would be able to land a conviction?

Does this change if said person is certified to a State Standard on Use of Force Instruction?

1 Like

Interesting question, @Spence. Tons of variables to consider.

What state?
What type of certificate is it?
What are the circumstances of the self-defense incident?

No matter what the situation, your experience and training may be called into question – and work for you or against you depending on the circumstances.

Sorry, there’s not a concrete answer for this one. Definitely talk to your local law enforcement and self-defense attorneys to see what their take on the situation could be.

@Spence . I know in my state of Indiana. They do hold people with training at a higher level. A lot of times people that have that type of training also have the de-escalation training. So if you did use your weapon in deadly force it might come to question why you weren’t able to de-escalate the situation.

Eric Holcomb the governor of Indiana, described it like this. If you’re a preacher teaching the word of the Gospel, then you would expect the preacher to follow the word of the Gospel the way he’s telling you to do it.

Even though the Bible strictly says not to do that. Lol

But every state is different but more than likely yes they would hold you to a higher standard.

Not a lawyer.

1 Like

I’m not an attorney, so definitely not an expert and should probably keep my mouth shut…but I’m gonna put my 2 cents in anyway :stuck_out_tongue:

The training, while it is a good thing and anyone who takes on the responsibility of owning a firearm should educate themselves and learn the laws of their home town, county and state, and everywhere they’re planning on being, is a double edged sword.

I say this because, if you received the greatest training in the world (if there is such a thing) and recieved perfect marks from your instructors, and really know your stuff; while making you prepared for the situation all of us hope not to face, it is also more for the prosecutor to scrutinize. It gives the attorney something about you to compare the incident to. Then the questions come up: Did you receive training on this type of scenario? Did you follow all the steps you were trained to do?

Depending on the attorney, and how badly they want a conviction, I would imagine they would try to find even the tiniest flaw in how reacted in the incident and present it to the jury like “well it says in your training record that you were trained to fire 3 shots, why did you fire five?” Or something stupid like that, and try to exploit it to a jury who are probably not gun owners, have no training, and are very impressionable by the show the attorney is putting on.

Like I said, I’m not an expert so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I imagine when it comes to court, it’s not so much about the facts of, your life was in danger and you did what you had to to survive, and more about the show the prosecutor will put on and the impression he or she can make to the jury. This is why I believe the USCCA stresses the importance of you having a talented and competent attorney of your own to defend you in court should the need arise.

State = Michigan

PPCT, TPR, Use of Force is the same training police in this State are required to go through in Academy. There are a few other programs this organization also offers and is working on currently.

For those who don’t know the course, this was primarily some hand to hand “Pressure Point Control Tactics”, handcuffing, baton use, firearm retention and disarming.

Last week I completed the instructor course as this certification shows. So, if I can swing it, I can recertify local PDs. It’s not likely they will go for a non LEO instructor though lol.

If you’re working with recertifying police officers, you will probably be held to a different standard than Joe Smith who is an accountant, has his permit, and trains at the range once a month.

Seems incredibly biased honestly. I would think if force is justified then it’s justified.

It is incredibly biased. If cases were solely based on fact, and there were no agendas, then there would be no need for an organization like the USCCA, and there would be no need to defend yourself in court for protecting yourself, training or not.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer…

The “reasonable man” argument comes from would a reasonable person who knows what you know (at the time of the incident) react in the same way you did to that situation and is that reaction within the bounds of the law.

If your training is relevant to whatever the incident was, then it can surely come up in court. Whether it benefits or hinders your case depends upon the specifics of the case.

As a purely hypothetical example…

Lets say you complete and are certified in some training that says you do X, Y, and Z BEFORE you go to lethal force. This training is a legitimate curriculum based on some sort of evidence, data, studies, etc and not some fly-by-night course by a nobody.

You encounter a situation, and you do X, Y, and Z and that still doesn’t solve the problem, so you then resort to lethal force. Likely that training will be to your benefit as it showed you exhausted all reasonable alternatives before using lethal force.

You encounter a situation and you don’t do X, Y, and Z and go straight to lethal force. This training then may hinder your case as the prosecutor will surely ask “why didn’t you do XYZ?” and try to paint you as someone who should have known better but didn’t act according to the standards they knew. I say “may hinder” because there may very well be a reason you didn’t do XYZ which, was also probably in your training :wink: and you need to be able to articulate that.

At the end of the day, it all depends.

1 Like