A couple of people have mentioned that they use the FBI qualification as a way to train. I personally haven’t used it, but after checking out this Tactical Tuesday video, it may be worth a shot.
The reason I do it is because juries won’t be as impressed if you qual to local law enforcement standards as will be in you can pass the FBI quals.
It’s a mental thing, people thing federal agents are trained better than local LE.
Here’s the updated quals as of a Jan 2019 (on the phone so haven’t watched the video)
Not sure where that theory originated but I don’t find it to be true. The higher your standards/level of training the higher standard a jury is naturally going to hold you to and there’s lots of ways that could get you into more trouble instead of less.
It looks like the video is only one section of it. I have indeed shot the FBI qualification. At the time I didn’t know that is what it was. I was contact by a security guard company that needed a certified Range Safety Officer to sign off on the range portion. That is what they shot. The next day I shot it to make see how I did.
I’ve got the other sections queued up for the next couple of weeks so people can use/add these drills in their training in sections.
If your theory is true, why does a law enforcement agency lose when sued for bad shooting? The department failed to train their officers and this resulted in a verdict of “Negligent Failure to Train”. They are not sued for over training their officers.
Department liability vs individual liability and of course qualified immunity comes into play. The individual officers cannot be sued as long as they follow their training and department policies.
That must vary in different jurisdictions then, because individual officers could be sued in the state I worked. The only difference was, when an individual officer was sued, if they followed their training and dept. policy, the department and jurisdiction paid for their defense and picked up any restitution. If they failed to follow their training and dept. policy, then they paid for their own defense and paid restitution through any secondary insurance they had.
I’m unaware of any state where officers do not have qualified immunity.
I just spoke with @KevinM about this (he’s currently a LEO) see his response below
Here is the basis of the statement on qualified immunity:
"Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. Qualified immunity “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan .
Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff’s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.
Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.
Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines."
Notice that the state clearly lays out that the courts will be considering the case (suit)… If a citizens files a law suit, that filing must be addressed-- it must be answered by the officer’s attorney. Qualified Immunity does not stop people from bringing a law suit. It protects the officer once the suit is filed. The officer is still getting sued and must respond to the suit, but the qualified immunity helps that officer to win a dismissal of the suit. Yes it is semantics, but all law is based on semantics.
That’s the way I’ve always understood it as well. As long as the officer is not violating their department’s standards and practices they have immunity.
Yes, anyone can file a lawsuit but when there’s no violation it will get tossed as soon as the Agency or Union atty makes an appearance or should be.
I am not talking about qualified immunity. Negligent failure to train is vicarious liability. The department can be sued for negligent failure to train. You’re right qualified immunity protects the officer as long as they’re doing what they were trained to do. But the department is liable because their training is substandard or nonexistent.
If a civilian with a CCW permit fails to train and thereby shoots a person other than the one attacking them, and the attorney for the person who was shot can prove that the CCW holder does not train.
Would there be a vicarious liability, negligent failure to train, applied to the CCW holder that does not train regularly?