And let's review something else we know - from your own citation.
"have had the effect of eroding the model of police professionalism, in regards to gunfighting skills"
So P/F really is a bad thing, cloaked in the guise of a good thing, all for avoidance of CIVIL liability.
And you failed to use the other quote that is much more telling in that other thread - if indeed it is the same txinvestigator - "It is very easy to establish in court that shooting a gun out of someones hand or shoot to disarm, etc., is not only impractical but also nearly impossible under the stress of a violent encounter. These feats are myths.
What is more likely is that the departments do not want the scores of those who barely pass to be available."
I, like TXinvestigator, now choose to reserve my replies for comments that I deem worthy.
Search found 2 matches
- Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:08 am
- Forum: Instructors' Corner
- Topic: Pass/Fail
- Replies: 47
- Views: 16039
- Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:02 am
- Forum: Instructors' Corner
- Topic: Pass/Fail
- Replies: 47
- Views: 16039
Rabbi,
You started this thread with a statement, followed by a question which contained the possibly unwarranted conclusion that there was some level of liability attached to allowing people to know how they fared and to take their targets.
Others have responded that they follow a similar practice, and some have responded that they did not. It is my perception that you seem to have started the thread merely to argue with those who do not subscribe to your viewpoint, you certainly don't seem to give theirs any consideration.
Your lack of consideration for people's honest answers to your orignal question does seem to make it personal on your part - this is not a debate, but merely an excuse for you to present your views in the form of a diatribe. You have claimed to listen to all sides, but you don't seem to listen to those who you don't agree with.
This may indeed be an issue that deserves examination, but you need to participate in the examination and not turn it into an inquisition. I, for one haven't seen anything like a "myriad of reasons" all I have seen is conjecture - this could happen, that could happen - coulda, should, woulda, but no real reasons. And then you attempt to take the high ground once again with "If I am right . . ." and a preachment about risk and implications for us all.
If I may digress, the last time my wife and I requalified, there was no question as to what HER score was, all 5s, a perfect score and only one of two in the class to accomplish that (no the other was not me, I dropped three points.) She was justifiably proud of this accomplishment, and considering her anti-gun tendencies when we were dating 13 years ago, and the fact that she used my gun after I persuaded her she would shoot better with it, makes me a little pround too.
The instructor further added to her ego trip by making a big deal of her perfect score (okay, he knew of her hoplophobic past) and actually presented her with her target. I didn't want mine anyway, I am a better shot than that, but we all were given the opportunity to take them, and the scores were calculated right on them.
I, personally, see absolutely no harm in letting people take their targets, and if they do, they might as well know what the score was, because it's pretty easy to figure out. If some tripped out DA finds out that someone fired a perfect score, it will be quite suitable to respond that a high score on a CHL qual is not indicative of superb marksmanship, merely good, which is all that Texas wanted to establish when they set the standard so low. If you are good enough to pass, then you are good enough to hit what you are shooting at, and the DA merely serves to point out that TX set the standard and you fit within it.
Maybe if the standard was set a lot higher, or if the scoring rings were the size of 2700 match targets' then that DA might have a chance of convincing an unknowing jury that one was such a superb markman that the gun should have been shot out of the hand or the shooter should have fired to wound instead of kill, but in practical, everyday, terms the average CHL shooter really NEEDS to aim for center of mass if for no other reason than to avoid missing and possibly doing damage to unintended things or people. And the really good (perfect score) CHL shooter is merely able to keep all of their shots on an area substantially bigger than a dinner plate when shooting from 9 feet, 21 feet, and 45 feet, not real challenging.
You started this thread with a statement, followed by a question which contained the possibly unwarranted conclusion that there was some level of liability attached to allowing people to know how they fared and to take their targets.
Others have responded that they follow a similar practice, and some have responded that they did not. It is my perception that you seem to have started the thread merely to argue with those who do not subscribe to your viewpoint, you certainly don't seem to give theirs any consideration.
Your lack of consideration for people's honest answers to your orignal question does seem to make it personal on your part - this is not a debate, but merely an excuse for you to present your views in the form of a diatribe. You have claimed to listen to all sides, but you don't seem to listen to those who you don't agree with.
This may indeed be an issue that deserves examination, but you need to participate in the examination and not turn it into an inquisition. I, for one haven't seen anything like a "myriad of reasons" all I have seen is conjecture - this could happen, that could happen - coulda, should, woulda, but no real reasons. And then you attempt to take the high ground once again with "If I am right . . ." and a preachment about risk and implications for us all.
If I may digress, the last time my wife and I requalified, there was no question as to what HER score was, all 5s, a perfect score and only one of two in the class to accomplish that (no the other was not me, I dropped three points.) She was justifiably proud of this accomplishment, and considering her anti-gun tendencies when we were dating 13 years ago, and the fact that she used my gun after I persuaded her she would shoot better with it, makes me a little pround too.
The instructor further added to her ego trip by making a big deal of her perfect score (okay, he knew of her hoplophobic past) and actually presented her with her target. I didn't want mine anyway, I am a better shot than that, but we all were given the opportunity to take them, and the scores were calculated right on them.
I, personally, see absolutely no harm in letting people take their targets, and if they do, they might as well know what the score was, because it's pretty easy to figure out. If some tripped out DA finds out that someone fired a perfect score, it will be quite suitable to respond that a high score on a CHL qual is not indicative of superb marksmanship, merely good, which is all that Texas wanted to establish when they set the standard so low. If you are good enough to pass, then you are good enough to hit what you are shooting at, and the DA merely serves to point out that TX set the standard and you fit within it.
Maybe if the standard was set a lot higher, or if the scoring rings were the size of 2700 match targets' then that DA might have a chance of convincing an unknowing jury that one was such a superb markman that the gun should have been shot out of the hand or the shooter should have fired to wound instead of kill, but in practical, everyday, terms the average CHL shooter really NEEDS to aim for center of mass if for no other reason than to avoid missing and possibly doing damage to unintended things or people. And the really good (perfect score) CHL shooter is merely able to keep all of their shots on an area substantially bigger than a dinner plate when shooting from 9 feet, 21 feet, and 45 feet, not real challenging.