Pass/Fail

[Rabbi]

Unless you can show me where a successful prosecution was made because someone was a good shot, I just don't care.

There are many other things to worry about in training.

As I already said, if you are justified in using deadly force you are justified. You ability is irrelevent.

As far as Law Enforcement records, it makes it easy to simply record pass/fail.

It is a moot point, but feel free to worry about it if you like.

The continuation of your business is not something to worry about because you already have a full plate?

The justification of deadly force is just that, however you still have to prove it and all things that lead up to that point can be brought into a court of law as you try and prove your justification. It is not a check list, it is a process whereby you and if you so (wisely) choose, your legal council must prove your side of the events.

How do you know every Law enforcment agencies reasons for why they have gone to a Pass/Fail system? It is very true some could have done it for those reasons and for the sake of full disclosure some that I deal with use that very reason or something along the lines of "That is just the trend". However of the over 20 agencies that use our range officially some of them have a different story. This would be from Patrolman on up to the Chiefs and their legal council. This number would grow much larger if I started to include individuals who patronize us who happen to be LEOs, DAs,(local, state and federal) and DOD end users who offer protective services. The number would increase even more if I were to include others who teach CHL who seem to understand that an issue does exist. Again, it is not a black and white an issue. There seems to be a legetimate concearn on all levels by many people about this issue.

You dismiss it as a moot point but it can be seen that to most it is not moot but infact a real issue that deserves serious thought and incorporation of some plan of action to the prudent CHL instructor.

I understand that you have an answer that so far has worked for you. I for one have to be more flexible when it comes to such things and try and listen to all sides, while giving more weight to t people and credentials that would incline them to be of greater knowledge on the subject matter.

You could be right on all counts and if so, that would be a good thing to know. I will follow the truth wherever it may take me but the preponderance of evidence would suggest your dismissive solution on this mattter might not be the best course of action to the target audience of this forum and the industry as a whole.

[Rabbi]

In the first few months of the CHL we were required to record the proficency on a score card, the score was certified and signed by the instructor, the shooter and a third person. We were to keep that record for five years. That didn't go on too long before the DPS contacted us and told us to destroy those record's.

I would be more afraid of a score being used aganist me in the civil courts rather than the criminal courts.

Tomcat

Interesting, I did not know that and it is supportive to the idea that an issue does exist.

I would also be far more worried about the ramifications in civil courts as well.

Thankyou ElGato

[txinvestigator]

Unless you can show me where a successful prosecution was made because someone was a good shot, I just don't care.

There are many other things to worry about in training.

As I already said, if you are justified in using deadly force you are justified. You ability is irrelevent.

As far as Law Enforcement records, it makes it easy to simply record pass/fail.

It is a moot point, but feel free to worry about it if you like.

The continuation of your business is not something to worry about because you already have a full plate?

I didn't write that. You seem to just want to argue the point, so let me be clear; I do not believe that scoring targets and allowing customers to have their target will affect my business, except to make the customers happy.

The justification of deadly force is just that, however you still have to prove it and all things that lead up to that point can be brought into a court of law as you try and prove your justification. It is not a check list, it is a process whereby you and if you so (wisely) choose, your legal council must prove your side of the events.


You dismiss it as a moot point but it can be seen that to most it is not moot but infact a real issue that deserves serious thought and incorporation of some plan of action to the prudent CHL instructor.

Because YOU think it is a concern, then it must be for the "prudent" instructor? I don't see where "most" think it is a concern, and I am waiting for proof that it is.

I understand that you have an answer that so far has worked for you. I for one have to be more flexible when it comes to such things and try and listen to all sides, while giving more weight to t people and credentials that would incline them to be of greater knowledge on the subject matter.

And if you feel the need to worry about a silly issue go ahead. And am I to think that YOU are the person with greater knowledge? If not, I would be interested in who is. You offer no evidence that scoring IS an issue.

You could be right on all counts and if so, that would be a good thing to know. I will follow the truth wherever it may take me but the preponderance of evidence would suggest your dismissive solution on this mattter might not be the best course of action to the target audience of this forum and the industry as a whole.

Evidence you have failed to establish.

Again, you are free to knock yourself out over this. You can keep making sideways insults towards me, but I don't care. I have been in this business a long time, I have had this discussion with MANY people, people I know AND respect, and I don't believe its an issue.

I will watch this thread for any facts or evidence that I am wrong, but I wil not repond to any of your further jabs.

[Rabbi]

Unless you can show me where a successful prosecution was made because someone was a good shot, I just don't care.

There are many other things to worry about in training.

As I already said, if you are justified in using deadly force you are justified. You ability is irrelevent.

As far as Law Enforcement records, it makes it easy to simply record pass/fail.

It is a moot point, but feel free to worry about it if you like.

The continuation of your business is not something to worry about because you already have a full plate?

I didn't write that. You seem to just want to argue the point, so let me be clear; I do not believe that scoring targets and allowing customers to have their target will affect my business, except to make the customers happy.

The justification of deadly force is just that, however you still have to prove it and all things that lead up to that point can be brought into a court of law as you try and prove your justification. It is not a check list, it is a process whereby you and if you so (wisely) choose, your legal council must prove your side of the events.


You dismiss it as a moot point but it can be seen that to most it is not moot but infact a real issue that deserves serious thought and incorporation of some plan of action to the prudent CHL instructor.

Because YOU think it is a concern, then it must be for the "prudent" instructor? I don't see where "most" think it is a concern, and I am waiting for proof that it is.

I understand that you have an answer that so far has worked for you. I for one have to be more flexible when it comes to such things and try and listen to all sides, while giving more weight to t people and credentials that would incline them to be of greater knowledge on the subject matter.

And if you feel the need to worry about a silly issue go ahead. And am I to think that YOU are the person with greater knowledge? If not, I would be interested in who is. You offer no evidence that scoring IS an issue.

You could be right on all counts and if so, that would be a good thing to know. I will follow the truth wherever it may take me but the preponderance of evidence would suggest your dismissive solution on this mattter might not be the best course of action to the target audience of this forum and the industry as a whole.

Evidence you have failed to establish.

Again, you are free to knock yourself out over this. You can keep making sideways insults towards me, but I don't care. I have been in this business a long time, I have had this discussion with MANY people, people I know AND respect, and I don't believe its an issue.

I will watch this thread for any facts or evidence that I am wrong, but I wil not repond to any of your further jabs.

You seem to be taking this all rather personal. Everything I have written has either been a question or offering another way of looking at it and reasons why. I have not called you wrong on anything just stating that the issue could be more important than you think it is and that others look at it as being more important as well. I have in no way meant to take a jab at you and will offer an appology right now if you or anyone else think I have.

My next question is this. Certainly not a jab but are you in business for yourself or do you work for someone else as your previous posts would indicate. Even if you contract out your CHL services you share a level of liability with the Range owner. Perhaps the owner(s) agree with you 100% and again, in an effort to prove that I am not being hostil and you should avoid taking our diologue as personal, you could very well be right. But it is far easier to see an issue exactly how you wish it seen and to be inflexible as to how you will view it when you do not take all the risk involves with those decisions as would be the case if you work for someone else.

All I am saying is it is an issue that deserves examination. I have laid out a myriad of reasons why. If I am right it could help our industry as a whole. If I am wrong, again, I could be, where is the foul? On the other hand if you are wrong, people could be put at great risk and it could have implications for all of us.

There is always more than one way to look at something, sometimes a side is clearly right and one is clearly wrong. Thats doesnt happen much so for the rest of the time when something is less clear, were is the harm in an open exchange?

If I am able to find better suporting evidence than I have already posted then I will. I see what Police deparments are doing and what they tell me this includes the legal opinions of their council. You have spoken for them in a unified voice and told me that their reasons are different than that. So there we stand. All we do know is they are doing it, thus the importance of examining the issue.

On a last note, and again, this thread was also supposed to be about all manner of issues that could help reduce the burden of risk and liability we face in the occupation.

[Rabbi]

I would like to point out the following.


From the Criminal Justice department Facuity pages of North Carolina Weslayan College With references at the bottom of the page.

According to them, What I propose is exactly the reason Police department have a Pass/Fail System and 50% of agencies do this. This is quite contrary to the contentions you have made.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect02a.htm

To pass or graduate from a PPC course, about half (50%) of departments rely strictly upon a point system. You either score in the required proficiency range for the point totals on your type of target, OR you are suspended, dismissed, or relieved from normal duty after two or three chances at the course of fire (dismissal usually occurs only 30% of the time, and then only for "chronic" failure to requalify, and then often involving a disability, or courtesy, dismissal). Under the point-score system, your point score is recorded year after year in your personnel files. The other half (50%) of departments use a pass-fail system, where the instructor (or referee) only adds the points up in their head, and records whether or not the officer passed or failed the course. The purpose of the pass-fail system is to deny attorneys access to a record of point scores if and when an officer is charged with a civil action. Pass-fail systems (and other civil liability concerns) have had the effect of eroding the model of police professionalism, in regards to gunfighting skills, first charted out by the NRA and supported by many other groups over the years.

---------------------------------------------------------

It would seem you have had this same conversation with others as well on a LEO forum. it is stated rather clearly that Liability is an issue AND YOU AGREE WITH THEM. As a matter of fact the person who posts right after you says it NORMAL for the officers training record and scores, he goes on to say how the system WORKS for liability reasons. Wich is in DISAGREEMENT with your statments here. You argument there is the same as here though, you can defend it after the fact. I wish to examin what would seem like a far more prudent couse of action and that is reduce such a risk before it happens.

Again, It does not support the contentions you have made.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/printt ... hp?t=18207


For liability purposes, Pass/Fail scoring is becoming the norm. When the use of force is questioned, it is normal for the training records of the officer to come into play, and needless to say, this includes officer involved shootings.

The problem, however, is that on paper, it makes it look as if all of the officers are even in ability. When I first started, % scores were common, and I was always PROUD to be able to consistently score 100%. However, there are always those officers who will struggle to meet the minimum (75% in our case). I've seen officers who's firearm skills were POOR. Unfortunately, with a pass or fail system, the officer who struggles to pass the qualification with a minimum score (and needs several attempts to pass it), is EQUAL to the officer who passes it consistently with 99-100%.

When we picked our competition team, we would take the top shooters in the department and place them on the pistol team. Under a pass/fail system, there are no top shooters, everyone is equal!!!! It used to be that exceptional ability on the range was recognized, but under the pass/fail system, you can't do that. Pass/Fail works for liability reasons, but other than that, I think it sucks.

-----------------------------------------------

And that is from a quick google search nothing more. You asked for something with greater subtance. Besides all I have posted about why it is something to consider, Here you go. I have not seen anything to support your veiw point other than what you think about it and you keep demanding of me more and more "proof" That I keep providing.

Lets Review what we know.

Law Enforcment says they use the Pass/Fail system to reduce liability

We know records can be subpoenad and you must disclose them

While you and I can make unsubstabtiated claims about who we know and what they say, Information on the net would support that calling an officers record into play is normal and it does reduce liability to have a pass/fail system

It would seem that others are indeed in agreement with my concerns on the issue and the solution

These things all support my concerns about this issue and are against the contentions you have made.

This is not a Jab, nor is it meant to be hostil, It is just an open exchange on an imprtant issue facing us and as a matter of fact it is what you asked me to do.

[jimlongley]

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.

[jimlongley]

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.

[Rabbi]

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.

I agree with much of what you are saying, and I can see why you would think I am going a little far on this debate, that was not my goal. I made some statements and was told it doesnt matter. That is one point of view. In the course of that exchange, I guess at this point I will let the information made available so far stand on its own grounf about the validity of the veiws expressed so far. I did not mean to sound hostile, However when presenting opposing veiws on a subject that is how it can sound or just how some people take it.

the only things I would point out is in the course of this debate more and more information has been presented, and that is always good. Second, I would disagree with your contentions about what a DA might or might not do and what a Jury will believe. Based on the information I have presented, it would seem that it happens. I would also not trust the "Average jury" either. Think about it this way how many times have you heard someone say "Why didnt he just shoot him in the leg" or something similar when a Police shooting happens. I here thing like that all the time, so I have little trust in my ability to predict what a DA or a Jury will do.

I can however help reduce the risk of such things before it happens.

[Rabbi]

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.

No one is debating if it is good or bad from a training standpoint. That is not even part of this issue. This is a conversation about Liability.

The other quote I mention very explicitly. It is the post facto defense. It is exculpatory in nature, not preemptive.

And if you want to take the other route, this practice protects low score shooters, Again, it brings up liabilty issues again.

[Rabbi]

BTW, Tough crowd!

Here is one that has sliped my mind and perhaps other Range Owners can chime in. It doesnt happen much but it happens. From time to time I get a call or a subpoena from a Lawyer that wants me to testify about a gun buyer or a shooter(This happens when there is a shooting). Among the things they want to know are how often they shoot and how good they were.

We don not keep records of such things, so it is a "I do not recall" situation. However they are persuing these courses of action. How much moreso if they had an actual record of their proficiency or lack of.

While others may disagree, That to me makes it not only very real, but seemingly common and not something to be dismissed.

[ElGato]

I am glad we don't have to keep a record with three certification's on each shooter anymore because;

1. It's easier on me.

2. It's easier on me.

I alway's tell my student's they can have their target if they want it, and tease the Girls that they are going to put it on the refrigator and then call all the neighbor Ladies over for coffee and do the Alpha Female thing.

[Crossfire]

So, in this same line of thinking, if you shoot IDPA, GSSF, NRA matches, etc, then you better not ever get into a defensive shooting situation?

Just because I shoot paper targets or steel plates well means I should never shoot to defend myself in a life threatening situation?

Sue me if you want. My life is worth more than that.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I've tried to stay out of this one, as I don't think there is a single "correct policy" that covers all jurisdictions. However, I want to throw this in.

I put on a few legal seminars every year on the use of deadly force and dealing with the aftermath. My latest one was about 3 weeks ago at Top Gun in Houston. Every time I give one of these, I always get excellent questions on issues such as using hand-loads for self-defense, using a customized gun, taking advanced training (ex. Thunder Ranch), using hollow points, having a laser on the gun, and yes I occasionally get a question about "throwing" a few points on the shooting portion of a CHL qualification course.

My response is that, in my opinion, these issues are not of a realistic concern throughout most of Texas, but may be in other states and could be in Travis County, Texas (Ronnie Earl country!). Almost invariably, I have one or more people in the seminar who have read Ayoob’s books, or attended a class at his Lethal Force Institute, and notes that he vehemently disagrees with my position.

Mas teaches that you will be prosecuted and/or sued in civil court (a/k/a persecuted) if you use deadly force, regardless whether the shooting is justified. He has commented several times, almost with pride, that some people who have attended his classes have made the decision not to carry a gun, because they are more afraid of the legal aftermath than being wounded or killed by an attacker. (That concept is foreign to me, but far be it from me to second guess someone else’s decision on such a personal issue.) Mas resolutely condemns most if not all of the things I believe are a non-issue in most of Texas. I haven’t read it yet, but I received my American Handgunner a couple of days ago and Mas’ article this month appears to deal with using hand-loads in a self-defense shooting and it also appears he’s recommending against the practice.

I could foresee that in certain states, and Travis County, Texas, that prosecutors and civil juries may well take a dim view of someone using hand-loads, taking advanced training, etc. and hold that against them when they vote guilty or not guilty, or vote on a negligence question in a civil trial. I also have no doubt that an argument could be made in Massachusetts or New Jersey that anyone who could shoot 100% on a qualification course should have been able to “hit� the bad guy in a less-than-lethal area; i.e. shoot the gun out of his hand, shoot him in the leg, etc. I just don’t see those as real-world issues in Texas.

So as I said earlier, there are some respected people in the shooting community who feel such issues are a real concern. I acknowledge they may be in certain states/jurisdictions, but not everywhere and I do not believe they are in Texas (except, you guessed it, Travis County!). However, as we Texans enjoy ever-expanding reciprocity rights and travel to other states armed, matters that are of no concern to us here in God’s country could well be determining factors elsewhere.

I have to throw this in about using hand-loads. The one potential problem I can see deals with forensic analysis of the shooting, primarily as it relates to the shooter’s distance from his/her attacker. As I understand it, the CSI types have gotten pretty good at judging distance by the pattern and intensity of the powder burns and fragments. These standards are based upon testing of factory ammo. If one were to use hand-loads with a different powder and/or powder charge, the standards by which the CSI folks estimate range would be inaccurate potentially making it look like you were not honest with the investigators. Of course, you could tell them up front that you were using 230 gr. JHP Golden Sabers you loaded, but even then you could have a problem, if the load consistency was poor and the charge in that particular cartridge was higher or lower then you stated. For years I carried hand-loads for self-defense (all new factory primed brass) and it looked to all the world like factory ammo. I now carry only factory ammo in my defensive guns, but only for the forensic reasons, not because of a fear that someone will argue that I was trying to create a more deadly cartridge.

Folks I have a request. This discussion seems to have resulted in elevated Testosterone levels and since we’re all Alpha males/females, let’s recognize this and try to tone down the horn-rattling and ground-pawing a tad.

Thanks,
Chas.

[cxm]

I think you are way too wrapped around lawyer issues... have you been reading Ayoob lately?

I'm not aware of any Texas cases that support your theories...

Being a good shot can also be a positive point... responsible enough to learn to shoot well so as to not endanger bystanders etc. etc.

OF course I'm willing to be proved wrong...

FWIW

Chuck

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chuck:
I'm not sure if this was for me, it I think it is.

I think you are way too wrapped around lawyer issues... have you been reading Ayoob lately?

I am an attorney and yes I have read Ayoob lately. I've seen nothing to indicate he has changed the position he has promoted for 20 years.

I'm not aware of any Texas cases that support your theories...

Two points. First, I said I didn't think this was an issue in Texas, except perhaps in Travis County, so the lack of any case on point supports my position on this issue.

Secondly, in Texas Courts, you won't see any opinions unless the case goes to the appellate court and 99% of cases never get there.

Being a good shot can also be a positive point... responsible enough to learn to shoot well so as to not endanger bystanders etc. etc.

I agree, otherwise my wife and I wouldn’t have taken more classes at Thunder Ranch than I can count. However, that's not the issue. The discussion revolved around the potential in some jurisdictions of having a prosecutor attempt to use such facts as advanced training against someone using deadly force to defend themself. As I said, I don't think this is an issue in Texas.

If you had been in one of my deadly force seminars you would have seen a segment on Myths & Urban Legends In that segment, we discuss unfounded concerns and false “common knowledge� that abounds relating to self-defense shootings.

I can't help but think you misread my post, as you and I seem to agree on every point you raised. The only exception may be on Ayoob's opinion about the likely aftermath of a self-defense shooting. Although you didn't say it, it appears that you feel Mas does not paint a bleak picture for someone shooting in self-defense. He clearly does and has for many years.

Regards,
Chas.