TexasCHLforum.com

It is our practice to do nothing more than issue a pass/fail on the targets. It is taken on sound advice that this is a good pratice. They dont get to keep the targets and they are destroyed.

What are some of the practices you have in your classes to midigate liability such as this?

We also score them as pass/fail only, but I let them keep their targets if they want them. What harm is there in that?

They dont get to keep the targets and they are destroyed.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what liability could come from the student keeping thier test target?

llwatson wrote:We also score them as pass/fail only, but I let them keep their targets if they want them. What harm is there in that?

While it could be trivial, it could be argued that if that is your practice and it is made known during the discovery process, It could be subpoena from the person and they could be asked to testify about their score as it could now be assumed they had the opportunity to score it themselves. The other problem that could occure is the modification of the target after it leaves the class. You have to get a little imaginitive but you can come up with scenerios where that could bad. Just not having the target, and nothing more than Pass/Fail seems to be the simplest thing to avoid such things.

Again, these are just our practices and perhaps not the best. I am just looking for others ideas. As always I could stand to learn something.

dws1117 wrote:

They dont get to keep the targets and they are destroyed.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what liability could come from the student keeping thier test target?

I could not cite case law for CHL classes, but it has been a common practice for Lawyers to use arguments based on the scores of police officers involved in shootings. Even some Police Dept. have gone to a strict Pass/Fail system

"WEll Officer, it says you scored a perfect on your last Quals"

"I guess"

"That makes you some kind of marksmen Top 5% of all shooters in you Dept"

"Well, I shoot OK"

"So, why didnt you shoot the gun out of his hand instead of killing him...."

It has happened before.

Are you aware of something such as you describe happening?

Is anyone aware of the CHL target or test scores being used at a trail involving a shooting by a CHL holder?

I suppose that it is possible, but it seems unlikely that the target or test score would be an issue.

FWIW, I'm not an instructor just an average joe.

I believe it has been thought that an aggresive prosecutor could imply that your proficiency and accuracy could indicate your desire/intent to "kill" someone instead of "stop" someone...

Make sure (and I hope no one I know ever has to go through this) your defense counsel understands implicitely that tactic, and is prepared to counter it...

Rabbi wrote:

dws1117 wrote:

They dont get to keep the targets and they are destroyed.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what liability could come from the student keeping thier test target?

I could not cite case law for CHL classes, but it has been a common practice for Lawyers to use arguments based on the scores of police officers involved in shootings. Even some Police Dept. have gone to a strict Pass/Fail system

"WEll Officer, it says you scored a perfect on your last Quals"

"I guess"

"That makes you some kind of marksmen Top 5% of all shooters in you Dept"

"Well, I shoot OK"

"So, why didnt you shoot the gun out of his hand instead of killing him...."

It has happened before.

Unless you can cite me a case where that was effective in court, I don't believe it. I have heard this bull for too many years.

If you are justified in using in Deadly Force, how good a shot you are will not nullify that justification. It is also well documented that shooting is much less accurate in actual Deadly Force encounters than standing static on a range. WELL DOCUMENTED.

If students want their scores I gladly tell them. If they want their targets I gladly allow them to take them.

There is no real need to do otherwise. If you perceive a need, then thats OK for you.

txinvestigator wrote:

Rabbi wrote:

dws1117 wrote:

They dont get to keep the targets and they are destroyed.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what liability could come from the student keeping thier test target?

I could not cite case law for CHL classes, but it has been a common practice for Lawyers to use arguments based on the scores of police officers involved in shootings. Even some Police Dept. have gone to a strict Pass/Fail system

"WEll Officer, it says you scored a perfect on your last Quals"

"I guess"

"That makes you some kind of marksmen Top 5% of all shooters in you Dept"

"Well, I shoot OK"

"So, why didnt you shoot the gun out of his hand instead of killing him...."

It has happened before.

Unless you can cite me a case where that was effective in court, I don't believe it. I have heard this bull for too many years.

If you are justified in using in Deadly Force, how good a shot you are will not nullify that justification. It is also well documented that shooting is much less accurate in actual Deadly Force encounters than standing static on a range. WELL DOCUMENTED.

If students want their scores I gladly tell them. If they want their targets I gladly allow them to take them.

There is no real need to do otherwise. If you perceive a need, then thats OK for you.

Yep...

I prefer the fact that my CHL class didn't tell me, just for those reasons. Even if it's hearsey, it's good enough for me that I passed, and my ego does not require me to know how good or how bad my score was.

(It's enough for my ego that I passed! heh.)

txinvestigator wrote:

Rabbi wrote:

dws1117 wrote:

They dont get to keep the targets and they are destroyed.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what liability could come from the student keeping thier test target?

I could not cite case law for CHL classes, but it has been a common practice for Lawyers to use arguments based on the scores of police officers involved in shootings. Even some Police Dept. have gone to a strict Pass/Fail system

"WEll Officer, it says you scored a perfect on your last Quals"

"I guess"

"That makes you some kind of marksmen Top 5% of all shooters in you Dept"

"Well, I shoot OK"

"So, why didnt you shoot the gun out of his hand instead of killing him...."

It has happened before.

Unless you can cite me a case where that was effective in court, I don't believe it. I have heard this bull for too many years.

If you are justified in using in Deadly Force, how good a shot you are will not nullify that justification. It is also well documented that shooting is much less accurate in actual Deadly Force encounters than standing static on a range. WELL DOCUMENTED.

If students want their scores I gladly tell them. If they want their targets I gladly allow them to take them.

There is no real need to do otherwise. If you perceive a need, then thats OK for you.

While I dont have Lexus Nexus in front of me to do a good case law study I find 2 problems with your position as I see it.

First of all, Ones ability to shoot under stress is a tangential post-facto issue. While I agree with the truth of your statement it is not the prosecutory issue. It would be the defence issue. The reason one would avoid handing out scores would come out of a deference to Prosecution. The kernal of this line of questioning relates to avoiding situations where Prosecution would have grounds to stand on. What you propose is of an exculpatory nature.

Second, and because I lack case law at this time to back up my beliefs in this issue, I would make this statement:

Police agencies have, in ever greater numbers, been trending to a Pass/Fail only system.

The Question is, What is the genesis of such policies? Are they arbitrary in nature? Do sound legal opinions hold that it could be an issue? Or does there in fact exist Case Law that would make implementation of such policies necessary for the avoidance of generating prosecutory evidence?

Would you consider the practices of Police agencies around the nation as bull? Perhaps they are reacting strongly on the issue but because they are reacting on the issue I for one think it should be of great interest to us and not something we should so easily dismiss.

Again, Your answer involves things of an exculpatory nature. The problem with that is you have something to use after the fact. By following the outline of information I have presented we are trying to arive at a preventative measure.

And for final discusion, The purpose of my thread was not just to outline a policy I, and others as it would seem, have taken, but to open the floor by using an example of how I mitigate liability as a segway to learning from others their thoughts on how they do the same when it comes to the running of their business. A business that does have inherent liability issues that if we work togeather we can manage our risk to ensure a better future for the industry as a whole.

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.

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

stevie_d_64 wrote:I believe it has been thought that an aggresive prosecutor could imply that your proficiency and accuracy could indicate your desire/intent to "kill" someone instead of "stop" someone...

"but but.... but your honor, why else would the CHL scoring be centered around "center of mass" if they didn't want you to shoot there, they were all 5 point shots."

I reckon it is possible that the aguement can be made, but I don't see it as being a reasonable argument. But then, i'm no lawyer.