What happens in firearms training should stay in firearms training

[Gman106]

Only a little bit. The premise is too stupid to continue! There are states that demand license holders take training and yet other states require that one demonstrate "competence" with a firearm to qualify for licensing, some states even require both. Civilians are not "police officers" and are under NO compulsion to defend anyone except themselves or their families. If this kind of shit is true, I'm fucked if I ever have to defend myself or my home! I guess the best I can hope for is a defense shooting occurs from a home invasion! Je suis un homme épris de paix et je tuerai tous ceux que je dois pour le prouver.

Well, what can I say? You didn't bother to watch the whole video. The premise is sound...and simple. If you have lots of comments on social media about your guns and your tactical training weekends and pictures of your vast gun collection, etc., and you post about what you would do in this defensive scenario or that defensive scenario and then you find yourself in a self-defense situation, prosecutors are going to use that history against you to sway the jury. They're going to say you're a gun nut and were itching for a fight and you found found one. So...the caution is...don't give them ready ammunition to use against you by putting it all out there. Or, just do all that and wear your "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out t-shirt" and have your "This truck protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers and so on, and see how it sits if ever your freedom is put in the hands of a jury.

[DK23]

I'm with streaker. If you have training you're a gun nut, if you don't have training you're irresponsible. They'll paint you any way they can to get a conviction. Look what they did to Rittenhouse and he was still acquitted.

[Brick]

Well, what can I say? You didn't bother to watch the whole video. The premise is sound...and simple. If you have lots of comments on social media about your guns and your tactical training weekends and pictures of your vast gun collection, etc., and you post about what you would do in this defensive scenario or that defensive scenario and then you find yourself in a self-defense situation, prosecutors are going to use that history against you to sway the jury. They're going to say you're a gun nut and were itching for a fight and you found found one. So...the caution is...don't give them ready ammunition to use against you by putting it all out there. Or, just do all that and wear your "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out t-shirt" and have your "This truck protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers and so on, and see how it sits if ever your freedom is put in the hands of a jury.

Look damn it! I'm a 28 year retiree from the US Army where I served, among other duties, as a member of an Advanced marksmanship Team, and pistol instructor. I've been licensed to carry in two states for almost 50 years! I've competed in NRA and other competitive hand gun sports for damn near as long and its all on the record since LONG before "social media" existed! Now somehow I'm supposed to erase all that! NUTZ! I don't advertise myself in public and I don't usually frequent places where such idiocy exists.

[free]

Well, what can I say? You didn't bother to watch the whole video. The premise is sound...and simple. If you have lots of comments on social media about your guns and your tactical training weekends and pictures of your vast gun collection, etc., and you post about what you would do in this defensive scenario or that defensive scenario and then you find yourself in a self-defense situation, prosecutors are going to use that history against you to sway the jury. They're going to say you're a gun nut and were itching for a fight and you found found one. So...the caution is...don't give them ready ammunition to use against you by putting it all out there. Or, just do all that and wear your "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out t-shirt" and have your "This truck protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers and so on, and see how it sits if ever your freedom is put in the hands of a jury.

You could just say this:

No good comes from social media. Don't use it.

[Gman106]

You could just say this:

No good comes from social media. Don't use it.

FYI...poofa is social media. Anything you say here can and will be used against you in a court of law and in your case, by your fellow Poofa members. );

[free]

FYI...poofa is social media. Anything you say here can and will be used against you in a court of law and in your case, by your fellow Poofa members. );

Everything that happens online is NOT "social media". This is just a web forum man.

[Qtrborecrazy]

All DAs worry about are CONVICTION RATES. Just like Shapiros commercials where he brags about all the perps he*s put away or how much drugs he*s taken off the streeets.

[raxar]

Everything that happens online is NOT "social media". This is just a web forum man.

Discussion forums are both social, and media, hence they are indeed social media.

[JAKIII]

US LawShield is your friend.

[GunLawyer001]

There was a case a few decades ago, where the prosecutor provided evidence that the defendant had a lot of guns, as proof that he was a menace to society, more so than his charged offense would indicate. On appeal, the verdict (or possibly the sentence, it's been a while) was tossed because it's Constitutionally impermissible to use someone's exercise of an enumerated right as evidence of bad character (also, bad character evidence is generally inadmissible anyway).

This feels like that. Training should only be admissible if a relevant question is skill level. Training, or being part of the gun culture, should usually be inadmissible because character evidence is usually inadmissible.

If someone's on trial for robbing a bank, the DA can't show that he was friends with criminals, or he beat his wife, or he associated with BLM/Antifa thugs. The DA is limited to proving identification, committing the bad acts, maybe showing a conspiracy if others were involved. He can't even introduce evidence generally showing that the defendant was a bad person who would do bad things.

It's not like the DA needs to show that you were trained to know that shooting fleeing perps is illegal, since it's utterly irrelevant whether you knew the law. Now, if the defendant asserts that he was trained to respond in a particular way, because that somehow excuses his wrongful act, then the DA can go through that door.