As
mentioned earlier, LovelyWife and I attended a
Defensive Handgun class at the
Firearms Academy of Seattle (FAS).
If you're considering a firearm for self-defense, training is critical. Not only do you need to learn the physical skills to operate a firearm safely and effectively, you must also learn how to conduct yourself before and after using the firearm.
FAS went over the Washington State statutes in detail. We learned the various types of homicides, and the conditions under which a homicide can be ruled justifiable. If you're protecting yourself you have certain affirmative defenses against murder and manslaughter. But if you're protecting someone else you must have overwhelming evidence that your use of deadly force is justified. (E.g., you don't want to shoot a 7-11 clerk who is holding a robber at gunpoint!)
The FAS instructors disagree with
Professor James Duane and his colleague,
Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach police department. (Click on their names for their very compelling Google Video talks.) Essentially, Duane and Bruch argue that there's nothing to be gained by cooperating with a police officer, so you should refuse to cooperate in order to secure your legal rights.
As police officers themselves, the FAS instructors explained that they must write a report about every incident. Part of that report is a form with places for the names of everyone involved. Each name has several boxes to check, including "victim", "witness", and "suspect". The FAS instructors argue that you want the officer to check "victim" by your name rather than "suspect", and that goal is worth the risk of cooperation.
The FAS instructors argue that after you've used deadly force in a self-defense situation, you should point out evidence and explain the "active dynamic" to the responding officers. Evidence might include the gun used by the perpetrator that got kicked under furniture and would otherwise be missed. The active dynamic is a simple explanation of what happened. "Officer, as I was walking down the street this man jumped out of that doorway, showed me a knife, and demanded my money. I pulled my lawfully licensed handgun and ordered him to back off. Instead of backing off he advanced towards me. Fearing for my life I had to shoot him. The knife is over there under the doorstep."
Do not try to talk your way out of being arrested. After explaining the active dynamic, you should go on to say something like "Officer, I intend to fully cooperate with your investigation. But as you know, situations like this are very stressful. I'm not feeling well; please take me to the hospital. And to protect everyone's legal rights, I want to talk to my attorney before making a formal statement."
Switching from the content to the pedagogical approach:
I've taken precisely two classes in the defensive use of firearms (Gunsite 250 and this one.) Three days into a five-day class (Gunsite) and 1.5 days into a two-day class (FAS) the instructor started berating the students. The instructor accused us of not paying attention, not working hard, and basically wasting his time. At Gunsite this happened after we shot at night for the first time. At FAS this happened after a block of instruction where we shot at moving targets for the first time. The plural of anecdote is not data, but both instructors did the same thing.
After the next block of instruction, the FAS instructor explained that he almost always yells at his students in order to motivate them to do their best. One of the students in the class confirmed that the instructor did the same thing at about the same time in a class taught a couple of weeks earlier.
For students to succeed they must take the things they learned on the first day and apply them on the second day. A student whose mind wanders won't learn as well, and may even make seriously unsafe mistakes. In contrast, a student unfairly accused of slacking off will often redouble her effort to prove the accuser wrong, achieving a higher standard of performance than she would otherwise.
Several times during the class I was chastised by the instructors for minor safety procedure violations. That was absolutely fair--and it pointed to something specific that I could change. Instructors noticed I was unnecessarily bouncing before drawing my handgun when the whistle blew to fire, or was moving the gun inefficiently from the holster to the firing stance. Again, I welcomed their criticism because it came with specific things I could do better.
I believe the motivation of the instructors was good, but I question the utility of this technique. The general chastisement of the class was very discouraging and demoralizing. I felt very frustrated that the instructor was accusing me of laziness, while not providing any specific criticism in terms of procedure or skill.
In defense of this technique, it did add mental and emotional stress to the learning experience. A real-life self-defense use of deadly force will also be very stressful. So perhaps it adds some value.
A colleague has also experienced similar group chastisements in other self-defense training classes. He calmly asked me whether I had been slacking off. I thought for a few moments and said no. In the future, he suggested, I should consider such undeserved criticism as static, and ignore it like I would ignore a harmless insect. Most excellent advice!
On balance, will we go back to FAS? Yes, I think so. The content was excellent, and I really appreciated the specific feedback and guidance on my shooting technique. But I will be prepared for seemingly unfair negative feedback. I will use it as an opportunity to exercise my self-confidence, and to exercise restraint and calm.
I had an opportunity to visit Sansar Indian Cuisine this week. If you ever find yourself in Livermore California then you really ought to stop by. Even though their menu suggests you wait 20-30 minutes for them to cook each entree to order, they delivered my Mutter Paneer almost immediately.
