I've got to share some things after reading this entire thread again this morning.
1) What prompted me to start this thread was a discussion that I was involved in, more as a listener than a contributor, over at my Rifle Club last weekend. It was similar in nature to the tone of this thread.
2) Pretty much everyone agrees that Mas is the leading expert in the field of "Use of Lethal Force," even if there are others who may be more "modern" in their approach ... and I am not sure how I, or anyone else for that matter, would define "modern in approach?" ... but I paraphrase the general wording in an attempt to cover the conveyed thought process in a generic fashion.
3) One thing I did hear quite a bit of is, and again I paraphrase, "Some of what he teaches, especially the hand-to-hand defensive/offensive stuff, will get you in trouble, or worse yet - killed." Most of that was countered with, "Yeah, but it's better than nothing, it gives you confidence at at least act, and the more you know - the better," ... that was the gist of it.
4) We had a couple of attorneys involved in the discussion and, while both of them are avid shooters and permit holders, neither seemed to support the idea that Mas' contribution in a trial would carry a lot of weight. Both agreed that it may have "at one time or another" but that procedures in the court/legal arena/system have progressed beyond the particular need for expert witnessing in that regard insomuch as a plethora of precedence has been set, over the years, that except for the most extreme and confusing cases .... that sort of expert witness testimony would not be necessary. Those with Doctorials are the exception.
5) IMHO, I'm glad Mas is out there ... just incase. You never know.
6) There are more commonly used "Expert Witnesses" out there these days. Two off the top of my head that were mentioned, one I have actually met before, that are frequently used in shooting cases are Alexander Jason and Rick Ernest who are both, if I am not mistaken, also Forensic Experts ... Rick may be a Ballestician as well, I can't remember. But the important thing that was stressed to me is, that if you need an expert witness, make sure he is reputable and credible and has the credentials to back-up what his testimony because it will be called into question. I doubt there are many that compare with Mas in that regard ... probably could be counted on two hands.
Again, I am stressing that these bulleted items are as much about what I absorbed in the course of listening to the conversation, as they are my personal opinion.
7) Mas has become a little bit commercialized to some degree. Who could blame him? I would too were I him. Plus, and I can type about this with some degree of understanding ... and that is that; it is incredibly tough to keep things fresh and new when you are producing the volume of infomation that Mas has obligated himself to produce over the years. I mean I can only begin to imagine the difficultly in coming up with new stuff week after week after week. It's gotta be tough. So my point is, that in the process of trying to do so, there are going to be times when you might put something out there that is of lesser quality than on those days when you are really in a groove. We all know the feeling.
8) Mas is a friend to all of us by proxy. Pure and simple. He is not on the other side in any shape, way or fashion.
9) I think a lot of people familiar with his writings over the years, and his show segement and perhaps even his class, know far too little about his background. I heard a lot of questions such as, "How many years in Law Enforcement?" "How many years in competitive shooting ... and how successful was he?" "How many years of training in hand-to-hand, and what discipline and rank?" Etc ... so that is going to happen when you start having "Expert" appear before your name. That's why we have courtesty titles such as "Dr" and "Captain" and so on ... because it implies a certain degree of training and qualification. That confuses some people when you see "Expert" placed before a name and, typically, they want to know how that moniker was awarded - is the claim justified? I personally defended him in that regard sheerly based upon time of service and years of contribution without knowing any specifics I might add. I've been reading the guy for years, among other things.