Lawful carry citizens as targets

[briandg]

To put it very seriously, I don't ever want to be put in the position of making this sort of judgement, to intervene in a secondary event.

In a primary event I will have all available information. It will be me and the guy who is presenting as a threat. I may still have deficient information, but It's all my decision to make based on whatever information he is providing.

If I happen on the second hand event of two people whaling on each other with clubs and all I have is lethal implements, WTH can I do? Nothing. Call for help. Let it play out, interfere if one goes down and the other keeps attacking. I'm going to feel really bad if the loser spends two weeks in a coma and then dies because I couldn't intervene.

 

[TunnelRat]

My 2 cents. We have had people on this very subforum regale us with tales of how they were glad they were carrying a firearm because of some action someone took that could have been the start of a planned assault, or it could have been nothing. In a number of these cases these people have described how they were a hair's breadth away from killing someone, sometimes with seemingly little remorse as they knew it was what they had to do. I have no issue with people being prepared, taking precautionary measures, and working an OODA loop. But let's be frank. These folks were seconds away from killing people that up until then hadn't even displayed a weapon. So are we really surprised then if a police officer arrives at the scene of a reported shooting, sees someone with a firearm, and shoots that person? I am not.

As to the argument that training can't fix this, I disagree. I have seen firsthand that good training can instill in people a moment's pause to evaluate a situation before reacting. That isn't unnecessary hesitation. It's the step you take before you end a person's life. Now regardless of that, self preservation is ingrained in most of us. At some level when we feel threatened we will react. It's the basis on which the claim of self defense doesn't require you to be beaten within an inch of your life before you react.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Frank Ettin]

The problem is the System of "education" The symptom is (among many others) that cops think they are "the boss". Same with Judges and politicians....

This has nothing to do with the issue.

The bottom line is this:

1. As the OP wrote:

   Two cops observe what they think is a man with a gun in his hand.I don't know details,...

   
   
2. But of course the details are vital. Exactly what was going on?
   
   
3. Was the guy with the gun in his hand doing something that could reasonably be interpreted as an imminent lethal threat to one of the cops or a third party? If he was, even if he didn't actually have the intent to hurt anyone, how could anyone tell? We can't read minds and can only infer intent from actions.
   
   
4. Under those circumstances a cop has something like 0.25 to 0.50 second to decide if the guy is a real threat. If the cop takes more time to decide, he'll probably be too far behind the curve to be able to take effective defensive action.
   
   
5. Of course if what the guy was doing could not reasonably interpreted as a threat, the cops overreacted. But we have insufficient information on that point.
   
   
6. In general these sorts of situations unfold very quickly -- whether you're a cop or an armed private citizen.

 

[TailGator]

This subject was discussed when my church got serious about security, after the Texas church shooting. We now have a uniformed officer at each service, but one of the people on the security committee was opposed to us having a protocol to come to his/her aid if a problem developed, because they feared the officer shooting one of us. My answer was that we needed to hope that the officer considered which direction our guns were pointed - at the bad guy or at the officer. Other than that, there really isn't anyway to remove the risk of friendly fire; it is a risk that every thoughtful concealed carrier has to accept. In our situation, the risk has been decreased by having the officers become acquainted with the congregation members by repeatedly drawing duty at our church. But outside of a familiar situation, I see no way to mitigate the risk besides drawing only when absolutely necessary, and then reholstering as soon as any threat has ended. It is entirely possible for an officer, no matter how well intended and well trained, to simply make a mistake in the very fluid situation of a shooting in progress.

 

[HiBC]

I certainly agree with much of what has been said. We are talking about fractions of a second to make life and death decisions,and a fraction of a second hesitation may cost an officer his/her life.
I'll say it again,I appreciate LEO's,and bashing them is certainly not my intent.

A decade ago,legit concealed carry was far less common.In a significant part of the country,Law Enforcement had something between discomfort to open hostility toward any civilian with a firearm and particularly with concealed carry.

At the same time,here in non'metro Colorado,I have been contacted by LEO's non two occasions when I said (Showing my palms) "Officer,due to this situation ,I have a loaded handgun in my belt"

In both occasions,the LEO was no more excited than he would be if I was another armed LEO. We just finished the interview.


On another occasion,I was going through customs at the Canadian border,pulling my boat behind me.I was going for Walleye and Northerns.Had a cabin booked in Sakatchewan,and paper to prove it.


As the customs officer was checking out the back of my pickup,suddenly she went into crisis mode and I had a gun drawn on me. My offense? In my fishing gear she saw a recycled CCI 22 LR plastic box I was using to hold hooks or snaps or something.

I quit TV,but many of the crime and police dramas portrayed a LEO attitude about a citizen with a gun.It was never good.

What I'm asking for is just a recognition that the lawfully armed citizen is every bit as legitimate as the armed fellow officer is,and deserves to be treated accordingly.
But no,I do not think that means I should run down the aisle of WalMart with my gun in my hand.

I actually watched educational surveillance video of an armed man in what could have been a WalMart,or a JC Penney,Target,etc. He walked in and drew,then headed to the back of the store. The Armed Good Citizen drew and went in pursuit. The bad guy had a woman accomplice following incognito behind him. She fatally shot our hero in the back of the head.


There are a number self responsibilities to being an armed citizen,and some dangers. Comes with the territory. Heard.


Given more states recognize concealed carry is a good thing,And who knows,maybe we now have 10 times the number of folks carrying legitimately than we did a few years ago, IMO,its time Law Enforcement accepts and appreciates that we are legit and on the same team.
The anti-gun hostility default settings need a reset.

My CCW does not make me a criminal.

 

[TunnelRat]

Saying we're on the same team is overselling it imo. I agree that in concept we're not a threat and our goal isn't to harm them, for most lawful people carrying. But we're not law enforcement and a CCW permit doesn't make us law enforcement. The saying that you're on the same team often, in my experience, results in a degree of eye rolling and I don't think that's without reason. My goal in carrying a firearm is to protect myself, my family, and my property. I am not enforcing the law or ensuring the public good. There is a difference.

And while there absolutely are members of law enforcement that have negative attitudes, as you yourself noted there are also many positive interactions. Police are human and the interactions with them vary like any interactions with humans. I think saying, "I am not a criminal", is implying you're being treated like a criminal when in most cases you aren't. As for laws that are anti-gun and then the police are told to enforce them, people seem to forget we control the police, or should. If we don't like the laws they enforce we should change those laws.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Ton]

HiBC,

LEO are normal people from different backgrounds, some grew up in pro gun culture, some grew up in anti gun culture. Some are experienced and proficient. Others. . . not as much.

Most of the uniformed LEO you may come in contact with (city, county, state) will be aware of the gun laws in their state and will respect the letter of the law.

However, gun rights, like marijuana use, is also a political issue that normal people (including LEO) usually have a personal opinion about. So while one LEO due to his/her background and personal political beliefs may be completely supportive and comfortable with your right to carry, another, due to his/her background and personal beliefs, may respect your right and the law, but not be comfortable or supportive of it, and thus make it a more uncomfortable situation for you.

One thing I do think lawfully armed citizens need to be aware of is this: If you do draw the short stick in life and end up being involved in a deadly force incident, justified or not, police are almost always going to respond, point guns at you, detain you in handcuffs, and remove your weapon. This does NOT mean you've done something wrong or are under arrest or being charged with a crime. These are basic high risk tactics used in a variety of situations.

 

[HiBC]

Tunnelrat
Just about anything posted is subject to the interpretation of the reader.
I understand how what I said could easily be interpreted the way you interpeted it.No problem.You did fine. My fail in my wordsmithing.

I did not craft it well enough. By my words "we are on the same team" I did not intend to say "Now,with my CCW,I get to be an honorary junior cop"

I agree. That's not my role.I never thought it was.


Ton,I understand and agree with you mostly. The one fine point we may disagree on is this.So long as I am a law abiding citizen who is just trying to exist in this society, the LEO who has a certain passion or predudice or politics needs to keep those in check. That comes under "Professionalism"

nd thus make it a more uncomfortable situation for you.

Indeed,it can,and does happen,but so long as I'm obeying the law,the LEO's personal issues should not be part of my experience. That's when LEO's begin to transition toward something ugly.
And being "Only Human" does not preclude professionalism or excuse a lack of it.

 

[OhioGuy]

The Canadian border agent story above is just tragic

Makes me wonder...part of the value of armed citizens is the deterrent effect on criminals, who may not act because they fear being shot by their own victims. But if those same armed citizens are now in so much fear of being shot by police (or, possibly, each other) that they won't act, then doesn't that kind of negate some of the value? Just speculating.

Bob sees the mass shooter. Bob could take action and save people. Bob doesn't want to die at the hands of the killer. He also doesn't want to die at the hands of the police. So Bob escapes when perhaps he could have saved many lives?

Anyways, the attitude that "anyone who would carry a gun must be a criminal or on the same level as criminals" should be eliminated, but I suspect it never will be.

 

[HiBC]

Ohioguy:

An admittedly rare example: It was not all that long ago an LEO was in the process of being killed by a thug in the middle of a street. A CCW holder killed the thug and saved the LEO's life.

Now,lets apply all the rules or advice we read for armed citizens (Don't get me wrong,the guy is a hero)

Is there a different standard for helping an LEO? Why? I agree with helping the LEO,but what if I think "Its not me or my family.Let the police handle it"

Etc,etc.

 

[JohnKSa]

What I'm asking for is just a recognition that the lawfully armed citizen is every bit as legitimate as the armed fellow officer is,and deserves to be treated accordingly.

Given that armed fellow officers are unintentionally killed with some regularity when other officers come on the scene and mistake them for criminals, I think it's safe to say that there's not much of a double standard.

It's not about legitimacy, it's about the circumstances of the situation and what happens when people have to make critical decisions very rapidly.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

2. But of course the details are vital. Exactly what was going on?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-2-officers-shot-during-apparent-robbery-in-queens

Suspect had fake gun. 2 officers shot, 1 of which was killed.

 

[Brit]

The only time I have been involved in an incident of violence against a fellow Citizen, whilst armed, the Gun and folding knife I was carrying, legally, was not deployed.

The young man, in a suit, with a cocktail glass complete with paper umbrella, and liqueur! Professed he needed a HUG! And stepped towards my Wife, who was standing next to the buttons in an elevator.
Just three of us in this moving elevator. I stepped under his left arm and drove him into the wooden beam (a protector of the finish on the elevator) at speed.

I never thought of these two weapons! Oh, and yes, I have been in lots of fights. The last, and only, fight I lost, I was 21 YOA. Now 83 YOA.

Carry a Glock 19 every day.

 

[Mobuck]

"Most of the uniformed LEO you may come in contact with (city, county, state) will be aware of the gun laws in their state and will respect the letter of the law. "

Not universally true. I was "braced" by a LEO with his hand on his gun over AN EMPTY HOLSTER.

 

[GarandTd]

I can't help but notice that the story omits the fake gun detail, but includes an eyewitness saying he thinks the suspect shot 1st.

 

[Wag]

I've had a couple of encounters with LEO while armed. Stories for a different thread. One of them was a local City PD copy and told me, "We love it when people carry firearms." Without a doubt, it's because our neighborhood is 30 minutes away from any first responders.

Another was when I was pulled over for speeding. I informed the cop I was CC and he asked for my pistol. I did everything he asked and the exchange was pretty low key but during the conversation, it was clear that he was not familiar with state CC laws. Probably a recent lateral.

Another occasion when I was pulled over for speeding (I know, but they were several years apart!) I informed and the officer just said, "Don't reach for it." That's the typical response for cops in this area, from what I understand.

As an aside, neither cop wrote me for the offense and I often wonder if it was because I was carrying or if it was because I was polite and deferential to them or a combination of the two.

For what it's worth, I do feel fortunate that these attitudes prevail in this area.

--Wag--

 

[GarandTd]

I was stopped for a traffic light violation last November. I told the officer I had a loaded pistol in my glovebox where my registration and insurance documents were. He asked if I had a carry permit, which I do. He then said don't reach for it and it is a non issue. That is my only encounter with law enforcement while carrying. At the end of the stop, the officer thanked me for being polite, professional, and cooperative. I did receive a citation, but was judged not guilty in the courtroom because I was honest with the judge rather than being defensive.

When the lawman shows up, I think it best to not have a firearm unholstered, exposed, and in hand. I would be hard pressed to blame an officer for drawing or even firing when confronted by a stranger wielding a firearm. LEOs may benefit from more training, but the carrying public needs to use a little uncommon sense.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...The Canadian border agent story..." Our Federal law requires a licence to be in possession of a firearm or ammo. Just the box would be considered 'probable cause' for you having a firearm and more ammo. Likely be far worse for you if the box still had its original label.
Most Canadian Customs types are house wives or part timers(college students) who have never seen a real firearm before getting hired. (Sadly most cops, everywhere, are the same. Never saw a real firearm prior to getting hired and sent for training. The days of cops being shooters before getting hired is long gone.) Most Canadian Customs types, during the initial training, were failing the training too. It was their Union that decided they needed to be armed.

 

[HiBC]

Even funnier is when I came back.
I was eating a few fish as I caught them fresh,but it seemed a bad idea to even worry about trying to keep fish in the cooler for over a week.I et most everything go. This time I was in Manitoba.There was a commercial fisherman there,so I bought some commercial walleye on the way home.They ice packed them real nice for me.
Going through customs,I presented my receipt and told them about the fish.

They looked at my Lund boat,rigged for battle...They looked at me...."You came all the way up here and BOUGHT fish? Pull that rig over here...We had to pull every fish out of the ice,they went through everything...


Oh well.Made sense to me.

 

[FireForged]

Context is everything and certainly any practical assessment regarding an armed individual will weigh heavily on what has happened and what [is] happening and what seemingly is about to happen.

Above all else, I think a person carrying a gun has an obligation to avoid appearing openly as a theat. Additionally, I think any person carrying guns in public needs to put some forethought into how they are going to respond to a potential challenge made my any LEO. You need to know how NOT to act when confronted because a persons actions in the first few seconds is likely going to set the tone for all that follows.

Do LEOs need more training?.. I think the more honest answer is to say that continued and advanced training is always a good idea for anyone who has the occasion to handle complex matters which can very easily impact life-safety.

Just because you are a good guy does not mean that there is some sort of aura or glow which signals to an approaching LEO that you are not a bad-guy with a gun. You must use common sense and the first step to using common sense is to stop blaming the LEO and perhaps put that effort into some personal introspection.

Everyone can do better and it should begin with the citizen who is carrying the gun. As a citizen carrier, I am the person with the greatest responsibility to maintain my personal safety. Carrying a gun in your hand can come with risks and a person should probably weigh those risks before participating in a course of action that involves displaying a firearm. If you do decided to lawfully display a firearm its probably a good idea to do so for only the most limited amount of time possible.