Lawful carry citizens as targets
- Thread starter HiBC
- Start date
That might be true in a lot of cases, but I'm not going to take for granted that because the gun is holstered instead of shoved in the waistband I'm dealing with a good guy.
The deputy that tugged your shirt down was extremely foolish in my opinion. She should have just casually told you that instead of touching anywhere near your firearm.
FireForged
New member
It may be considered a supplemental nuance but a LEO worth his/her salt is not going to make any practical assessment based on something so superficial. Realistically speaking, holster or sans holster doesn't really mean much of anything towards good guy or bad guy. It means alot towards goodball or non-goofball.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Assuming a person is a good guy because he has a holster is the sort of logic that can get you killed.
Don Fischer
New member
And just how are you gonna change the law?
Add one more thing. I never ever open carry, never. You draw attention to yourself if you do that, good guy's, bad guy's, all guy's.
Last edited:
The same way we change any laws. Voting.
In case your second comment was directed at me, I never advocated open carry.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Frank Ettin
Administrator
JohnKSa said:
That is absolutely correct.
Somehow this thread got onto two entirely separate topics, and folks are having a tough time distinguishing between them:
- The problems associated with having very limited time in which to decide if someone represents a threat and take action.
- Law enforcement attitudes towards armed private citizens.
Based on the OP this thread is about the first. Mixing the two is resulting in a barely coherent hodgepodge.
Let's stick with the first or this thread will be closed.
Tom Gresham from Gun Talk is working to address this. It's a two-party problem. First, Law Enforcement must adjust to the idea that citizens are armed and not everyone with a gun in their hand is a threat. No different than certain combat ROE, where it's dangerous, but you don't just shoot anybody with a firearm that isn't pointed at you. While I do support the LE community, I just don't buy the irrational excuse that seeing a handgun in the hands of an individual marks them as an immediate threat...that's a lame excuse and their training needs to evolve to the realities of today.
That said, civilian gun owners also have a responsibility to avoid becoming a target and making decisions for LEO's harder than it should be. Outside of my (or my families) immediate self-defense, I would never present my handgun without having an immediate need or I knew I could communicate with a LEO that I was a friendly (think of a man-down scenario who needs assistance). Any shooting situation should end with you getting your handgun back in the holster or on the ground once the threat is eliminated or you're behind cover and out of immediate danger; communications with LE is vital, be it phone, verbal, or non-verbal (hands up, on the ground, away from firearm).
Law Enforcement are people to, and they make mistakes, and fear for their lives just like everyone else. Yes, there should be armed-citizen protocol training for both LEOs and civilians and I would like to see agencies train more with scenarios involving armed citizens. CCW trainers should also be involved to ensure those TTPs and protocols become standards and wide spread in course..
There's just no reason for a LEO to shoot an armed civilian who's been involved in a self-defense situation where lethal force was necessary. However, it's incumbent upon all legal, civilian CCW practitioners to train and have the situational awareness to mitigate LEO friendly fire.
ROCK6
That said, civilian gun owners also have a responsibility to avoid becoming a target and making decisions for LEO's harder than it should be. Outside of my (or my families) immediate self-defense, I would never present my handgun without having an immediate need or I knew I could communicate with a LEO that I was a friendly (think of a man-down scenario who needs assistance). Any shooting situation should end with you getting your handgun back in the holster or on the ground once the threat is eliminated or you're behind cover and out of immediate danger; communications with LE is vital, be it phone, verbal, or non-verbal (hands up, on the ground, away from firearm).
Law Enforcement are people to, and they make mistakes, and fear for their lives just like everyone else. Yes, there should be armed-citizen protocol training for both LEOs and civilians and I would like to see agencies train more with scenarios involving armed citizens. CCW trainers should also be involved to ensure those TTPs and protocols become standards and wide spread in course..
There's just no reason for a LEO to shoot an armed civilian who's been involved in a self-defense situation where lethal force was necessary. However, it's incumbent upon all legal, civilian CCW practitioners to train and have the situational awareness to mitigate LEO friendly fire.
ROCK6
Frank Ettin
With all due respect,I'm sure you will call it as you see it.
I am the OP.As I took ownership of in post #7 and post #28.I did not start this post very well. The unfortunate friendly fire incident between LEO's certainly includes your first point,about little time and quick decisions,.
That IS relevant,there IS "fog of war",and LEO's ARE fallible human beings with the quite reasonable wish to make it home after the shift. That's an important relevant factor,
But actually the point I was trying to express was more about your second thought. Maybe "attitude" isn't always accurate. I might substitute "mindset"
The previous post by ROCK said it very well. Better than I did. He nailed it.
Permitted carriers used to be uncommon and you had to have a good reason to get one.Now,where I live,it is "Shall Issue" and about 1 in 20 people have a permit.
I can go research a link to the story,but not too long ago in Colorado a guy walked into a WalMart(it seemed) intending to rack up a body count. He stopped at two,maybe three fatalities,turned and left.The reason is several armed people had drawn on him.He did not go in to die.Threat was over,no CCW fired.
The news emphasized the hours the police investigation took due to all the armed citizens in the security videos.(As if the CCW holders were a problem)
They failed to mention those armed citizens stopped the killing,which IMO may have continued until LEOs s arrived.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/03/walmart-shooting-scott-ostrem-charges/
I am conscious that if I am in a grocery store with 75 other people.likely a couple of other shoppers are armed.
Again,Rock said it well.
With all due respect,I'm sure you will call it as you see it.
I am the OP.As I took ownership of in post #7 and post #28.I did not start this post very well. The unfortunate friendly fire incident between LEO's certainly includes your first point,about little time and quick decisions,.
That IS relevant,there IS "fog of war",and LEO's ARE fallible human beings with the quite reasonable wish to make it home after the shift. That's an important relevant factor,
But actually the point I was trying to express was more about your second thought. Maybe "attitude" isn't always accurate. I might substitute "mindset"
The previous post by ROCK said it very well. Better than I did. He nailed it.
Permitted carriers used to be uncommon and you had to have a good reason to get one.Now,where I live,it is "Shall Issue" and about 1 in 20 people have a permit.
I can go research a link to the story,but not too long ago in Colorado a guy walked into a WalMart(it seemed) intending to rack up a body count. He stopped at two,maybe three fatalities,turned and left.The reason is several armed people had drawn on him.He did not go in to die.Threat was over,no CCW fired.
The news emphasized the hours the police investigation took due to all the armed citizens in the security videos.(As if the CCW holders were a problem)
They failed to mention those armed citizens stopped the killing,which IMO may have continued until LEOs s arrived.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/03/walmart-shooting-scott-ostrem-charges/
I am conscious that if I am in a grocery store with 75 other people.likely a couple of other shoppers are armed.
Again,Rock said it well.
Last edited:
I'll say it here again..and yes, anecdotal but still accurate, IMHO. MY CCW training course(along with both son's..different places, instructors) was a waste of time. It was a square filler..pay my $90, sit listen to this guy ramble for 3 hours, get my piece of paper..Give to County Sheriff with $152..get my card.
A 'responsible' CCWP holder will use this as a first step and continue to train, both physically and mentally, to be a 'responsible' CCWP holder. BUT, I think the average CCWP holder is the 'fill the squares' type person, strap on the piece and all is good....This is a question..why NOT better, more standardized training? Why NOT range time/qualification? Why NOT more time on the specifics of actually being an armed citizen and the HUGE responsibilities that go along with that? Seems like CCWP holders ought to be the 'experts' in firearm handling....
Rant out..
FireForged
New member
I disagree.. first order of business is for the citizen carrying a weapon to take ownership of the fact that they themselves have the greater responsibility to avoid being perceived as a threat. You cant simply operate under the guise of "I have a permit" and can do "whatever" with a gun or behave in "whatever" manner when confronted. There is no visible aura of goodness which surrounds lawful carriers with good intentions. If the suggestion is to rate a person carrying a gun in hand at the same level on the potential "threat meter" as someone who does not currently have a gun in hand, I find that rather silly. If a person wants to display a firearm in public, they should probably expect that any subsequent contact with police will likely be rather serious. A person can elect to be offended by the nature or attitude of a serious and business direct LEO but most LEOs will accept those sort of complaints as par for the course.
Secondly.. any LEO worth a darn will tell you that threats are qualified by several distinguishable and articulable elements. The fact that someone has a gun in their hand can certainly be one of those elements. A gun in a persons hand is not usually the be all end all determining factor regarding who is a threat and who isn't but its certainly a place to start and it certainly should not be taken lightly. Ultimately I support the idea that a LEO is responsible for his or her actions but LEOs typically respond circumstances created by others they don't create the circumstance themselves. Where does it begin? It begins with the citizen.
I have carried a gun for more that 35 years and I have never had a LEO ask me one thing about it. Any contact I have hand with LEO in my personal life have been traffic related and they always find me cooperative, reserved and hands where they can see them at all times.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
ROCK6 said:
What makes you think that LEOs, as a rule, will consider anyone with a gun in his hand a threat -- or at least immediately shoot him?
With regard to the incident reported by the OP, we have no idea how the guy who was was behaving. He might very well have been acting in a way that would have led the reasonable person to believe that the guy with the gun in his hand was an imminent threat.
ROCK6 said:
And do you have any actual evidence to support that conjecture? What do you know about perception and reaction times?
On the other hand, about 5 years ago in Sonoma County, California there was a [tragic] shooting of a boy by a deputy sheriff. The incident was investigated in depth by the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office which submitted this Report.
As part of that investigation the DA retained Dr. William Lewinsky of the Force Science Institute, a leading and independent and objective expert in the field of human perception and critical incident decision making involved in lethal force encounters to render an opinion about various aspects of this shooting. In the Report some of Dr. Lewinsky's finding were summarize as follows (at page 48):
Not everyone with a gun in his hand is a lawfully armed private citizen just trying to help out. And the time available to assess, decide, and act, given normal perceptual and decisional delays is probably less than you appear to believe.
These sorts of events do happen with alarming regularity. They happen when the guy shot has a toy gun, an unloaded gun, or something that looks like a gun but isn't. And they seem to happen largely because the guy who gets shot is acting in a way that can't reasonably be distinguished, in the time available for decision, from being a real, imminent threat.
None of us wear visible halos. None of us have neon signs reading "certified good guy" on our foreheads.
Nope, see above.HiBC said:
FireForged
New member
As terrible and tragic as many misunderstandings may be, the fact of the matter is that there are people who behave inappropriately when confronted my POLICE in the moments immediately following a high stress event. Perhaps its due to stress, shock, injury or other issues but its not hard to understand how a responding LEO may mis-qualify a person as a threat based on actions and projections they deem "uncharacteristic" of a victim or well intending citizen. Actions and projections they may deem furtive, aggressive or actively hostile.
some of the most comment problems: a good-guys failure to follow police issued commands, failure to follow repeated commands, undue delay in following commands or seemingly hostile articulation of a handheld weapon.
Its a terrible thing when someone is harmed due to a misunderstanding but POLICE are not mind readers and when they must make a critical decision in a split second they often times do not have the luxury of having all the information and context that they would like. I think that the best thing we can do as armed citizens is not make it more difficult to understand.
Last edited:
It’s completely subject, I’ll admit, but it has occurred enough to become an issue that should be address in training on both sides…simply my opinion.
Your last point is why I think it’s imperative for those who CCW to get training that includes actions post-self-defense shooting. I would in no way accuse a LEO from using deadly force when an armed or perceived-armed individual refuses to comply with directives. However, even cops are human and the incident with the man in Minnesota (Castile), who told the officer he was legally in possession of his CCW, proves that. If you listen to the tape, you hear the cop tell him to put his hands on the wheel and follow up telling him to get his wallet…a confusing statement that led to the fatal shooting of an innocent man. Who's to blame? I blame it on inadequate training.
Or we could discuss the Chicago guard shot by police holding down another man (suspected shooter) following a shooting in the establishment. Everybody was screaming at the police who arrived that he was a security guard, he wasn’t an immediate threat to the police officer; the officer shot and killed him. I’m sure there are actions the guard could have taken, but was this a “good shoot”?
Well that’s the issue at hand; if everyone is perceived as a threat due to potential reaction times, it’s an easy case to support and substantiate a “good shoot” isn’t it? My point is, if you’re involved in a shooting and law enforcement shows up while you have a firearm in your hand, you’re at risk. Your actions prior to that are just as important as obeying the directives of law enforcement.
Dr. Lewinsky's full report is quite good and helps provide a defense for law enforcement using lethal force. But it only addresses the perceived, direct threat to oneself. What happens when an officer spots an armed gunman that isn’t directly threatening him; possibly hiding behind cover, with what looks like a woman a couple kids huddled behind him? It’s all conjecture on my part, but I still think it’s a paradigm shift in how LEO first-responders assess an active shooting scene, and it’s even more imperative for CCW owners and practitioners to practice and train their own actions, before, during, and after a self-defensive situation.
I fully agree with that assessment. But I still think there are TTPs that could and should be developed for both law enforcement and armed civilians. While the decision time is a critical factor, I was interested in talking to a couple of Atlanta PD officers I was training with. They have an 11-step protocol before using lethal force; I'm surprised more aren't shot in the line of duty considering downtown Atlanta. We all know that gets condensed in certain, dynamic situations. While I think the majority of officers would prefer to avoid using lethal force, and they too want to come home at night, it’s just as important for them to know the probability of a legally armed civilian may be involved, and not everyone at a scene should be presumed a threat. I don’t know what the right answer is and it’s a difficult situation for both sides. Like I said, I am looking forward to Tom Gresham’s deep-dive into working with the LE community and addressing some training aspects for both sides.
My son is 20 and has been legally carrying concealed for over a year (state of GA). I’ve had him take several classes with me and talked with numerous LEOs. There are several things he can and should do to minimize his perceived threat to law enforcement (whether he’s openly armed or not). I do personally think a large percentage of lethal force by LE could be eliminated if society simply complied with their instructions, but that’s a cultural issue for another discussion. My concern of course, is always the adrenalin and stress involved in a self-defensive situation (be it a fist fight or use of lethal force, heck, just getting pulled over can be nerve-wracking to some); I’m just a firm believer that realistic, scenario based training is the best way to mitigate accidents or negative perceptions. I can only focus on my part and my actions, as well as hope the LE community is doing theirs as well.
There’s more than anecdotal evidence to support both sides. I just think there’s enough evidence to support a shift in training for both police and those who responsibly CCW.
I fully agree. However, what happens when a LEO gives you conflicting directions? One moment, he tells you to put your hands on the wheel, the next he tells you to get your ID? Both parties are likely stressed, but you mitigate stress through training. I know it might sound condescending, but I’ve rehearsed this with my son; you talk slow, loud and clear enough for them to hear, and your repeat what they ask you to do. It is impossible to determine body language or intent, which is why verbal communications is important. Of course, not dropping your handgun or taking any action with a firearm in your hand or even concealed is justification for you being targeted.
Scenario training is extremely helpful. What do you do if you’re engaged in an active shooter situation or any defensive situation where you’re armed and behind cover, and you hear someone behind you yell, “drop your gun”. Most here would say, you immediately comply, but go act out the scenario and many will turn around, gun still in hand, to visually identify who gave the command; it’s a simple reflex, and as @Frank Ettin pointed out, you just forced the LEO to make a decision that may not end well for you.
ROCK6
Last edited:
FireForged
New member
common sense would typically dictate that a person elect the most benign option. reaching around behind my back and jamming my hand into my back pocket- probably aint it.
Friendly fire is a very real hazard no matter who is involved once bullets start flying.
All CCW holders need to be aware that LEO's WILL be on the scene no matter what....
It is there JOB to protect society and not your individual safety. That means first sign of the LEO's you empty your hands of a threat until they are satisfied.
When I scan for follow on threats, my weapon is at position 3 not only clearing my field of view but it prevents me from pointing it any LEO's in close contact that might be responding.
I will keep my hands visible and open until LEO's make contact. My personal standard is to re-holster or just put the gun down at my feet once my lane is clear and no follow on threats. I also begin asking for someone to call 911 to get police onscene.
LEO's should also keep the possibility of armed citizenry making a lawful self defense shoot in their training footprint.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
ROCK6 said:
Beats me. I'm certainly not going to hazard an opinion on the limited and unsupported description of the incident you've offered. As I noted multiple times, details matter.
What are you trying to say?ROCK6 said:
The real point is that reaction times are a factor, along with potentially other things. The issue with reaction times is that many folks don't consider them appropriately when trying to assess justification for a particular use of force.
Yes you are.ROCK6 said:
ROCK6 said:
All it was intended to address was the particular incident that was the subject of the report. It was based on the applications of the understood science to the facts of that incident.
ROCK6 said:
You you're really saying is that the facts matter. There is no universal answer.
Frank Ettin said:
Exactly my point, and details do matter; however, you have an officer using deadly force without knowing all the facts. I can't necessarily fault the officer as I don't know all the facts and he had to make a split decision based on his assessment. My whole point is that incidents like this happen often and to simply shrug the incident away misses an opportunity to address training for both sides. In fact, this case specifically would make a great case-study as I think there were actions the armed guard could have taken as well as the officer to avoid what ultimately happened.
Frank Ettin said:
That's the crux. It's not just reaction time to engage, but to assess the situation...always easier said than done. The fact of the matter is that an armed society needs to be part of the law-enforcement decision making process. Equally important, armed citizens need to learn and train on how to avoid facilitating hasty decision making from law enforcement. Incidents like these will happen, the goal of training on both sides would help to mitigate them.
ROCK6
FireForged
New member
any officer responding to a fast moving crisis is not likely to "know all the facts" until hours, days or weeks later- if at all. Knowing all the facts is an unrealistic benchmark in the face of a reasonably perceived dire need to protect life. Knowing [ALL] the facts is not always the basis by which police decide whether or not to take action. In real life and in the real world, people make decision and sometimes take actions based on what they know [at the time] and make a thoughtful judgment based on priorities of the moment.
There have been training commissions all across this nation for the past 60 years which spend an inordinate amount of time addressing these ongoing issues. Some might say that it is also the fundamental basis for the idea of department accreditation which has been going on since the late 70s.
Im not sure where you have been
again.. there is already a robust mechanism (nationally) to evaluate such issues.
a person with a gun is a person with a gun.. every person with a gun can potentially be good, bad or ugly( it goes without saying). How they are ultimately perceived will likely depend on numerous elements as perceived by the officer making the judgment. Its never going to be perfect because we are all human.
As an armed citizen I simply accept that if I run around with a gun in my hand, there are some inherent risks associated. There are also some meaningful ways I can mitigate those risks if so inclined. I also accept that I am the person with the greatest responsibility to keep myself safe. I wont try to point the finger at someone else in that regard.
Hasty decisions?.. That seems to imply ill conceived or reckless decision making. I don't think you can assign that connotation based simply on whether or not the officer was ultimately correct in his/her assessment. I think it that applying a reasonable and prudent person standard is generally much more customary and fair. A reasonable and prudent person with similar training, knowledge and experience as the officer in question.
Making urgent decisions in a split second which involve life-safety will probably always have a measure of haste involved. Haste is simply a factor, not a demerit.
again, police are already doing that in a very meaningful way. and have been for 60 years. What are citizens doing?
Last edited:
FireForged said:
That's extremely disingenuous at best. We have had armed civilians over the past 60 years, but the explosion of licensed CCW practitioners has only exploded in the last decade.
I do agree with your comment about what are citizens doing; however that's half the equation. You can simply ignore the increase of incidents of "friendly fire", but I would prefer to see more training on the LE side (which I can't necessarily confirm), as well as with those who CCW. Sure, common sense sounds simple enough, but I live and work in a very dynamic environment where you constantly have to train and remain vigilant of your surroundings. Common sense if often lost when you incorporate significant stress; training is the key and I'm simply saying that there's never a reason to ignore training to changes in an environment.
If the number of citizens with CCW has increased exponentially in the last decade and you see no reason for BOTH LE as well as citizens to address the potential for an intersection during and after a shooting incident, I'm simply wasting my time trying to explain my stance. I'm not blaming officers, but I am questioning if they are addressing the new dynamics. I truly don't know; however I agree with Tom Gresham's initiative with prominent members in the LE training community to actually get together and discuss it...that leads me to believe there is something that could use some improvement. I do know I can only train on what my personal actions will be and practice and train for those scenarios as much as I can.
I would like to hear from some actual LE members to see if this is being discussed, if it's not that big of an issue, or if any training scenarios are incorporating actions involving a potentially armed citizen in a self-defense shooting. Of course, I could just be blowing it out of proportion, but there are both statistics and cases where it sure seems like there is an increase.
https://gunsinthenews.com/study-concealed-carry-permit-holders-break-laws-far-less-than-cops/
The above article addresses a few "mistakes" where a legal gun owners were killed by LE. My question is why and how can both LE and civilian's reduce these incidents.
One area I think civilians need to receive some reinforced training is that they're not LE and they probably shouldn't inject themselves in a situation that doesn't immediately threaten them or their family. While many train, they should not become another "active shooter" unless they're are directly threatened. Personally, that makes the job of LE even more difficult when they arrive on the scene. That's a situation that may be difficult for many, but should be discussed and risks addressed.
ROCK6