Neck ID holder instead of CCW badge?

[Ole Coot]

Badges, exposed ID's and CCW license are all very bad ideas; for the reasons
already explained~! :banghead:

Completly agree. That went out with fake badges and secret decoder rings. Why would anyone want to advertise? Especially with that kinda junk or shirts,hats with "I'm bad and got a gun" statements.

 

[Nushif]

2nd- Who thought it was a good idea for USAF Security to start referring to themselves as "SF"?

"Security Forces" It is actually one of the terms for them. but I'm sure you're all knowing these affairs so this isn't news to you.
I've always referred to them as "SF guys" or "SPs" or "the SF."

 

[Arp32]

I think I understand where the OP was coming from and I respect that (I wouldn't want to get shot by responding officers either), but it seems to me the worst side effect of carrying the neck display thing around "just in case" you're in a shooting is that an attorney on the other side could use it against you. Seems like it could be portrayed as showing premeditation, like you intended to get into a shooting and were prepared for how you appeared when the cops arrived.

 

[WinThePennant]

From a LEO - When arriving to a scene where multiple persons are shooting, I can give a damn about your little CCW card. I'm going to wrap you up and secure you immediatly. Just because you have a CCW card, no matter where it's at.. does NOT mean your are innocent or arent going to be arrested. I will still detain you. People often think a CCW permit is a pass for somthing. You think I'm going to see your CCW permit and say "Oh it's cool everyone, this one's a good guy!" lmao

Yup - And, this is why I will never come to the aid of a downed LEO, even if I have the means to do so. Not that I don't want to -- I DO -- I just know the rules LEOs play by, and I don't make the rules. My chances of getting shot by a LEO increase by about 1,000% if I'm showing a gun while there are BGs and LEOs shooting at one another. Even if they know for certain that I'm there to help out, quite a few of them will be more than happy to make my pretty happy life a living hell.

Sorry if my take is inaccurate, but that's the way I see it. And, as a LEO, you are making the same point.

 

[FLCowboy49]

WC145- TAD= Navy speak for Temporary Assigned Duty, basically the AF SF (Security Forces) were undermanned so they pulled personnel from other services on our joint base to augment.

 

[WC145]

WC145- TAD= Navy speak for Temporary Assigned Duty, basically the AF SF (Security Forces) were undermanned so they pulled personnel from other services on our joint base to augment.

Thanks, that's a new acronym for me.

Originally Posted by Nushif
"Security Forces" It is actually one of the terms for them. but I'm sure you're all knowing these affairs so this isn't news to you.
I've always referred to them as "SF guys" or "SPs" or "the SF."

I've got no issues with USAF Security, like I said, I was an SP back in the day. And, yes, I know that they call them "Security Forces" now, but that name change still doesn't make calling them "SF" appropriate. That's someones idea to make them sound like something they're not. Kind of like pissing on the traditions of the Rangers by giving the entire Army the black beret to improve moral.
Just because you can do something doesn't make it a good idea. (Kind of like CCW badges, sashes, and stuff hanging around your neck.)

 

[bikerdoc]

Kind of like pissing on the traditions of the Rangers by giving the entire Army the black beret to improve moral.
[/QUOTE

Im still mad about that.


On topic; keep whatever you want wherever you want just keep it out of sight.

 

[22-rimfire]

A CCW permit is not a badge. It doesn't mean that you are not breaking the law, intend to break the law, or you're a good guy. I wear no "badges" unless it is necessary as part of my work.

As far as what WinThePennant said, I just have to say that I would follow my instincts. I would come to the aid of an officer if I believed it would help. The first rule in all emergency response is to evaulate the situation, protect yourself, and don't make yourself part of the problem.

I do not recommend wearing a CCW permit visibly unless it was required by law.

 

[NavyLCDR]

A CCW permit is not a badge. It doesn't mean that you are not breaking the law, intend to break the law, or you're a good guy. I wear no "badges" unless it is necessary as part of my work.

Respectfully, a CCW permit indicates just as much that the person "is not breaking the law, intends to break the law, or is a good guy" as a badge does, regardless of what governmental organization issued it.

I would venture to say that the percentage of criminals with CCW permits is about the same as the percentage of criminals with government issued badges.

 

[CSA 357]

Well you could just get a t shirt made (im carring a gun and have a permit) myself i would just rather no one know im packing, it would be a shoot me first sign wouldnt it?

 

[Redlg155]

I think the real focus of having your permit visible AFTER the shooting is your actions and mindset. Do you holster your weapon? Place your weapon on the ground? The most likely situation would be that you remain at low ready until the police show up.

From this point you have three likely possibilities.
a. Uniformed officers arrive.
b. Plainclothes/ off duty officers arrive.
c. A concealed carry permit holder has observed some or all of the incident. Depending on the situation and his time of arrival, you may be viewed as an aggressor.

At this point a displayed permit may help..or it may not.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Redlg155: Easier identification of the "good" guy could keep you from having to eat a dirt sandwich while things get sorted out.

A valid CCW permit indicates (1) that the holder was a "good guy" when the permit was issued, and (2) that the holder was not violated any laws against carrying a firearm without a permit. That's all it does.

From a legal standpoint, fact that a person had been issued a concealed carry permit does not in any way identify him or her as "the good guy" in an incident involving the use of force.

Nor does the display of a permit verify that the person carrying it had been issued a lawful permit.

 

[WinThePennant]

From a legal standpoint, fact that a person had been issued a concealed carry permit does not in any way identify him or her as "the good guy" in an incident involving the use of force.

You can say this about anyone, right? If you want to paint with a broad brush, then you might as well include LEOs, too. A badge doesn't identify someone as a "good guy," either.

This is a "good guy?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZW0gGKKYMg

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WinThePennant: You can say this [("from a legal standpoint, fact that a person had been issued a concealed carry permit does not in any way identify him or her as "the good guy" in an incident involving the use of force")] about anyone, right? If you want to paint with a broad brush, then you might as well include LEOs, too. A badge doesn't identify someone as a "good guy," either.

In the context of the issue at hand, which has to do with people at the scene of a use of force incident when first responders arrive, a badge and uniform most certainly do identify the wearer to other arriving law enforcement officers as one "the good guys". The issue does not pertain to the character of the individual, but to whether there is a potential reason to be concerned about an immediate risk to the safety of arriving officers. Anyone but a uniformed officer will be regarded as a potential threat, if not as a potential suspect.

 

[WinThePennant]

In the context of the issue at hand, which has to do with people at the scene of a use of force incident when first responders arrive, a badge and uniform most certainly do identify the wearer to other arriving law enforcement officers as one "the good guys".

Oh, does it really?

Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

 

[dogtown tom]

WinThePennant

Quote:
In the context of the issue at hand, which has to do with people at the scene of a use of force incident when first responders arrive, a badge and uniform most certainly do identify the wearer to other arriving law enforcement officers as one "the good guys".

Oh, does it really?

Yes, it really does.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Oh, does it really?

Of course it does, to the other cops. Or to put it in terms you won't quibble with, the badge and uniform serve as a bright neon "US" sign, as opposed to the "THEM" sign that you'll be wearing.

 

[WinThePennant]

Off topic, irrelevant, argumentative.

Back on point: when police officers first arrive at the scene of a use of force incident, they will recognize officers wearing the uniform of their department as fellow officers with the same mission who do not represent a potential danger.

Anyone else present represents a potential threat or possible suspect.

This is particularly critical should one of the persons present at the crime scene be holding a firearm. Even off-duty officers who have arrived first have been shot and killed because they were not immediately identifiable as sworn officers and because their weapons indicated a potentially highly dangerous threat to safety of the arriving officers.

The subject of the CCW badge has been discussed here at length on numerous occasions. The neck ID holder has little to distinguish itself.

I don't think my comment was off-topic, or argumentative. I'm pointing out examples where a particular police officer is certainly not a "good guy." I wouldn't want to be within 100 miles of said officer.

And, I think any cop who shoots someone just because they have a gun has possibly committed murder. Just shooting someone because they have a gun without figuring out the context of why they have the gun is just nuts.

 

[dogtown tom]

WinThePennant @gym - That's my point. The notion that all cops are "good guys" and everyone else is a potential "bad guy" is pure mental poison.

You are taking "good guy", "bad guy" completely out of context.
I'll simplify it for you:

A shooting has occured, involving a CHL holder. The CHL holder has gun in hand, covering a wounded subject.

The officers arriving on scene are considered "good guys" as they are acting under the authority of law. Whether they go on to molest goats or steal doughnuts from the blind is not germane to the situation.

Officers who arrive on scene first will consider EVERYONE as a potential "bad guy"....and wisely so. "Bad guy" meaning the one engaged in the criminal act.

The officers will be following lawful procedure by demanding the armed subject (CHL holder) drop his firearm and lie prone in the dirt. They will probably handcuff him as well. They do not care if you have a CHL....only that they gain control of the scene.

"Mental poison"? Please.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WinThePennant: I don't think my comment was off-topic, or argumentative. I'm pointing out examples where a particular police officer is certainly not a "good guy." I wouldn't want to be within 100 miles of said officer.

We'll address this here rather than by PM: I characterized the post as off topic and irrelevant because the question at hand, and the meaning of good guy" in that context, were whether the uniform would identify the wearer to arriving first responders as someone who was not a threat to their safety. It had absolutely nothing to do with whether there are bad cops.

..and as argumentative, because the issue had already been discussed.

And, I think any cop who shoots someone just because they have a gun has possibly committed murder. Just shooting someone because they have a gun without figuring out the context of why they have the gun is just nuts.

Let's look at this realistically: when an officer arrives at a scene of a shooting and encounters a person holding a gun, he will most likely to have sufficient reason to believe that he or she and others are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from someone who has the ability and the opportunity to cause same, and that he or she is in jeopardy, unless it is possible to immediately realize something else. That imminent danger obviates any possibility of safely "figuring out the context of why they have the gun" before shooting. Barring evidence to the contrary, the shooting would be justified under the law.

The same thing applies when a civilian acting lawfully is confronted by someone other than a uniformed officer holding a firearm immediately after a shooting incident.

The original poster suggested the use of a neck ID holder to reduce that risk; however, as has been explained by others, such an ID could be prepared by anyone, and even if it were valid, the fact that one has been issued a CCW permit does not indicate that one does not present an imminent danger in such a circumstance.

The OP referred to arriving police officers. This has been discussed at length in threads about CCW "badges" and in threads about the wisdom of intervening to defend a third party.

The lawful defender, or a plain-clothes sworn officer for that matter, risks being treated as a potential danger by arriving officers, as the OP recognized. Moreover, there is the distinct possibility that anyone other than a uniformed officer who has just shot someone and who is still holding a firearm may be seen by a civilian as one who is engaging in a forcible felony, and may be shot. That was not considered by the OP in his or her post, but it is something to take into account before choosing to intervene when one does not know all of the circumstances that led to the incident. The person who intervenes may shoot a person who had in fact been engaged in a lawful act of self defense. That person may also find himself or herself shot by arriving officers.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Under the best circumstances it usually takes the police several minutes to arrive at any crime scene. By then the shooting is probably over. It only takes a few seconds to reholster your weapon or to put it out of sight.