First SD Use In Public

[royal barnes]

As a retired LEO I don't believe I would have handled the situation quite as the OP described. I see no problem with "down on knees with hands behind head" while awaiting backup. If I had a person in that position I knew my physical capabilities and expertise with my firearm. The foot to the back may, or not, have been excessive. The ranting was probably over the top but we have only the OP's description of what happened. Unfortunately the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle and is just as real to each side.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm not tying to argue here. I don't like the idea of being put on the ground, either. I'm just trying to think it through, and it seems to me that mljdeckard is simply being realistic.

1. The boot in the back thing was over the top. Was the person in question resisting? If not, what was the point? If he WAS resisting, why wasn't he ARRESTED for "resisting"?
2. The "lecture" was totally out of bounds. I'm no more interested in the LEO's PERSONAL opinions than he is in mine. Doling them out at gunpoint, ESPECIALLY after it's been determined that the person in question had committed no crime is impermissible. Besides, in the OVERWHELMING majority of cases I've seen where police have felt compelled to "lecture" law abiding citizens, they were factually WRONG anyway, as in the case of the petulant child who tried to tell me that an inadvertent exposure was "inducing panic" in an open carry state, where the elements of that crime weren't within a million miles of being met.

 

[Old krow]

I'm interested in the views of our LEO members, but anyone's comment is welcome.

I'm not sure if the answer that I previously gave you was to a sarcastic/rhetorical question or not, but, I answered it just the same.

I would however like to clarify it to some extent. I wouldn't fault the LEOs for treating me as a threat. They responded to a threat, I have a gun. It really doesn't get anymore clear than that. I expect them to act with extreme caution until they are sure that the threat is neutralized.

I personally do not carry a gun to make life easier, I do it to ensure its existence. In the OP's case, he was threatened and he is still alive to have this discussion. It's clear that the objective was met. Everything after that is bruised egos (or inflated) and is secondary to the safety of myself and/or family.

I personally do not view the LEOs "lectures" as appropriate, however, they are sort of speculative. And even then, the criticism comes after the fact. The facts are; the OP is alive, they caught the bad guy, and the OP has his gun back, isn't in jail, and did not have to use it to defend himself. I'd call that a win.

 

[kayak-man]

MikeNice: I think you did pretty good. You kept your head during the situation, and your situational awareness let you know something was up before it happened.

I do have one question about interacting with LEO's in that kind of enviroment, and if this is considered copbashing/off topic, I will delete/move it apropriately:

If your in that kind of situation where you are being held at gunpoint by an LEO, you comply when they tell you to get on your knees. OK, that works for me. My problem is that about 4 months ago, if they had asked me to put my hands on my head, I would not have been able to - I was recovering from shoulder surgery and did not have that range of motion. So how do you tell a LEO that you just can't put your hand on your head, or that if they try to move your hands from your head to behind your back, as if to cuff you, that it will tear the tendons in your shoulder, and cause permanent damage?

My concern is that they may see this as a "Ploy" so that I could resist later. I have no desire to disobey a comand from a LEO, but I also have no desire to go through the whole 2 months in a sling thing either. IF they are yelling at you to be quiet, how are you suposed to comunicate this information. Is there a specific time during the arrest where it would be resonable to try to comunicate it?

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

 

[th1229]

Thanks for the post. The instructor (a retired LEO) at my HCP class told us to give our description and exact location to the 911 operator and keep them on the phone until the police arrive. He said to make sure to tell the operator to inform the responding LEO that we were the victim not the perp in the incident. He also said to tell the office "I'm the one who called about the attempted robbery." He told us that the more info we give the operator will assist the officer in making an informrd decision and avoid overreaction.

 

[MikeNice]

I think you should have stayed on the phone with the 911 operator until the police arrived. That may have made it more clear that you were a good guy, not a bad guy.

I explained my situation to the operator and told her that the guy had fled. She took my description and his description and told me that an officer would be there shortly. She terminated the interaction.

For everybody asking where it happened, it was in one of the Research Triangle counties.

 

[KingContraryMan]

A LEO can be safe while securing the scene without being a 1st class jerk.

Glad you're okay, Mike.

 

[xXxplosive]

Most policemen IMO, are not high on the intellegent quotient to begin with. Actually the complete opposite or they'd have better paying jobs.....that being said, you can expect to be treated like a criminal any time you need to draw to protect your life or your family members.

Just go through the proper steps as needed to cooperate without incriminating yourself.....seems you did OK.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Mike,

You need to file an complaint against the cop that did all the BS stuff to you.

Do it. Let it be on HIS record.

Deaf

 

[ObsidianOne]

Now that certainly does sound rather harsh, but realistically, what else would one expect under many circumstances? Someone has shot someone, and witnesses whose attention was drawn to the incident only by the sound of the shot point that out. Wouldn't the facts then known indicate a high risk to the officers and to public safety? Can the officers reasonably ignore that risk?

I live in a large metropolitan area, and the adjacent city has the highest violent crime rate in the country. We are in a must issue state. Self defense shootings are in the news with greater frequency than ever before--but almost all of them seem to have occurred in homes or in businesses.

The number of outdoor self defense shootings that have been in the news in the last two years can be counted on the fingers of one hand with enough digits left over for texting, but the number of unjustified homicides approaches 500 per year.

From that, it would seem to me that the likelihood that a person who has shot someone is a violent criminal actor is hundreds of times higher than the likelihood that he happens to be a "good guy".

So, isn't it just prudent for the officers to immediately make sure that a shooter does not present an serious threat before doing anything else?

Is there a safe way to do that that does not involve putting the cuffs on him? Is there a safe way to put the cuffs on a violent criminal that does not involve putting him on the ground?

Has any of that changed much in recent years?

We had a shooting incident yesterday in which someone fired a gun in a cell phone store. When the manager presented his weapon, the perp fled. As he ran down the street, he was encountered by a police officer who had no idea of what had transpired--he just saw a man holding a gun near a car.

The only reason that the officer did not shoot is because he could not get a clear shot, but he did manage to disarm the perp and put him on the ground.

I'm not tying to argue here. I don't like the idea of being put on the ground, either. I'm just trying to think it through, and it seems to me that mljdeckard is simply being realistic.

I'm interested in the views of our LEO members, but anyone's comment is welcome.

By the way, I'm not entirely sure that MikeNice's encounter involved the same clear and present danger as a shooting or a man with gun in hand, particularly because he had holstered the gun before the police arrived, but I suggest that we do not know enough about what happened behind the scenes and with the 911 operator to comment.

Unjustified homicides? How hard of a bracket is that to fill? Those could have been self defense shootings that were ruled incorrectly.
Going by that same logic, you're going to fall face-down into the ignorance that is the anti-gun movement!
"Hmm, it seems to be the when a gun is fired, someone dies or is mortally injured! Guns seem to be the problem, as they are involved in this statistic more than homicides using cat food as a weapon. BAN GUNS!".

You can't make the assumption because someone has shot someone they are the criminal.
Not to say that caution should not be taken, but if you think he's the BG, why not be the judge, jury, and executioner, put the guy to death and be a one man firing squad? It's just irrational and wrong.

Absolutely, it is important to secure him and make sure he is not a threat, but I'm telling you that, contrary to popular belief, one does not need to be on their hands and knees or their face mashed into the ground to be cuffed.
There are many techniques that are not difficult by any means, once hands are on their head that you can take leverage (even by using the suspect's one hand and their thumb) and secure them in a proper manner.
LEOs arrest people standing up all the time, and my company does things the same way (private security company).
Notice the ones that they cuff on the ground are the ones that were previously running and failed to evade them?

The cop was going to just up and shoot the guy without warning or confrontation?!
IAD would have a field day with that.

I agree, and like one other stated, we are getting one end of the story, and the truth lies in the middle.

 

[withdrawn34]

This also wasn't a shooting. It was one of the many "no shots fired" cases of armed self-defense that happen in this country.

OP, I'm glad you prevailed in this encounter and had no charges filed against you. I think you did just fine. Of course, there are always things we could've done differently, but I don't see that you did anything "wrong" here. You prevailed in the fight. You got a second chance. Don't take life for granted.

 

[One-Time]

sadly cops often act this way, they are brainwashed into thinking gun=bad always, and as usual first one to call 911 wins

You did fine, sadly the cops didnt.

 

[Kleanbore]

Unjustified homicides? How hard of a bracket is that to fill? Those could have been self defense shootings that were ruled incorrectly.

I am not referring at all to trial outcomes. I refer to drive by shootings, people opening up on people sitting in their cars or on their porches, armed robberies gone bad, drivers shot while on the highway, you name it.

Now, I do not know what it took to get an event listed among the over 450 murders recorded downtown last year, but I seriously doubt that very many of them really involved self defense shootings that were ruled incorrectly.

 

[Cop Bob]

First of all Mike, You did EVERYTHING RIGHT... could you have done them differently... by now you have replayed this incident 1000 times+ in your head.
You know the answer to that, yes.. but what YOU DID was RIGHT... Good Job..

Now as to the Cop Bashing.. Officer #1, dead on right in is actions, Officer #2, it is what gives us a bad name. Was he justified... aahh.... Borderline... Could he, should he have done it differently, OF COURSE HE SHOULD HAVE...

Responses to armed threat calls are damned dangerous, and often times the biggest threat there is the responding officer because of the lack of accurate information..

In my own department there have been at least three undercover officers shot and killed by responding uniforms because of faulty or inadequate information to them... It sounds like the only story they got was from freaked out bystander that ONLY saw YOU with a gun... Not a robbery..

Now the threats of filing charges, all the Bravado.. maybe he realized that he was a bit "Over the Top" in his initial physical response upon arrival and was trying to cover his tracks in his mind.. Who knows, I wasn't him, I have NO IDEA what he was thinking..... From your side he didn't sound too good. From his side... who knows...In this particular case, that would be a tough sell, as #1 already had physical control over you from a safe vantage point and you were being compliant..

I would trust that he is not the most popular guy on the shift.. Believe me when I say that we as officers don't like it either..

Going over your statement, You stated more that once about going into what we refer to a "Slow Time"... This is your minds response to your body moving at less than 1/2 the speed you mind is telling it too... Been there, done that, got the t-shirt... It is a normal mental response to a REAL and IMMINENT threat.. the fact that you mention this tells me that it was a real deal...

As far as the advise to not go near the dropped knife... WRONG... GET TO IT.... Position yourself over it... do not let ANYONE TOUCH IT except the Police... it is evidence of the crime committed against you... and you would not believe how much evidence left unguarded that has been picked up and disappeared from crime scenes..

You did good, I, and all here I am sure, are glad that you are alright...

As far as your communications with the Dispatcher, you gave them the right info.... but it may not have made it on the air to the officers... When arriving on hi threat scenes, radio traffic is kept to a minimum, so that responding officers can communicate with each other, or advise of the situation... Or maybe, most likely, the call taker you spoke with didn't pass the info along to the mike, or the mike realized it was a duplicate slip and didn't look at all the info.... Who Knows, wasn't there.. Dispatch in a large to moderate size department can be a fast moving and crazy place, county 911 call centers included. A LOT of information gets lost in the shuffle...

I'm Glad Your OK... You did fine... that is the important thing...

BTW... Did they file on TURDLY????

 

[Cop Bob]

Most policemen IMO, are not high on the intellegent quotient to begin with. Actually the complete opposite or they'd have better paying jobs.....that being said, you can expect to be treated like a criminal any time you need to draw to protect your life or your family members.

Just go through the proper steps as needed to cooperate without incriminating yourself.....seems you did OK.

I can't speak for New Jersey, but down here we raise em up to be pretty sharp...

We have about 45 officers with PhD's, over 300 with Masters, and 1400 or so with Bachelors Degrees... you have to have an associate to apply... Our Academy and Field training Program is 18 months.

Our Bomb Squad, Dive Team, and Swat Team train other agencies from all over the country, including the feds and SS...

While the money is not the best.. It beats most... That is why we for the over 30 years that I have been associated, in good times with a great economy are turning away 1700 to 2000 applicants per Cadet Class..

Some of the very best and brightest I have EVER known wear that uniform... It is always some jerk, like officer # 2 in this thread that ruins it.. For every officer, nationwide..

If the Bernie Getz incident had happened in Texas, We would have bought him lunch... In New York, they give him 10 years... It is all a matter of local perspective, laws and customs...

Live Free.... Live in Texas (or most places out west..until you get to that crazy place with the actors and stuff_

 

[rhodco]

I'm reminded of that scene in "The Fugitive" when Tommy Lee Jones is chasing Harrison Ford through the crowded Court House building. When Ford passes a group of officers standing around he says "Officer, there's a man waving a gun around and yelling something.." Just then, Jones comes around the corner yelling "Stop that man!" and all the officers jump on Jones.

Why? Because it is human nature to believe the first thing you are told quickly, and hesitate to evaluate contrary evidence that changes your initial conclusion. The point is… don’t expect the arriving officer to respond according to what actually happened, but according to the input he received before he got there.

What happened to you is similar to what happened to me in Georgia. Fortunately, it turned out OK for both of us, but it shatters your faith to some extent. Just because you know you are the good guy doesn’t mean the cops will believe you. What you say matters much less than what you can prove. Neither you nor I had any injuries to show that could prove we were attacked. In your case, the attacker had fled. My attacker remained on the scene and told officers that I was the aggressor and brandished my gun at him. Neither of us had any proof to show that would support our stories.

Can you imagine what would have happened if your attacker had lingered behind some cars, came running up after you were in handcuffs, and told the officers “Thank God you are here! That man with a gun and a knife tried to rob me”. What could you do? Without witnesses to support you (and none stayed around in my case) it would be your word against his. And, the only independent witness is the one that called 911 reporting you “waving a gun”. You, the victim, might very well have been charged and arrested until the knife could be tested for prints.

Those of us that carry guns are stereotyped and vilified in modern culture today. We are often assumed to be the guilty party in any altercation because “normal people” don’t carry guns around. You and I now know that sickening feeling of not being believed when telling the truth to police. It hurts on a personal level to know that your future now depends upon finding some saving evidence or testimony that will support you.

In my opinion, you were justified in shooting him as soon as your pistol cleared leather. He had a deadly weapon in hand, and was in close enough proximity to kill you with it. His body on the ground with knife in hand would have been more than enough evidence to prove justification on the spot. And, with no one else to contradict your story, it would have been difficult for anyone to misconstrue the facts of what happened.

It may sound cold to some, but hesitation could have killed you. I don’t think I would have given him the option of just walking away once I had my sights on him. Instead of him “freezing” there, he could have decided to lunge forward with a fatal stab… even after being shot. Obviously, I wasn’t there and don’t know how close he was. I’m just imagining myself in a similar position.

I understand now why an old retired State Trooper once told me that “if you pull your gun on someone, you had better use it”. I think this scenario is what he was talking about. If we are not justified in shooting, then the circumstances didn’t justify drawing it yet.

You were merciful to let him retreat with his life. I’m glad it didn’t cost you yours.

 

[Grey Morel]

Considering police deaths in the line of duty spiked 40% in 2010 and continue on an upward trend, I completely understand that they are a little more jumpy these days.

Call me old fashioned, but you catch more flies with honey.

If they keep acting like thugs, public perception will continue to sour - Wait and see how high that percentage rises when the majority of the populace hates them.

Cops can keep kicking people with their jack-boots... but it would be wiser to learn a lesson from South Africa: if you continue to commit injustice, eventually that badge on their chests will turn into a bullseye.

 

[One-Time]

AFA the danger level of police work, they are like number 10 on the list, Convenience store clerks have a more dangerous job...Officer Safety only goes so far, you cant taze everyone you meet for safety, or kick them to the ground etc

AFA intelligence, well no matter how smart they are all indoctrinated victims of the liberal schools and especially colleges, so they almost always have stateist leanings then add in the 'power of the badge' and its a recipe for issues

 

[walking arsenal]

I'm with Grey Morel.

Up here hardly anyone trusts the cops. They go around with shaved heads, tactical sunglasses and leather gloves on and then tell us they're our friends.

Right. They sure look like it. Intimidation only keeps order so far.

 

[MikeNice]

Rhodco, I wasn't mercifull because I wanted to be. I was lucky that the cart and about nine or ten feet of space were between us. I believe he would have moved the cart if I hadn't pulled the gun.

I hesitated. If I had pulled the gun faster it might have ended very differently. If he hadn't become submissive. . . who knows how it would have ended?

If he had pushed the cart aside and advanced, I would have been screwed. I had put my back against a car because I hesitated and back pedalled. Could I have shot accurately while moving laterally? Could I have moved fast enough to avoid him slicing me up before I landed a stopping shot? Who will ever know the answers? Hopefully I will never have to ask them a second time.

He stopped attacking though. So, legally, I might have been in deep trouble if I had shot.

*****

I called the officer that took my statement afterwards. I asked if there would be a need to come to court. He said he didn't think so. The guy is being charged with a couple of attempted crimes for his actions (and the cars.) He said most likely the guy will plead to a probabtion violation and spend the next eight monthes in jail. The rest will probably just disappear.

 

[quatin]

I called the officer that took my statement afterwards. I asked if there would be a need to come to court. He said he didn't think so. The guy is being charged with a couple of attempted crimes for his actions (and the cars.) He said most likely the guy will plead to a probabtion violation and spend the next eight monthes in jail. The rest will probably just disappear.

Really? 8 months? Is that what the priority of armed robbery is now a days?

 

[xXxplosive]

According to the OP.....the advent of facing a muzzle of a pistol didn't disuade him from continuing his his evil ways on others untill caught later ......

 

[robert garner]

I can't speak for New Jersey, but down here we raise em up to be pretty sharp...

 

[rhodco]

"...He stopped attacking though. So, legally, I might have been in deep trouble if I had shot...."

Not necessarily. There's a fine line there. If your attacker only paused before moving towards a better tactical position, he has not withdrawn from combat. He is only looking for another angle of attack. What if he had lowered his weapon and backed away... then circled around to try and come up on you again? Then, he never really broke off the attack did he? Same as if a gunman is running away. Can you shoot him in the back? It depends. If he is simply running for cover in order to resume combat from a better position, yes... shoot him in the back. It may be the only chance you get.

If he has surrendered or fled, then you can't shoot. He is no longer an immediate threat if he has broken off the attack. Like I said, it's a fine line. Hard to tell sometimes. How far away does an attacker have to move in order to remove your justification to shoot? Tough decision to make.

It can be very hard to prove afterwards whether the attacker intended to break off his attack or not. Like I said before, all that matters is what the evidence shows. If the body is found near you with weapon in hand, your story would be the only version of what happened. No one could prove whether the attacker had changed his mind or not.

 

[robert garner]

Cop Bob

"I can't speak for New Jersey, but down here we raise em up to be pretty sharp..." Thanks; I needed to know there were in fact Officers like you still around.
robert