Responsibility and the Armed Citizen

[Kleanbore]

Armed citizens share with all others the responsibility to act responsibly and to avoid harming others except when doing so is unavoidably necessary and just.

That thought was well expressed in the last post on ST&T by the late HSO, in one of seemingly never-ending discussions about whether training should be mandatory:

"RKBA is a right, but the exercise of that right comes with responsibilities like training to understand the difference between TV/Movies/Games and the responsible right to carry in society. As a minimum you should know what is and isn't safe and responsible and what is and isn't permitted for when and where you may carry in your jurisdiction.​

​

"Skill in use of the firearm is up to you (i.e. range time)."​

​

Notice that he did not mention the word "training" at all. Knowing what is permitted and what is not starts with education. That deadly force, and/or the threat thereof, is permissible only when it is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious injury is not a kind of catechism to be memorized. It is just the simplest way of expressing that we may not use our firearm because of what someone has done or might do; to prevent someone from departing; to protect personal property; to scare off someone; to terminate trespass, and so on.

We really should encourage every citizen to make these things known to themselves; we should all do everything we can to facilitate their doing so; and we should discourage the irresponsible dissemination of faulty information in literature and in the entertainment media.

[Edited to reflect comments from @Scrapiron45]

​

​

​

​

 

[Scrapiron45]

Ok, I'll bite.
How does one "demand" citizens educate themselves in order to qualify for a constitutional right? Note that I don't totally disagree with the idea, just curious what the plan is.

 

[nettlle]

I was lucky to attend my CCW course taught by a well known and respected instructor. He didn't teach me how to handle a gun. I had been shooting for 50+ years at that time. He taught me what to do in different confrontational situations. These were things that I would not have known had he not "educated me".

 

[Craig_AR]

How does one "demand" citizens educate themselves i

Totally inappropriate to foist this off onto exxisting adults. However, how about building for the future by making basic firearms familiarization and safety and Second Amendment law (summary) a required topic for graduation in every public and private high school in 11th or 12 grade, and as a freshman year required class for all public institutions of higher learning for students whose HS record does not show the class. No need to make live fire part of the requirement, but couid offer marksmanship as an optional follow-on.

 

[jmorris]

That deadly force, and/or the threat thereof, is permissible only when it is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious injury is not a kind of catechism to be memorized. It is just the simplest way of expressing that we may not use our firearm because of what someone has done or might do; to prevent someone from departing; to protect personal property; to scare off someone; to terminate trespass, and so on.

The simplest way I have ever seen it in print is, "kill or be killed." Self preservation is an instinct in humans and animals.

Fight or flight is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived threat. How two people perceive something is another matter.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ok, I'll bite.
How does one "demand" citizens educate themselves in order to qualify for a constitutional right? Note that I don't totally disagree with the idea, just curious what the plan is.

Excellent question! We really can't.

We already expect people to know the things. Ignorance of the law is no defense, and when people violate the law through ignorance, they can suffer the consequences.

If that violation rises to the level of a silent felony, such as aggravated assault or manslaughter or worse, those consequences can include anything from great expense to loss of a clean record, loss of rights, fines, and imprisonment.

The problem, In my view, is that we have not only made the relevant knowledge of such things less than obvious to most citizens, we have actually made many citizens believe things that are not true.

One way we do that is through screen fiction. In real life, if a couple of people suddenly entered the office of a law enforcement officer, out-drew the officer, and explained that he was "on the side of the law" he would face very serious charges. But in Lone Ranger re-reruns, the sheriff shakes hands, and the Masked Man is immediately forgiven.

That, of course, is a ridiculous example. But late last year, a licensed watchman leaving his house for work saw a man fiddling with a parked car and fired, killing the subject. He is facing a first degree murder charge. Recently, a local citizen whose car had been stolen saw the car and ordered the people in it to get out. She ended up shooting, and one of the fatalities was an innocent bystander. The victims may not have even known that the car had been stolen. The shooter was convicted of murder in the first degree.

In screen fiction, we see the fictional private detective Mannix running along after someone with a revolver in his hand. That would be unlawful anywhere, in almost any circumstance, but the screen writers would lead us to believe differently. That is not good.

In Missouri, a law abiding adult may carry a concealed firearm without a permit. That's good. When a friend of mine started carrying, a permit was required, and that involved some classroom coverage of self defense law. But he was shocked--really shocked--when he was told that he could not lawfully strike a man with a shovel if the man had been vandalizing his neighbor's truck.

Perhaps he thought that the classroom discussion pertained only to the Smith and Wesson J-Frame revolver that he carries. Nope! When used to strike or to threaten a person, a shovel is a deadly weapon, and so are a multi-tool, a crowbar, a screw-driver, and a nine-iron--plus knives, of course. That Constitutional Right can apply to keeping and bearing them, too.

Upon reflection, I think that the word "demand" is inappropriate, if only because it is unenforceable. Perhaps "strongly encourage" is a better term.
I'll edit the OP. Thanks!

So, what can be done? Perhaps we should make readily available compact cards listing briefly the salient points of use of force law, as we do for driving under the influence, preventing forest fires, and texting while driving. And the entertainment industry might exercise some restraint and respnisble adult leadership.

I like to watch re-runs of Blue Bloods. Yesterday, I listened to very lengthy and emotional dinner table discussions about the criminal culpability of a young man who had. quite understandably, shot and killed someone who had broken into his apartment and attacked his family. It was every bit as explanatory educational as a blog post by Attorney Andrew Branca.

We could stand to see a lot more of that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Totally inappropriate to foist this off onto exxisting adults. However, how about building for the future by making basic firearms familiarization and safety and Second Amendment law (summary) a required topic for graduation in every public and private high school in 11th or 12 grade, and as a freshman year required class for all public institutions of higher learning for students whose HS record does not show the class. No need to make live fire part of the requirement, but couid offer marksmanship as an optional follow-on.

Different subject(s) entirely.

 

[Kleanbore]

The simplest way I have ever seen it in print is, "kill or be killed." Self preservation is an instinct in humans and animals.

NO!!!

The defender's lawful objective is not to kill.

Such sentiment exacerbates the problem.

 

[jmorris]

No, the lawful objective is to not be killed, the limit of their ability to stay within the law at that point would be death or end of threat.

If you could run away, it wouldn't be "killed or be killed", it would be "killed or run away or be killed" or you could add in any number of other options. Once you are out of all the other options though, the amount of force one can use goes up to stoping the threat. Its not "kill or something other than your death occurs", the justification for actions do not exist if the threat doesn't.

Once the threat to your living doesn't exist, your actions within the law become much more limited again too.

 

[Kleanbore]

That's better.

 

[jmorris]

It's the same thing.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's the same thing.

Far from it!

 

[tubeshooter]

To be fair... you can't blame screen fiction for misinformation any more than you can expect it to educate with information

It is, after all... fiction.


And most people outside of Hollywood had nothing to do with screen fiction one way or the other. I know I didn't. So to lay a lot of this at screen fiction's feet seems a bit much, IMO.

 

[Kleanbore]

To be fair... you can't blame screen fiction for misinformation any more than you can expect it to educate with information

I disagree.

And most people outside of Hollywood had nothing to do with screen fiction one way or the other. I know I didn't.

I'm speaking of the creators, not the consumers.

So to lay a lot of this at screen fiction's feet seems a bit much, IMO.

I respectfully suggest that when a citizen shouts "get on the ground", he is most unlikely to have come up with that on his own.

 

[tubeshooter]

Screen fiction might be a factor to a degree. But I don't think it's the main problem it is being presented as here.

Part of being a responsible armed citizen involves not getting your M.O. from Hollywood. And maybe LEARNING THE LAWS OF DEADLY FORCE in your state.

I don't think most reasonable people believe they can drive 100+ mph without repercussions just from watching Fast and Furious movies.


Spaghetti Westerns aren't why people are getting shot left and right for dubious rationale. And they've been around for awhile. But you're free to disagree of course. It's a complex issue.

 

[scaatylobo]

Any one that actually does CCW [ please dont go to open carry ,PLEASE ] and has not read and grasped their state laws as to the use of deadly force,is in my NOT so humble opinion a boob.
And thats me being polite.
Before becoming a LEO, I worked as an armored courier , that required me to draw my weapon about 20 to 50 times a day in a few citys.
SO, not being the dumbest one on my job,I bought [ yes with my own money ] a copy of the NYS Penal Law.
I read the section 35:00 till I have it almost memorized,helped in the academy too.
If you dont have even a laypersons understanding of your laws pertaining to deadly force AND its many variants [ blunt tool,sharp tools,bows & arrows ,etc ] then you are putting you and your family in harms way from lawsuits and just "social media" judgement.
And it took me many years to fully grasp the fact = the ONLY fight you win is the one you did not have.

 

[Kleanbore]

Any one that actually does CCW [ please dont go to open carry ,PLEASE ] and has not read and grasped their state laws as to the use of deadly force,is in my NOT so humble opinion a boob.
And thats me being polite.

I agree wholeheartedly.

"... and grasped" is key. One can read and memorize the words about immediate necessity, imminence, and reasonableness, and study about Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion, and one should. However, cases we have discussed here tell us that some people do not always seem to realize that the conditions that can justify the initial use of deadly force can change instantly, and that continued shooting is no longer justified. It may take explanation, perhaps by way of example.

Those of us who have watched old TV Westerns have seen many scenes of townspeople shooting at bank robbers riding away from the bank they have just robbed. That was justified, long ago--a felon who escaped was as good as gone. But things like radio cars led to the elimination of the Fleeing Felon Rule at Common Law. We no longer shoot at fleeing felons, except under very rare circumstances involving immediate public safety..

In the Blue Bloods episode that I mentioned,, the young undocumented immigrant who ran after the attackers with his father's gun did not do so because of anything he had seen on television. He did it because of anger, and fr revenge.

I think that's understandable, and that many victims may be very strongly tempted to react the same way. Unfortunately for him, it led to charges. In my opinion, the extensive debate between the DA and the detectives, and the long discussions about the case at the dinner table, may have served to educate some viewers about the lawful use of deadly force.

We could use more of that.

In an earlier episode, a detective went over the four rules of firearm safety with his young son.

If you dont have even a laypersons understanding of your laws pertaining to deadly force AND its many variants [ blunt tool,sharp tools,bows & arrows ,etc ] then you are putting you and your family in harms way from lawsuits and just "social media" judgement.

I couldn't agree more!

In the example I cited regarding my friend and the shovel, he apparently distinguished, perhaps subconsciously but in any event wrongly, between blunt instruments and firearms. Why? Dunno. Perhaps his having taken the permit course while listening to gunfire in an adjacent shooing range colored his thinking.

the ONLY fight you win is the one you did not have.

Yep!!!

 

[Jeff White]

We can’t look to Hollywood to educate anyone. They are in the entertainment business and few people would watch if they portrayed the use of deadly force realistically.

We can all point to incidents where LE and private citizens have acted the way characters in fictional portrayals have acted. They did this because they failed to educate themselves. I am particularly baffled by the number of LE officers who are doing what they learned on TV and not what they were trained to do. Many police departments are producing critical incident briefings for the public where they take all the available video and audio from body cams, dash and in car cams and security video from the area where the incident occurred. Watching some of those videos has been a real eye opener. In the last couple of weeks I’ve watched an LAPD officer fire several rounds through his windshield at a suspect 200 yards away after a “shots fired“ call came over the radio, The suspect turned out to have been armed with a cigarette lighter that looked like a Luger pistol. I also watched an officer from an Indianapolis suburb return fire during a high speed car chase firing his AR out the window while steering with his knees. If police officers who receive a lot of formal training on the law, department policy and use of force, up to and including deadly force are taking actions like this, it not surprising that we are seeing more and more incidents of illegal and inappropriate use of deadly force from legally armed citizens.

There is no doubt that something has changed in our society since 2020: I haven’t seen the stats but anecdotally it seems that officer involved shootings and private citizens use of deadly force are way up. No one really tracks use of deadly force by private citizens so we are left with news reports to draw conclusions from.

It seems that there is a general propensity towards violence and gun play now. Rolling gunfights in the streets and highways in our cities are common place now. Road rage shootings and shootings over perceived insults in some communities are much more common than they used to be.

Something has changed in society and I don’t believe more education and training is the answer. The examples being set by police officers from large departments with many more training requirements than small departments who may only get the mandated minimum training do to budgetary concerns and even those small departments have more training then the average armed citizen gets in a mandated CCW course or those who walk about armed in constitutional carry states.

I don’t believe we can chalk up this impression to the increased availability of information. Something in society has changed. How to change it back is beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[jeepnik]

If it is suggested that training is required to exercise a right, then would it also be necessary to exercise the other rights? Perhaps we should train people as to what opinions are acceptable. Slippery slope when "training" is required to exercise a civil right.

Not to mention that solely among the Bill of Rights, the 2nd is the only one that says that the right shall not be infringed. Any requirement to exercise or prevent the exercising of that right is the very embodiment of infringement.

 

[Kleanbore]

If it is suggested that training is required to exercise a right,

Where did that come from? Did you read HSO's comments?

 

[Smokin Gator]

Any one that actually does CCW [ please dont go to open carry ,PLEASE ] and has not read and grasped their state laws as to the use of deadly force,is in my NOT so humble opinion a boob.
And thats me being polite.
Before becoming a LEO, I worked as an armored courier , that required me to draw my weapon about 20 to 50 times a day in a few citys.
SO, not being the dumbest one on my job,I bought [ yes with my own money ] a copy of the NYS Penal Law.
I read the section 35:00 till I have it almost memorized,helped in the academy too.
If you dont have even a laypersons understanding of your laws pertaining to deadly force AND its many variants [ blunt tool,sharp tools,bows & arrows ,etc ] then you are putting you and your family in harms way from lawsuits and just "social media" judgement.
And it took me many years to fully grasp the fact = the ONLY fight you win is the one you did not have.

I'm curious. Do people working as "armored couriers " draw their firearm each time they're handling their pickup or drop-off? Or are they the second courier accompanying the courier actually carrying the bag. I'm assuming this is different then the typical armored trucks that are seen at businesses.

 

[Peakbagger46]

Where did that come from? Did you read HSO's comments?

No, his comment came from the gaslighting OP of this thread who later came in and modified his original post when his erroneous view came to light and proved inexcusable and indefensible.

 

[Scrapiron45]

As much as I hate to admit it these concealed carry insurance and self defense lawyer groups probably do more to educate the general gun toting public to the legal ramifications of defensive firearms use than anyone else.
There are a few highly respected experts on the subject in the gun world but they are generally not well known outside of a small percentage of the defensive firearm community, while major pro gun organizations are focused on political goals with a side note on safe firearms handling.

 

[Craig_AR]

We can’t look to Hollywood to educate anyone. They are in the entertainment business

I recently modified my intro and basic class content to open with a short discussion on how we must first UNlearn the lessons from thousands of hours of movies and television shows on what NOT to do.

 

[scaatylobo]

I'm curious. Do people working as "armored couriers " draw their firearm each time they're handling their pickup or drop-off? Or are they the second courier accompanying the courier actually carrying the bag. I'm assuming this is different then the typical armored trucks that are seen at businesses.

I worked as a courier before becoming an LEO [ 1982 ].
So I can speak for that with knowledge, we ALL drew our guns whenever we were carrying cash to or from the truck.
That would be a supervisor and his guard.
So in the course of a day,depending on the run that could be 20 or 50 times a day.
In the city of Buffalo for the most part , but also Niagara Falls & Rochester for the company I worked for.
We even had cause to step out with the onboard 12 bore when called for.
I kind of bent the rules and carried my own 12 bore and or a Mac 10 at times.
Along with a few unauthorized items [ gas & smoke ].