What does a cop know that I don't. . .

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Not just the carry of firearms but the use of them. The training they need and screening is because of that authority not just possessing a firearm.

As an armed citizen my use of deadly force (as defined in the State of NC) is much more restricted than an LEO. They also can carry just about anywhere, vs my carry rights are restricted even with a CCW.

For anyone, police or civilian, the carry of firearms=the possibility of using them. Or are there people who carry a firearm and have no intention of ever using it even if the situation calls for it?

 

[archigos]

Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
Fact: Police have trouble keeping their own guns. Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes.
Fact: “...most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”
Source: http://www.gunfacts.info

If police know something about shooting that we don't, perhaps its best it stays that way.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I see what you are getting at but for #3 and LEO SHOULD get more background checks not because of firearms but because they are given a huge level of authority over citizens. They are given arrest authority, looser restrictions on use of deadly force, and many other levels of authority that should NOT be given lightly.

I agree that it's not just about guns. But the fact remains that in most cases LEOs go through a very elaborate and in depth screening procedure, so we know a great deal about them, their backgrounds, their discipline and their character. Therefore we are willing to give them a certain amount of authority and responsibility; and we also trust them to carry guns.

We may, and will if necessary, argue that a private citizen doesn't need to be as thoroughly vetted in order to be trusted with a gun for his protection. But LEOs are that thoroughly vetted, even if the primary reasons for such thorough screening relates more to the scope of their responsibilities and authority beyond carrying a gun.

Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person....

Police are probably involved in far more violent encounters than are private citizens and must enter into potentially dangerous situations that a private citizen may, and will, avoid. I know I won't be doing any traffic stops and I won't he checking out anyone acting suspiciously.

 

[archigos]

Police are probably involved in far more violent encounters than are private citizens and must enter into potentially dangerous situations that a private citizen may, and will, avoid. I know I won't be doing any traffic stops and I won't he checking out anyone acting suspiciously.

Please note that that quote is not the percentage of police officers that kill innocent people - its the percentage of shootings that kill innocents. As such, its adjusted for your point.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Please note that that quote is not the percentage of police officers that kill innocent people - its the percentage of shootings that kill innocents. As such, its adjusted for your point.

No it's not. It's adjusted for volume. It's not adjusted for differences in the nature or circumstances of the encounters. For example, many defensive gun uses by private citizens will take place in the citizen's home or place of business. Many, if not most, violent encounters involving police will take place in public places.

 

[zxcvbob]

(I'll try to say this without any spin on it; not sure if I can pull it off. It's not intended to be "cop bashing")

There is a difference in confidence level -- the cop knows that if he shoots somebody even under questionable circumstances, it was justified because he says it is. He's only screwed if it is obviously a bad shoot, and there were witnesses with video, and the case ends up on the evening news or the latest youtube sensation. Even then, he might be OK if IA covers for him. How does that compare to you or me, who are presumed guilty just by knowing how to spell "gun"? Given all that, who is going to hesitate and who isn't?

 

[JoeSlomo]

Depends on the cop.

I've shot with a couple of master class LEO's, and I've shot with "noob" LEO competitors that couldn't make marksmen in IDPA or "D" class in USPSA.

Most aren't "gun" guys, let alone shooters. Most non LEO's aren't "gun" guys either, even those that DO own firearms.

I saw the same thing in the military, less so with the Infantry line units, but still...

what kind of training does a cop go through that allows them to be privelaged?

State approved training that SAYS he is privileged.

With a few rare exceptions, tax funded training in any organization is going to focus on developing a base level of proficiency, and not much more. Any additional proficiency will be obtained through OJT, experience, or individual study.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There is a difference in confidence level -- the cop knows that if he shoots somebody even under questionable circumstances, it was justified because he says it is. He's only screwed if it is obviously a bad shoot, and there were witnesses with video, and the case ends up on the evening news or the latest youtube sensation. Even then, he might be OK if IA covers for him. How does that compare to you or me, who are presumed guilty just by knowing how to spell "gun"? Given all that, who is going to hesitate and who isn't?...

I think that you're going to have a tough time coming up with data to support that conjecture.

[1] There have been examples of police officers getting dragged through the process. Consider, for one example, the Diallo case out of New York City.

[2] Police officers are forced by the nature of their jobs into hazardous and violent situations that you and I can avoid.

...With a few rare exceptions, tax funded training in any organization is going to focus on developing a base level of proficiency, and not much more...

And even if it's only focused on developing a base level of proficiency, it is still a good deal more training than is required in any state for a CCW. Of course, I suspect a good many of us private citizens have voluntarily sought out and paid for a good deal more training than that.

 

[gb0399]

I don't think the statement has anything to do with the training of the officer. I think it has to do with trust. People (generally) trust the police. We have been raised that way. If you saw a US soldier with a rifle would you be scared? No, because you trust that he will not harm you. How about a priest? No, a priest would not harm you either. What about a grandmother? No, generally speaking granny doesn't go on shooting spree's either. What about everyone else? Who knows? Maybe they can be trusted maybe they can't. Strangers from day one are classified as danger. We say it to our children every day before the bus, and it carries into our adulthood.
Don't get confused, I think every law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry a firearm as the constitution guarantees. This is just my thought on the OP. It's trust not training.

 

[SleazyRider]

Is it fair to say that a very small part of a LEO's duty involves the use of a firearm, and that a significant number of policemen don't even draw their weapon during their career? Could the role of a firearm in law enforcement be overstated to some degree? Just asking.

 

[jackpinesavages]

" Now I'm not talking about your average suburban cop who feels a drug bust is finding a kid with an ounce of weed, I'm talking about what kind of training does a cop go through that allows them to be privelaged?"


Well, the training itself varies from state to state per the number of hours in each curriculum for state licensing. The amount of firearms training hours varies as well. Then, there is a variation in the required qualifications to shoot per year or month, and how many rounds are a minimum.

And actually, you hit the nail on the head with your using the word privilage; it's a Statute known AS "Privilage" here in Wisconsin. Amongst other things such as the Law which allows it, it is the cop's dedication to service and making the ultimate sacrifice in order to improve the quality of life in their districts.

As much as this OP says this is not an effort to trash cops, the tone, attitude, and angle of the debate he presented leaves very little other room. Afterall, ..." the kid with an ounce of weed" is just as likely to have a powerful handgun near as the bank robber. Using the "anti-gunners" argument of "only cops should have guns" is a red herring.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

(I'll try to say this without any spin on it; not sure if I can pull it off. It's not intended to be "cop bashing")

There is a difference in confidence level -- the cop knows that if he shoots somebody even under questionable circumstances, it was justified because he says it is. He's only screwed if it is obviously a bad shoot, and there were witnesses with video, and the case ends up on the evening news or the latest youtube sensation. Even then, he might be OK if IA covers for him. How does that compare to you or me, who are presumed guilty just by knowing how to spell "gun"? Given all that, who is going to hesitate and who isn't?

You don't really need to put "spin" on it for one to see that statement for what it is: an emotionally based opinion that is derogatory towards police with zero data or citations backing up your claim.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lots of opinions, but little about the actual legal aspects. Enough...