When the police are on their way ....disarm !

[Kleanbore]

Posted by xxjumbojimboxx:

That's why I would like to know what position the gun was in... If in a non threatening position, I think the officer is in the wrong. There is no set time limit. If someone's got a gun, and you've got your gun trained on them, there's no way in hell they're going to point it and aim it at you and get a shot off before you take them out. If you have the time to say "drop the weapon", and time to process that the person hasn't dropped the weapon... If he hasn't pointed it at you yet. You're going to win if he does.

I'm afraid that you are making some unwarranted, unrealistic, and unsupportable assumptions:

1. That a shot can reasonably be expected to instantly "take anyone out" and prevent him from shooting;
2. that simply shooting before he does would constitute a "win".

Think about those things.

After you have absorbed them, get some Airsoft guns and do some FoF exercises.

Then think about your self defense training. You believe that someone intends to rob you. Do you draw and rire when he reaches for his weapon, or wait until he has drawn it to see what he is going to do?

 

[Ash]

This whole argument seems to indicate we should not have arms at home lest we be shot by police who have every right to shoot us.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This whole argument seems to indicate we should not have arms at home lest we be shot by police who have every right to shoot us.

That's strange. I'm not getting that vibe at all in this thread.

We have some isolated instances brought up where good people have been shot because they had a gun. The real question that I am trying to get a grip on is how we, as reasonable civilians and police officers, should deal with such circumstances.

We think about these kinds of things all the time. If you get pulled over for speeding in a must inform state, what's the best way to inform the officer that you're a concealed carry permit owner who is armed? What about states that are not must inform? If you're involved in a self-defense shooting, how do we report it? What do we say and when should we NOT say anything?

We ask these things because thinking about them beforehand helps us to figure out what's right, what's wrong, and what's smart so that when something does happen in real life we're far more likely to do things right.


Contrary to popular belief among certain circles, police officers don't want to get involved in a shooting any more than civilians do. And they certainly don't want to shoot the wrong person any more than civilians do. It behooves us to consider circumstances when we may interact with each other with guns actually in our hands.

 

[Jeff White]

Ash, you seem to have the unreasonable expectation that the police are somehow invested with psychic powers and they automatically know who is a good guy and who isn't and that the same psychic powers allow them to determine the intent of every armed person they encounter.

The real world doesn't work that way. If you read posts by police officers here that detail how careful they have been in situations like that, you have to come away with the impression that these are very dangerous situations.

No one is saying you shouldn't be armed. No one is saying that the police have right to shoot you in any given situation.

All anyone is saying is that it's not a good idea to meet the responding officers with a gun in your hand, and if you do, immediately comply with an order to put it down.

I know that goes against some people's pride. Believe me, it's better to swallow the pride and disarm then it is to argue "I'm one of the good guys!" And get shot.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

[That's why I would like to know what position the gun was in... If in a non threatening position, I think the officer is in the wrong. There is no set time limit. If someone's got a gun, and you've got your gun trained on them, there's no way in hell they're going to point it and aim it at you and get a shot off before you take them out. If you have the time to say "drop the weapon", and time to process that the person hasn't dropped the weapon... If he hasn't pointed it at you yet. You're going to win if he does.

Body cameras are needed now a days. Cops should be forced to wear them. We entrust them with the power to lock someone up for good... but if the events of the last few months prove anything it's not that all cops are scum, rather enough are to where I just don't trust them anymore. Maybe thats 50%, Maybe thats 5. Maybe its 1%... but its enough for me to be skeptical. And every video like the one I posted earlier makes me increasingly more so. They literally keep on coming. I see multiple abuse videos daily. Cameras don't lie though. So if law enforcement really are a bunch of good guys like they claim, they wont mind wearing them. Instead though, the police officers and unions are out there lobbying to make recording the police illegal. I wonder why?
/QUOTE] I agree with this 110%. Seems Jeff is with the "drop the BANG BANG BANG "crowd mentioned previously.

 

[Sol]

Well the police in my area have fancy computers in their cars.

I would imagine that they could cross reference the address with the ID of the homeowner giving them a little idea of what the homeowner looks like.

I mean I've been stuffed and saw officer friendly type my name and all my info came up.
I'm sure one could type in the address and get an ID.

A little forethought and WHAM! Detective in a year.

 

[Jeff White]

What is a "threatening" position? Let me tell you something fanboy, a gun in the hand, no matter where it's pointed is a threatening position. Real life is not some western movie where the good guy gets the drop on the bad guy and automatically wins the fight.

I would suggest that you get some realistic force on force training before you make outrageous claims you can never prove.

This is the Strategies, Tactics and Training forum. A discussion of body cameras and recording police activities is off topic here. The topic of this thread is how one interacts with the police while armed.

As to if I belong to any crowd, I'd like to ask how many armed encounters do you have under your belt? How many armed suspects have you arrested? How many times have you responded to a call where a property owner was holding a suspect at gun point or has armed himself after an alarm went off and responded to his property to attempt to catch the suspect before you could respond?

Working in a rural area I did this more times then I cared to. Never shot a property owner. Not that it was always an easy call to make.

Unlike certain Internet experts whose experience in these matters comes from television and the movies, I'm not at all prepared to make any kind of judgement based on a media report of an incident.

I wasn't there, I don't know what dispatch told the responding officers and I don't know what the officer saw.

My experience moderating here at THR has taught me a few things about the "gun culture", and one of those things is that many people take offense because the police ask them to disarm. It's like putting down their gun will remove their manhood, get them kicked out of the club and they won't be able to hang out with the guys anymore.

It seems that the professionals in this thread do not think that they are somehow less of a person if they put down their weapon until things are sorted out.

If you go back to my earlier post where I mentioned holding suspects who were burglarizing my neighbor's vehicles I plainly stated that even though I knew that the deputy responding would know me on sight, and that I was pretty sure the dispatcher told them I was an off duty officer and was armed, I still secured my weapon as the squad car pulled up.

That is just common sense. Why add more tension to an already confused situation?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Weapons in evidence ARE potential threats...and they're serious threats.

I'm not a LEO...but it seems to me that the FIRST thing an officer wants to do is gain control of the situation.

I can't think of any video or story that I've seen about a law enforcement encounter that went wrong which wasn't due to the officer either losing control or never establishing control in the first place.

When the OFFICER has control, then HE'S the one who has placed the situation on a safe(r) footing, he's segregated potential weapons from places/people who may attempt to use them, he's separated contending parties, he's cuffed suspects, and NOBODY is in a position to do anything unexpectedly dangerous that can't be countered.

AFTER he has control, then he can sort the details out. People are identified, the story line starts to come together, and people start calming down.


It doesn't seem all that different to me than any other leadership situation which requires a strong leadership presence. Take control, put things in some sort of order, then start working things out with the group.

As the civilian in any such encounter, I want to make sure I do my part in supporting the officer in gaining control. If the answer to that is to put my gun down and be handcuffed, I'ma gonna do just that.

 

[Al Thompson]

there's no way in hell they're going to point it and aim it at you and get a shot off before you take them out

Tom Givens had us move the handgun from a low ready to having a shot on target in less than a second. Everybody did that and a few folks were probably hitting in under .8 of a second. If the good guys can do it, so can the bad guys.

Slowly lower your weapon

Nope, if it's the cops, drop it like it's red hot. Remember Jeff's "drop the (BANG, BANG) gun" example?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Nope, if it's the cops, drop it like it's red hot. Remember Jeff's "drop the (BANG, BANG) gun" example?

In my last post, I seriously thought about dropping the gun as a response to an order. One of my guns is a Colt SAA, which I would have no problem grabbing for self-defense at home.

Dropping it juuuuuuust might not be the wisest thing in the world to do, given how it's designed! I'm thinking I might just indicate my total intent to comply by loudly saying "I'M PUTTING IT DOWN! I'M PUTTING IT DOWN! I'M PUTTING IT DOWN!" as I slowly move to lay it down.

At the same time, I'll show my total submission to the officer by crying and peeing my pants.

 

[Ash]

Jeff, you seem to imply that I want to argue with the cops. There are numerous statements, including from you, that establish that an armed homeowner is a threat to an officer. You state that very clearly. It is also established that one should not be surprised if one gets shot by said officer because you have a gun.

You can't have it both ways. You state a gun regardless of how it's held is a threat and the officer is thus understood when he shoots - no instructions are needed. We are to disarm ourselves before the officer arrives to ensure we don't get shot because if we have a gun, the cop is justified or, at least, it is understandable he would shoot a home owner. Then, you trash me about psychic powers. Thanks.

You said:
"The real world doesn't work that way. If you read posts by police officers here that detail how careful they have been in situations like that, you have to come away with the impression that these are very dangerous situations."

I agree, a home owner, a citizen, in that situation already knows just how much danger exists.

You then state:
"No one is saying you shouldn't be armed. No one is saying that the police have right to shoot you in any given situation."

But then write:

"All anyone is saying is that it's not a good idea to meet the responding officers with a gun in your hand, and if you do, immediately comply with an order to put it down."

Which one is it, be armed or don't be armed?

Chief states:
"I can't think of any video or story that I've seen about a law enforcement encounter that went wrong which wasn't due to the officer either losing control or never establishing control in the first place."

To that, I agree. But, I reject that an officer deserves life more than me. I question at what point we disarm ourselves while holding a bad guy at bay. I would by all means do as the officer says. NOTHING I have posted indicates otherwise.

However, it is stated that merely having a gun is a threat to an officer and the implication is that he could fire and be justified. That I reject.

So, back to my earlier question, how long shall we stand with a bad guy unarmed so as not to be shot by an officer?

 

[Jeff White]

Secure your weapon when the squad car pulls up. It's really that simple. If the suspect runs, he runs. It's not your problem any longer.

 

[Ash]

And if the baddie uses that as a moment to escalate against you?

 

[JohnKSa]

First of all, if you've decided to hold someone at gunpoint for the police, you should do a good deal of study (perhaps even get some training) on how to do it safely.

Part of that must include dealing with the reality that when the police arrive they are going to demand that you disarm to one extent or another. Likely you will have to drop the gun--at the very least you will be required to holster.

If you can not determine how to manage it safely then perhaps you shouldn't try to hold someone at gunpoint. Instead, get them out of your house and lock the door or get yourself to a saferoom and lock the door while you wait for the police.

The bottom line is that it's unreasonable to blame the police for your inability to figure out a way to hold someone at gunpoint and still deal with the practical reality of what is going to happen when the police arrive.

 

[Al Thompson]

And if the baddie uses that as a moment to escalate against you?

If you've moved to an offset position, it's the cops problem.

If he sprouts wings and flies to the next door neighbors chimney, quit eating moldy bread.

 

[Jeff White]

You are just bound and determined to come up with a reason not to secure your weapon aren't you?

If he didn't attack you when you were holding him at gun point, why would he be so stupid to attack you when reinforcements arrive?

What did you do to him to piss him off enough that he's going to attack you in front of the police?

I was holding 4 suspects at gunpoint the night they broke into my neighbors vehicles and I certainly didn't worry they would get up and attack me as I holstered when the squad car pulled up.

First off, I wasn't right on top of them, I had plenty of time to draw if they did attempt to get off the ground and charge me.

Secondly, armed help was on the scene if needed.

We can play this game forever. You will always be able to invent a scenario where it would be bad if you secure your weapon.

So if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in that position, do whatever you want. If you get shot by the responding officers, it's on you.

Obviously you have no idea how confusing and fluid these situations are.

 

[Ash]

Ah, Jeff, but I actually do. I have been shot at. I have had guns pulled on me - as a Forester I have come into contact with all types from angry hunting club members to folks who seem to have had no reason to be on client properties. Being on client properties, we are not allowed to go armed.

I have never drawn a weapon on another human, though I do go armed on my own property. But, my grandfather did actually hold two home invaders, sitting back to back, in his front yard with a Hopkins and Allen. The act happens.

Of course it is fluid. But the homeowner has just as much right not to be killed as the responding officer.

You state:

"If you get shot by the responding officers, it's on you."

Just so the officer gets to go home safe, the homeowner be damned, right? You still seem to imply that I would in some way turn on an officer with a gun in my hand. I have made no statement to that effect. There is still a significant problem when not wanting to be killed by a bad guy or the "good" guy.

But you need to relax. You seem to be getting pretty hot when all I do is offer problems with dealing the baddies and not deserving to get shot by officers. It's just a forum and a discussion.

Kill us all and let God sort us out? Is that how it is to work?

Seriously, I'm just asking questions and giving scenarios. I'm not a threat.

Al, so if I let the baddie on me, perhaps to draw a pistol on me because I have holstered mine, he kills me, the officer will write what in his report? It might be on the cop, but it would REALLY be on me.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

[Deleted] To a person with common sense if there is a man with a gun in his hand in a non threatening position, it don't give LEOs the right to shoot them when they don't drop it at the very second they were told to, which is what you are saying. If he were aiming the gun at the cop, then yes by all means, protect yourself. [Deleted]

 

[Jeff White]

Ash,
If you intend to hold someone at gun point you need to get some training in how to do it.

Face the suspect away from you and prone him out on the ground. Hands outstretched to the side palms up, have him cross his ankles. Then step offline.

Now he's in no position to make an attack without really telegraphing that it's coming and he is not sure where you are.

Of course this opens up a whole new set of potential problems such as; What do you do if he doesn't comply with your verbal commands? Shoot him?

I can almost guarantee you that if you are armed when the police arrive they will disarm you. If you don't follow the instructions of the responding officers you will likely be shot.

The officers usually have no idea who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. They have no idea if they are dealing with a home invasion, a dispute between armed parties over some issue or another. Until things are sorted out they are going to treat everyone as if they might be a threat.

The actual situation is very often not what the dispatcher told the officer it was. The situation that started this thread is a prime example. It's now being reported that the man who was shot was not the homeowner but someone who was staying at the house.

The officers are going to secure the scene and that includes everyone there, and then sort it out.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Jeff White:

The officers usually have no idea who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. They have no idea if they are dealing with a home invasion, a dispute between armed parties over some issue or another. Until things are sorted out they are going to treat everyone as if they might be a threat.

That's the reality, and the main issue.

And a man with a gun has to be treated as a much, much more immediate potential threat.

The risk of being shot by arriving first responders is serious, but it is only one of the risks associated with holding someone at gunpoint.

Among others:

• The risk of being shot by one of the perp's acomplices while one's attention is diverted
• The risk of an unintentional discharge, causing unjustified injury to the suspect
• The risk that the perp will get the bettet of the defender; that happens

The upside? None. One may point the gun and huff and puff, but woe be the defender should he shoot.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by notaglockfanboy:

To a person with common sense if there is a man with a gun in his hand in a non threatening position, it don't give LEOs the right to shoot them when they don't drop it at the very second they were told to, which is what you are saying.

There is no such thing as a gun in hand in a "non threatening position".

If he were aiming the gun at the cop, then yes by all means, protect yourself.

Do you know of any qualified self defense instructor who advises students to wait until a threat has his gun pointed at the defender before shooting?

No, you do not , because there are none

 

[notaglockfanboy]

Do you know of any qualified self defense instructor who advises students to wait until a threat has his gun pointed at the defender before shooting?

No, you do not , because there are none

I would like to see the list of instructors who say it is ok to shoot someone when they are holding a gun. The man in question was defending his home, so you are saying it was a justified shooting simply because a overzealous cop seen a gun?? WOW, just WOW. Never thought the mods would gang up on someone for posting the truth, there is not one thing I have said that is not true. Seems they don't like to get their feelings hurt.

 

[Jeff White]

First off, the man who was shot was not the homeowner. Secondly, how were the deputies supposed to know WHO he was?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by notaglockfanboy:

I would like to see the list of instructors who say it is ok to shoot someone when they are holding a gun.

Instructors, and particularly those knowledgeable in the subject of us of force law, speak of four main elements of justification for using deadly force: ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion.

The presence of a weapon pretty much nails the ability issue. Even a reasonable belief that the other person possesses a weapon can suffice--hand hidden, furtive movement, and so on.

That alone does not mean that one should necessarily shoot, but it is one very important element of justification when it comes to self defense.

In any event, one would never, ever be expected to wait until a firearm had been bought up to an aiming poison before firing. That would be utterly ridiculous.

If you need to ask for a list of instructors, you have not received enough in the way of qualified instruction. But I'll throw out a name or two: Ayoob, Branca, Givens, Hayes.... Does that help?

Now, the case at hand is a little different from a run of the mill civilian defensive shooting. It involved a response to a report of a crime in progress, in which an officer came upon someone who was holding a firearm.

The result was tragic, but no one, officer or civilian who had been summoned to help, could reasonably have been expected to wait until the armed man aimed the gun before firing.

Several years ago, a police officer responding to a home invasion call came upon someone in the house holding a handgun. He told the man to drop the gun, but the man hesitated. He was shot.

The man with the gun was the homeowner. The shooting, though tragic, was thoroughly investigated and ruled proper.

That happens, and that's why instructors tell us to put the gun down before the police arrive.

 

[mike28w]

I'm not a cop but have had the experience of some force on force training with simunitions....It was amazing to see how quickly things can go badly and just how little time a person has to assess a situation, decide and then react.

I would never , ever want to a be a cop....we expect a lot from them. It's a thankless job. Do all of them do it perfectly ? Of course not but you'll never hear me saying that I could do it better !