View Full Version : Trying to sort out good guys from bad guys
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-charges-atf-agents-death-ny-16787188#.UAVdCZEdqxO
This story really brought home to me the difficulty of trying to determine who is a bad guy and who is a good guy in a real-world situation.
Assuming this article is substantially true, an ATF agent was shot and killed because another person misidentified him as a bad guy. From the point of view of a concealed handgun carrier who runs "to the sound of the guns", it should be a reminder of how extremely difficult it is in real life to figure out who to shoot and who not to shoot. From the point of view of someone who is defending himself in a struggle how does he let late-arriving help know that he's the good guy?
I've thought for years that the most important and challenging part of carrying a weapon for protection is not marksmanship or gunhandling, but is being able to make good decisions under extreme stress like in the incident in this story.
So how do we train to improve our decision-making skills?
What are your thoughts?
polymorpheous
07-17-12, 08:08
In this day and age it's best to stay out of it.
Be a good witness.
In this day and age it's best to stay out of it.
Be a good witness.
Some of us don't have that luxury. If someone is getting shot, we have a duty to respond as part of our commission. When carrying CCW off duty, I have two badges on me. One in my wallet and one on my belt. If I had to go into a similar situation and have time, I'll try to expose both badges, by tucking the wallet into my belt in the rear with the badge flapped open) and tuck my shirt so the one near my holster is visible as well. Above all else, when engaging a subject I'll be verbalizing who I am and to drop the weapon. Obviously the ATF agent wasn't doing that. If I'm unsure who's who in a scuffle like that, I'll still verbalize and hope that one of them comes out on top. I'll detain or engage the other one as necessary and sort it out later.
I can't say under the circumstances that the NYPD officers did anything wrong. They perceived a threat and defended themselves. Some days the dragon wins.
If I have my family with me, all bets are off. I have a duty to secure their safety first and foremost.
polymorpheous
07-17-12, 08:55
I'm speaking on the civilian side.
The OP did not identify himself as LEO.
Off or on duty LEO...
That is entirely different can of worms which is out of my lane completely.
This story really brought home to me the difficulty of trying to determine who is a bad guy and who is a good guy in a real-world situation.
That's really the million dollar question. Lots of people know how to shoot, but the when/who/why to shoot is what's often harder. Put another way, learning to shoot straight and fast is hard, but then learning how to figure out who needs to be shot straight and fast is even harder.
From the point of view of someone who is defending himself in a struggle how does he let late-arriving help know that he's the good guy? There are a lot of variables to this. The easiest way is to immediately submit to any orders you hear from other responders. Now, there are enough variables in play here where one might not immediately submit to orders from someone else while in the middle of a struggle (gives other guy advantage, intentions of responders, auditory exclusion, etc). Other options that have been mentioned here and elsewhere have been using good guy clothing, like a recognized badge(issued by the state or an agency, not by a crackerjack box) or one of those weird CCW sashes. Have a companion or a witness call you in as a good guy (might help, might not, depending on how swamped or distracted the dispatcher is). Again, lots of options based on variables.
So how do we train to improve our decision-making skills? Target discrimination drills, hood drills, Simunitions/marking cartridge/airsoft (if you can get them) and scenarios all play a role in developing DFDM ability. Getting this training, in meaningful volume, is hard, even for municipal police departments. There's a reason that the ability to discriminate and shoot, at speed, in close confines, is usually the sole province of shit hot groups of gunfighters.
It boils down to risk versus reward. Polymorpheus's point, while it may have been a bit glib, is valid. Let me explain:
I can wear my badge to the front on a chain, or looped around my support hand. I can wear my police union or SWAT T-shirt, have my wife call me in as an off duty cop with a physical description, and be recognized by most if not all of my 450 person department. Despite all of this, I can still get popped by a new guy with tunnel vision and poor skills, or a CCW carrier. Despite all my preparations and training, shit may still happen, so I weigh my risks of intervening vs the reward. If the fight comes to you, you may not have the time, or the option, to not intervene.
The best decision making skill you can exercise is the one that asks these questions:
1. Am I directly in danger?
2. Are one of my loved ones directly in danger?
3. Can I escape?
After these three questions are answered, then then the next thought in your head needs to be; "I am not the police. I am not the police. I am not the police."
I have the luxury of doing a lot room clearing training (1-4 man). I also get to see a lot of people do this training as well. In the more advanced classes, we use "decision" based targets. Many of them have two people in them and it is your job to figure out which person is the bad guy and shoot them.
From my personal experience with just dealing with paper targets (where there is zero chance of the shooter getting hurt) and no real stress involved, people make the WRONG decision all the time and shoot the good guy.
Coming "late to the party" is generally a disaster waiting to happen and you (as a CCW holder) would be wise to escape VS get into the fight.
C4
Coming "late to the party" is generally a disaster waiting to happen and you (as a CCW holder) would be wise to escape VS get into the fight.
That's a real shitty scenario, regardless of who responds. Even for off duty types, you're not as likely to have all your intervention options handy, so it gets even dicier.
As for the rest of your post, Grant, well said.
That's a real shitty scenario, regardless of who responds. Even for off duty types, you're not as likely to have all your intervention options handy, so it gets even dicier.
As for the rest of your post, Grant, well said.
If you read the article, the off duty cop yells "POLICE POLICE" several times and gets no response from the ATF agent.
So what would a CCW holder yell?? "Concerned Citizen! Concerned Citizen!
If "POLICE SHOW ME YOUR HANDS" didn't get a response, what would Joe 6 pack do to get a response??
C4
If you read the article, the off duty cop yells "POLICE POLICE" several times and gets no response from the ATF agent.
So what would a CCW holder yell?? "Concerned Citizen! Concerned Citizen!
If "POLICE SHOW ME YOUR HANDS" didn't get a response, what would Joe 6 pack do to get a response??
C4
My point exactly; not disagreeing with you at all.
If you read the article, the off duty cop yells "POLICE POLICE" several times and gets no response from the ATF agent.
So what would a CCW holder yell?? "Concerned Citizen! Concerned Citizen!
If "POLICE SHOW ME YOUR HANDS" didn't get a response, what would Joe 6 pack do to get a response??
C4
It's entirely possible that the ATF agent's brain never processed the sound of the arriving LEO yelling "Police! Police!". He may have never even seen the two LEOs either. Because he was in a struggle with the robber over a gun, I think it's likely that all his attention was focused on that struggle.
I draw no conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of anyone's decisions or actions in this scenario. What interests me here is the lessons we can draw about what difficulties we can face in any lethal force encounter and the training challenges to successfully face those difficulties.
I think that dynamic force-on-force training involving progressively challenging scenarios, trained assertive role players, good feedback mechanisms(after action reviews), and run by highly competent instructors, is the key. This kind of training is expensive, it's hard work, and it offers some physical and emotional risks, but IMO it's the best preparation for a real encounter. By the way, I'm not an LEO, just an armed citizen.
It's entirely possible that the ATF agent's brain never processed the sound of the arriving LEO yelling "Police! Police!". He may have never even seen the two LEOs either. Because he was in a struggle with the robber over a gun, I think it's likely that all his attention was focused on that struggle.
Oh I have no doubt that he never heard them. Full tunnel vision as he was in a fight for his life.
I think that dynamic force-on-force training involving progressively challenging scenarios, trained assertive role players, good feedback mechanisms(after action reviews), and run by highly competent instructors, is the key. This kind of training is expensive, it's hard work, and it offers some physical and emotional risks, but IMO it's the best preparation for a real encounter. By the way, I'm not an LEO, just an armed citizen.
Sure, that would help. You can only scenario so much though and at the end of the day the stress level isn't going to be the same.
The key is that CCW holders need to be aware that what they see in a split second isn't enough time to figure things out and they are better off NOT pulling the trigger than pulling the trigger in these circumstances.
C4
The best way for a LEO in America, is to forget, gun out equals a bad guy. Observe the shooter if he is shooting innocents, cowering men ,women and children, shoot him to the ground.
...Sure, that would help. You can only scenario so much though and at the end of the day the stress level isn't going to be the same.
The key is that CCW holders need to be aware that what they see in a split second isn't enough time to figure things out and they are better off NOT pulling the trigger than pulling the trigger in these circumstances. C4
What superpowers do you think officers have, and ccw holders don't, that allows the officers to make split second decisions where a ccw holder couldn't??? One of the answers is the thing this forum harps on for new gun owners, training, and the other is experience.
Some very good suggestions have been made in this thread regarding force on force training... No, the stress level will never be the same, although I have known some that did not feel stress during the incident. They were prepared and handled the situation very matter of fact. This was due to their training and experience which includes their mental make up and that again falls back to training and experience. I have also known some to fall apart.
Officer's training and ability in the use of deadly physical force varies, just like individuals training varies regarding how to manipulate and fire a weapon. Some are more thoroughly trained than others. It is your training and experience that will pull you through the situation.
You should seek training not only in how to manipulate and fire your weapon, but when and how to use the weapon from a legal standpoint. This should include practical scenarios, force on force training...
The situation in the article was very unfortunate, but unfortunate things do happen and to often they happen to good people.
I can understand the attitude of being a good witness in most scenarios, but not when it comes to life and death struggles, unless there are sufficient officers on scene to control the situation. I would have to get involved. That is just my make up. I will do everything to avoid a situation before it gets to the point that someone's life is in danger of serious physical injury and/or death, but once it gets to that level, I can't just stand by and watch.
For those of you who choose to stand by and be a good witness while someone's life is in danger, and you have the means to prevent it, please let me know who you are, because if you should become the victim I want to be a good witness.
While contemplating the good witness comments this saying comes to mind: "The only thing for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Another saying also comes to mind: "A man should know his limitations."
If you do not have sufficient training for the situation then I agree, you should avoid it and be a good witness. However, if you choose to ccw then there is a great responsibility that goes along with it, in my opinion. I believe a ccw holder should seek and receive "advanced" training in law and legal issues along with force on force training.
Threads like this are also good because they provoke thought and explore solutions as different situations are examined.
.......The key is that CCW holders need to be aware that what they see in a split second isn't enough time to figure things out and they are better off NOT pulling the trigger than pulling the trigger in these circumstances.
C4
Absolutely agree. Protecting anyone outside my immediate family is not my lane. If I sense a threat(actual or potential) and can avoid/deter it, I will. If avoidance/deterrence fails, I'll retreat. The only exception is if retreating would endanger my immediate family or me. I'll only use a weapon if all above fails.
just a scout
07-17-12, 12:56
Looking at Grant's response, cops have 1. Department and municipal lawyers supporting, 2. A duty to act, 3. Deputation of the law to enforce it. CCWs don't. If a cop screws up and shoots the wrong person, while still a horrible mistake, they at least are supported. A ccw has a duty to protect themselves, not to enforce the law. Just my take. Ymmv.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
What superpowers do you think officers have, and ccw holders don't, that allows the officers to make split second decisions where a ccw holder couldn't??? One of the answers is the thing this forum harps on for new gun owners, training, and the other is experience.
Some very good suggestions have been made in this thread regarding force on force training... No, the stress level will never be the same, although I have known some that did not feel stress during the incident. They were prepared and handled the situation very matter of fact. This was due to their training and experience which includes their mental make up and that again falls back to training and experience. I have also known some to fall apart.
Officer's training and ability in the use of deadly physical force varies, just like individuals training varies regarding how to manipulate and fire a weapon. Some are more thoroughly trained than others. It is your training and experience that will pull you through the situation.
You should seek training not only in how to manipulate and fire your weapon, but when and how to use the weapon from a legal standpoint. This should include practical scenarios, force on force training...
The situation in the article was very unfortunate, but unfortunate things do happen and to often they happen to good people.
I can understand the attitude of being a good witness in most scenarios, but not when it comes to life and death struggles, unless there are sufficient officers on scene to control the situation. I would have to get involved. That is just my make up. I will do everything to avoid a situation before it gets to the point that someone's life is in danger of serious physical injury and/or death, but once it gets to that level, I can't just stand by and watch.
For those of you who choose to stand by and be a good witness while someone's life is in danger, and you have the means to prevent it, please let me know who you are, because if you should become the victim I want to be a good witness.
While contemplating the good witness comments this saying comes to mind: "The only thing for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
Another saying also comes to mind: "A man should know his limitations."
If you do not have sufficient training for the situation then I agree, you should avoid it and be a good witness. However, if you choose to ccw then there is a great responsibility that goes along with it, in my opinion. I believe a ccw holder should seek and receive "advanced" training in law and legal issues along with force on force training.
Threads like this are also good because they provoke thought and explore solutions as different situations are examined.
The answer to your question (especially the first part) is that most of the LE around me have 1/3 of the training I have. So they are very poorly equipped to handle a situation like this. Is it their fault? Well yes and no. The SO or PD doesn't have the money for good training and the officers are so under paid that they cannot afford it on their own dime. Then of course we have the officers that believe that the academy is all they needed (no further training necessary).
My point in this thread (and a trend I see over and over in advanced CQB classes) is that people often times make the WRONG decision when they come to the scene late (meaning did not see it develop) and there is no better example of this than the story linked at the top of this thread! Case closed, check mate, game over. Imagine how this shooting would have played out if the two shooters WEREN'T cops, but CCW holders. Think everyone would have gotten off? I don't.
CCW holders are not responsible for anyone else. IMHO, if you aren't smart enough to carry a gun, wear your seat belt or not drive drunk, I have little sympathy for whatever happens to you. Now with that said, if I am in a trapped building and dude is hosin the place down, yes I will be the first one in line to fight and put the threat down. In fact, I volunteer to work church security at a mega church. I willingly put my life on the line to protect other people that I do not know.
While I hate to armchair quarterback the story linked (as we don't always know all the facts and weren't there), but I think that the ATF agent should have never been shot and that the officer that shot him was in the wrong (based off what was written in the article). This also proves my theory that it is a bad choice to shoot someone just because they have a gun and showing up LATE to the fight almost always gives you the incorrect information in regards to whom is good and whom is bad.
Lastly, the quote: "The only thing for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." (which I am a fan of) really has more to do with WAR between nations or Civil war than anything else and really doesn't apply here.
C4
Looking at Grant's response, cops have 1. Department and municipal lawyers supporting, 2. A duty to act, 3. Deputation of the law to enforce it. CCWs don't. If a cop screws up and shoots the wrong person, while still a horrible mistake, they at least are supported. A ccw has a duty to protect themselves, not to enforce the law. Just my take. Ymmv.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
100% correct. As I asked in my response to AZ Doug, if we interject two CCW's holders into this story, would the outcome stay the same?
C4
If a cop screws up and shoots the wrong person, while still a horrible mistake, they at least are supported. A ccw has a duty to protect themselves, not to enforce the law. Just my take. Ymmv.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
LEO's have been prosecuted criminally for their poor judgment also. Officer Lovelace immediately comes to mind, but there have been others. An officer sued in Federal Court for a civil rights violation may receive legal defense at the government's expense, but if they lose can be ordered to pay out of their own pocket and/or due the jail time.
...IMHO, if you aren't smart enough to carry a gun, wear your seat belt or not drive drunk, I have little sympathy for whatever happens to you...
While I hate to armchair quarterback the story linked (as we don't always know all the facts and weren't there), but I think that the ATF agent should have never been shot and that the officer that shot him was in the wrong (based off what was written in the article). This also proves my theory that it is a bad choice to shoot someone just because they have a gun and showing up LATE to the fight almost always gives you the incorrect information in regards to whom is good and whom is bad.
Lastly, the quote: "The only thing for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." (which I am a fan of) really has more to do with WAR between nations or Civil war than anything else and really doesn't apply here.
C4
In the first part of your response you are assuming the victim of crime was not smart enough to wear their seat belt... and not deserving to live. Your natural selection theory may be right in some cases but not all. Many are culpable in their own death by a life style they chose and or situation they place them self in and others, too many, are just victims.
I don't know the facts of the case posted and will not speculate on the whether the shooting was justified or not. Even in the article there were conflicting accounts. I know the media rarely gets the facts straight and that is from personal experience.
I do not advocate and the law does not allow leo or private citizen to shoot someone merely because they have a gun. This is about the only point we are going to agree on: "...it is a bad choice (and unlawful) to shoot someone just because they have a gun."
As to game, set, match...that's humorous.
I know you're naive enough to believe that evil is only committed by governments. Yes the quote was originally spoken regarding the evil committed by a nation(s), but it is applicable to evil doing regardless of who is committing it.
I have not and will not advocate getting involved in every lethal force scenario, but I do not agree with the blanket statement of "be a good witness and do nothing else" either. In order to use deadly physical force you must have a set of facts and or circumstances that leads a reasonable and prudent person to believe that deadly force was necessary in order to prevent another person's unlawful use of deadly force against yourself or an innocent third party.
The training I was referring to has to do with the decision of when to use deadly physical force. In this respect academies do better prepare LEO's. Even though LEO's receive more training than most CCWs in this area, they too could use more training. One area I see both LEOs and civilians lacking is their ability to articulate the facts and/or circumstances, especially their observations, that led to their decision to use, or not use, deadly physical force.
100% correct. As I asked in my response to AZ Doug, if we interject two CCW's holders into this story, would the outcome stay the same?
C4
Grant, you are asking a question we could debate from here to eternity and never know the answer. The closest we could come would be to ask the investigating officers and prosecutors.
If I recall correctly, one of the shooters was a retired Lieutenant and therefore, technically, a ccw holder. He may be a national ccw holder under federal law for retired leo's, but still a ccw holder without any special powers for arrest...
In the first part of your response you are assuming the victim of crime was not smart enough to wear their seat belt... and not deserving to live. Your natural selection theory may be right in some cases but not all. Many are culpable in their own death by a life style they chose and or situation they place them self in and others, too many, are just victims.
I don't know the facts of the case posted and will not speculate on the whether the shooting was justified or not. Even in the article there were conflicting accounts. I know the media rarely gets the facts straight and that is from personal experience.
I do not advocate and the law does not allow leo or private citizen to shoot someone merely because they have a gun. This is about the only point we are going to agree on: "...it is a bad choice (and unlawful) to shoot someone just because they have a gun."
As to game, set, match...that's humorous.
I know you're naive enough to believe that evil is only committed by governments. Yes the quote was originally spoken regarding the evil committed by a nation(s), but it is applicable to evil doing regardless of who is committing it.
I have not and will not advocate getting involved in every lethal force scenario, but I do not agree with the blanket statement of "be a good witness and do nothing else" either. In order to use deadly physical force you must have a set of facts and or circumstances that leads a reasonable and prudent person to believe that deadly force was necessary in order to prevent another person's unlawful use of deadly force against yourself or an innocent third party.
The training I was referring to has to do with the decision of when to use deadly physical force. In this respect academies do better prepare LEO's. Even though LEO's receive more training than most CCWs in this area, they too could use more training. One area I see both LEOs and civilians lacking is their ability to articulate the facts and/or circumstances, especially their observations, that led to their decision to use, or not use, deadly physical force.
I think that we are mostly in agreement here and I don't think absolutes and or blanket statements would be used by anyone (certainly not me).
In regards to the quote, it implies that people that do not act in regards to saving othe people from hard are somehow cowards or lacking in some way. That just isn't the case in today’s lawsuit heavy society. I am responsible for getting home to my children and wife. No one else comes before them. So in this instance, a CCW holder must weigh the importance of getting involved with a situation that doesn't involve them (at all).
C4
Grant, you are asking a question we could debate from here to eternity and never know the answer. The closest we could come would be to ask the investigating officers and prosecutors.
If I recall correctly, one of the shooters was a retired Lieutenant and therefore, technically, a ccw holder. He may be a national ccw holder under federal law for retired leo's, but still a ccw holder without any special powers for arrest...
Yes we could debate it, but I think the answer is somewhat clear (at least for me).
Newspaper reads: CCW holder shoots ATF agent.
If we even pretend that the CCW does not get charged in the case, we can almost gurantee that they would be sued by the ATF agents family.
C4
I do not want to get into it too much, but I have been named in so many lawsuits that I do not know the number. I do know that at one time there were nine going at once. That was not the norm as I went years without a pending suit. I did have one suit last three years. That was the longest.
When you spend a career investigating homicides and putting really bad guys away for a long, long time (many for life and several on death row) and they are given a law library with nothing else to do, they file lawsuits. I did not lose any of them, but they were definitely a nuisance. I have never governed my life based on, or even considered during my decision making process, whether or not I might get sued. My decisions have been based on a perception of right and wrong.
(I know that sounds hokey, but it is the principle that guided me through 7 years in the Army, 26 years as a sworn/compensated law enforcement officer and 3 years as a reserve leo)
I would still do the right, and just, thing every time and deal with the consequences later.
Like you, I enjoy going home to my family everyday and really enjoy the time I get to spend with my adult children and my grandchildren, but I would still have to chose what is right, or I could not look at myself in the mirror.
I do not want to get into it too much, but I have been named in so many lawsuits that I do not know the number. I do know that at one time there were nine going at once. That was not the norm as I went years without a pending suit. I did have one suit last three years. That was the longest.
When you spend a career investigating homicides and putting really bad guys away for a long, long time (many for life and several on death row) and they are given a law library with nothing else to do, they file lawsuits. I did not lose any of them, but they were definitely a nuisance. I have never governed my life based on, or even considered during my decision making process, whether or not I might get sued. My decisions have been based on a perception of right and wrong.
(I know that sounds hokey, but it is the principle that guided me through 7 years in the Army, 26 years as a sworn/compensated law enforcement officer and 3 years as a reserve leo)
I would still do the right, and just, thing every time and deal with the consequences later.
Like you, I enjoy going home to my family everyday and really enjoy the time I get to spend with my adult children and my grandchildren, but I would still have to chose what is right, or I could not look at myself in the mirror.
With all those lawsuits, who paid the legal fees? You or the tax payers? Its no big deal to get into civil battles when you don't have to pay the bill. CCW's pay their own bills for lawsuits.
Part of the doing the right thing (as a non-LEO) is knowing when to walk away. You are no good to your family dead (especially when you had a choice). This is what we are talking about here and why CCW holders need to realize that they are not cowboys, cops or John Wayne.
C4
They paid, but I still will not let it effect my decision now that it is my dime. If I had been found responsible in Federal Court I could have been ordered to pay. If I make a bad decision in a deadly force situation I could be charged criminally. (there is one of those pending in an AZ court now) Should I not have done my job because I could have been made to pay and lost my job, family's house???
The safe bet for an officer would be to stand by, do nothing, and let the agency pay your legal fees for the civil litigation because you could be criminally prosecuted for a bad decision you acted on and have to pay your own legal fees.
Too many incidents and stories from over the years come to mind.
Here is one incident:
Phoenix Police Officer Marc Atkinson was shot and killed during a traffic stop. (You can google his name to find the details surrounding the stop. I did not believe the details are relevant in order to make my point.) Rory Vertigan, an armed citizen who was driving by and witnessed Officer Atkinson being shot. Rory stopped his car, drew his personal handgun, and engaged one of the suspects wounding him. When the situation was stable and the only remaining suspect was down Rory gave the suspect's gun to another witness/citizen so he could cover the suspect while Rory checked on the officer. Unfortunately Officer Atkinson had already "expired."
On a side note, Rory Vertigan's 10mm Glock was seized as evidence during the investigation so the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association took up a collection and purchased Rory a new 10mm Glock, which they presented it to him a public ceremony.
I know this story involved a fallen law enforcement officer, but there are many more that only involved "citizens." I like this one because we replaced his gun.
The facts and circumstances known to me at the time will dictate my actions, not concerns over a law suit that may or may not happen at some future date...
Again, I would get involved. Whether I shoot would be based on the articulable facts and circumstance known to me at the time. I can challenge from cover and try to sort things out... There may be a time when challenging from cover is a bad idea. There are many options and the decision must be based on the facts and circumstances known to you at the time. The more options you have gone over in your mind and practiced ahead of time the better prepared you will be. That is where training and discussions on threads such as this are valuable. At the same time, I am not into suicide missions and there are times to be a good witness, or wait for the appropriate time.
Below are the names of three border patrol agents who have been prosecuted for "a bad shooting."
U.S. Border Patrol Agents:
Nicholas Corbett
Jose Alonso Compean
Ignacio Ramos
I do not want to argue the merits of their case, and even if I wanted to I couldn't because I was not involved in the investigations. You can fill volumes with information the media isn't privy to and Court's don't allow the jurors to hear. (A court will preclude evidence for various reasons, some for police misconduct, and some because it is too prejudicial and you, as a juror, aren't considered smart enough to give it the weight it deserves)
My point is that some here believe law enforcement officers are somehow protected against a bad decisions they make. In these cases the individuals were responsible for their own legal fees, both the criminal, any civil proceedings and any judgements against them.
Here are some of the various elements of decision-making in a situation where an armed citizen may decide to use lethal force (other than moral elements):
What do I perceive is going on in this situation?
How trustworthy is my perception based on the time I've watched the situation?
Is there a fight happening now?
How did this fight start?
Who all is involved in the fight?
Are there apparent disparities in size, gender, strength, mobility among the participants?
Do these people seem to know each other? (Calling each other by name? Husband and wife? Complete strangers?)
What are the participants saying to each other and to others? ( Threats being verbalized?)
What weapons and injuries are visible?
Is someone trying to escape from the situation?
How confident am I that I can identify the aggressor?
Is there an actual victim here or are these people dueling?
Is the person apparently prevailing in the fight an aggressor?
Are the persons involved in the fight aware of my presence?
Can the persons involved in the fight hear me?
Are the people in the fight reacting to my presence?
If so, how are they reacting?
Are there bystanders?
Are there interested parties who are in the vicinity who also may get involved in the fight if I do?
Has anyone called 911?
Are police enroute?
If/when police arrive how will I make them aware of the true nature of my role in this?
If police arrive will my presence complicate their decision-making?
How is my stress level affecting my decision-making?
Am I experiencing auditory exclusion?
Am I experiencing tunnel vision?
Am I task fixated?
Am I hyperventilating?
Does time seem to be slowing down?
Am I maintaining 360 degree awareness of what is going on?
Do I perceive a threat to me in this situation?
If so, from whom and how great a threat does it appear to be?
How is visibility?
What are the distances among the various participants, me and my potential target?
Is there any cover around?
If so, where?
Am I stationary or moving right now?
Should I be stationary or moving right now?
If I should be moving, to where should I be moving?
Would my use of lethal force be justified under the laws of my state in this situation?
If so, against whom?
If I see the need to shoot, what is beyond my target?
There are doubtless many other elements of decision-making that I've left out. This all I can think of right now. I'd welcome others' thoughts on them.
I'm also interested in what training folks here think is necessary in order to make good decisions and to execute those decisions well in such situations.
In general I wouldn't want to be caught with a gun drawn in plain clothes. Safest bet to not get shot is be in a uniform that is assumed as good guy. In general there is always visual confirmation of those who may be friend or foe and with some exception of bad guys dressed as good guys or good guys who are not actually good its usually safe to assume someone in uniform is good vs a shout of police which anyone can just BS on the spot (we can all do it right now in the middle of reading this post) to cause confusion and chaos not to mention possibility of bad guys shouting it to alarm their friends. Obviously not 100% perfect but I think the "team uniform" is the most safe bet. Maybe the shouts of police were heard but it was assumed to be a trick or alarm, maybe blocked out due to tunnel vision, etc.
Here are some of the various elements of decision-making in a situation where an armed citizen may decide to use lethal force (other than moral elements):
What do I perceive is going on in this situation?
How trustworthy is my perception based on the time I've watched the situation?
Is there a fight happening now?
How did this fight start?
Who all is involved in the fight?
Are there apparent disparities in size, gender, strength, mobility among the participants?
Do these people seem to know each other? (Calling each other by name? Husband and wife? Complete strangers?)
What are the participants saying to each other and to others? ( Threats being verbalized?)
What weapons and injuries are visible?
Is someone trying to escape from the situation?
How confident am I that I can identify the aggressor?
Is there an actual victim here or are these people dueling?
Is the person apparently prevailing in the fight an aggressor?
Are the persons involved in the fight aware of my presence?
Can the persons involved in the fight hear me?
Are the people in the fight reacting to my presence?
If so, how are they reacting?
Are there bystanders?
Are there interested parties who are in the vicinity who also may get involved in the fight if I do?
Has anyone called 911?
Are police enroute?
If/when police arrive how will I make them aware of the true nature of my role in this?
If police arrive will my presence complicate their decision-making?
How is my stress level affecting my decision-making?
Am I experiencing auditory exclusion?
Am I experiencing tunnel vision?
Am I task fixated?
Am I hyperventilating?
Does time seem to be slowing down?
Am I maintaining 360 degree awareness of what is going on?
Do I perceive a threat to me in this situation?
If so, from whom and how great a threat does it appear to be?
How is visibility?
What are the distances among the various participants, me and my potential target?
Is there any cover around?
If so, where?
Am I stationary or moving right now?
Should I be stationary or moving right now?
If I should be moving, to where should I be moving?
Would my use of lethal force be justified under the laws of my state in this situation?
If so, against whom?
If I see the need to shoot, what is beyond my target?
There are doubtless many other elements of decision-making that I've left out. This all I can think of right now. I'd welcome others' thoughts on them.
I'm also interested in what training folks here think is necessary in order to make good decisions and to execute those decisions well in such situations.
I think all that is much easier said then done. Some of them are ruined by bystander effect where you cannot judge whats going on terms of people calling 911, helping, will add to problem, etc. Cannot 100% identify good and bad guys by size, sex, or who has injuries. Best to keep it simple and save your ass and only do something and act when safe and then only appropriate actions like calling 911 when out of danger and returning when area is secure and safe.
Law enforcement does have it trickier though when arriving to a "party" but CCW is pretty straight forward.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.