Trying to sort out good guys from bad guys

[C4IGrant]

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

[sjc3081]

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.

[az doug]

...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.

[oldtexan]

.......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]

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

[C4IGrant]

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

[C4IGrant]

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

[az doug]

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.

[az doug]

...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.

[az doug]

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...