The Armed Citizen And Law Enforcement...

[ChicagoTex]

This seems to be derailing into a "bag on SteyrAUG fest", so I want to try to bring it back to it's original theme by making two points.

1. In scenarios B and C, the CCer has already shot someone (justifiably) who may or may not be dead, injured, unconscious, etc. Let's presume for the sake of argument the CCer is neither psychic, nor an M.D. and cannot determine just by looking at the person they've shot whether or not they still represent a potential threat - given this context it would seem only reasonable to me to keep your weapon drawn in the event the threat attempts to continue the fight (possibly by producing a handgun he hadn't previously) until police arrive and secure the situation. This hypothetical business of "I'll only draw if I have to kill them, and if I do, I will certainly achieve an instant kill and will therefore be totally comfortable re-holstering my weapon" is far too exclusionary.

2. Sometimes people make mistakes and things can spiral out of control quickly (as in SteyrAUG's anecdote). Arguing that questions relating to very possible hypothetical situations shouldn't be asked because "you shouldn't get into that situation in the first place" is the very opposite of helpful, particularly since I believe these questions are being asked to get a better understanding of how LEOs react to the legally armed citizen and what LEOs want/expect from them if an incident (for whatever reason) occurs.

I, for one, am still interested in seeing further answers from LEOs on this board regarding the original post.

[toasterlocker]

But I have some deep concerns about the idea you seem to be promoting that the armed citizen needs to assist with the investigation in order to avoid problems.

What if that individual simply states that he wishes to be cooperative but can't say anything until he speaks to his attorney? Is he then going to become a "bad guy" in your mind? Is he going to receive different treatment than a guy who tells the whole story?

I understand the perspective of the LEO, he wants to sort it out and separate the good guys from the bad guys and do his job. But sadly in this modern world where legal issues can become more important than right and wrong I think the average "good guy" who is forced to use a weapon to defend himself, his property or other innocents is gonna want to cover his ass legally.

The reason I suggest cooperation is because you haven't killed anyone, so the other people are still alive/conscious to tell whatever lies about you and the situation they want. And depending on how good a story they have fabricated, they could easily end up going free while you end up in jail waiting for your lawyer because you wanted to CYA.

Without independent witnesses and physical evidence, arrests will be made based on the testimony of those present. And if the person pointing the gun at people refuses to talk, but the other guys present a believable story about how they were assaulted by a loony gunman, you can guess how things may go down. Sure, your lawyer could probably make things right in the long run, but waiting around for him when a simple explanation could get things wrapped up right away seems kind of silly. Especially if you haven't done anything wrong.

That said, I fully support constitutional rights, but some common sense goes a long way. Cops don't want to arrest the wrong person, and being upfront with them can help make sure mistakes aren't made.

[ares armor]

I would never fathom stopping my car on the side of I95 to help a stranded damsel... ...but I'm not risking my family's livelihood to be a good Samaritan...

If I see a defenseless person that I believe to be in possible danger I will stop...

[Skyyr]

There are many times where it is justified to draw, but firing is a grey area.

2 perps break into your house, one is mid 20's, veteran of the trade so to speak. With him is his apprentice, 14 year old kid looking for a little trouble. If the kid is cooperative, could you dispatch him on the spot? Moral choice for sure. AMIS class went into a ton of detail on this scenario. Either choice you make can really ruin your weekend.

I think this is dependent on your locale. In most states with Castle Doctrine (key condition), both perps are indeed bought and paid for, so to speak. Not that I'm condoning shooting of anyone just for the heck of it, but if you were to shoot the purported 14 year-old, you wouldn't be found guilty (at least not in most parts of Tennessee, Texas, Florida, etc.).

[hatt]

The reason I suggest cooperation is because you haven't killed anyone, so the other people are still alive/conscious to tell whatever lies about you and the situation they want. And depending on how good a story they have fabricated, they could easily end up going free while you end up in jail waiting for your lawyer because you wanted to CYA.

Without independent witnesses and physical evidence, arrests will be made based on the testimony of those present. And if the person pointing the gun at people refuses to talk, but the other guys present a believable story about how they were assaulted by a loony gunman, you can guess how things may go down. Sure, your lawyer could probably make things right in the long run, but waiting around for him when a simple explanation could get things wrapped up right away seems kind of silly. Especially if you haven't done anything wrong.

That said, I fully support constitutional rights, but some common sense goes a long way. Cops don't want to arrest the wrong person, and being upfront with them can help make sure mistakes aren't made.

Going to jail for a few hours is much better than giving out statements in the aftermath of an extremely stressful situation that can be used against you to put you in jail for decades. Eyewitnesses, including participants, are very poor at remembering what actually happened.

[Skyyr]

I think the first time I ever "pulled a gun" was when I moved back to FL from Iowa. My gf and I were coming back from the clubs in South Beach around 3 or 4 am. As I was shooting up I95 I noticed a car on the side of the road with a young female standing beside it.

This was in pre cell phone days and my first thought was "My god she won't last 5 minutes out her before she is robbed or raped." I pulled over about 15 feet behind her. My intention was to give her a ride to the next exit where she could call for help. I didn't have a carry permit at the time but I did have a handgun in my vehicle in a holster between the seats.

No sooner than I was outside my car several large black males piled out of her car and ran towards me. I reached into the car and pulled my handgun and the closest one came to a stop about six feet from me.

They had not "yet" become a lethal threat, for all I knew they were running up to me to thank me for stopping to help them. But I strongly believe that I saved my life and that of my gf by pulling a gun.

As none of them had visible weapons, I really wasn't in a position to "kill them all" for the possible threat they posed. But at the same time I didn't wish to wait for them to have hands on me before I dealt with the threat that was brewing.

So I completely disagree with your position. I can think of several examples where one would produce a weapon to address / eliminate a threat but at the same time the threat has not manifested itself enough to become a "shoot now" situation. This is also why police officers don't shoot everyone they draw on.

If you wait until it is time to start shooting people to take steps to protect yourself, you might find you waited too long and it is no longer an option. I've been in enough bad situations to know how fast things can devolve.

I see your point, but that sort of differs in principal compared to "holding" someone at gunpoint, as you said originally. It's one thing to draw a weapon with the intent of deterring, but that's completely different from drawing a weapon and holding someone there until police arrive.

As I said originally, if I draw my weapon, it's because I've made the decision that killing the threat is acceptable. Not that you have to follow through with the shot, but in my opinion, having made the decision that killing is indeed justified is the ONLY reason to draw, not before. Having said that, if police are to be involved past that point, it should be either to bring body bags or to take your report on the perps that "ran away," not to come see you holding someone at gunpoint. If you do end up holding someone there until the police arrive, then it becomes a he-said she-said lie-fest. And, unfortunately for most of us, the riff-raff you just thwarted tend to reproduce at a much higher rate than the general population, so when it comes down to it, they'll have more brothas, sistas, and baby-mommas who can testify "they were there and saw everything" than you will. It's lose-lose 99.9% of the time.

Sure, even I would draw my weapon in your scenario, but that's because 1) they posed a threat 2) A reasonable person would assume there was a threat and 3) I'd be doing so in self-defense, the same requirements for using lethal force in many states. At that point, I've determined that a) I can shoot and b) I will shoot if needed, but to save myself a ton of trouble, I won't do so unless they do more to escalate the situation, as it just complicates matters for me. Drawing with the intention of "holding them there," however, is nothing but a can of worms.

I'd draw and warn them to leave, shooting if they came closer and holstering if they drove away; I would not, however, hold them at gunpoint and then call for police help.

Just my .02.

[Irish]

Going to jail for a few hours is much better than giving out statements in the aftermath of an extremely stressful situation that can be used against you to put you in jail for decades. Eyewitnesses, including participants, are very poor at remembering what actually happened.

I couldn't agree more. There is a reason even police officers do not give statements after a shooting for at least 24 hours and often times 48 or 72 here in Las Vegas. When they do decide that they are going to be giving a statement they also have the benefit of using very experienced lawyers, union reps and many senior police personnel who know how to articulate what happened and use the best verbage to help insulate their actions. They do this for a very good reason, prison sucks.

jklaughrey gave great advice on the 1st page of this thread, follow it.

[Sensei]

If I see a defenseless person that I believe to be in possible danger I will stop...

At 3 in the AM, with your GF in the car, and no cell phone? Unless I see her getting attacked, I'm driving to the next exit or stopping a safe distance away (about a 100 yards) to signal for help.

In terms of the scenarios, there are very few reasons to be found outside of your home by LEOs pointing your gun at the person you just shot. You first priority is to incapacitate the attacker so that you can escape. This means running to a safe location and calling 911, or driving to police station if you have a car. Hanging around the scene just inreases the chances of further confrontation with your attacker or their friends.

[SteyrAUG]

The reason I suggest cooperation is because you haven't killed anyone, so the other people are still alive/conscious to tell whatever lies about you and the situation they want. And depending on how good a story they have fabricated, they could easily end up going free while you end up in jail waiting for your lawyer because you wanted to CYA.

Without independent witnesses and physical evidence, arrests will be made based on the testimony of those present. And if the person pointing the gun at people refuses to talk, but the other guys present a believable story about how they were assaulted by a loony gunman, you can guess how things may go down. Sure, your lawyer could probably make things right in the long run, but waiting around for him when a simple explanation could get things wrapped up right away seems kind of silly. Especially if you haven't done anything wrong.

That said, I fully support constitutional rights, but some common sense goes a long way. Cops don't want to arrest the wrong person, and being upfront with them can help make sure mistakes aren't made.

Thank you, that is exactly the kind of useful perspective I was looking for.

Going to jail for a few hours is much better than giving out statements in the aftermath of an extremely stressful situation that can be used against you to put you in jail for decades. Eyewitnesses, including participants, are very poor at remembering what actually happened.

And I think that is why most of us will say something along the lines of "I wish to be cooperative but I need to speak to an attorney."

[SteyrAUG]

Sure, even I would draw my weapon in your scenario, but that's because 1) they posed a threat 2) A reasonable person would assume there was a threat and 3) I'd be doing so in self-defense, the same requirements for using lethal force in many states. At that point, I've determined that a) I can shoot and b) I will shoot if needed, but to save myself a ton of trouble, I won't do so unless they do more to escalate the situation, as it just complicates matters for me. Drawing with the intention of "holding them there," however, is nothing but a can of worms.

I can get us on the same page. When I drew I "expected I would have to shoot." In every situation I've been in I've expected and have been willing to shoot and kill. The reality is that willingness on my part resulted in a situation that was controllable. At any time I expected the situation could ramp up and force me to shoot. It's kind of ironic how a willingness to do something often makes such actions unnecessary.

As to hold or release. If I've got guys down and can see hands, I'd just assume maintain that situation and wait if their actions permit than run the risk of telling them to haul ass and one of them coming up shooting. To me it is actually more dangerous and stressful to release them than to simply maintain a hold.

That I had something of a working relationship with LE during many of my instances probably conditioned me to control and wait for the cavalry.