Quote:
|
What worries me are those CCW-licensed folks who have taken their CC permit as a license to expand their role to include the functions of an armed police officer on behalf of others.
|
I couldn't agree more. BillCA's comment that the appropriate avenue is education and more education is on point.
If I were designing the educational curriculum for this, I would
start with two things that were tought in my state CCW class:
- The concealed carry endorsement does not confer any police powers upon a citizen.
- While our state law does provide for the use of deadly force to protect a third person under certain circumstances, there are great risks involved (this would have to be tailored to specific states).
I would add the following:
- Sworn officers have an obligation to engage miscreants for the purpose of enforcing the law; civilians have no such duty.
- When they are actually involved in the performance of their duties, sworn officers may display lethal weapons without legal ramifications; civilians may not be able to do so without risking criminal charges, in the absence of immediate necessity and imminent danger.
- Sworn officers are are schooled in the classification of criminal offenses according to severity, and they are trained in the law as it applies to arrest and detainment, the appropriate level of force to be applied, and what to do under varying circumstances in the event that a suspect attempts to flee; civilians are not.
- Sworn officers have been trained in following approved procedures that thave been appropriately reviewed and approved for legal compliance and tactical soundness; civilians have not.
- Sworn officers can call for backup via radio, and it is likely that they will not attempt to capture a criminal without backup except in a dire emergency.
- Sworn officers are indemnified by their jurisdictions against civil liability, which may prove involve very severe exposure; civilians are not.
Examples of situations that may
appear to indicate the need for intervention, but that are not what they seem, should be provided, along with a discussion of the severity of the civil and criminal liability that a citizen may assume by intervening inappropriately. I would advise people to consider intervention
only when they know the apparent victims or when it is
abundantly clear that not intervening is very likely to result in death or great bodily harm.
The fact that most LEOs will not intervene when off duty should be pointed out and discussed.
I would hope that similar education regarding when the use of deadly force is justified in other kinds of encounters, indoors and out, and when it is not, will be provided also.
It is essential that anyone who carries a gun fully appreciate the fact that "adding a firearm into how one relates to the events and circumstances around them on the mundane daily routine of their lives complicates the issues and adds risks both legal and physical, because carrying a gun has a lot more gravity than many realize at first" and that it involves "the possibility of serious criminal charges and the potential to really harm someone are amplified 100 times with the presence of a gun that's brought forth".
I hate to put it quite this way, but people have done some pretty bone-headed things and gotten themselves into lot of trouble from time to time. That does not help anyone at all. Let's work to inform and educate.