View Single Post
Old February 11, 2012, 11:38 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
I think the civilian is in deep trouble. The court will say that he should not have had a gun if he could not think clearly under stress. I cannot think of a situation where you being robbed is not stressful. I am speaking from more than one experience! One cannot make a mistake when you are carrying a gun without severe consequences!
I have to disagree. By definition, a stressful situation is one where you will have an elevated pulse, probably elevated blood pressure, experience anxiety, nervousness and fight to control basic impulses. A high-stress situation, like a life-or-death moment, can result in desperate panic impulses if you are unprepared, extreme fight/flight responses or a trained response if you have trained for something similar to what's happening. Claiming that an average citizen who very likely has little or no training under stress should be able to react in a calm, deliberate and perfectly lawful manner strains credibility.

Armed robbery implies the threat of death or great bodily injury by definition. The implication is give me what I want or I will maim or kill you with my weapon. And there is no guarantee that your compliance will result in you leaving without harm or even alive. Being in fear for your life is justified, as is using every tool at your disposal to prevent the threatened injury.

Originally Posted by MLeake
If the "uniform" was in fact a shirt with embroidered badge, that would add more reason for doubt. I could come up with one of those pretty easily, and I'm not a LEO.
I recall some years ago that a guy managed to "take advantage" of a woman because he was wearing a Police Athletic League polo shirt that had a star embroidered on it over the PAL script. She never noticed the script, just the "badge". Turns out he was a civilian who was a 3rd base coach on the PAL little league team.

Originally Posted by DoubleNaughtSpy
Back in the 70s, a lot of guys who had been to Vietnam and who came be to police jobs or got jobs as police officers had tattoos. I rather thought it commonplace for cops to be inked.
Actually, it's a different "type" of tattooing. Military Veterans who become cops usually have a unit tattoo on the forearm or shoulder. Sometimes they'll have a tat on each arm. But seldom do you see them with "sleeve" tattoos that cover the majority of the arm down to the wrist.

In the post-war years, it was not uncommon for police agencies to be strict about the appearance of their officers. Many "larger cities" (pop >50,000) required officers to be clean shaven. That meant no beards or mustaches at all and sideburns that stopped no lower than the bottom of the ear canal. Hair was to be trimmed above the collar in the back and cut short enough to prevent it getting in front of the eyes. Tattoos were frowned upon, but one (and only one) visible on each arm was marginally acceptable if they were "in good taste" and/or military service tattoos. It wasn't until the mid-to-late sixties that mustaches became acceptable in larger agencies, as long as they were trimmed, did not extend over the lips and did not 'droop' below the corners of the mouth.

I'm used to LEO's wearing leather (or faux leather) gun belts, either plain black leather, brown/cordovan (russet) leather or black basketweave pattern along with a uniform shirt, slacks and a pinned-on badge. In 2001, along the CA-NV border we were approached by a Park Ranger who's appearance caused several of us some concern. He wore a Ranger's uniform shirt, but with denim jeans, pull-on, square-toe cowboy boots and Bianchi's nylon duty gear with what looked like a H&K USP pistol. But he was ultimately very professional and didn't take offense when asked for an ID card. Had he been heavy handed, however, he would have encountered much more resistance.
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Page generated in 0.05477 seconds with 7 queries