Lawful carry citizens as targets

[Leaf]

I would agree, though what seem see as cautious others see as paranoid.

Indeeeeed.

[Leaf]

I would agree, though what some see as cautious others see as paranoid.

Well, snowflakes are gonna be snowflakes.

[davidsog]

When I see an armed LEO,I don't see a threat,. The lawful concealed or open carry civilian is carrying for essentially the same reason the LEO is and represents no more threat than the LEO does.

And the civilian is just as lawfully and legitimately armed as the LEO is.


Once again,I see no threat in an armed LEO. Concealed and open carry are legit and common enough its time LEO's not necessariy see the armed citizen as any more of a threat than another LEO.

Well put and essential in today's increasing threat of mass shootings and terrorism on the home front.

[davidsog]

Back in the seventies and eighties it was not unusual for us to take fire directed at us particularly in our marked patrol cars while driving randomly down highways and interstates.

During that same period, as an officer on duty I was involved in no less than six shootings, I was shot twice, and I had no less than a half dozen other occasions where suspects attempted to stab and/or slice me with all manner of pointy and/or edged weapons.

You’ll have to forgive me if I’m not impressed about how dangerous it is to be a cop “this day and age.”

I bet you are not impressed, LOL.

Today's LEO's seem somewhat confused about their mission and role in the community they serve.

A fact which is noted in the professional journals....

The military and police professions share a number of common facets, but in spite of surface similarities, the two professions are significantly different. Consequently, the evidence indicating a convergence of primary aspects of the two roles presages an important societal development, with substantial implications on several levels.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....95327X09335945

[HiBC]

The lawful concealed or open carry civilian is carrying for essentially the same reason the LEO is and represents no more threat than the LEO does. (HiBC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one lawfully concealed carry civilian, I'm not carrying for the same reasons as a LEO (as I see it). I'm less concerned about the public good and more concerned about the safety of myself and my own family. I

(Tunnelrat)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tunnelrat,I think we may have been down this road once,and my words fail.
There is a fork in the path and we take it!

No heartburn! I did say "Essentially" I did not care to write an extra 4 paragraphs detailing the differences. But,as you demonstrate,folks can find a meaning I do not intend. I'll own "I was not clear enough" Here is where t went wrong. The word "reason" It seems you took that as "The role of the armed citizen in society"

When I meant it as :"The reason I have a gun in my holster",which,IMO,is the same as a cops: "That raw moment when some SOB intends to kill me"


If we get here again,please remember:


I Absolutely DO NOT believe my concealed carry makes me a kinda sorta wannabe junior deputy. I'm quite certain my job description as "civilian" IS NOT the same as the LEO's job description.

The LEO must walk toward danger.The LEO must confront and arrest folks who will kill if they get the chance.The LEO may not have the luxury of walking away.

As A civilian,its nearly always my job to walk away from danger.Its not my job to confront and arrest people.

IMO,I have that down. Those are true and valid differences between the roles of armed civilians and armed LEO's
That is NOT what I was talking about.
I was talking about the role of the armed civilians firearm compared to the role of the LEO's firearm.

Both the civilian and the LEO are justified in the use of deadly force under the same or similar circumstances. "The bad guy was in the process of killing me so I stopped him"

The lawfully armed civilian and the LEO in the moment of gravest extreme are carrying for the same reason,wth the same legitimacy .

Now,you certainly may still disagree,any time.

As one lawfully concealed carry civilian, I'm not carrying for the same reasons as a LEO (as I see it). I'm less concerned about the public good and more concerned about the safety of myself and my own family.

I'm not an LEO. There are all kinds of LEO's The "Serve and protect" motto is in force some places,sometimes.

I don't know. Does a cop strap it on and think "Today I may have to shoot someone to serve the public good"

Or does he think "I wear this iron for the safety of myself ,so I can see my family....and for the safety of my partner and other LEO's...to shoot back at them that would shoot me. I'm not saying an LEO would not shoot for the public good.I'm sure they would,and do,if the timing s right.

Often the public they serve is already dead. That's a reason to carry.

[TunnelRat]

You really don't have to "own" anything. It's an internet discussion, and while I appreciate you taking the time to clarify, my opinion is hardly the best out there. It's just one opinion. If I interpret what you said in a manner you didn't intend it's not really your fault.

I also bring it up because some people do think differently. They think that carrying a firearm is accepting some level of responsibility for those in the public around them or they already feel that sense of responsibility and carry a firearm as a result. That's simply their viewpoint and I'm not saying they're wrong, it's just not how I see it.

I get what you mean in the end. As I said above, I do think the distinction between law enforcement and concealed carrier actually adds to your argument. If one has notably more authority than the other then it stands to reason that the expectations should differ.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[davidsog]

If one has notably more authority than the other then it stands to reason that the expectations should differ.

Yep, One is the reason the other exists and has given his consent for LEO job to be created.

[davidsog]

As A civilian,

The supreme court has ruled that YOU are responsible for your own self defense not a LEO.

[OldMarksman]

When I meant it as :"The reason I have a gun in my holster",which,IMO,is the same as a cops: "That raw moment when some SOB intends to kill me"

I Absolutely DO NOT believe my concealed carry makes me a kinda sorta wannabe junior deputy. I'm quite certain my job description as "civilian" IS NOT the same as the LEO's job description.

The LEO must walk toward danger.The LEO must confront and arrest folks who will kill if they get the chance.The LEO may not have the luxury of walking away.

As A civilian, its nearly always my job to walk away from danger.Its not my job to confront and arrest people.

Both the civilian and the LEO are justified in the use of deadly force under the same or similar circumstances. "The bad guy was in the process of killing me so I stopped him"

The lawfully armed civilian and the LEO in the moment of gravest extreme are carrying for the same reason,wth the same legitimacy .

Well said.

[Sequins]

I wish the police were more militarized. In the military there is training, discipline, and rules of engagement. When a soldier fires on unarmed civilians he is court marshalled, not defended by a union, no billed, and transferred one jurisdiction over. In the military an enemy combatant must fire upon you before you are permitted to return fire. It is incredible to me that soldiers in Afghanistan exercise more restraint as an occupying force than our own LEO do at home with fellow citizens.

Here at home one needn't look to hard to find excesses, and advice like "always comply, never have a weapon in your hand" is certainly a good best practice but it doesn't insulate one from harm. Remember fellow patriot, second amendment supporter, proud gun owner, and licensed concealed carry permit holder Philando Castille? He was executed in cold blood by an LEO who faced no repercussions, in a situation he had no reasonable means to escape. Cornered like a dog by the "lawful authority" of an LEO and put down like one, despite having committed no crime.

I respect, fear, and avoid the police. LEO are simply one more vector for harm in my daily life, perhaps an even more threatening vector than a criminal. I can back down and try to walk away from a violent person, can't walk away from LEO. I can avoid a bad part of town or known crime hotspots, but the police are everywhere. Nothing good ever happens when the police around, best case you gain nothing, worst case you're dead. The only winning move is not to play.

We need more militarization of the police in my opinion, the military are professional.

[OldMarksman]

It is incredible to me that soldiers in Afghanistan exercise more restraint as an occupying force than our own LEO do at home with fellow citizens.

That assertion is absurd.

[Nanuk]

Ask yourself this question? How much firearm training do most LEO’s really have? I’m not talking about specialized units, just the average LEO. Most of them learned everything they know agout guns at their respective academies and comply with periodic qualifications that involve for the most part static shooting.

One of my Chiefs made the following comment " We train people to the minimum acceptable standard, if they want to get better it is on them". I could not agree more. I have been shooting competitively for longer than I have been in LE (Early 1970's).

To many cops a pistol is just something to hang on their belt because they have too. I will also say that many CCW's lack any training and minimal proficiency as well. I used to administer my state's CCW testing, most of the applicants were scary in their gun handling and shooting.

[Nanuk]

The militarization of civilian law enforcement in the United States and the widely held attitude that one’s top priority above all else is to get home to the warm embrace of one’s significant other have made a mess out of what it means to be a peace officer these days.

Are you kidding me? You expect cops to be martyrs? My primary goal during my career was to do just that, go home at the end of my shift. Any other attitude is foolhardy.

Militarization? You mean having armored vehicles available? We had armored vehicles available decades ago. It is the safest way to get to a downed person while taking fire. Are we supposed to just leave them out there?

There is an old saying; "walk a mile in my shoes".

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

One of my Chiefs made the following comment " We train people to the minimum acceptable standard, if they want to get better it is on them". I could not agree more. I have been shooting competitively for longer than I have been in LE (Early 1970's).



To many cops a pistol is just something to hang on their belt because they have too. I will also say that many CCW's lack any training and minimal proficiency as well. I used to administer my state's CCW testing, most of the applicants were scary in their gun handling and shooting.

In my own training a lot of the time I've been with other officers. There's a dramatic difference, in my experience and on the average, between the typical patrol officer and those in SWAT or other response teams. The difference is as dramatic as what I see in the civilian world of gun owners versus shooters. Both groups own firearms, but one makes it a business to practice with them.

I've seen veteran patrol officers muzzle their bodies while drawing their firearms in a vehicle, repeatedly shoot the wrong target on a square range when they're not under pressure, and I've talked to instructors that have told me that when they teach department mandated courses they might as well be herding cats and the most pressing question becomes when is lunch. To be fair I've also met some old timers that taught me a thing or two and they were great resources (they are usually training officers themselves). I've also seen officers just about to graduate the academy that frankly didn't have the gun handling I'd expect from a kid who'd been through the Appleseed program much less an academy.

Most SWAT or response team officers I've trained under or with are a different story. Some blow me away with the time they've put into this and it's great pushing myself to keep up with them. It's a direct part of their profession and it shows. The thing is after all the cop movies and TV shows over the ages these are the officers with the level of experience that people seem to expect from the average officer because of what Hollywood has told them.

This isn't me disparaging patrol officers. I imagine for many officers they will never fire a shot in anger (admittedly no one is shooting at me so my judgement can be called into question). Their days are filled with other tasks and it's easy to lose the importance of firearms in the noise. Time and money are always limiting factors as well. I also think the reality is that there are always individuals or groups in any law enforcement or military body where those people become the go to for more skilled weapons applications. This was true before firearms.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Nanuk]

I wish the police were more militarized. In the military there is training, discipline, and rules of engagement. When a soldier fires on unarmed civilians he is court marshalled, not defended by a union, no billed, and transferred one jurisdiction over.

UCMJ VS US Criminal law.

In the military an enemy combatant must fire upon you before you are permitted to return fire.

It is the ROE.

It is incredible to me that soldiers in Afghanistan exercise more restraint as an occupying force than our own LEO do at home with fellow citizens.

I call BS.

Remember fellow patriot, second amendment supporter, proud gun owner, and licensed concealed carry permit holder Philando Castille? He was executed in cold blood by an LEO who faced no repercussions, in a situation he had no reasonable means to escape.

The officer was charged criminally and acquitted. C'mon man stick to the facts. Just because it turned out different that what YOU wanted.

I respect, fear, and avoid the police. LEO are simply one more vector for harm in my daily life, perhaps an even more threatening vector than a criminal.

Maybe it is your lifestyle that puts you in danger?

I can back down and try to walk away from a violent person, can't walk away from LEO.

You can try.

I can avoid a bad part of town or known crime hotspots, but the police are everywhere. Nothing good ever happens when the police around, best case you gain nothing, worst case you're dead. The only winning move is not to play.

You certainly have a jaded outlook. The police have a similar outlook at times, they only interact with people at the worst of times.

We need more militarization of the police in my opinion, the military are professional.

They are also trained killers who have no training or equipment options but to kill once you fail to comply. Out of the millions of police interactions daily in the US how many result in shootings? How many of those were avoidable? And how many of those are not justified?

When someone brings a deadly weapon into the situation it severely limits the Police's options. Had your hero Philandro not pulled out his pistol he might still be alive today.

Fun fact police in the US kill more white males than any other demographic, by a large margin.

[Leaf]

That assertion is absurd.

Agreed. Absurd and a little frightening if you ask me yet that is where we are headed.

Are you kidding me? You expect cops to be martyrs? My primary goal during my career was to do just that, go home at the end of my shift. Any other attitude is foolhardy.

No, I’m not kidding you. No, I don’t expect cops to be “martyrs.” And no, I never considered my primary goal during my law enforcement career to be to get home safely although certainly doing so had a high priority. Maybe I was raised watching too many San Diego Police Department patrol cars pass by displaying the slogan “To Protect and Serve” and it warped my brain. I can tell you that when I pinned on that badge and strapped on my utility belt and weapon, I did so fully knowing I was a public servant performing a potentially very dangerous job.

There was no court in the land that was going to tell me I wasn’t there to protect and serve the people of my community. Also keep in mind, I would NEVER sit in my patrol car waiting for back up while listening to children being slaughtered inside their school rooms. I’m not saying you would, but I am guaranteeing you I would not.

There is an old saying; "walk a mile in my shoes".

I rather preferred wearing the military style jungle era boots with black canvas tops while on duty as a police officer rather than the “catch me screw me” type shoes some of you youngsters apparently preferred. By the way, did you not read a couple of my other posts in this thread? Or did you just notice they were written by old jar head Leaf and skip right past them?

[Double Naught Spy]

In the military an enemy combatant must fire upon you before you are permitted to return fire.

Well, by definition, return fire would be reactive firing to incoming fire, however, it is untrue that the military cannot fire until fired upon. ROE vary by circumstance/operation. In some cases, it may be true, but not in others.
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashp...of-engagement/

[Nanuk]

No, I’m not kidding you. No, I don’t expect cops to be “martyrs.” And no, I never considered my primary goal during my law enforcement career to be to get home safely although certainly doing so had a high priority.

We agree there.

Maybe I was raised watching too many San Diego Police Department patrol cars pass by displaying the slogan “To Protect and Serve” and it warped my brain.

A public relations slogan from LAPD.

I can tell you that when I pinned on that badge and strapped on my utility belt and weapon, I did so fully knowing I was a public servant performing a potentially very dangerous job.

I don't disagree except I never saw myself as a "servant".

There was no court in the land that was going to tell me I wasn’t there to protect and serve the people of my community. Also keep in mind, I would NEVER sit in my patrol car waiting for back up while listening to children being slaughtered inside their school rooms. I’m not saying you would, but I am guaranteeing you I would not.

Of course I would not.

I rather preferred wearing the military style jungle era boots with black canvas tops while on duty as a police officer rather than the “catch me screw me” type shoes some of you youngsters apparently preferred.

Youngster? I did my time in Jungle boots and they suck, they were fair in the 70's but I soon found myself wearing Danners.

By the way, did you not read a couple of my other posts in this thread? Or did you just notice they were written by old jar head Leaf and skip right past them?

No, I just responded to the most egregious of the posts.

[Nanuk]

Because, well, it isn’t the priority any longer for peace officers to protect citizens but rather that they get home “safely to the warm embrace of their loved ones” and that they use whatever force and or procedures desired by them to achieve their goals without regard to Bill of Rights or the principles under which this nation was founded.

What? Every time I have used force and investigated I was cleared. That being said if you are physically assaulting me, you just surrendered any protection under the law (4th amendment) until such time as stop assaulting me. I can use any force up to an including deadly force.

Fireforged, I can only assume that you like Wag have no conception or actual experience as to what it really means to “protect and serve” as a civilian peace officer.

https://agency.governmentjobs.com/sa...FwddxPacket%3E
besides the generic "protect property and citizens"?????

I am just busting your chops because you called me a youngster and asked why I did not respond to any of your other posts.

[FireForged]

Fireforged, I can only assume that you like Wag have no conception or actual experience as to what it really means to “protect and serve” as a civilian peace officer.

Sir, you are welcomed to assume what you wish.

There is nothing secret about my background and although I have mentioned it from time to time, I do not wear it on my sleeve. Maybe once you have been here a little longer than 15 minutes, you might have a better idea of member backgrounds. Over the span of 30 years I have held sworn and unsworn positions within Municipal as well as County LEO agencies. I am no expert and there is certainly nothing special about me but I am not forming opinions out of thin air, from watching youtube, reading books or listening to others tell stories. I get it, you disagree. I have no issue with disagreement, its generally a part of healthy discussions.

[JohnKSa]

Ok, enough with the "resume" comparison contest.

If you can't discuss the topic using the facts and logic then leave it alone.

1. We're not going to get into trying to validate resumes to prove who has more experience. Because it would be nearly impossible.

2. Even if we could validate resumes, it would be impossible to prove whose experience is more valuable or whose experience has provided more useful information relevant to this topic. Pure quantity is not always better, less is not always inferior.

3. Even if we could somehow objectively evaluate the "quality" of experience it wouldn't be conclusive because it doesn't insure agreement. Two people with identical amounts of similarly valuable experience can still hold different opinions.

4. Even people with no experience can have valuable insight based only on knowing the facts and on having the ability to integrate those facts using logical thought.

5. Trying to elevate one's opinion based on "resume" or trying to discount someone else's opinion using the same basis turns the focus personal instead of keeping it fact based and objective.

I'm not saying we have to hide our backgrounds, there can be value in providing context by explaining background and experience--but when we get to the point where people are trying to validate their opinions or invalidate those of others based primarily on their "resume", it tends to be the beginning of a death spiral.

[FireForged]

I agree with you John

[Leaf]

I don’t mean to sound recalcitrant, JohnSA. Sir, may I freely express my perspectives on your most recent input on “resume quoting” without fear of bannation? l promise to remain kind and gentle and use only “facts and logic” in my response.

[Leaf]

Yes, yes, fireforged, I do thank you for your input. Lol, Please lad, stick around to provide for further input. You’re OK with that, right JohnSA?

[JohnKSa]

The thread remains open for discussion on its original topic.

Resume quoting isn't against the TFL rules, but it tends to lead to posting behavior that is. No, this won't be a public discussion about why it is or isn't ok to turn this type of thread into a resume comparison contest.

A premise that can't be supported with facts and logic is just what it is--an unsupportable premise. Trying to "prove" it in the absence of facts and logic by an "appeal to authority" using one's own self as an authority and/or trying to disprove it by "poisoning the well" of others are not polite debate techniques and turn the focus away from the actual topic to discussions of the persons in the debate.