Lawful carry citizens as targets

[FireForged]

First, Law Enforcement must adjust to the idea that citizens are armed and not everyone with a gun in their hand is a threat

I disagree.. first order of business is for the citizen carrying a weapon to take ownership of the fact that they themselves have the greater responsibility to avoid being perceived as a threat. You cant simply operate under the guise of "I have a permit" and can do "whatever" with a gun or behave in "whatever" manner when confronted. There is no visible aura of goodness which surrounds lawful carriers with good intentions. If the suggestion is to rate a person carrying a gun in hand at the same level on the potential "threat meter" as someone who does not currently have a gun in hand, I find that rather silly. If a person wants to display a firearm in public, they should probably expect that any subsequent contact with police will likely be rather serious. A person can elect to be offended by the nature or attitude of a serious and business direct LEO but most LEOs will accept those sort of complaints as par for the course.

Secondly.. any LEO worth a darn will tell you that threats are qualified by several distinguishable and articulable elements. The fact that someone has a gun in their hand can certainly be one of those elements. A gun in a persons hand is not usually the be all end all determining factor regarding who is a threat and who isn't but its certainly a place to start and it certainly should not be taken lightly. Ultimately I support the idea that a LEO is responsible for his or her actions but LEOs typically respond circumstances created by others they don't create the circumstance themselves. Where does it begin? It begins with the citizen.

I have carried a gun for more that 35 years and I have never had a LEO ask me one thing about it. Any contact I have hand with LEO in my personal life have been traffic related and they always find me cooperative, reserved and hands where they can see them at all times.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ROCK6

....First, Law Enforcement must adjust to the idea that citizens are armed and not everyone with a gun in their hand is a threat....

What makes you think that LEOs, as a rule, will consider anyone with a gun in his hand a threat -- or at least immediately shoot him?

With regard to the incident reported by the OP, we have no idea how the guy who was was behaving. He might very well have been acting in a way that would have led the reasonable person to believe that the guy with the gun in his hand was an imminent threat.

Originally Posted by ROCK6

...I just don't buy the irrational excuse that seeing a handgun in the hands of an individual marks them as an immediate threat...that's a lame excuse....

And do you have any actual evidence to support that conjecture? What do you know about perception and reaction times?

On the other hand, about 5 years ago in Sonoma County, California there was a [tragic] shooting of a boy by a deputy sheriff. The incident was investigated in depth by the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office which submitted this Report.

As part of that investigation the DA retained Dr. William Lewinsky of the Force Science Institute, a leading and independent and objective expert in the field of human perception and critical incident decision making involved in lethal force encounters to render an opinion about various aspects of this shooting. In the Report some of Dr. Lewinsky's finding were summarize as follows (at page 48):

....Dr. Lewinsky noted that research over the last decade has found that the average time it takes for an assailant to move his weapon from a bootleg position (held down, beside the leg), raise and fire it, is just over a quarter (0.25) of a second to 0.59 seconds. Also, long barreled weapons such as an AK-47 "can be shifted from a low, off-target position (pointed down to the ground) to an aimed point and fire position" in an average time of one second. He concludes that if Andy Lopez "had the weapon he was perceived to have (AK-47) and the intent to fire on the officers as was perceived and Deputy Gelhaus had not responded, but waited until Mr. Lopez had actually started to point or point and fire his perceived AK-47 -by the time Deputy Gelhaus could respond with gunfire, if Deputy Gelhaus was still able to -he could be shot at multiple times before he could respond back and fire one shot."...

Dr. Lewinsky's full report is included as Appendix D to the DA's Report.

Not everyone with a gun in his hand is a lawfully armed private citizen just trying to help out. And the time available to assess, decide, and act, given normal perceptual and decisional delays is probably less than you appear to believe.

These sorts of events do happen with alarming regularity. They happen when the guy shot has a toy gun, an unloaded gun, or something that looks like a gun but isn't. And they seem to happen largely because the guy who gets shot is acting in a way that can't reasonably be distinguished, in the time available for decision, from being a real, imminent threat.

None of us wear visible halos. None of us have neon signs reading "certified good guy" on our foreheads.

Originally Posted by HiBC

...The previous post by ROCK said it very well. Better than I did. He nailed it....

Nope, see above.

[FireForged]

There's just no reason for a LEO to shoot an armed civilian who's been involved in a self-defense situation where lethal force was necessary

As terrible and tragic as many misunderstandings may be, the fact of the matter is that there are people who behave inappropriately when confronted my POLICE in the moments immediately following a high stress event. Perhaps its due to stress, shock, injury or other issues but its not hard to understand how a responding LEO may mis-qualify a person as a threat based on actions and projections they deem "uncharacteristic" of a victim or well intending citizen. Actions and projections they may deem furtive, aggressive or actively hostile.

some of the most comment problems: a good-guys failure to follow police issued commands, failure to follow repeated commands, undue delay in following commands or seemingly hostile articulation of a handheld weapon.

Its a terrible thing when someone is harmed due to a misunderstanding but POLICE are not mind readers and when they must make a critical decision in a split second they often times do not have the luxury of having all the information and context that they would like. I think that the best thing we can do as armed citizens is not make it more difficult to understand.

[ROCK6]

Originally Posted By Frank Ettin: What makes you think that LEOs, as a rule, will consider anyone with a gun in his hand a threat -- or at least immediately shoot him?

With regard to the incident reported by the OP, we have no idea how the guy who was was behaving. He might very well have been acting in a way that would have led the reasonable person to believe that the guy with the gun in his hand was an imminent threat.

It’s completely subject, I’ll admit, but it has occurred enough to become an issue that should be address in training on both sides…simply my opinion.

Your last point is why I think it’s imperative for those who CCW to get training that includes actions post-self-defense shooting. I would in no way accuse a LEO from using deadly force when an armed or perceived-armed individual refuses to comply with directives. However, even cops are human and the incident with the man in Minnesota (Castile), who told the officer he was legally in possession of his CCW, proves that. If you listen to the tape, you hear the cop tell him to put his hands on the wheel and follow up telling him to get his wallet…a confusing statement that led to the fatal shooting of an innocent man. Who's to blame? I blame it on inadequate training.

Or we could discuss the Chicago guard shot by police holding down another man (suspected shooter) following a shooting in the establishment. Everybody was screaming at the police who arrived that he was a security guard, he wasn’t an immediate threat to the police officer; the officer shot and killed him. I’m sure there are actions the guard could have taken, but was this a “good shoot”?

Originally Posted By Frank Ettin:
And do you have any actual evidence to support that conjecture? What do you know about perception and reaction times?

Well that’s the issue at hand; if everyone is perceived as a threat due to potential reaction times, it’s an easy case to support and substantiate a “good shoot” isn’t it? My point is, if you’re involved in a shooting and law enforcement shows up while you have a firearm in your hand, you’re at risk. Your actions prior to that are just as important as obeying the directives of law enforcement.

Dr. Lewinsky's full report is quite good and helps provide a defense for law enforcement using lethal force. But it only addresses the perceived, direct threat to oneself. What happens when an officer spots an armed gunman that isn’t directly threatening him; possibly hiding behind cover, with what looks like a woman a couple kids huddled behind him? It’s all conjecture on my part, but I still think it’s a paradigm shift in how LEO first-responders assess an active shooting scene, and it’s even more imperative for CCW owners and practitioners to practice and train their own actions, before, during, and after a self-defensive situation.

Originally Posted By Frank Ettin:
Not everyone with a gun in his hand is a lawfully armed private citizen just trying to help out. And the time available to assess, decide, and act, given normal perceptual and decisional delays is probably less than you appear to believe.

These sorts of events do happen with alarming regularity. They happen when the guy shot has a toy gun, an unloaded gun, or something that looks like a gun but isn't. And they seem to happen largely because the guy who gets shot is acting in a way that can't reasonably be distinguished, in the time available for decision, from being a real, imminent threat.

None of us wear visible halos. None of us have neon signs reading "certified good guy" on our foreheads.

I fully agree with that assessment. But I still think there are TTPs that could and should be developed for both law enforcement and armed civilians. While the decision time is a critical factor, I was interested in talking to a couple of Atlanta PD officers I was training with. They have an 11-step protocol before using lethal force; I'm surprised more aren't shot in the line of duty considering downtown Atlanta. We all know that gets condensed in certain, dynamic situations. While I think the majority of officers would prefer to avoid using lethal force, and they too want to come home at night, it’s just as important for them to know the probability of a legally armed civilian may be involved, and not everyone at a scene should be presumed a threat. I don’t know what the right answer is and it’s a difficult situation for both sides. Like I said, I am looking forward to Tom Gresham’s deep-dive into working with the LE community and addressing some training aspects for both sides.

My son is 20 and has been legally carrying concealed for over a year (state of GA). I’ve had him take several classes with me and talked with numerous LEOs. There are several things he can and should do to minimize his perceived threat to law enforcement (whether he’s openly armed or not). I do personally think a large percentage of lethal force by LE could be eliminated if society simply complied with their instructions, but that’s a cultural issue for another discussion. My concern of course, is always the adrenalin and stress involved in a self-defensive situation (be it a fist fight or use of lethal force, heck, just getting pulled over can be nerve-wracking to some); I’m just a firm believer that realistic, scenario based training is the best way to mitigate accidents or negative perceptions. I can only focus on my part and my actions, as well as hope the LE community is doing theirs as well.

There’s more than anecdotal evidence to support both sides. I just think there’s enough evidence to support a shift in training for both police and those who responsibly CCW.

Originally Posted By FireForged:
some of the most common problems: a good-guys failure to follow police issued commands, failure to follow repeated commands, undue delay in following commands or seemingly hostile articulation of a handheld weapon.

Its a terrible thing when someone is harmed due to a misunderstanding but POLICE are not mind readers and when they must make a critical decision in a split second they often times do not have the luxury of having all the information and context that they would like. I think that the best thing we can do as armed citizens is not make it more difficult to understand.

I fully agree. However, what happens when a LEO gives you conflicting directions? One moment, he tells you to put your hands on the wheel, the next he tells you to get your ID? Both parties are likely stressed, but you mitigate stress through training. I know it might sound condescending, but I’ve rehearsed this with my son; you talk slow, loud and clear enough for them to hear, and your repeat what they ask you to do. It is impossible to determine body language or intent, which is why verbal communications is important. Of course, not dropping your handgun or taking any action with a firearm in your hand or even concealed is justification for you being targeted.

Scenario training is extremely helpful. What do you do if you’re engaged in an active shooter situation or any defensive situation where you’re armed and behind cover, and you hear someone behind you yell, “drop your gun”. Most here would say, you immediately comply, but go act out the scenario and many will turn around, gun still in hand, to visually identify who gave the command; it’s a simple reflex, and as @Frank Ettin pointed out, you just forced the LEO to make a decision that may not end well for you.

ROCK6

[FireForged]

I fully agree. However, what happens when a LEO gives you conflicting directions? One moment, he tells you to put your hands on the wheel, the next he tells you to get your ID?

common sense would typically dictate that a person elect the most benign option. reaching around behind my back and jamming my hand into my back pocket- probably aint it.

[davidsog]

Actually,the story that inspired me is about cops shot by "friendly fire"

Friendly fire is a very real hazard no matter who is involved once bullets start flying.

All CCW holders need to be aware that LEO's WILL be on the scene no matter what....

It is there JOB to protect society and not your individual safety. That means first sign of the LEO's you empty your hands of a threat until they are satisfied.

When I scan for follow on threats, my weapon is at position 3 not only clearing my field of view but it prevents me from pointing it any LEO's in close contact that might be responding.

I will keep my hands visible and open until LEO's make contact. My personal standard is to re-holster or just put the gun down at my feet once my lane is clear and no follow on threats. I also begin asking for someone to call 911 to get police onscene.

LEO's should also keep the possibility of armed citizenry making a lawful self defense shoot in their training footprint.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ROCK6

...the Chicago guard shot by police holding down another man (suspected shooter) following a shooting in the establishment. Everybody was screaming at the police who arrived that he was a security guard, he wasn’t an immediate threat to the police officer; the officer shot and killed him. I’m sure there are actions the guard could have taken, but was this a “good shoot”?....

Beats me. I'm certainly not going to hazard an opinion on the limited and unsupported description of the incident you've offered. As I noted multiple times, details matter.

Originally Posted by ROCK6

....if everyone is perceived as a threat due to potential reaction times, it’s an easy case to support and substantiate a “good shoot” isn’t it?...

What are you trying to say?

The real point is that reaction times are a factor, along with potentially other things. The issue with reaction times is that many folks don't consider them appropriately when trying to assess justification for a particular use of force.

Originally Posted by ROCK6

...if you’re involved in a shooting and law enforcement shows up while you have a firearm in your hand, you’re at risk.

Yes you are.

Originally Posted by ROCK6

...Dr. Lewinsky's full report is quite good and helps provide a defense for law enforcement using lethal force. But it only addresses the perceived, direct threat to oneself. ....

All it was intended to address was the particular incident that was the subject of the report. It was based on the applications of the understood science to the facts of that incident.

Originally Posted by ROCK6

....What happens when an officer spots an armed gunman that isn’t directly threatening him; possibly hiding behind cover, with what looks like a woman a couple kids huddled behind him? It’s all conjecture on my part, but I still think it’s a paradigm shift in how LEO first-responders assess an active shooting scene, and it’s even more imperative for CCW owners and practitioners to practice and train their own actions, before, during, and after a self-defensive situation....

You you're really saying is that the facts matter. There is no universal answer.

[ROCK6]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Beats me. I'm certainly not going to hazard an opinion on the limited and unsupported description of the incident you've offered. As I noted multiple times, details matter.

Exactly my point, and details do matter; however, you have an officer using deadly force without knowing all the facts. I can't necessarily fault the officer as I don't know all the facts and he had to make a split decision based on his assessment. My whole point is that incidents like this happen often and to simply shrug the incident away misses an opportunity to address training for both sides. In fact, this case specifically would make a great case-study as I think there were actions the armed guard could have taken as well as the officer to avoid what ultimately happened.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

What are you trying to say?

The real point is that reaction times are a factor, along with potentially other things. The issue with reaction times is that many folks don't consider them appropriately when trying to assess justification for a particular use of force.

That's the crux. It's not just reaction time to engage, but to assess the situation...always easier said than done. The fact of the matter is that an armed society needs to be part of the law-enforcement decision making process. Equally important, armed citizens need to learn and train on how to avoid facilitating hasty decision making from law enforcement. Incidents like these will happen, the goal of training on both sides would help to mitigate them.

ROCK6

[FireForged]

Exactly my point, and details do matter; however, you have an officer using deadly force without knowing all the facts.

any officer responding to a fast moving crisis is not likely to "know all the facts" until hours, days or weeks later- if at all. Knowing all the facts is an unrealistic benchmark in the face of a reasonably perceived dire need to protect life. Knowing [ALL] the facts is not always the basis by which police decide whether or not to take action. In real life and in the real world, people make decision and sometimes take actions based on what they know [at the time] and make a thoughtful judgment based on priorities of the moment.

My whole point is that incidents like this happen often and to simply shrug the incident away misses an opportunity to address training for both sides.

There have been training commissions all across this nation for the past 60 years which spend an inordinate amount of time addressing these ongoing issues. Some might say that it is also the fundamental basis for the idea of department accreditation which has been going on since the late 70s.

Im not sure where you have been

In fact, this case specifically would make a great case-study as I think there were actions the armed guard could have taken as well as the officer to avoid what ultimately happened

again.. there is already a robust mechanism (nationally) to evaluate such issues.

The fact of the matter is that an armed society needs to be part of the law-enforcement decision making process.

a person with a gun is a person with a gun.. every person with a gun can potentially be good, bad or ugly( it goes without saying). How they are ultimately perceived will likely depend on numerous elements as perceived by the officer making the judgment. Its never going to be perfect because we are all human.

As an armed citizen I simply accept that if I run around with a gun in my hand, there are some inherent risks associated. There are also some meaningful ways I can mitigate those risks if so inclined. I also accept that I am the person with the greatest responsibility to keep myself safe. I wont try to point the finger at someone else in that regard.

to learn and train on how to avoid facilitating hasty decision making from law enforcement. Incidents like these will happen, the goal of training on both sides would help to mitigate them.

Hasty decisions?.. That seems to imply ill conceived or reckless decision making. I don't think you can assign that connotation based simply on whether or not the officer was ultimately correct in his/her assessment. I think it that applying a reasonable and prudent person standard is generally much more customary and fair. A reasonable and prudent person with similar training, knowledge and experience as the officer in question.

Making urgent decisions in a split second which involve life-safety will probably always have a measure of haste involved. Haste is simply a factor, not a demerit.

again, police are already doing that in a very meaningful way. and have been for 60 years. What are citizens doing?

[ROCK6]

Originally Posted by FireForged

again, police are already doing that in a very meaningful way. and have been for 60 years. What are citizens doing?

That's extremely disingenuous at best. We have had armed civilians over the past 60 years, but the explosion of licensed CCW practitioners has only exploded in the last decade.

I do agree with your comment about what are citizens doing; however that's half the equation. You can simply ignore the increase of incidents of "friendly fire", but I would prefer to see more training on the LE side (which I can't necessarily confirm), as well as with those who CCW. Sure, common sense sounds simple enough, but I live and work in a very dynamic environment where you constantly have to train and remain vigilant of your surroundings. Common sense if often lost when you incorporate significant stress; training is the key and I'm simply saying that there's never a reason to ignore training to changes in an environment.

If the number of citizens with CCW has increased exponentially in the last decade and you see no reason for BOTH LE as well as citizens to address the potential for an intersection during and after a shooting incident, I'm simply wasting my time trying to explain my stance. I'm not blaming officers, but I am questioning if they are addressing the new dynamics. I truly don't know; however I agree with Tom Gresham's initiative with prominent members in the LE training community to actually get together and discuss it...that leads me to believe there is something that could use some improvement. I do know I can only train on what my personal actions will be and practice and train for those scenarios as much as I can.

I would like to hear from some actual LE members to see if this is being discussed, if it's not that big of an issue, or if any training scenarios are incorporating actions involving a potentially armed citizen in a self-defense shooting. Of course, I could just be blowing it out of proportion, but there are both statistics and cases where it sure seems like there is an increase.

https://gunsinthenews.com/study-conc...ess-than-cops/

The above article addresses a few "mistakes" where a legal gun owners were killed by LE. My question is why and how can both LE and civilian's reduce these incidents.

One area I think civilians need to receive some reinforced training is that they're not LE and they probably shouldn't inject themselves in a situation that doesn't immediately threaten them or their family. While many train, they should not become another "active shooter" unless they're are directly threatened. Personally, that makes the job of LE even more difficult when they arrive on the scene. That's a situation that may be difficult for many, but should be discussed and risks addressed.

ROCK6

[USNRet93]

but I would prefer to see more training on the LE side (which I can't necessarily confirm), as well as with those who CCW

One area I think civilians need to receive some reinforced training is that they're not LE and they probably shouldn't inject themselves in a situation that doesn't immediately threaten them or their family. While many train, they should not become another "active shooter" unless they're are directly threatened.

Agree 100% and again, I think a standardized CCWP training program that stresses things like this would be great. I can only speak for mine, but it was a waste of time. Here's where the NRA(the traing guy was 'NRA certified, whatever that means) could really make some points in the pro and anti war..stressing personal safety, responsibility..then onto the fun, recreational aspects of range shooting..and maybe back to NRA's original mission, hunting safety.

This also relates to the thread about no training or permit CCW in KY..

One area I think civilians need to receive some reinforced training is that they're not LE and they probably shouldn't inject themselves in a situation that doesn't immediately threaten them or their family

Bares repeating...

[FireForged]

That's extremely disingenuous at best. We have had armed civilians over the past 60 years, but the explosion of licensed CCW practitioners has only exploded in the last decade

sure buddy

[Leaf]

I know when I would intervene in an active shooting scene I would yell "just the facts, ma'am, just the facts" before I started shooting.

[5whiskey]

and maybe back to NRA's original mission, hunting safety

That’s not the NRAs original mission.

Here's where the NRA(the traing guy was 'NRA certified, whatever that means) could really make some points in the pro and anti war..stressing personal safety, responsibility

The NRA has had gun safety programs for years and years. They spent millions of dollars on research to roll out the school shield (which does not emphasize arming anyone in schools other than SROs, offers it as a suggestion but it’s not an emphasis), and Eddie eagle coloring books have been around at least 15 years (I suspect much longer). Nothing they do will make inroads with anti gunners. What they have done and currently do is typically scoffed at as disingenuous. However, i agree with you in part that training courses emphasizing use of force and actions around law enforcement could be beneficial and that the NRA would be an appropriate source for said training.

My CCH course, years ago before I became a cop, spent the majority of time on laws regarding use of force, what to do if you ever were involved in a shooting, and appropriate actions around police when armed. Granted it was a one day class with a couple of hours on the range, so only so much knowledge could be imparted in a mere 5 or 6 hours.

[davidsog]

Bares repeating...

It comes down to what you can personally live with...

If standing by watching innocent people lose their lives while you have the means to do something is within your range of living with yourself then it bares repeating.

In 2002 we took down compounds in Afghanistan that had cells training to conduct mass shootings exactly like the one in Paris. That will not be the last of such type attacks nor will it be confined to Europe despite being a much softer target.

Our society would be better off if both CCW's AND LEO's trained in this area learning to consider both being on scene of a mass shooting. Frankly I think our LEO's have become way too militarized and lethal force focused. IMHO, it was a mistake allowing them to access some of the surplus military equipment and has led to a loss of focus on their first mission. I could tell a huge difference in attitude in the LEO's we worked with pre-911 and post-911 after the POTUS allowed surplus military gear to be sold to Police Departments. It was kind of funny working with local LEO SWAT and having the US Army tip of the spear in CT operations with a decade of combat experienced emphasizing seeing hands and making a good shoot while the local cops are all taking about killing people in the house.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by davidsog

It comes down to what you can personally live with...

If standing by watching innocent people lose their lives while you have the means to do something is within your range of living with yourself then it bares repeating.

In 2002 we took down compounds in Afghanistan that had cells training to conduct mass shootings exactly like the one in Paris. That will not be the last of such type attacks nor will it be confined to Europe despite being a much softer target.

Our society would be better off if both CCW's AND LEO's trained in this area learning to consider both being on scene of a mass shooting. Frankly I think our LEO's have become way too militarized and lethal force focused. IMHO, it was a mistake allowing them to access some of the surplus military equipment and has led to a loss of focus on their first mission. I could tell a huge difference in attitude in the LEO's we worked with pre-911 and post-911 after the POTUS allowed surplus military gear to be sold to Police Departments. It was kind of funny working with local LEO SWAT and having the US Army tip of the spear in CT operations with a decade of combat experienced emphasizing seeing hands and making a good shoot while the local cops are all taking about killing people in the house.

What I wanted to repeat was some sort of more meaningful and standardized training when getting prepared for a CCWP..Mine was awful.

[davidsog]

What I wanted to repeat was some sort of more meaningful and standardized training

Welcome to 'Merica, baby. You got the Freedom to go out and seek more meaningful and standardized training. Have fun in your journey.

For others, that short class on the basics of legal aspects for a CCW class was perfect.

The only thing I would add to current CCW training standards are a few minutes of dealing with mass shootings. Establish a defensive position to protect your loved ones as well as those around you and expand/improve it. Develop the firefight. That is a skill and process that is not taught in most tacti-fool classes.

Know the importance of emptying your hands and keeping them in plain view of the officer at all times. A mass shooting scenario is not going to end for a CCW carrier until LEO contact. Realize you are probably going to be cuffed and end up in the back of squad car. It is going to take a while to get things sorted out to their satisfaction. Deal with it. If they cave your skull in during that process...wonderful. You won the lottery and your grandkids will be very happy to inherit the huge lawsuit winnings. Be happy in your good fortune and thank the officer for making this opportunity in your life.

I would definitely add training to every LEO department as well on dealing with CCW holders and mass shootings. Police officers not matter how much they want to be are not combat soldiers. IF you wanted that and are disappointed with Police work, go join the Military. Plenty of people to shoot in the face and their shooters/thinkers are overworked. Officer Safety is extremely important. However, just as a soldiers mission might be to storm the beaches of Normandy were the prospect of survival is not that great....you signed up to Protect and Serve. That means risk. If you cannot accept it, go work someplace else. Love and respect to the officers that understand this....

If I shot everybody I saw with a military firearm in Afghanistan, I would be in jail for murder. A similar response to mass shootings is required with appropriate discipline and clarity of thought.

Understand there are armed CCW holders out there who will respond/react especially given the typical police stellar response times (not your fault Police Officers and my personal safety is not your responsibility)...to save their loved ones as well as others lives.

[HiBC]

Well said:

I would definitely add training to every LEO department as well on dealing with CCW holders and mass shootings. Police officers not matter how much they want to be are not combat soldiers. IF you wanted that and are disappointed with Police work, go join the Military. Plenty of people to shoot in the face and their shooters/thinkers are overworked. Officer Safety is extremely important. However, just as a soldiers mission might be to storm the beaches of Normandy were the prospect of survival is not that great....you signed up to Protect and Serve. That means risk. If you cannot accept it, go work someplace else. Love and respect to the officers that understand this....

If I shot everybody I saw with a military firearm in Afghanistan, I would be in jail for murder. A similar response to mass shootings is required with appropriate discipline and clarity of thought.

Understand there are armed CCW holders out there who will respond/react especially given the typical police stellar response times (not your fault Police Officers and my personal safety is not your responsibility)...to save their loved ones as well as others lives.

[5whiskey]

LEO's should also keep the possibility of armed citizenry making a lawful self defense shoot in their training footprint.

Well said, along with what HiBC quoted from you.

As an aside, from my LEO perspective armed citizens acting lawfully in defense of self and others is in the training footprint. At least in my area, but I’m also in a very 2A friendly state. Admittedly, I can’t speak with authority for every agency in every town, county, and state in America. It’s nothing to run across a law abiding (absent speeding or rolling a stop sign) citizen who is carrying where I’m from. Absent observations that you recognize from training and experience that lead you to believe citizen speeder is a little more nefarious, most cops around here think nothing about the fact that they’re carrying. This IS introduced in FOF training on occasion. Officers from my agency responded to an assault call a few years ago. Upon arrival, a citizen who had his ccw had a pistol drawn at the low ready, quickly holstered upon observing police, with an apparently scared female backed into a corner. After sorting it out, the “scared female” had just beaten the brakes off of another lady with a broken broom handle, knocking her uncounsious and swelling both her eyes shut. Good guy with a gun witnessed the assault, unholstered his firearm and presented it, stopping the assault. He acted appropriately upon police arrival (reholstered and put his hands up upon first sight of police) and so did the police (he was detained but released without his skull caved in after speaking with witnesses and getting his story, along with viewing video of the incident).

Bad stuff happens. Misunderstandings occur. 99% of the time, they don’t if everyone involved uses even a small portion of common sense.

[FireForged]

LEO's should also keep the possibility of armed citizenry making a lawful self defense shoot in their training footprint.

The guy fleeing the scene (might be the good guy)
The guy who initially called police to the scene (might be the bad guy)
The guy with the gun (might be a well intentioned citizen or a off duty LEO or other lawful carrier or perhaps the badguy)

The guy who is not obeying your commands might be contemplating an attack on you or maybe its a deaf person or maybe its someone in shock or maybe they are suffering from some sort of medical condition which is impairing their judgment or maybe its so loud that they cannot hear you clearly, maybe they cant see clearly yadd yadda

The guy stumbling down the sidewalk might be drunk, or injured, or suffering from a medical condition which impairs coordination or perhaps they have a head injury yadda yadda yadda.

If the suggestion is that LEO's do not consider that a armed person might be a good guy is just silly on many levels. Any suggestion that LEO training does not already highlight such possibilities is equally as silly in my estimation. Still, I will admit that LEOs are human and some do sometimes make bad judgment calls during the 000.98 of a second that they are typically afforded to make such decisions.

[davidsog]

Cops gun down man for legally carrying firearm

He fired these conflicting commands in quick succession giving Scott no opportunity to comply with any of them and then fired two rounds at Scott’s chest. As the officer began yelling and Scott realized he was the subject of the commands, he turned, lifting his hands, and apparently tried to follow the legal requirement to immediately inform an officer that he was an armed weapons permit holder, but he didn’t have time.

https://www.wnd.com/2012/06/cops-gun...jwmPoKiBp7J.99

Minnesota CCW Holder Shot By Police

The officer was acquitted on all charges but FIRED the same day. Rightfully so, this young man was not looking to kill anyone. He was just very scared and not very well trained.

https://www.usacarry.com/minnesota-c...r-shot-police/

Alabama Mall Cops Blame Shooting Victim for Holding Gun While Fleeing Active Shooter

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alabam...active-shooter

[davidsog]

To suggest that LEO's do not consider that a armed person might be a good guy is just silly on many levels.

Which is not what is being suggested, Chicken Little.

[FireForged]

If that is not the sentiment that you perceive after reading a number of posts, that's you.. perhaps you are correct. I commented in a manner reflective of how I felt about what I read.

[davidsog]

Me too.

What is being suggested is as CCW holders become more prolific and more importantly, mass shootings become more prevalent......

LEO training needs to emphasize even more the fact there will be more and more encounters with legally armed, law abiding citizens.

I hope that is cleared up for you.

[FireForged]

What you don't want is several hundred thousand LEO who are reluctant to do what they deem necessary due to OVER emphasis of a subject that any reasonable person already accepts as important. Training has always been a balancing act and right now I think that if anyone is suffering from a training deficit, its not the active LEOs. Displaying a gun in public is dangerous business but certainly there are methods and tactics which can be used by the citizen carrier which may mitigate the potential of being mistaken for a badguy.