Lawful carry citizens as targets

[TunnelRat]

Saying we're on the same team is overselling it imo. I agree that in concept we're not a threat and our goal isn't to harm them, for most lawful people carrying. But we're not law enforcement and a CCW permit doesn't make us law enforcement. The saying that you're on the same team often, in my experience, results in a degree of eye rolling and I don't think that's without reason. My goal in carrying a firearm is to protect myself, my family, and my property. I am not enforcing the law or ensuring the public good. There is a difference.

And while there absolutely are members of law enforcement that have negative attitudes, as you yourself noted there are also many positive interactions. Police are human and the interactions with them vary like any interactions with humans. I think saying, "I am not a criminal", is implying you're being treated like a criminal when in most cases you aren't. As for laws that are anti-gun and then the police are told to enforce them, people seem to forget we control the police, or should. If we don't like the laws they enforce we should change those laws.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Ton]

HiBC,

LEO are normal people from different backgrounds, some grew up in pro gun culture, some grew up in anti gun culture. Some are experienced and proficient. Others. . . not as much.

Most of the uniformed LEO you may come in contact with (city, county, state) will be aware of the gun laws in their state and will respect the letter of the law.

However, gun rights, like marijuana use, is also a political issue that normal people (including LEO) usually have a personal opinion about. So while one LEO due to his/her background and personal political beliefs may be completely supportive and comfortable with your right to carry, another, due to his/her background and personal beliefs, may respect your right and the law, but not be comfortable or supportive of it, and thus make it a more uncomfortable situation for you.

One thing I do think lawfully armed citizens need to be aware of is this: If you do draw the short stick in life and end up being involved in a deadly force incident, justified or not, police are almost always going to respond, point guns at you, detain you in handcuffs, and remove your weapon. This does NOT mean you've done something wrong or are under arrest or being charged with a crime. These are basic high risk tactics used in a variety of situations.

[HiBC]

Tunnelrat
Just about anything posted is subject to the interpretation of the reader.
I understand how what I said could easily be interpreted the way you interpeted it.No problem.You did fine. My fail in my wordsmithing.

I did not craft it well enough. By my words "we are on the same team" I did not intend to say "Now,with my CCW,I get to be an honorary junior cop"

I agree. That's not my role.I never thought it was.


Ton,I understand and agree with you mostly. The one fine point we may disagree on is this.So long as I am a law abiding citizen who is just trying to exist in this society, the LEO who has a certain passion or predudice or politics needs to keep those in check. That comes under "Professionalism"

nd thus make it a more uncomfortable situation for you.

Indeed,it can,and does happen,but so long as I'm obeying the law,the LEO's personal issues should not be part of my experience. That's when LEO's begin to transition toward something ugly.
And being "Only Human" does not preclude professionalism or excuse a lack of it.

[OhioGuy]

The Canadian border agent story above is just tragic

Makes me wonder...part of the value of armed citizens is the deterrent effect on criminals, who may not act because they fear being shot by their own victims. But if those same armed citizens are now in so much fear of being shot by police (or, possibly, each other) that they won't act, then doesn't that kind of negate some of the value? Just speculating.

Bob sees the mass shooter. Bob could take action and save people. Bob doesn't want to die at the hands of the killer. He also doesn't want to die at the hands of the police. So Bob escapes when perhaps he could have saved many lives?

Anyways, the attitude that "anyone who would carry a gun must be a criminal or on the same level as criminals" should be eliminated, but I suspect it never will be.

[HiBC]

Ohioguy:

An admittedly rare example: It was not all that long ago an LEO was in the process of being killed by a thug in the middle of a street. A CCW holder killed the thug and saved the LEO's life.

Now,lets apply all the rules or advice we read for armed citizens (Don't get me wrong,the guy is a hero)

Is there a different standard for helping an LEO? Why? I agree with helping the LEO,but what if I think "Its not me or my family.Let the police handle it"

Etc,etc.

[JohnKSa]

What I'm asking for is just a recognition that the lawfully armed citizen is every bit as legitimate as the armed fellow officer is,and deserves to be treated accordingly.

Given that armed fellow officers are unintentionally killed with some regularity when other officers come on the scene and mistake them for criminals, I think it's safe to say that there's not much of a double standard.

It's not about legitimacy, it's about the circumstances of the situation and what happens when people have to make critical decisions very rapidly.

[Double Naught Spy]

2. But of course the details are vital. Exactly what was going on?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-2-of...bery-in-queens

Suspect had fake gun. 2 officers shot, 1 of which was killed.

[Brit]

The only time I have been involved in an incident of violence against a fellow Citizen, whilst armed, the Gun and folding knife I was carrying, legally, was not deployed.

The young man, in a suit, with a cocktail glass complete with paper umbrella, and liqueur! Professed he needed a HUG! And stepped towards my Wife, who was standing next to the buttons in an elevator.
Just three of us in this moving elevator. I stepped under his left arm and drove him into the wooden beam (a protector of the finish on the elevator) at speed.

I never thought of these two weapons! Oh, and yes, I have been in lots of fights. The last, and only, fight I lost, I was 21 YOA. Now 83 YOA.

Carry a Glock 19 every day.

[Mobuck]

"Most of the uniformed LEO you may come in contact with (city, county, state) will be aware of the gun laws in their state and will respect the letter of the law. "

Not universally true. I was "braced" by a LEO with his hand on his gun over AN EMPTY HOLSTER.

[GarandTd]

I can't help but notice that the story omits the fake gun detail, but includes an eyewitness saying he thinks the suspect shot 1st.

[Wag]

I've had a couple of encounters with LEO while armed. Stories for a different thread. One of them was a local City PD copy and told me, "We love it when people carry firearms." Without a doubt, it's because our neighborhood is 30 minutes away from any first responders.

Another was when I was pulled over for speeding. I informed the cop I was CC and he asked for my pistol. I did everything he asked and the exchange was pretty low key but during the conversation, it was clear that he was not familiar with state CC laws. Probably a recent lateral.

Another occasion when I was pulled over for speeding (I know, but they were several years apart!) I informed and the officer just said, "Don't reach for it." That's the typical response for cops in this area, from what I understand.

As an aside, neither cop wrote me for the offense and I often wonder if it was because I was carrying or if it was because I was polite and deferential to them or a combination of the two.

For what it's worth, I do feel fortunate that these attitudes prevail in this area.

--Wag--

[GarandTd]

I was stopped for a traffic light violation last November. I told the officer I had a loaded pistol in my glovebox where my registration and insurance documents were. He asked if I had a carry permit, which I do. He then said don't reach for it and it is a non issue. That is my only encounter with law enforcement while carrying. At the end of the stop, the officer thanked me for being polite, professional, and cooperative. I did receive a citation, but was judged not guilty in the courtroom because I was honest with the judge rather than being defensive.

When the lawman shows up, I think it best to not have a firearm unholstered, exposed, and in hand. I would be hard pressed to blame an officer for drawing or even firing when confronted by a stranger wielding a firearm. LEOs may benefit from more training, but the carrying public needs to use a little uncommon sense.

[T. O'Heir]

"...The Canadian border agent story..." Our Federal law requires a licence to be in possession of a firearm or ammo. Just the box would be considered 'probable cause' for you having a firearm and more ammo. Likely be far worse for you if the box still had its original label.
Most Canadian Customs types are house wives or part timers(college students) who have never seen a real firearm before getting hired. (Sadly most cops, everywhere, are the same. Never saw a real firearm prior to getting hired and sent for training. The days of cops being shooters before getting hired is long gone.) Most Canadian Customs types, during the initial training, were failing the training too. It was their Union that decided they needed to be armed.

[HiBC]

Even funnier is when I came back.
I was eating a few fish as I caught them fresh,but it seemed a bad idea to even worry about trying to keep fish in the cooler for over a week.I et most everything go. This time I was in Manitoba.There was a commercial fisherman there,so I bought some commercial walleye on the way home.They ice packed them real nice for me.
Going through customs,I presented my receipt and told them about the fish.

They looked at my Lund boat,rigged for battle...They looked at me...."You came all the way up here and BOUGHT fish? Pull that rig over here...We had to pull every fish out of the ice,they went through everything...


Oh well.Made sense to me.

[FireForged]

Context is everything and certainly any practical assessment regarding an armed individual will weigh heavily on what has happened and what [is] happening and what seemingly is about to happen.

Above all else, I think a person carrying a gun has an obligation to avoid appearing openly as a theat. Additionally, I think any person carrying guns in public needs to put some forethought into how they are going to respond to a potential challenge made my any LEO. You need to know how NOT to act when confronted because a persons actions in the first few seconds is likely going to set the tone for all that follows.

Do LEOs need more training?.. I think the more honest answer is to say that continued and advanced training is always a good idea for anyone who has the occasion to handle complex matters which can very easily impact life-safety.

Just because you are a good guy does not mean that there is some sort of aura or glow which signals to an approaching LEO that you are not a bad-guy with a gun. You must use common sense and the first step to using common sense is to stop blaming the LEO and perhaps put that effort into some personal introspection.

Everyone can do better and it should begin with the citizen who is carrying the gun. As a citizen carrier, I am the person with the greatest responsibility to maintain my personal safety. Carrying a gun in your hand can come with risks and a person should probably weigh those risks before participating in a course of action that involves displaying a firearm. If you do decided to lawfully display a firearm its probably a good idea to do so for only the most limited amount of time possible.

[GarandTd]

Well said, FireForged.

[shafter]

The one main item that says you are not a criminal, your handgun is in a holster. Criminals do not carry in holsters.

Once loading timber into the back of my Jeep, outside a Store, I felt a tug on my shirt, pulling it down. Looked back female Deputy walking away, "Thank you" I called. She just waved, carried on walking.

That might be true in a lot of cases, but I'm not going to take for granted that because the gun is holstered instead of shoved in the waistband I'm dealing with a good guy.

The deputy that tugged your shirt down was extremely foolish in my opinion. She should have just casually told you that instead of touching anywhere near your firearm.

[FireForged]

The one main item that says you are not a criminal, your handgun is in a holster. Criminals do not carry in holsters.

It may be considered a supplemental nuance but a LEO worth his/her salt is not going to make any practical assessment based on something so superficial. Realistically speaking, holster or sans holster doesn't really mean much of anything towards good guy or bad guy. It means alot towards goodball or non-goofball.

[Double Naught Spy]

The one main item that says you are not a criminal, your handgun is in a holster. Criminals do not carry in holsters.

Assuming a person is a good guy because he has a holster is the sort of logic that can get you killed.

[Don Fischer]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Saying we're on the same team is overselling it imo. I agree that in concept we're not a threat and our goal isn't to harm them, for most lawful people carrying. But we're not law enforcement and a CCW permit doesn't make us law enforcement. The saying that you're on the same team often, in my experience, results in a degree of eye rolling and I don't think that's without reason. My goal in carrying a firearm is to protect myself, my family, and my property. I am not enforcing the law or ensuring the public good. There is a difference.

And while there absolutely are members of law enforcement that have negative attitudes, as you yourself noted there are also many positive interactions. Police are human and the interactions with them vary like any interactions with humans. I think saying, "I am not a criminal", is implying you're being treated like a criminal when in most cases you aren't. As for laws that are anti-gun and then the police are told to enforce them, people seem to forget we control the police, or should. If we don't like the laws they enforce we should change those laws.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

And just how are you gonna change the law?

Add one more thing. I never ever open carry, never. You draw attention to yourself if you do that, good guy's, bad guy's, all guy's.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

And just how are you gonna change the law?



Add one more thing. I never ever open carry, never. You draw attention to yourself if you do that, good guy's, bad guy's, all guy's.

The same way we change any laws. Voting.

In case your second comment was directed at me, I never advocated open carry.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Given that armed fellow officers are unintentionally killed with some regularity when other officers come on the scene and mistake them for criminals, I think it's safe to say that there's not much of a double standard.

It's not about legitimacy, it's about the circumstances of the situation and what happens when people have to make critical decisions very rapidly.

That is absolutely correct.

Somehow this thread got onto two entirely separate topics, and folks are having a tough time distinguishing between them:

1. The problems associated with having very limited time in which to decide if someone represents a threat and take action.
   
   
2. Law enforcement attitudes towards armed private citizens.

Based on the OP this thread is about the first. Mixing the two is resulting in a barely coherent hodgepodge.

Let's stick with the first or this thread will be closed.

[ROCK6]

Tom Gresham from Gun Talk is working to address this. It's a two-party problem. First, Law Enforcement must adjust to the idea that citizens are armed and not everyone with a gun in their hand is a threat. No different than certain combat ROE, where it's dangerous, but you don't just shoot anybody with a firearm that isn't pointed at you. While I do support the LE community, 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 their training needs to evolve to the realities of today.

That said, civilian gun owners also have a responsibility to avoid becoming a target and making decisions for LEO's harder than it should be. Outside of my (or my families) immediate self-defense, I would never present my handgun without having an immediate need or I knew I could communicate with a LEO that I was a friendly (think of a man-down scenario who needs assistance). Any shooting situation should end with you getting your handgun back in the holster or on the ground once the threat is eliminated or you're behind cover and out of immediate danger; communications with LE is vital, be it phone, verbal, or non-verbal (hands up, on the ground, away from firearm).

Law Enforcement are people to, and they make mistakes, and fear for their lives just like everyone else. Yes, there should be armed-citizen protocol training for both LEOs and civilians and I would like to see agencies train more with scenarios involving armed citizens. CCW trainers should also be involved to ensure those TTPs and protocols become standards and wide spread in course..

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. However, it's incumbent upon all legal, civilian CCW practitioners to train and have the situational awareness to mitigate LEO friendly fire.

ROCK6

[HiBC]

Frank Ettin

Somehow this thread got onto two entirely separate topics, and folks are having a tough time distinguishing between them:
The problems associated with having very limited time in which to decide if someone represents a threat and take action.

Law enforcement attitudes towards armed private citizens.

With all due respect,I'm sure you will call it as you see it.

I am the OP.As I took ownership of in post #7 and post #28.I did not start this post very well. The unfortunate friendly fire incident between LEO's certainly includes your first point,about little time and quick decisions,.

That IS relevant,there IS "fog of war",and LEO's ARE fallible human beings with the quite reasonable wish to make it home after the shift. That's an important relevant factor,

But actually the point I was trying to express was more about your second thought. Maybe "attitude" isn't always accurate. I might substitute "mindset"

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

Permitted carriers used to be uncommon and you had to have a good reason to get one.Now,where I live,it is "Shall Issue" and about 1 in 20 people have a permit.
I can go research a link to the story,but not too long ago in Colorado a guy walked into a WalMart(it seemed) intending to rack up a body count. He stopped at two,maybe three fatalities,turned and left.The reason is several armed people had drawn on him.He did not go in to die.Threat was over,no CCW fired.

The news emphasized the hours the police investigation took due to all the armed citizens in the security videos.(As if the CCW holders were a problem)

They failed to mention those armed citizens stopped the killing,which IMO may have continued until LEOs s arrived.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/0...strem-charges/

I am conscious that if I am in a grocery store with 75 other people.likely a couple of other shoppers are armed.

Again,Rock said it well.

[USNRet93]

CCW trainers should also be involved to ensure those TTPs and protocols become standards and wide spread in course..

I'll say it here again..and yes, anecdotal but still accurate, IMHO. MY CCW training course(along with both son's..different places, instructors) was a waste of time. It was a square filler..pay my $90, sit listen to this guy ramble for 3 hours, get my piece of paper..Give to County Sheriff with $152..get my card.

A 'responsible' CCWP holder will use this as a first step and continue to train, both physically and mentally, to be a 'responsible' CCWP holder. BUT, I think the average CCWP holder is the 'fill the squares' type person, strap on the piece and all is good....This is a question..why NOT better, more standardized training? Why NOT range time/qualification? Why NOT more time on the specifics of actually being an armed citizen and the HUGE responsibilities that go along with that? Seems like CCWP holders ought to be the 'experts' in firearm handling....

Rant out..