A couple things come to mind, first about the shoot first policy. Aren't those the kind of guide lines that led to the killing of a man on his back steps with a hose nozzle in his hand? And probably many others where there was some question as to the subjects intensions? Also isn't the out come of the incident you described an indecation of a more positive out come than if you just "caped him on sight" Are you so hardened that the result of your restraint displeases you?
Perhaps in hindsight you might change your reaction in the future. But to regret not killing him after it turned the way it did is troublesome, don't you think.

I have family in law enforcement and respect the job they do and that that you do for us all.
Just concerned that it can lead to some deadly attitudes in those doing the job, that need to be kept in check.

Cheers Richard

The only time I've ever carried was the days after the Rodney King riots. I'm not allowed to possess one in any business (work) situation anywhere. Not even when I was in South Africa, we did have armed security however.

scum-bag with a badge

What led to the shooting of hose nozzle boy are the 911 calls from the neighbors who reported that an unknown man with a gun was sitting on their apartment exterior steps.

That hose nozzle boy was drunker than a skunk did not help him.

That hose nozzle boy had a metal object in his hand that resembled a hand gun, and that the metal object was being pointed around like a hand gun did not help hose nozzle boy.

I have no information that the City of Long Beach has settled the lawsuit. Does anyone else have details on that??

silverwhaletail's attitude will make him a short timer. I hope his bosses will see his Silver 911 in the parking lot and put 2 and 2 together. He'll either get jammed during his short career and canned or relegated to a support position in HQ under supervision. Being a 27 LEO, I think his attitude is too cavalier and will lead to reckless behavior both on and off the job. It obviously has with his posts. A Department policy, any department policy stresses that Deadly Physical Force is the last option, not the first. He is wrong.

On a side note regarding open carry, open carry with a gun unloaded seems idiotic to me and obviously geared to some sort of confrontation or discussion relating to the lawfullness of same. Yeah it was cool to dress up like Butch Cassidy and Sundance when we were 10 years old, having a fake revolver hanging from your belt. But not when your an adult. I'm in the mindset of thinking if you have a Concealed Permit, then carry it concealed and don't make it obvious. Don't sit at Starbucks with it strapped to your ankle and then cross your legs so everyone can see that the "big man" has a gun. This is not Israel where everyone has a gun. It makes people nervous and will most likely lead to an encounter with LE (weird if that was the desired outcome). Obviously the real threat for LE is what you can't see, not what you can.

Just my $.02 worth, sorry for the rant. 99.9% of the guys and gals I work with take people's safety seriously and the last thing they want to do is draw their weapon.

No. Answer this:

Say you had a piece of property for sale and you had a strong, firm offer at X dollars. As a condition of the sale, you had to have a termite inspection completed and to the buyer by close of business Friday. Well, Friday comes and goes and you do not complete the termite inspection. You have lost your strong, firm offer.

On Monday morning, the buyer calls back and states that the offer stands. You complete the termite inspection and you sell the property.

Would you be okay with the fact that your failure to perform nearly cost you the sale? Or would you be disappointed in yourself that your slovenliness nearly cost you a very good deal?

Sure, your happy that "it worked out", but you are going to do everything in your power the next time to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

And I think that I said that my partner and I were disappointed that we didn't shoot the suspect. Whether he was killed or not is immaterial. Except maybe to Hugh the taxpayer who gets to foot the bill for 30 years on death row...

F off.

Nobody is fondling a weapon. My gun belt and equipment weighs 27 pounds. That's 15% of my body weight. I wear body armor and a dark blue wool shirt and pants in Southern California during July. Excuse me for trying to stay comfortable.

What do you do for a living? What kind of physical condition are you in? How old are you?

FYI, the cop's "superior" told the cop, "Hey, by the way, the victim with a small dick on that residential burglary that you took tonight didn't like that you talked to him while in the Position of Interview. He said that you were intimidating him. And he's pissed that his wife gave you her cell phone number. Whatever you do, don't call that btch. Until next week." :D

:d

In before the lock.

I really have no problem with cops always being ready and there's simply nothing wrong with resting a hand on a hip when there's a gun there and you're a cop. I'm much a gun nut as the day is long and want the gov't. to obey the law and all that. As long as it's holstered, I'm fine with it. When it comes ot of the holster, there needs to be a good reason.

Who will guard the guardians Plato?

My heartburn with this is what if a citizen happens upon a situation where a criminal is shooting or about to shoot innocent people. The citizen walks up to the area, is legally armed and pulls his weapon to deal with the situation.

Behind him are several police who just arrived and instead of saying something to properly deal with the situation (stop, drop the weapon) they simply shoot the person trying to help.

Guys, if this is what our cops are being taught these days then we ALL have a problem and this needs to change.

Then you'd better call it in first and tell 911 you're the good guy. I am not clearing leather to defend a stranger. Sorry, but it's not worth a jail sentence, financial ruin or getting shot by the cops by mistake. Ain't worth it. In AZ, permit holders are required by law to stop and assist an LEO if he's in trouble. But that's not the case with total strangers/civilians.

I can't imagine how hard it is for cops to sort out a situation when they arrive on scene. I do not want to be mistaken for an armed bad guy.

It appears that the training or policy is to remove thought from the situation. Act this way, don't think about it. No Badge + gun? Kill it.

I don't think the police understand that they work for us. I really don't think they get that.

Hey, if we all start packing, maybe guys like silver deepthinker would be out of a job. Let's all start packing heat

+10000

Sweet, maybe you'll shoot a fellow cop who decided to OC. That'll show him.

Concealed carry license is not a "license to aid"
 

Remember that the CPL is for personal defense of you, your loved ones, etc... You will get into serious trouble and possibly get killed if you try to intervene in an active shooter situation. We're not law enforcement and when the LEO do arrive, they are looking for a shooter and will take action if they see anyone with a gun!

Problem with this is that most people want to help. I dont care anymore lets all just kill eachother.

Sorry but do not agree. The police cannot be everywhere all the time (when seconds count, the police are minutes away) and you want us to stand around and do nothing while others die?

Aint gonna happen in our neck of the woods. Problem is that the LE need to stop this crap of "anyone with a gun gets nailed with no notice" crap. Its just not right...

Gotta agree with Joe...not around these parts either. Triple murder happened just around the corner from me the other night, a tragic story, but I digress... As a LEO arrived on the scene and blocked the apt entrance, the shooter rammed him and briefly incapicated him in his vehicle. Another resident of the apt. complex produced a weapon and held the shooter at gunpoint until additional LEO help arrived. No way in hell could/would I stand idly by situations like that either, serious trouble (or risks) be damned, and I ain't nuthin' special...just the way I was brought up.

Silverwhaletail has somehow miraculously survived 24 years in uniformed street level police work. But thanks for the concern. ;)

That you equate anonymous posting on the interwebbs with "reckless behavior" pretty much sums up the level of "experience" that you have acquired during your long and esteemed career in "law enforcement."

Back on Topic, I commented on the likely rise in the number of officer involved shootings, with regard to the "open carry movement."

I did not state that Use of Force policies had changed in law enforcement as a result of Open Carry.

I did say that CURRENT Shoot/Don't Shoot Training is leaning more and more toward "neutralize the threat immediately" instead of verbally confronting armed suspects and then allowing a suspect to decide if a gun battle will ensue.

I pointed to the latest training that I have received with regard to "Act -React" scenarios. We have LONG known that a determined suspect, when armed with an edged weapon, can close in excess of seventeen feet before a police officer can draw a weapon from a holster, come on target and engage the suspect.

What tactical officers have long suspected, but had never been formally studied until recently, is the reality that an armed suspect can retrieve a handgun from his person, aim and fire at an officer, BEFORE AN OFFICER CAN RETURN FIRE, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER WAS POINTING HIS GUN AT THE SUSPECT PRIOR TO THE SUSPECT'S DECISION TO ENGAGE THE OFFICER. The use of Simunitions in training has been the key element in this discovery.

Use of Force Policies are always going to state that the use of lethal force must only be used if an officer feels that his life or the life of another is in immediate danger.

However, court decisions will decide what is "reasonable" and will continue to give us guidance and to dictate the parameters within which we must operate. That's good. I love case law. It makes it easy. if you are a professional and you know what the law is.

As far as my "boss seeing "a silver 911 in the parking lot and putting 2 and 2 together", I find it despicable that you would seek to abridge my 1st Amendment right. It says far more about you than it does about me.

One last thing avi8torny. I'm glad that you take people's safety seriously and that the last thing you want to do is draw your weapon. If your level of tactical experience is as negligible as your knowledge of current tactical training, I am thankful that you are hesitant to draw your weapon.

In the very unlikely scenario that gunplay breaks out where I happen to be AND I know what's going on and who's who, yes, I'd step in if I knew my wife were safe first and thought I could save an innocent second.

But think very hard for a minute how much info and reaction time you'd have, if you were really there when the SHTF. I've seen plenty of scuffles break out where I had no idea who threw the first punch or who the victim or instigator was. I remember a good one at a Jack in the Box in Pasadena about a year ago. Happened 10' from me and I had no idea who started it because I wasn't watching the two guys until I heard a ruckus.

Now, add gunfire indoors with no ear protection, a lot of people running and screaming and tell me you'd have the first clue what was going on or whom to go after. Shoot the first guy you see with a gun in his hand (might be an off-duty cop), find cover, evaluate backstop? What the hell would you do? This is where cops really have a hard job in sorting out who's who. Ever wonder why you see released hostages all with their hands on their heads or in cuffs? Even after the bad guy is shot dead, cops don't know who's a friendly and who's a(nother) bad guy. If you make the wrong call, you might get shot by police. If not, you WILL go to jail and will probably be sued into the poorhouse. You don't get a pass because you were trying to do the right thing. I'll be a good witness and live to tell about it.