Cop threatens to execute driver over concealed weapon permit(bad language alert)

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by azasadny

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!

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]

Originally Posted by avi8torny

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.

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.

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.

[Rick Lee]

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.