A little mentioned hazard of a CHL carrying is being shot by police.
Appears this happened on Portland.
PSU Shooting
Update

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

This seems to be the issue (quoted from your "Update" link):

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Exactly. On the ground and leave there.

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

In situations when LEOs are around pay very good attention to what is said to you! Then you will probably just get a good butt chewing when all makes sense to the officer and be able to leave the scene on your own power.

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

Just leave. Immediately.

It's sad. What a loss for his family. Why did he get involved in the altercation I wonder?

It's a sad situation with lessons to be learned, but the template of life-ending hazards often has 1:30AM bar fight in the title.

My heart goes out to all the innocent people that have to live with the consequences.

Nothing good ever happens after midnight.

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

Follow simple directions to a T, no more, no less. Feel you were unfairly treated??? Take it up with a lawyer LATER.

Very sad situation.

I suspect the decedent had had a few celebrating the basketball victory. That was what he was there for.

Did that impact his judgement, leading him to get involved in trying to break up a fight and then to ignor the cops’ command to leave his gun on the ground? I’ll bet it did.

To me, the takeaways are: no booze when carrying a gun, stay out of other peoples’ dispute and DO WHAT THE COPS TELL YOU TO DO IMMEDIATELY!!

I agree with RPG.

I have no interest in getting involved in other people's fights, and would never bring a weapon along when out celebrating after a ball game.

A CCW holder is not a junior police officer. Let the cops handle disputes.

It's all common sense. If you are CCW don't involve yourself
in matters that put you at risk. Cops don't know what's going
on other than they see gun. When COP gives an order obey it.
They are there to handle the trouble not to shoot innocent
citizens. They want to go home too. Everyday you see some
kind of shooting case involving police. The demonization of the
COPs has caused deaths of innocent people indirectly. Because
of the political climate some cops will hesitate to shoot and that
results in their death or injury. The other side of the coin is that
COPs can be hair trigger just to protect their own. Any contact
with COPs will be a lot better if people would just use common
sense. There are a few bad apples and people who don't have
the ability to be law enforcement but they are not the rule. The
Just use common sense and don't take it personally, the Cop is
just trying to do his job and make it home without being shot.

MYOB. More important today than ever..

In addition to what Muss Muggins points out, I saw that there was reference in the article to a lack of apparent hesitation by the cops. That's right. Hesitation is fatal, as shown by decades of study of violent incidents, including dead cops. The time periods for decision and action are measures in hundredths of seconds.

Sadly, the decedent seems to have been a fundamentally decent person, and in my professional experience, they are the hardest to convince not to make unwise decisions. They "know" that they are a good guy and not a problem to cops and others. Cops can't afford to take that at face value. Sometimes people get offended; sometimes they get hurt or killed. Note also that the time frame is consistent with having consumed some amount of alcohol; the amount it takes to have a negative impact on judgment is far less than most people understand. 95% of the human population show impaired judgment and motor skills at .05%; judgment goes first, so figure MAYBE .03% (which for 230 pound Doug is one drink, certainly no more than two).

Note also that his pistol fell out of his holster. There is a hard lesson there - substandard gear is as bad as a substandard gun. I have seen some really unfortunate choices in belts and holsters, both in person and described by writers (including here). This is serious stuff, and if you don't treat it as such, the consequences can be serious.

Then there is the fun and games at stupid places (and a sports bar at almost any time is a stupid place ... late night/early AM when people have been drinking, even if you haven't, it certainly is). Don't go to them. If you think I am wrong, go re-read the article again, and pay someone to apply slap therapy and pull your head out of your seat until you un(screw) yourself. For the love of all that is holy, don't intervene unless you UTTERLY sure of who is who, and what is what, and that an innocent party will be killed or injured if you don't. Myself - I have only come close when cops were engaged in something and needed backup RFN, and I still started with a 911 call.

All of this was preventable, and all of it was the result of utterly ignorant choices by a man who by all indications meant well. Each bad choice led to a subsequent bad choice, just like running down a gravel covered hill.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Agreed. Unless it impacts me or mine, or our ability to get to safety, sorry, but it's not my circus and not my monkey . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

In that “update” link, what is that finger gesture? I don’t understand young ‘uns any more.

Rule #1 MYOB.... you don't really know what's going on.

Need to see the whole video.... not just 31 seconds..........

But a question...... was the guy shot in the Gray T-shirt....... and is that his gun grip sticking out of his pocket??????????

If so; looks like he might have had his back to the officer(s) when he was shot???????? Lots of yelling going on..... never heard the commands.

Can't tell are those yellow things tasers????


Me see big civil settlement coming........

Agreed. I learned that lesson in 1978 when my new brother-in-law who was anxious to welcome me to the family, took me on a club hopping night. As we left the second club I saw a guy beating the **** out of a lady that he had pinned up against the wall. I turned go "get involved", and my brother-in-law grabbed me by the neck of my shirts and said - "If you pull him off her SHE will be on your back helping him! That's how women are over here (in Muskegon Heights)"

Never even been tempted to intervene since then.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Some bad decisions were made here.

1. Drinking while armed.
2. Wrestling others on the street while armed.
3. Placing a gun in your hand with the police anywhere around you.

*
Tasers are not a particularly useful tool under the 9th Circuit case law, which in essence restricts them to higher levels of resistance where they not useful. I would get rid of them because they now take up space and the moonbats who think cops shoot too many people think they should be used instead of firearms.

The only reason for a settlement would be the standard dishonesty of the anti-cop plaintiff's bar and the standard malpractice of the LE defense bar.

Contrary to the crazy assertions of the 9th Circuit, there is no reason to give a warning before using deadly force other than in a fleeing felon circumstance, which this was not, and then only if feasible. If the suspect does not hear or does not obey, that does not matter. All that matters is that this is a garden variety self-defense shooting based on case law that is far older than the 4th amendment seizure case law.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Pocket carry?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Maybe, if he was not using a good holster and had trousers not suited to the method. My suits are custom tailored for that; I haven't worn jeans in years, and only one of my pairs of cargo pants is iffy. Whatever happened here, I'd say the behavior and results are consistent with a person not serious about carrying and the lifestyle decisions forced by being armed.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Yes indeed , same can be said for bars too. And I ole school firearms never mix where Booze is around

__________________
Spin The Wheel

No argument .just ?????s .... but looks like they shot him in the back..... no threat!!!

Being in a bar and carrying a gun are not conducive to good things happening. If you think you'll need a gun at the bar then don't go! Stay out of other peoples business, breaking up fights at a bar is the job for the bouncers and the police, not somebody who has probably been drinking too. Just another case where alcohol and guns don't mix. To bad for the family, and others concerned.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

As an outsider I find it a little puzzling as to why someone would spend up to $1000 on a quality handgun, several hundred dollars in training and certification for a CWP and not spend a little more on a decent holster/spare mag carrier.

As a police officer I am wondering why the PSU police did not move in as soon as the pistol became visible in his pocket. Is Oregon an open carry state?

As for the tasers, well here we use them to overcome manual assaultative force. Once a weapon, edged or even blunt force, comes into play it is time to call on the services of Mr Glock. And that is a policy that some in our country just do not understand.

"Escalation of Force", always use one step of force higher than the bad guys.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Oregon has open carry.

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

You have watched too many WAY too many old "B" westerns. If the individual will apparently be a danger to anyone if he gains possession of the pistol he dropped, and his insistence on continuing to gain possession of it in spite of lawful orders of an armed officer acting "under color of authority", the officers present had no choice but to use lethal force, even if the individual was facing away from him at the time!If a person appears to be am imminent threat to anyone, any officer has the right to engage the threat, regardless of orientation.

If you have not spent time "On the street" you have absolutely no right to pass judgement on any sworn officer taking necessary action in such a situation, especially if you only have the news media's account of the situation! BTDT, I can guarantee the officer felt there was no choice.

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Why do people think someone with access to a gun is not a threat simply because they turn their back to you? Same for a knife. I'm no LEO but it appears obvious to me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

AJ, I agree with everything you said except "If you think you'll need a gun at the bar then don't go" I carry every where I can. Not because I think I'll need a gun but because I might need a gun. I don't drink and it's very seldom if I'm going to be in a bar late at night. So I will continue to carry as often as I can.

Now as to what happened. I wear hearing aids and could easily lose one or the battery could go dead.. If that were to happen I might not hear some commands given in a loud, noisy situation. I don't pocket carry. I hope I don't get shot in the back. My last comment is not a judgement on the choice of the officer to use lethal force. Just my own hopes and or fears.

Except the dead guy wasn't using his gun but the cops were. Yes follow directions, but unless the gun is in my hand & pointed at you, not a threat. Same for cell phone or anything else. Today though, assume the cops will be fast on tne trigger. When you are unsure of your skill, you want to be sooner than later Imo.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

As I stated I only saw 31 seconds of a video....It's not clear to me they had no choice.....what was the imminent threat????

Did the officer have a choice..... I didn't see enough video to make a reasonable decision....

Was he shot in the back... how far away was the officer.....could he have just body slammed the guy into the ground..... at one point it appeared he was <3-4 ft from the guy...faster than drawing and firing 6-8 rounds.

Was lethal force his only option.......???????? Was it justified???????

In the end a jury of 12 who have never "been on the street" will comprise the Grand Jury and if an indictment is handed down another 12 will decide if the action was reasonable..... not 12 guys "on the street".......

I'm not making any judgement on 31 seconds of video,,,, I'm asking questions......

Every officer has the right; and the obligation to his or her family, to go home at the end of the shift........ doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong..... micro second decisions aren't always right or wrong.

With 20/20 hindsight and knowledge we know the guy was no threat.....for trying to do the right thing he lost his life....... for trying to do the right thing the officer took one.......... no I've never taken a life on the street but I've seen lots of mistakes in simulation training....... life's a B----

*
Simply not correct, and not even close. You are apparently unaware of all of the research on action/reaction. There is a substantial amount of academic research and AARs of LE incidents that completely destroys that position.

At a minimum, anyone interested in the topic needs to buy and read, and then re-read, this book: CAP - In Defense of Self and Others . . .: Issues, Facts & Fallacies -- The Realities of Law Enforcement&apos;s Use of Deadly Force, Third Edition (9781611636826). Authors: Urey W. Patrick, John C. Hall. Carolina Academic Press As for cell phones and other items - it is not going to be the item, but the action with the item. If the item is wielded or displayed in a manner consistent with using a firearm, only a fool will not think it is a threat. What is learned later is not relevant as a matter of law or ethics.

In this case, the officers simply can't tell why this person is not following the lawful commands, as to which the decedent had no discretion. The time in which he could have gone from picking up the dropped gun to presenting a potentially lethal threat to the cops or others is measured in hundredths of seconds, and self defense is preemptive. If one waits until the threat is ACTUAL, it is too late. There is nothing in law, ethics, or tactics that leads to a different conclusion. The law is clear: one must be reasonable, the test for defensive use of force LONG before the 4th amendment case law such as Graham v. Connor. This is a "seizure" as a matter of fourth amendment law, but only because it was LE. It is just a simple matter of self-defense.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

*
Let's look at this from the proper lens of law, ethics, and tactics.

From the bottom up: 20/20 hindsight is not the test, and not allowed, in either the 4th Amendment case law, or the far older legal standards applicable to self-defense. This is regularly breached by dishonest plaintiff's lawyers and tolerated by judges who are simply too uninformed to address it correctly (dismissal of the action; brutal frivolous pleading terms under CR11B, and a Bar complaint that should result in disbarment). That does not make the standard wrong, or different.

I don't off the top of my head know if Oregon uses a Grand Jury system, but any prosecutor who filed in a case like this is as dirty as Nifong, Mosby in Baltimore (note that the cops who have sued her for malicious prosecution have prevailed at every step, and that is one heck of a hard case on which to prevail against a government prosecutor), Kunzweiler in Tulsa and his knowingly frivolous prosecution of Officer Shelby (for which he has a pending bar complaint, as does Mosby), and others. As a long time prosecutor with criminal and civil experience, they don't merely offend me - they horrify me, and are by no stretch of the imagination of my tribe or family. There have been more frivolous prosecutions of cops in the last 3 or so years than there have been unlawful killings by cops, no matter what the moonbats like Balko and Wexler say. (American LE kills at most 5% of the offenders it should based on the number of violent assaults on cops.)

The threat was imminent - the decedent was picking up a firearm when told not to by a cop - and cops are in absolute control of any non-consensual encounter as a matter of both Constitutional and statutory law. The decedent acted like a violent criminal offender - and that's all that matters. The time period for action/reaction is measured in hundredths of seconds, and as I said above, self-defense is preemptive. Whether or not some other tactic would or would not work is not the standard and cannot be considered - it is solely whether the tactic uses was reasonable.

Yes, in hindsight, this is unfortunate from all we can tell. However, that does not make the officer "wrong" or his actions unlawful. One of my duties as a civil prosecutor is LE legal advising. I research, write, and teach on topics like this, and have for well over 30 years. While most people (including most lawyers, and even worse, most LE command officers) don't know this are of the law well, I do. There is no action that can or should be lawfully taken against the officer. It would not surprise me that in today's crazed political environment, especially as a University Police officer, he could be scapegoated and abused as Darren Wilson was when he was forced the use lethal force against a violent criminal, that does not even come close to making that a proper course of action.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I am not a cop. I do not attempt to do cop stuff. I am armed for self defense...SELF defense. Not defense of strangers. Not to stop crime. Not to break up fights. Sorry, I am NOT getting involved in a domestic dispute or a gang fight outside a bar. See first sentence. I am not a cop.

ALWAYS do exactly what a cop says on the scene. I was involved in a shooting many years ago and when I heard the sirens I put the gun down and raised my hands before they reached the scene. I didn't move a muscle until told to do so. That's how to avoid getting shot.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

If you watch the video closely, it looks like it fell out of his pocket.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Among the usual admonishments issued when stupid games are played and stupid prizes won--when the police show up, STOP and put your dumb hands up. Don't keep fighting.

That's amazing! I mean, all I could see in the last half a second of the video was the cop's backs. That's like, YouTube X-Ray Specs there.

Here's what the video shows:

*Idiots fighting.
*Cops yell "Drop the gun"
*Bang-bang.

Those are the only relevant pieces of information you can glean from that. About all you can see of the dead guy from the time the police issued a verbal command to the time he was shot, is a flash of red shirt.

Hah. You funny NZ coppers and your crazy ideas about guns.

I'd also point out that in America, people buy expensive pieces of garbage all the time.

Let me be clear...... I never said the cop(s) were wrong... I was asking questions.

I thought the bald guy in the gray t-shirt was the one shot .... last seen in the video getting up off the ground with his back to the officers...

From those 31 seconds of video as seen on my computer ..... "I" cannot reach a conclusion that the "tactics were reasonable"...... or not.

Just from what I read and see on the news, the default legal standard (IANAA) for police shootings is to consider them reasonable unless there’s overwhelming evidence otherwise.

LEO’s need lots of latitude with use of force. It’s a dangerous business. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt, but ... there’s been some very public, questionable UoF cases recently to the point where some of that benefit of the doubt seems to be eroding with the public. Time will tell if this is another one.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I completely understand action beats reaction. Where I disagree is mere posession of a gun NOT pointed at you should not be a death sentence. As a civi, I shoot that person, I am likely going to jail. Self defense, sure. Premptive strike, uh no. Be as good as you can be, you wont have to go to your gun so early. You are piinted in. Less than 1/3 sec to press the trigger. Not even a grand master can draw & shoot you in 1/3 sec.
Jmo, far too many leo are just flat out afraid & want to shoot first, ask questions after. I get it, go home @ night, but so do the rest of us. You dont honestly believe every accidental shooting was because the leo thought he saw gun? No, its raw fear, press, press, press. Unfortunately happens all the time. I shoot a guy with a cell phone, I go to jail, 100%. I expect trained leo to be better than trained ccw. Too much maybe?

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I am inclined to extreme deference to the officer on scene, but after watching the complete scene video, the 4th Amendment claim is looking more valid. Based on the relatively freshly created armed police officers at PSU, negligent hiring and training will likely figure in at least the inevitable civil case.

Man Killed By Armed Portland State University Officers Had Valid Concealed Carry Permit When He Died .

News

| OPB

*
You are confusing a bunch of different concepts. One of which is the difference between "mere possession" (properly holstered), as to which you are correct, and the act of having it in one's hand, or actually trying to get it there, when ordered to stop. Decades of research (including reviews of the deaths of cops) shows that the first indication of actual resistance is not complying with that lawful direction. (Immediate compliance is not optional - it is mandatory under the Constitutional analysis and every state statute I've ever seen.) I've dealt with armed people - didn't care much. We always assume everyone is armed with something anyway. It's the movement toward putting that weapon in action that makes the difference, and that is what was happening here.

Accidental/negligent shootings are not the same as shootings with which the average person disagrees. A MAJOR problem of the last few years is utterly unqualified persons, usually with an agenda not consistent with the actual law, and based on irrelevant and dishonest criteria, have opined loudly, and their mindless bleating has been recklessly parroted by the mass media. As such, a lot of misinformation and disinformation is accepted as correct by people who have never been provided the correct information. Among that is that cops kill too many people - this is a deliberate falsehood. Anyone who researches the number of assaults on officers that would justify the use of deadly force and then compares that to the number people cops kill will find that AT MOST, American LE kills 5% of those offenders it could and by necessary implication should. And, with the examples I provided earlier and others - there have been more frivolous/malicious prosecutions of officers in the last few years than there have been unlawful shootings. What we need to see more of is officers disciplined (retrained or fired) for putting others at risk by not firing.

There is ample research and literature, that makes it utterly clear that self-defense is in fact preemptive. I quoted this in a recent amicus brief* to SCOTUS https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...026%202018.pdf: "The best use of justified deadly force is preemptive. That means that it is timely enough, and effective enough, to prevent an imminent risk of serious injury (about to happen) from becoming a definite attempt to cause serious bodily injury (in fact happening)." Urey W. Patrick and John C. Hall, “In Defense of Self and Others -- issues, facts & fallacies: The realities of law enforcement's use of deadly force”, p. 100, (3rd edition, 2017) (emphasis in original). This decision must also reflect that pistol rounds suck as a rule - the myth of the one shot stop is just that. In reality, it is more like a 4-7 shot stop, maybe, and that must also reflect that time to realize the that the shots have had their desired effect is part of the calculation (a couple of seconds). There are at most 1000 lawyers in the US, and probably closer to 500, who are actually qualified to opine on the issue. The litigation quality is often abysmal.

*(Dave and I wrote the brief; John filed it for us; I am one of the named amici in my corporate name; the other is my co-author.)

I have seen far too many LE command officers who are clueless and afraid when it comes to use of force; they don't want their people well trained because they might actually do things correctly and kill an offender, and while I don't have time to look for it now, there is actually a report in which a Chief said he would rather go to an officer's funeral than deal with a justified OIS. That view is not an outlier - it is common.

I understand the existence of emotional responses to uses of force. Force is ugly. Effective force is really ugly. That does not make it wrong.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Great discussion and an impressive description, but isn't what you described subject to changes in public opinion?

Aren't those use the force statutes set by civilian legislatures, then interpreted through case law? They're not set by the prosecutors or the police, right? Over time, don't those laws tend to reflect the make up of the communities that elect people to legislatures?

The reason I ask is there seems to be a rapidly growing group of people with both the financial and political clout trying to tighten up UOF statutes because they are becoming frustrated with what they believe are some (not all) LEO agencies abusing UOF statutes as a cover up for poor training and sloppy performance. The two specific cases that come to mind are the death of guy in the Mesa, AZ hotel hallway (Daniel Shaver) and the death of the guy in the Wichita SWAT'ing case (Andrew Finch). Aren't some of those legislative changes even going on in Washington State right now?

I also see on gun forums a lot of LEO's hang their hat on Garner vs Connor, but you only need to look at this year's SCOTUS decisions to see reversals of previously "cast in concrete" laws.

To me, these things don't seem as firmly cast in granite as you seem to be portraying them. They might change slowly, but they can change.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

So you are fine with an innocent person being shot & kilked for non compliance? Just because a bad shooting is deemed legal doesnt mean it wasnt a bad shooting. People make mistakes I get it, but a mistake of non compliance w/o a true instance of self defense should not be a death sentence. Ccw & leo should be treated the same under the same laws.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

First and foremost, anyone carrying a gun, be it a CCW or a lever action Marlin while deer hunting, must know how to interact with police officers for everyone's safety and benefit. To the police, all persons involved in any way are bad guys until it can all be sorted out.

Second, I'm really annoyed with people carrying guns so casually that they can be so easily lost. Besides this unfortunate soul, we have the recent dancing FBI agent who faces dismissal and a civil judgment for dropping a gun on a dance floor, discharging it when he retrieved it.

A use-of-force situation can begin and end in an infinite number of ways. You may have to run, wrestle some dude, be grabbed by one or more people, have a chair broken over your head and back etc. Once you lose your gun, its up for grabs and may be used against you.

cop or private citizen, my gun is not to stop you from getting your snot bag busted open in a bar fight; it is to stop you from getting seriously injured or killed.

if two bar patrons want to let their alligator mouths get their tadpole butts in trouble, I'll be a good witness.

__________________
I'm only allowed 30 characters

There is a famous incident here in New Zealand (Aromoana 1990) where an experienced officer did not shoot an offender because he was walking away and not threatening him at the time.

The offender, who had already shot several victims, went on to shoot and kill several more.

Our self defence law is similar to many others. Use of force in defence of self or another.

It is not just in America that people buy expensive pieces of junk. That is where “customer service” should come into the equation when buying.

I’m not entirely sure what “crazy idea” you are referring to.

Back when I was much younger I rode motorcycles as my primary mode of transport. My safety gears consisted of a cheap pair of pull on boots and a set of wet weather gear. My helmet was at the cheap end as were my gloves.

When, after 20 plus years not riding, I bought another bike I made sure I bought a good helmet, Kevlar reinforced jacket, leggings and gloves. Yes, wisdom does mostly) come with age and experience, it the salesman made sure I had decent ancillary equipment for my safety.

This forum is full of advise on numerous CCW threads about “dressing accordingly”. If I had been in the persons shoes that night and it was absolutely necessary to go to that bar armed I would have:

Worn shorts with belt loops and a decent belt.
Worn a suitable secure holster.
As a CCW holder (as is stated he was above) worn a long enough shirt to cover my gun.

Also I would not have become involved in a situation that did not concern me.

I think he was being sarcastic with the use of the phrase "crazy idea" - the written word of a forum is not easily parsed for tone.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.