Engage or not?

[Smoke]

Well, by all means, call your highly trained range buddies the next time it all hits the fan.

You're aware that there are members here who have at least a couple of deployments under their belt right?

There are also quite a few who pay to go to places like Tactical Response or Gun Site.

There are quite a few members here who have far more training than most police

 

[OldeTSgt]

Well, by all means, call your highly trained range buddies the next time it all hits the fan.

Not trying to be disagreeable - but having worn a few different hats in my life - in the military I qualified twice a year and I was guarding some serious military assets. We very seldom trained for alot of scenarios except during our 1 wk in the field or during IG's. After I graduated the police academy we only qualified annually or when we transitioned to a new weapon - in my case a revolver in 38 spl to a 10 mm auto. When I worked as a Security Officer (during an Outage) at a Nuclear Power Plant we trained qualified once a year, And at the Corrections academy TDCJ at a Maximum security prison (up to G5 offenders with AD Seg) our weapons qualification was a joke and only once a year but our unarmed defensive tactics was great.

I shoot more than that now - I would bet - my past training is very similar to most current LEO's - OMMV

Back to the original question - I will assess the situation and respond as my judgement and training have prepared me for - and probably (based on the training I have) be able to articulate why I acted the way I did.

 

[37hotrod]

Aw heck, I ain't mad at you. I guess I have been fortunate with respect to training. As a Fed, we qualified with our duty weapon 4 times a year, and re-certified with every piece of equipment on our duty belt. We also received additional training specific to different collateral duties or task forces we were assigned to. With the Sheriff's department, we had access to a vacant warehouse complex, where we drilled on active shooter scenarios.

I realize that there are many members here that have the experience and/or training to handle a situation. This discussion isn't really meant for them. It is much more relevant to the vast majority of CCW holders with no practical background in combat shooting, who are wondering what is the appropriate course of action when confronted with bad guys.

 

[gclunde]

Once you start that ball rolling, you HAVE to commit to finishing the thing. You can't do it halfway. You also have to be ready to accept the consequences of your actions.

The above two sentences sum it up completely.

Taking another human life bothers some more than others. However, neutralizing the threat once hostilitles commence is the sole task which must me accomplished if you choose to engage..treat that individual as if they are you mortal enemy (because they are). Your background, Military/LEO/Civilian will significantly dictate how you react to the current situation and cope with the aftermath. The bottom line is that if you aren't prepared to take a human life...DO NOT unholster your weapon. If you do unholster your weapon, ensure you're committed to the bitter end to finish the fight.

I'm reminded of a statement made to made by a salty Corporal while undergoing some training in the past...

"Three types of people exist in a knife fight. 1) The person who will brandish his weapon in hopes of scaring someone off. 2) The person who will brandish it and use it if pushed to do so. 3) The deadliest of the bunch...the person who you'll never know has a knife until you've been cut or stabbed and are losing copious amounts of blood."

Personally, I ascribe to be #3...don't tip your hand and once the weapon leaves the holster, you've committed to eliminating the threat.

Semper Fi

 

[37hotrod]

Amen, Brother. As Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over, 'til it's over".

 

[Muss Muggins]

Personally, I ascribe to be #3...don't tip your hand and once the weapon leaves the holster, you've commited to eliminating the threat.

Semper Fi

Never, ever, ascribe to the theory that when you draw, you are committed to firing . . .

 

[Muss Muggins]

You're aware that there are members here who have at least a couple of deployments under their belt right?

There are also quite a few who pay to go to places like Tactical Response or Gun Site.

There are quite a few members here who have far more training than most police

I haven't done any of that . . .

 

[gclunde]

Never, ever, ascribe to the theory that when you draw, you are committed to firing . . .

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

My background/training instilled in me the belief that once you've chosen to utilize lethal force, you're committed. While there are always exceptions to every rule...your mindset must be that you're entering into a conflict in which your very life as well as those around you depends on your ability to neutralize the threat (enemy). My assumption is that if I have to draw my weapon, the individual(s) being faced present a grave threat and intend to do me or others serious harm. I will never be of the mindset that brandishing my weapon will eliminate the threat nor think of it in that manner.

That being said, someone in a lethal force scenario must thoroughly evaluate their options, make the best decision with the information at hand, and not hesitate or utilize half measures...in for a penny, in for a pound

IMHO, there are limited scenarios in which drawing your weapon as the first course of action is best due to the likely outcome.

Train like you fight, fight like you train.

Just my $.02

 

[Smoke]

You are missing Muss' point entirely. There have been numerous posts made on this board to the effect of "If the gun comes out of the holster, somebody is going to die." This is a very dangerous mindset.

Yes, you should never even touch your gun unless you are fully committed and justified in using deadly force but you also have to be prepared to stand down if the situation changes.

If the criminal sees the gun, pisses his pants and runs screaming like a little girl you don't get to shoot. You just hope someone videos it and puts it on YouTube


[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L4voxtmsu9o[/ame]

 

[gclunde]

If the criminal sees the gun, pisses his pants and runs screaming like a little girl you don't get to shoot. You just hope someone videos it and puts it on YouTube

That would be one of the exceptions I referred to in my statement.

I didn't miss the point, but too many people think pulling your weapon will resolve the issue or don't fully realize the implications of introducing a lethal weapon into the scenario. If you're threatened to the point of resorting to pulling a deadly weapon...as you stated, you'd better be of the mindset that you're ready and willing to use it. Personally, I'm not willing to pull a weapon unless I'm certain there are no other options and have exhausted all other reasonable means to de-escalate the situation.

My post was simply to point out that you must have the mindset that you're potentially entering a life and death conflict between you and at least one other individual. Once again...evaluating the situation before you take any action will be the key, as well as adjusting to any changes as the scenario develops (i.e. don't chase the guy down the street like the Subway incident recently in the news). Failure to do so may put yourself and others in more danger than if you'd chosen to do nothing at all or place you in legal/civil jeopardy.

Opinions may vary...I'm outta here...but I'll continue reading others thoughts and opinions and enjoying the banter.

 

[K-framer]

The issue of intervening, or not doing so, in terms of overstepping your authority as a private citizen......really comes down to ONE point.

Are you (a) DEFENDING YOURSELF (or others)......or, are you attempting to (b) ARREST/ APPREHEND the suspect ?

Regardless of how any of the "amateur lawyers" (to be nice about it) on this forum try to interpret snippets of legal language they happen to cull from websites and other sources.....the FACT is that:

You, as a private citizen, ARE entitled to do (a).....if the circumstances qualify.

You are NOT, however, entitled to do (b). PERIOD.

That is the point at which most of the internet cowboys (including those right here) have a strong tendency to get themselves in trouble.

One last time: Having a CC license does NOT, NOT, NOT make you a LEO ! Nor does it make you a depputee sheruff !

Deal with that fact.

 

[Rastoff]

Personally, I ascribe to be #3...don't tip your hand and once the weapon leaves the holster, you've committed to eliminating the threat.

Semper Fi

Never, ever, ascribe to the theory that when you draw, you are committed to firing . . .

I agree with you Muss, but you missed what he said. He said, "...committed to eliminating the threat" not to firing.

Many threats, heck most threats, are eliminated by merely presenting the gun. However, we can't count on that and must be prepared to take the next step if necessary.

 

[wsr]

The issue of intervening, or not doing so, in terms of overstepping your authority as a private citizen......really comes down to ONE point.

Are you (a) DEFENDING YOURSELF (or others)......or, are you attempting to (b) ARREST/ APPREHEND the suspect ?

Regardless of how any of the "amateur lawyers" (to be nice about it) on this forum try to interpret snippets of legal language they happen to cull from websites and other sources.....the FACT is that:

You, as a private citizen, ARE entitled to do (a).....if the circumstances qualify.

You are NOT, however, entitled to do (b). PERIOD.

That is the point at which most of the internet cowboys (including those right here) have a strong tendency to get themselves in trouble.

One last time: Having a CC license does NOT, NOT, NOT make you a LEO ! Nor does it make you a depputee sheruff !

Deal with that fact.

Seems like you got your feelings hurt a little bit, you made wrong assertions and people called you on it, learn from it and move on

Most of what you say in this post is correct (minus your internet cowboy and aperture lawyer jabs)....the problem is that you are the only one talking about playing "depputee sherruff" trying to frame the issue so it fits into your preconceived ideas

 

[Rastoff]

Are you (a) DEFENDING YOURSELF (or others)......or, are you attempting to (b) ARREST/ APPREHEND the suspect ?

Regardless of how any of the "amateur lawyers" (to be nice about it) on this forum try to interpret snippets of legal language they happen to cull from websites and other sources.....the FACT is that:

You are NOT, however, entitled to do (b). PERIOD.

Actually, this is incorrect. A citizen is entitled to apprehend another person who is committing a crime. It's called a citizen's arrest. I don't know of any state where this is illegal.

I highly recommend against it, but you can do it.

 

[Smoke]

The issue of intervening, or not doing so, in terms of overstepping your authority as a private citizen......really comes down to ONE point.

Are you (a) DEFENDING YOURSELF (or others)......or, are you attempting to (b) ARREST/ APPREHEND the suspect ?

Regardless of how any of the "amateur lawyers" (to be nice about it) on this forum try to interpret snippets of legal language they happen to cull from websites and other sources.....the FACT is that:

You, as a private citizen, ARE entitled to do (a).....if the circumstances qualify.

You are NOT, however, entitled to do (b). PERIOD.

That is the point at which most of the internet cowboys (including those right here) have a strong tendency to get themselves in trouble.

That awkward moment when you think you know the law but you don't

Previous Next
16-3-201. Arrest by a private person.

A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 199, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 39-3-201.

ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For comment, "Leake v. Cain: Abrogation of Public Duty Doctrine in Colorado?", see 59 U. Colo. L. Rev. 383 (1988).
Annotator's note. Since 16-3-201 is similar to repealed 39-2-20, C.R.S. 1963, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.
A private citizen may arrest for any crime committed in his presence. Schiffner v. People, 173 Colo. 123, 476 P.2d 756 (1970).
Officer outside of jurisdiction arrests with authority of private citizen. A peace officer acting outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction does not have any less authority to arrest than does a person who is a private citizen. People v. Wolf, 635 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1981).
When "in presence" requirement met. The "in presence" requirement of this section is met if the arrestor observes acts which are in themselves sufficiently indicative of a crime in the course of commission. People v. Olguin, 187 Colo. 34, 528 P.2d 234 (1974).
F.B.I. agent had authority as private citizen to arrest one escaping from police station in his presence. Schiffner v. People, 173 Colo. 123, 476 P.2d 756 (1970).
Hospital security guards, like any other citizens, have the power to make a citizen's arrest. People v. Olguin, 187 Colo. 34, 528 P.2d 234 (1974).
An arrest must be first authorized under this section before a private person can use physical force to effect the arrest. People v. Joyce, 68 P.3d 521 (Colo. App. 2002).
Applied in People v. Lott, 197 Colo. 78, 589 P.2d 945 (1979).

 

[Smoke]

Actually, this is incorrect. A citizen is entitled to apprehend another person who is committing a crime. It's called a citizen's arrest. I don't know of any state where this is illegal.

I highly recommend against it, but you can do it.

I think it's illegal in North Carolina

 

[Muss Muggins]

I think it's illegal in North Carolina

Nope. Gomer did it to Barney . . .

 

[marinedoc69]

There really are a lot of good comments from what appears some pretty knowledgeable people. With the exception of "plinking" and competition shooting, this whole subject is what everything boils down to. Carrying a weapon or keeping one in the house (or car) for self defense and all the elements involved in the shooting of another human being. I don't want to generalize about law enforcement or police officers in general, for training varies too much from agency to department, and even the individual officer, but always remember that training and qualification are not the same. Some civilians certainly train more than a lot of commissioned police officers. This is often the fault of the department due to budgetary restraints and time allotted to firearms training. And conversely, too many civilians get their concealed permit, and never train or even go to the range for simple target practice. As a civilian entering an armed confrontation remember that the national average for law enforcement so involved is about a 17% success in rounds on target. Meaning 83% are hopefully not hitting an innocent. I strongly recommend everyone make an effort to attend Mas Ayoob's MAG40 training course. It answers or at least addresses the subject and issues we have been posting on this blog. At least try for the 20 hour lecture part of the course if you feel your shooting skills really don't need any refinement. I've gone to a considerable number of firearms courses, including military, law enforcement and civilian (some of the best in the United States) but nothing that addresses the issues of an armed confrontation in todays society and all the repercussions therein as well as Mas does. For those in law enforcement I also recommend trying to find the recent article in Esquire magazine where they interviewed and spent a few days with Darren Williams, the police officer involved in the Michael Brown fiasco in Ferguson. When reading this, remember that he was a police officer and was found acting in a totally justifiable manner while performing his duty in law enforcement. This may be too long, but it's such an important subject.

 

[Rastoff]

Excellent post marinedoc69.

This is often the fault of the department due to...

I completely disagree. Learning to use the tools of the trade is never the responsibility of the department or agency that employs you. They provide some training, but it is the individual's responsibility to learn. If necessary, a good employee will do some training on their own to be the best they can be at whatever task they are performing. A mediocre employee will do the minimum and a bad employee will resist training.

I don't care what industry you work in. You rise or fall on your own efforts. Those who put in the extra effort, excel. Those who don't, will always work for those who do.

...conversely, too many civilians get their concealed permit, and never train or even go to the range for simple target practice.

This is exactly the same thing. Put in the effort and the likelihood of becoming a victim drops dramatically.

I spend a lot of time at the range. I see a lot of people who carry. Their marksmanship is...well...not impressive. I wish it were taken more seriously.

 

[K-framer]

" Actually, this is incorrect. A citizen is entitled to apprehend another person who is committing a crime. It's called a citizen's arrest. I don't know of any state where this is illegal.

I highly recommend against it, but you can do it. "


Your statement that my statement is incorrect......is......incorrect.


There are, in fact, a number of states in which the concept of "citizens arrest" is NOT recognized......and is actually illegal. That does happen to include North Carolina, the state in which I reside. May be legal in Colorado.....but it certainly is NOT legal everywhere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


" Seems like you got your feelings hurt a little bit, you made wrong assertions and people called you on it, learn from it and move on "



Not at all. My feelings are not in the least hurt, nor did I make "wrong assertions". The problem is, as it has always been, those who somehow think that they have been appointed, by mere virtue of being issued a CC permit, as some sort of half-@%%ed LEO. Those people, whomever they may be, are nearly as dangerous as the criminals they seek to apprehend. Not by reason of criminal intent, but by reason of stupidity and arrogance. Not everyone, however, understands the reasons WHY this is true, nor do the same people accept this as fact. A great pity.

I only hope that, if I am ever faced with a situation in which such a self-appointed hotrod attempts to play Marshal, he doesn't screw up and kill or wound mere bystanders, which is very likely to happen. As for myself, if that were to occur and any negligently fired shots from such a person come MY way, I will shoot the stupid b#^&#*d in self defense - and happily so.