Should I Shoot - Officer in Trouble?

The man is definitely out of control and while the baton is less lethal like I was trained in the 70s, in this situation he is using it to maim or kill the officer. Upon getting a clear shot I would shoot. He’s already been tased so assaulting with a gun and talking isn’t going to work.

2 Likes

Situational awareness and confidence in your skills and ability is key in this situation. Interjecting yourself in a police altercation can be a serious and costly situation. Nevertheless, some type of action needs to be taken. Me acting as private citizen, if I witness the situation, I feel comfortable intervening, and helping subdue the subject (i.e. tackle or kick from the back, striking subject with a object, etc.) I’d help get the subject off the officer, control his/her hands, and hold them down until the officer can regain control of the situation. Hopefully the Calvary is in route! Based on the details provided, this situation has turned lethal, since commands have been issued and ignored, OC spray has been dispersed, a taser has been deployed, and the subject is now physical assaulting the officer. If someone does not intervene quickly, this situation will end badly for someone.

1 Like

In this scenario, seconds count as the next head blow may end the officer’s life. I am not the police, and as such I am under no obligation to provide verbal warning. Because of the crowd, I would approach the subject and place my revolver against the hip bone and pointing downward, fire the shots. I carry a revolver specifically for a full contact shot like this that would otherwise force a pistol out of battery. Certainly if asked by the officer to help, I would be compelled by ordinance to assist, but that is not a prerequisite. Phoning for backup would take too much time. With the taser wires out and the pepper spray in the air, I don’t need to assume this may be an undercover cop attacking a uniform.

2 Likes

I am a retired cop, I would hope someone already called 911. Hopeful for his sake the citizen yelled to stop, if the bad guy continued shot 'em and hope there is not a liberal in the crowd.

1 Like

Please remember that liberal does not mean anti-gun or anti-self-defense. I know a lot of liberal people who are very pro 2A and carry and a bunch of conservatives who are anti-2A. Check out this topic: It's not a "Liberal" vs "Conservative" thing

3 Likes

Good post! The reason why I suggested giving verbal commands was to communicate to the officer and others standing around is that I’m a good guy (witnesses). And yep, the contact shot to the hip definitely stops the threat.

2 Likes

Shooting without warning can be detrimental for several reasons. In places like CA, especially in anti 2A counties like L.A., the DA can bring up charges against you using technicalities. A civil suit might be brought against you by the perpetrator’s family. I imagine that the DA and his/her buddies might tell the jury you were negligent even though you did the right thing. It actually seems that criminals are protected and even given sympathy by corrupt officials in places like L.A. I think it was either the L.A. mayor or CA governor who proposed changing the language that refers to criminals as law breakers to one that sounds more empathetic. CA government would rather disarm law-abiding people and sympathize with criminals. Another reason…? You at least warned the perpetrator, and he might stop before you having to shoot or stop the threat in other ways. A verbal command might be enough but not likely. At least you’ll know that you will have done the best that you could have done without any regrets. The aftermath of shooting someone and especially if it’s justifiable homicide, will live with you forever.

2 Likes

I live in Mass, I beg to differ…

I know a handful of people who live in Mass - they are liberal and Pro-2A. Remember, they’re not going to be open about it in general public because of the stigma about being pro-2A and liberal. We need to break down the stigma by not lumping all liberal people with anti-2A and encourage them to be here to learn and share.

The divisive nature of Liberal verses Conservative doesn’t help the conversation about carrying and protecting ourselves. The more welcoming and open minded we are, the more likely those who are on the fence about 2A will listen to our views and possible become 2A supporters.

If we’re generalizing and being negative about those who are anti-2A or on the fence, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot and creating more anti-2A sentiment.

2 Likes

You are not getting it. It is not the individual I am talking about it is the mind set of the political left. For example, Mass is so far left hence anti-gun they make individuals obtain a state permit to carry under HR -218 permit first which is against the protocol for HR 218 and has one of the most strict laws for carry. Have you watched the Democratic presidential debates? Everyone of the candidates runs on the premise to take our right to carry, (Bernie is an enigma coming from a state that has very few gun laws). Individuals are not the concern, it is the political parties.

1 Like

Exactly, but who votes for those political parties? The politicians have no power if the individuals don’t vote for them. There are far more middle ground people who are forced to choose from two extremes - and most would rather not choose an extreme.

So instead of alienating people because of the extreme views that the party they voted for has that they might not agree with, see every person as an individual having unique views. We will win over more minds with educational conversation than with divisive generalizations.

1 Like

@Paul57 @Dawn Just going to say that you can’t make the parties change… they don’t have feelings, don’t make decisions, dont take actions, only people do. It’s the hearts of the people that run the party that have to change. It’s the actions of the members of the party that force the party leaders to change.

Those liberal members who are our allies on gun rights should matter to us a LOT because they are the ones who have access and CAN bring pressure to bear on their leaders. We should cherish those people, not tar them with the same brush as their leaders. We should not insult them with a generalized party indictment, because we need their willingness and their courage.

We should treat them like gold because they are the only leverage we have for changing what “the party” does. They will need us to support them, with the same solidarity we support our own if they are going to find the courage to stand up and change their party from within.

We need to treat them as if they ARE our own, because in the defense of this very critical right, they are.

The party has no heart and no mind, it cannot be changed through any agent except its members. The pro-gun, pro-self-defense, pro-2A liberals desperately need our support and we need them. We do not need to agree on all topics, but if we agree on this one, we should embrace them, support them, embolden them, give them secure ground, and let them never doubt that they belong.

3 Likes

I mention it specifically in this case because of the crowd scenario.

1 Like

You’re going to have a hard time having the presence of mind in such a scenario to alter your commands and have them come out cogently and easily understood.

You’re better off keeping it consistent and simple.

1 Like

Chris4 - I don’t know if I would try to explain all the what-nots to LEO at the scene I.e. who, what, why, how, etc. If it went to court, the DA would pick apart every sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter, every breath and every inflection in your voice uttered by you just to try and get a conviction to make you look like a vigilante. It is, after all his job to do so. I’d stick to the basic USCCA recommended response to say as little as possible after telling LEO that you “feared for the officer’s life and that you shot the attacker in order to save the officer” Offer to point out evidence, witnesses, picture - takers…stuff that doesn’t require an EXPLANATION of ANY KIND. I wouldn’t say anything more than someone would who saw a silent film of the incident. I think the rest of your actions you said you would take are spot-on. Nice, cool thinking!

2 Likes

Exactly, which is why you need to make sure you’re training with the right verbiage. We don’t want to insinuate that we are out to kill the person (STOP, BACK AWAY OR DIE!), we want to state our intentions (STOP, BACK AWAY, DROP THE WEAPON OR I WILL HAVE TO DEFEND).

Pick verbiage and stick with it. Just make sure you’re not incriminating yourself with the verbiage you choose. A witness may hear only part of what you’re saying so the words have to be right.

3 Likes

Even cops can’t usually speak in complete sentences when giving commands in a high stress situation.

The simpler you keep it the better off you are and the more likely you are not to get caught up in your own word salad.

“Stop, put the weapon down or I will shoot”, or “Stop, get off of him/her or I will shoot”, is all that needs to be said and probably all you’ll be able to get out right.

1 Like

I would call 911 first and then pull handgun and order the man to stop.

2 Likes

The problem is that a large number of people do not vote. Just because they don’t follow politics someone else will. Look at history and the rise in power of the Nazi’s. Hitler said, “to rule a country the first thing you need to do is disarm the citizens”. If this seems far out listen to the Democratic debates. I am not sure who is extreme in how they view the system and neither can you. It is comical however, the press who speaks against the second amendment doesn’t read history; the second thing dictators do, is take over the media.

2 Likes

Tactic change, they took over the media first.

3 Likes