Verbal aggression at gunpoint

[Jay Cunningham]

In various FoF I've participated in, it's very common for someone to bark out orders over and over while advancing closer and closer to the perceived threat.

[KevinB]

Holstering fast and going hands on is something that seems to happen a lot more in the LE world than the private citizen world, and duty holsters are a lot better for holstering fast than concealed carry holsters usually are. There is a very prominent trainer who has taught a lot of people that if you've justifiably and conspicuously gone to gunpoint, and then the technically-unarmed threat closes distance, that it is consistent with an attempt to disarm the defender and needs to be treated as a deadly force attack.

What's your answer there? (Whoever is willing to answer.) Shoot? Holster fast and go hands on? Something else?

Go hand to hand with me when I already had my gun out is going to get that person shot.
LE has no requirement to retreat.
Everyone has the right to use self defense up to and including deadly force to prevent the loss of their life, grievous bodily harm, or loss of limb/eyesight (or reasonable grounds to assume those issues may occur).
Presuming your where legally okay (state laws blah blah blah) to present the weapon in the first place - any attempt on you and your weapon gives the reasonable person a view that it would be a deadly force attack.

[LOKNLOD]

In various FoF I've participated in, it's very common for someone to bark out orders over and over while advancing closer and closer to the perceived threat.

Seen it too - in fact, Craig caught me doing it last time. It's very noticeable after the fact even when you don't realize you're doing it in the moment, and in my admittedly limited experience, I think it's a subconscious way of attempting to ratchet up the physical intimidation when your verbals aren't having an impact. Unfortunately the posturing monkey dance is pretty deeply innate.

[Dagga Boy]

Go hand to hand with me when I already had my gun out is going to get that person shot.
LE has no requirement to retreat.
Everyone has the right to use self defense up to and including deadly force to prevent the loss of their life, grievous bodily harm, or loss of limb/eyesight (or reasonable grounds to assume those issues may occur).
Presuming your where legally okay (state laws blah blah blah) to present the weapon in the first place - any attempt on you and your weapon gives the reasonable person a view that it would be a deadly force attack.

How much patrol time do you have? This is fairly regular in my old place. It all sounds good, but pretty easy way to spend time in federal court. I would also like to know where you are finding these reasonable people. How many unarmed folks have you shot advancing on you with your weapon out in the US? This was fairly regular crap. How about straight up "make me" people? How about simple resistance of an un-searched person who may be armed based on information but not confirmed?

[Tiffany Johnson]

Tiffany actually did just that at the Tac Conference this year!

I have found my calling in life.

[Tiffany Johnson]

...lawyers have rates of drug and alcohol abuse way higher than the general population.

Actually....

http://strategyandanalytics.com/hard...lic-job-lists/

[Slavex]

Oh, come one now, Bartenders don't drink and neither do sailors....

[Tiffany Johnson]

Do armed citizens have more, the same, or less discretion to shoot the guy with the pipe wrench than a sworn police officer?

Just out of curiosity I did a quick and dirty search, which I confess is by no means comprehensive or dispositive. Most of the cases I found had to do with non-LE folks who were making citizen's arrests, which I think is a little different from what Cody was asking about. In those cases (citizen's arrests gone wild), courts seemed to agree that the reasonableness standard was the same for LEs and private citizens. See, for example, State v. White, 988 N.E.2d 595, 612, n.10 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.,2013) ("the rights of a private citizen to use deadly force [in the course of an arrest] are no greater than those of a police officer"). However, I did find this little California tidbit in a wrongful death/battery case involving a police officer who fatally shot a would-be arrestee:

Unlike private citizens, police officers act under color of law to protect the public interest. They are charged with acting affirmatively and using force as part of their duties, because “the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” Graham v. Connor

490 U.S. 386 (1989). They are, in short, not similarly situated to the ordinary battery defendant and need not be treated the same. In these cases, then, “the defendant police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order [and] he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense.

That's from Edson v. City of Anaheim, 63 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Edson cited Wirsing v. Krzeminski, 213 N.W.2d 37, 41 (Wis. 1973) ("It should also be pointed out ... that although a peace officer has the privilege of self-defense, as does any other citizen, he is in that respect governed by the ordinary rules of law; but where, as here, the defendant police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order, he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense"). So it sounds like it might depend on whether the force comes about in the course and conduct of "law enforcement" (stop, arrest, etc.) as opposed to the situation where an on-duty LE is randomly attacked and compelled to defend himself/herself. But the line between the two could easily be blurred. Might be splitting hairs a bit.

Just something to think about. Okay, that's the extent of my quick and dirty research thus far. LOL

[Tiffany Johnson]

Oh, come one now, Bartenders don't drink and neither do sailors....

I stand corrected LOL...

[Coyotesfan97]

As to the reactions with blades, it is hard to get through life without getting cut on something; so, it is a real sensation and thus a fear for people. Plus, humans have been stabbing/cutting/impaling each other with sharp objects much longer than they have been shooting each other. I'm sure John probably has a PowerPoint slide on it...

People often don't actually believe they will be shot, and, I don't know a cop that doesn't have at least a peripheral story about a perp daring an officer to shoot.

Funny thing though, in my first hand experience, I have yet to see a perp that didn't believe the k9 would bite them.

I haven't read the whole thread yet but that's exactly what I was thinking. Holding someone at Malinois or Dutch Shepherd point is always interesting especially if you show up when someone is daring cops to shoot them. They BELIEVE the dog will bite them. Ive seen hardcore criminals surrender to the dog. I've also run into a few guys who don't think the dog will bite them or they can outrun him. They usually fall into the all of the above crowd. Then we get to discuss why they thought that at the ER..