Verbal aggression at gunpoint

[Aray]

I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not a function of training for one or the other.

Not to speak for Aray, but that's the point I read into his post: It's not about training to deal with panhandlers or psycho killers. It's about training to deal with as dangerous a threat as you possibly can given your physical, emotional, financial, and temporal limitations... and then learning how far to push the throttle in a given circumstance.

It's sort of like the hard focus vs target focus thing: Reaching a skill level that allows you to deal with axe murderers will prepare you for the aggressive panhandler who turns violent; training only to the level of dealing with an untrained and low-level panhandler threat won't help you much when the axe murderer starts swinging at your noggin.

I hate when Todd is right.

[cclaxton]

[COLOR=#000000]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:

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

Thanks for looking that up, Tiffany. Very interesting. It could be this question about LEO vs. Armed Citizen engagement is jurisdictional, or based on the State.
Cody

[Coyotesfan97]

I really wish I had gone K9 handler of some sort. #sortajealous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjc9-CUxmQI

[Coyotesfan97]

Sometimes the idiots want to fight the dogs as well as the coppers.

I recall several cases where the bad guy did rather well and the dog might have lost the fight had other coppers not stepped in. One of our handlers had to blast a guy that stabbed and killed his dog during an arrest.

Many times it doesn't work well for the bad guy though. One burglar in particular tried to run from the dog, got caught, started punching the K9, dog let go and then went in toe reengage, bad guy was bit in the crotchital region but didn't stop fighting, this led to him losing the head of his penis and the entire organ being what they call "degloved".

Yepp the dog is just a tool like the Taser or the baton on your belt. They can fail. We can put them in situations they haven't trained for or seen. Sometimes we forget we're seeing things the dog can't.

Chuck is right. There are bad guys out there who are dedicated enough to fight dogs. You train, you better be, training your dogs for encountering that 1% who will actively fight them. It's how you select dogs and how you train them to make them street worthy. Just like coppers you put stress on them in training and inoculate them for it. You make them think they are the baddest dog on earth because we could meet someone like that any time we deploy. Every know and then you have to get the best agitator you have and put them through the ringer. Put them in a fight and push them right up to the point of failure. You expose them to as much as you can in training and on the streets. That's how you get ready. If a handler isn't working his dog actively it's a failure waiting to happen. It's a team event. If your dog is in a fight for his life you had better be there fighting with him.

One of the phrases I like I heard in SKIDDS (SWAT K9 Interacting During Deployments) during team area searches. You never know what's behind that gate you're opening. Is this THE gate. You and your dog better be ready.

Some of the more gruesome bites I've seen are guys who start punching the dog in the head and the dog releases and rebites the hand. Ive seen crotch bites too. Its not pretty.

[David Armstrong]

I think you are misunderstanding me. Dealing with a panhandler doesn't require a pistol class, BJJ or anything in between. Dealing with a robber might. Dealing with an an attacker likely will. Much of the training I've seen falls short anywhere north of panhandler.

I'll defer to your expertise on tiger attacks.

Depends on the panhandler, which is why my post was as it was. Lots of training for dealing with interpersonal conflict, armed or unarmed, deals with low-motivation attackers because that is the overwhelming likelihood of what most folks will encounter. People have been attacked and killed by panhandlers. But they are few and far between, so training folks to respond to the panhandler as if he were a terrorist trying to make it to Heaven probably isn't the best way to prepare folks for the more common interactions they might face.

[David Armstrong]

Just catching up here. I have to say I strongly disagree with this tactic. This "unready" position with the gun behind the leg was very popular with my original agency. More than one officer found out the hard way why you don't want you gun behind you. I thought modern LE training got away from this 20 years ago or more, but I see I was wrong.

Agreed. I've seen far more officers get in trouble because they got the gun out too early and needed to put it away than those who got in trouble because the gun was in the holster and needed to be pulled out in a hurry.

[David Armstrong]

I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not a function of training for one or the other.

Not to speak for Aray, but that's the point I read into his post: It's not about training to deal with panhandlers or psycho killers. It's about training to deal with as dangerous a threat as you possibly can given your physical, emotional, financial, and temporal limitations... and then learning how far to push the throttle in a given circumstance.

It's sort of like the hard focus vs target focus thing: Reaching a skill level that allows you to deal with axe murderers will prepare you for the aggressive panhandler who turns violent; training only to the level of dealing with an untrained and low-level panhandler threat won't help you much when the axe murderer starts swinging at your noggin.

I agree, it is not "train for one and not the other." But it is a matter of limited resources and how best to use them. Let's face it, the majority of gun owners won't get any formal training, and for those thta do get formal training it will probably be 8-16 hours over their lifetime. Given that realization I'd rather see the training focus on how best to work with what is likely as opposed to learning how to work with the unlikely and hope that it also works for the unlikely.

[warpedcamshaft]

I've seen "good guys" in FoF freak out and murder people because they "didn't comply"... Don't get me wrong, everyone is super amped-up and hyper vigilant when they are new to it. The debrief is usually where it gets interesting.

I did this in my first FoF class... (ECQC)

Forgot what I'd learned and blasted someone... Consensus was I'd likely be going to jail for a while if it were real.

Still bothers me today.

[Chance]

Go hand to hand with me when I already had my gun out is going to get that person shot.

This is fairly regular in my old place.

Is there anything in particular y'all'd recommend a civilian do in that situation? Paul Howe likes to say, "The cop who responds might have two decades on the job, or two days on the job." Thusly, in my imagined scenarios, I'm always focused on putting the pistol away as soon as safely possible so that no good guys get over-amped and service the wrong problem.

I always love the OC folks with the idea that seeing them with a gun will get criminals afraid.....yeah right. I openly carried a gun, along with a badge that empowered me to not only carry the gun, but to take away a persons freedom. Crooks did not give a rat's ass.

I am extremely weary of open carry for this exact reason. There's zero guarantee that people will either respond, or even instigate, in a rational fashion. Raindogblue posted this just recently, and I think it hammers a point home:

At a light off Second, a transient staggers over to the open driver's window of my patrol car. His hand is wrapped in a blanket, in the shape of a gun, at me.

He screams, "I got a gun." He leers, juts out his lower jaw. "What the fuck you gonna do?"

I look at his hand, then lock eyes. He backs up, aims his finger in the air, and walks away.

I watch him leave.

A man in the car next to me says, "This city is a circus. I appreciate what you do."

I thanked him as he drove away.

RDB's demeanor and confidence no doubt played a critical role in that de-escalation. Call me crazy, but I don't have much faith in your average OC'er handling things with as much discretion.

[HCM]

Is there anything in particular y'all'd recommend a civilian do in that situation? Paul Howe likes to say, "The cop who responds might have two decades on the job, or two days on the job." Thusly, in my imagined scenarios, I'm always focused on putting the pistol away as soon as safely possible so that no good guys get over-amped and service the wrong problem.



I am extremely weary of open carry for this exact reason. There's zero guarantee that people will either respond, or even instigate, in a rational fashion. Raindogblue posted this just recently, and I think it hammers a point home:



RDB's demeanor and confidence no doubt played a critical role in that de-escalation. Call me crazy, but I don't have much faith in your average OC'er handling things with as much discretion.

RDB is a great blog.