PDA

View Full Version : ACTICVE SHOOTER TRAINING COMPLETED



Airgator0470
March 8th, 2014, 08:54 PM
Just an update to my training credentials. Last week I attended and successfully completed the Active Shooter Threat Instructor Training Program at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) located in Glynco, Georgia. Thus... I am now a certified Active Shooter Threat Response Instructor... hoot....hoot.

While much of the training does have a "law enforcement sensitivity" aspect to it, there are some limited applications/techniques suitable for inclusion in the classes I offer.

If you work in the public domain, whether it be an office complex (small or large), mall, restaurant, or school... ask your employer if there is an active shooter response protocol in place. If not, I'd be more than happy to assist your employer in assessing your workplace, identifying needs, and developing a response plan.

Active shooter incidents are a reality... it's no longer a matter of IF... it's now become a matter of WHEN/WHERE.

A good video to watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0

0utlaw
March 8th, 2014, 09:13 PM
I'm supposed to hide under my desk and throw a stapler at the shooter, I seen the DOJ training video:sadwave:

YankeeFingergasm
March 8th, 2014, 09:17 PM
Excellent news sir.

Airgator0470
March 8th, 2014, 09:21 PM
I'm supposed to hide under my desk and throw a stapler at the shooter, I seen the DOJ training video:sadwave:

Lol... I'll fight... I'm sure you would to. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission right? Of course then you have employers and their so called gun free zones...

0utlaw
March 8th, 2014, 09:52 PM
The way I look at it if they ever find out (for sure) that I have a gun they will probably be over that gun free work zone thing by then and most likely wish they had violated the rule too.

HarleyBrent
March 8th, 2014, 11:05 PM
The way I look at it if they ever find out (for sure) that I have a gun they will probably be over that gun free work zone thing by then and most likely wish they had violated the rule too.

Yes... Sir...

OscarMike1127
March 14th, 2014, 01:51 PM
I noticed that nowhere in the video did it say "use your concealed firearm if you have one". It's a shame that even in the face of all these tragedies that we still have "gun free zones" in workplaces. My workplace unfortunately is one of those zones as well. When faced with an active shooter, my plan is to sprint to the car in the parking lot and retrieve the trusty Glock.

0utlaw
March 14th, 2014, 04:45 PM
My plan is to end the threat, then confess to my long term chronic disregard for their GFZ at work.:angeldevil:

Parsons project
March 14th, 2014, 05:12 PM
If my (only) firearm is in my car and I can get to my car, chances are I will not be going back into the threat zone. If the gunman comes back outside in the open, i will be waiting. Hate to say it, but there is not a soul I work with that I would go back in for. If they chose not to arm themselves, NOT MY PROBLEM. Just like a fire, if I make it out, I am not going back in, not after I have made a way for me to be safe and see my family again. Sux, but that's just the way it is.

0utlaw
March 14th, 2014, 06:10 PM
If my (only) firearm is in my car and I can get to my car, chances are I will not be going back into the threat zone. If the gunman comes back outside in the open, i will be waiting. Hate to say it, but there is not a soul I work with that I would go back in for. If they chose not to arm themselves, NOT MY PROBLEM. Just like a fire, if I make it out, I am not going back in, not after I have made a way for me to be safe and see my family again. Sux, but that's just the way it is.

I work with my wife so I don't want to have to make it to the truck and back but if I had too yeah I'm going back.
In an effort to avoid this she may or may not also have a long term chronic disregard for GFZ's :shrug:

Dale Gribble
March 14th, 2014, 07:42 PM
If my (only) firearm is in my car and I can get to my car, chances are I will not be going back into the threat zone.

Yep, the popo are going to expect it to be gun free and we have already established about 99% of the folks with guns shoot first and ask questions later, so no way in hell would I be hanging around.

Jmoorewar
March 14th, 2014, 08:59 PM
If my (only) firearm is in my car and I can get to my car, chances are I will not be going back into the threat zone. If the gunman comes back outside in the open, i will be waiting. Hate to say it, but there is not a soul I work with that I would go back in for. If they chose not to arm themselves, NOT MY PROBLEM. Just like a fire, if I make it out, I am not going back in, not after I have made a way for me to be safe and see my family again. Sux, but that's just the way it is.
I'll one up you,I would block the door so my boss has no way out lol.

OscarMike1127
March 15th, 2014, 12:08 PM
So there's nobody that agrees with me in going back in to end the threat besides 0317? Where are my sheepdogs at?!

Dale Gribble
March 15th, 2014, 12:25 PM
So there's nobody that agrees with me in going back in to end the threat besides 0317? Where are my sheepdogs at?!

With the basis of the current laws, I'm not willing to risk my life, my income and my family for co-workers.

0utlaw
March 15th, 2014, 01:33 PM
With the basis of the current laws, I'm not willing to risk my life, my income and my family for co-workers.

It's people like you that give me reservations about risking my life for another. While it may not be, true I like to think I'm not doing anything that anyone else would not have done.

OscarMike1127
March 15th, 2014, 01:53 PM
"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" ...or for someone else to be on your watch. That is part of my ethos.

Dale Gribble
March 15th, 2014, 01:54 PM
It's people like you that give me reservations about risking my life for another. While it may not be, true I like to think I'm not doing anything that anyone else would not have done.

We have a family friend who has been in jail for 13 months because he tried to help a woman who was being beaten to death by her husband.

His wife and kids are living of donations.

My job is to protect my wife and kids. I can't do that if I'm detained.

OscarMike1127
March 15th, 2014, 03:08 PM
Interesting. Can you tell us the whole story? Did he use a gun? Was the husband who was beating his wife killed?

0utlaw
March 15th, 2014, 06:50 PM
We have a family friend who has been in jail for 13 months because he tried to help a woman who was being beaten to death by her husband.

His wife and kids are living of donations.

My job is to protect my wife and kids. I can't do that if I'm detained.

You can't do that if your whole decision making process is based on what the repercussions may be rather than assessing the situation in real time and moving to produce a satisfactory result.

I don't think I could protect my family or myself at a satisfactory level with that kind of hesitation built in to my OODA loop

Rumbler
March 16th, 2014, 10:07 AM
So there's nobody that agrees with me in going back in to end the threat besides 0317? Where are my sheepdogs at?!


One more of them is right here.

. . . . I'd like to say something witty and perhaps even profound here.

But the truth of the matter is simply; if you convince me that you are about to, or are in the process of start to kill innocents, I will be your worst fucking nightmare come to life. Bottom line.

DaveW
March 16th, 2014, 10:29 AM
What, if anything, was included in that training regarding armed good guys that are in the area? What is the most effective way to let you know that I am not the threat? I would really not want to get in the way of or be on the receiving end of a firefight with SWAT while I am just trying to work my way out of the area.

As to being a sheepdog and going back in, without body armor, kevlar, an AR and direct communication with the entry team, not a chance unless my wife is in there. When LEO's come in I think that any visible weapons will be, if not seen as a threat, at the very least be a distraction and how many more people will the active shooter kill while they are sorting that issue out. Also, how would you know the difference between the shooter and an off duty or plain cloths officer, or another good guy? Even if you see "the shooter" shoot someone, how do you know that it was not another good guy shooting who he thought was the bad guy? No, even if we had the proper training there would be too many variables "inside" to think that we would be a net asset without direct communication.

As far as the whole "Sheepdog, Sheep and Wolves" thing goes, I think that there is another category, the Labradors. We are not part of the mindless herd, we think that if the sheep don't make any effort to protect or provide for themselves, it's not our responsibility to do it for them. Don't think that we are not ready, willing and able to fight if the need arises, we are just not looking for one.

Rumbler
March 16th, 2014, 11:41 AM
I am fortunate enough to have a perspective on 'active shooter' most do not as I am deeply involved with both sides; civilian and law enforcement, in the field of training.


Let me start by saying; make no mistake if law enforcement (in such a situation) perceives you as a threat you are going to get shot. Most likely, shot a lot.

That is the result of two factors primarily:

1) Training.
2) The desire to go home intact at the end of their shift.

#1 would be easy to fix, if it were not for #2.


Ok, here is where it gets deep . . . .

I have direct and open lines of communication to no less than four long time SWAT leaders/trainers. They trust me enough to speak freely with me about just the topics you mention.

At least one of them said to me recently: "Mike, if I had a dime for every time I have been shot (in training) by a cop while holding my badge up saying "I AM A COP!!!" I could retire today." He went on to say that the badge on the belt was no better. The badge dangling around the neck was no better. I am not sure this would be better than holding up a badge hollering "I AM A COP!!!!"

We were talking about the potential for this to help.:

http://www.policestore.com/duty-gear-apparel/safety-warning-equipment/identification-banners/brownells-le-qd-360-id-identification-banners-prod42039.aspx


These are available (Talon has them in stock) with "POLICE", "SECURITY", and "CWL" on them. . . . yes, we make you show LEO ID to buy the "POLICE" version.


A couple of years ago, at FSU, Major Russell held a "safety seminar" for faculty and staff. I specifically asked him what would happen if I ended the active shooter and his guys (FSU PD) showed up while I was still obviously armed. His answer was short and sweet: "Probably shoot you". Notice I did not say "had my gun out" I said "armed".


So I figure when it all boils down to its essence I have two choices:

1) Live defenseless until someone else decides it is time for me to die.
2) Be prepared to defend myself - or someone else - and accept personal responsibility for my decisions.

For better or worse, #2 is my choice.

I can't say that is the right choice for everyone, or even anyone. But it is mine.


Woof, woof.




What, if anything, was included in that training regarding armed good guys that are in the area? What is the most effective way to let you know that I am not the threat? I would really not want to get in the way of or be on the receiving end of a firefight with SWAT while I am just trying to work my way out of the area.

As to being a sheepdog and going back in, without body armor, kevlar, an AR and direct communication with the entry team, not a chance unless my wife is in there. When LEO's come in I think that any visible weapons will be, if not seen as a threat, at the very least be a distraction and how many more people will the active shooter kill while they are sorting that issue out. Also, how would you know the difference between the shooter and an off duty or plain cloths officer, or another good guy? Even if you see "the shooter" shoot someone, how do you know that it was not another good guy shooting who he thought was the bad guy? No, even if we had the proper training there would be too many variables "inside" to think that we would be a net asset without direct communication.

As far as the whole "Sheepdog, Sheep and Wolves" thing goes, I think that there is another category, the Labradors. We are not part of the mindless herd, we think that if the sheep don't make any effort to protect or provide for themselves, it's not our responsibility to do it for them. Don't think that we are not ready, willing and able to fight if the need arises, we are just not looking for one.

OscarMike1127
March 16th, 2014, 02:50 PM
Rumblr - I have thought this through many times. I have also done active shooter training on both sides of the spectrum.

Please give your opinion on this:
If I am a civilian or LEO in plain clothes that is faced with a threat, I have already made my decision (much like you) to eliminate that threat at all costs. Would a hasty call to dispatch with my description or badge # be enough to alleviate much of the risk? Are SWAT and first responding personnel trained to recognize "friendly" shooters already on scene, given a BOLO?

OscarMike1127
March 16th, 2014, 04:03 PM
Also, a quick and accurate BOLO abd location of the active shooter to 911/dispatch would also work wonders. This gets rid of the "who is the good/bad guy question", yes?

Rumbler
March 16th, 2014, 04:57 PM
Bingo.

The best "defense" is to call 911, stay on the line, give a clear and accurate description of yourself, the current situation as you are aware of it - do not assume(!!!) and state that you will IMMEDIATELY COMPLY with instructions given by the first badge on the scene (then do it).


What comes to mind is "reluctantly holster". I teach students that the big hurry is to get the gun out and put it to work but not to holster it in such a hurry.

As a side note, how many times have we seen someone "practicing" draw, fire a few rounds, then automatically reholster? Bad news; that is not practicing anything. That is training your brain to make it easier for you to be killed by the threat's accomplice.


Anyway . . . it is entirely conceivable that some law enforcement officer may encounter you before you are positive - or positive enough - to re holster. Make absolutely certain that you comply with direction immediately. DO NOT take the time to weigh whether the instruction makes sense to you or not. If you do not know for certain there is no more threat draw some 'comfort' in knowing that in all likelihood the person issuing you instructions already has their firearm out and at high ready.

Heck, chances are they already have their finger on the trigger.


. . but that is a dissertation for another thread. ;)

0utlaw
March 16th, 2014, 05:03 PM
Heck, chances are they already have their finger on the trigger.


;)
And the mag in correctly:flamer:










(oops wrong thread)

AB
March 16th, 2014, 05:06 PM
While I agree that "playing the numbers" isn't the very best thing, statistically, almost all active shooters shut down, barricade, and/or take their own lives immediately upon being confronted by an armed threat.

Of course, we can't count on that 100%, but the overwhelming majority of them aren't there for a real fight. Probably because going there to die was in their original plan, unlike the North Hollywood bank robbers. If confronted with an active shooter in the mall, my plan is to use most of my ammo laying fire on the bad guy. That will either take him out of the fight permanently through my action or his, or at least keep him thinking about something else right then. Since I will almost certainly not have a bag full of ammo like an active shooter will, I have no illusions I will run out or low before the first LEO arrive and I will need to retreat. Even if I carried a rifle all the time, which I don't, I doubt I could engage, retreat back to my car, retrieve my rifle and re-engage (this is assuming the shooter was in exactly the same spot they were in when I left, which is unlikely) before the first LEO's are on scene. As an average joe, I wouldn't run back in with no one knowing who I am or why I'm there with a rifle when I see blue lights on scene.

Just my opinion, FWIW.

0utlaw
March 16th, 2014, 05:14 PM
If I'm in a mall or other public place there is no way I would exit and re-engage. At work or other familiar places I can pretty much tell who belongs there and who doesn't, in a place full of strange faces I'm just as likely to engage a plain clothes or off duty LEO as I am the shooter and vice versa. If I see the shooter and I have the shot I'll take it but I'm not going hunting. I will try to move as many people as possible to safety and cover them as they go but when we are out we are out, but going back in Rambo style is just buying trouble.

Dale Gribble
March 16th, 2014, 07:02 PM
Interesting. Can you tell us the whole story? Did he use a gun? Was the husband who was beating his wife killed?

I do not believe a gun was used by anyone, and no one was killed. This was in Pasco County. I will get more information next time I talk to my mom.

I'm not sure why anyone finds this hard to believe however. Remember this:

http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?3036-US-airman-stands-his-ground-in-Florida-25-YearsUS&highlight=parking+fight

Rumbler
March 16th, 2014, 07:25 PM
Dale, it is not hard to believe.

I have/had a close friend doing life without parole in Starke for shooting a guy who he woke up in the middle of the nght to find standing at the end of his bed holding a baseball bat.

His wife was in bed beside him, his two very young kids in the next room.

What is hard to believe is that it is plausible to believe that one would believe they could still get in front of a bad guys OODA loop were they to do a risk/benefit assessment prior to acting. . . . . did that make sense? I think you know what I mean . . . . if you know what an OODA loop is and how it works in relation to a gunfight. :o

Airgator0470
March 16th, 2014, 07:38 PM
I don't think I could ever forgive or live with myself if I had the ability to take the fight to the enemy and didn't. Of course, people value HONOR and COURAGE differently.

Dale Gribble
March 16th, 2014, 07:39 PM
What is hard to believe is that it is plausible to believe that one would believe they could still get in front of a bad guys OODA loop were they to do a risk/benefit assessment prior to acting. . . . . did that make sense? I think you know what I mean . . . . if you know what an OODA loop is and how it works in relation to a gunfight. :o

Avoid the situation. This started with retreating to the car at your workplace to get your gun and go back in. I work in a courthouse where at anytime between Bailiffs (LCSO) and various city, state and county and federal police are in and out of all day. To believe that I can grab my legally stowed gun and go back into the building to win the gunfight is something I think is not within reason.

Rumbler
March 16th, 2014, 07:45 PM
What about the mall? Or the grocery store? Or the car dealership?

Dale Gribble
March 16th, 2014, 09:08 PM
What about the mall? Or the grocery store? Or the car dealership?

No idea. In all of those places I would not retreat to my car to retrieve a firearm, I would already have it.

OscarMike1127
March 16th, 2014, 09:54 PM
Ah, but see the question is about working in a gun free zone. In this particular scenario, your firearm is not on or about your person. It's a sprint to the parking lot and back.

And to comment on the Airman in Pasco County, he used a firearm to defend against a situation (a bar brawl) where deadly force was not immediately apparent. An active SHOOTER scenario is much, much different.

I can't possibly fathom a lawyer, juror or basic human being worth a damn that would not count the lives saved vs any possible perceived violation of the law.

OscarMike1127
March 16th, 2014, 09:57 PM
Rumbler- WTF? On what basis was your friend convicted?

Dale Gribble
March 16th, 2014, 10:15 PM
I can't possibly fathom a lawyer, juror or basic human being worth a damn that would not count the lives saved vs any possible perceived violation of the law.

Would a jury even know about the lives saved? Would it be admissible?

Dale Gribble
March 16th, 2014, 11:01 PM
I don't think I could ever forgive or live with myself if I had the ability to take the fight to the enemy and didn't. Of course, people value HONOR and COURAGE differently.

Bob, (rumber, oscarmike, 317, etc) I am glad their are people like you around. I wish I could feel the same way. However I'm not going to put up a bullshit hero screen that so many gun owners are willing to do. I have big reservations about doing the right thing outside of my family or friends. I carry a gun, I have a CWP, but I am not a cop, and I don't have shit behind me if I do my best and shit goes sideways.

Look at the total destruction around Zimmerman's life. I do not want and can not afford the same visited upon my house.

Rumbler
March 16th, 2014, 11:56 PM
No idea. In all of those places I would not retreat to my car to retrieve a firearm, I would already have it.


That is what I am trying to get at, Dale. Gunfights are often won or lost in fractions of a second. Innocents are killed in fractions of a second.

My point is that one must be as certain as they can possibly be - they must have the mental commitment to act - prior to an incident. That relates directly to the OODA loop.

When a bad guy posing a lethal threat is encountered they are either at "A" or waiting on "A". Given everything a human being does from brushing their teeth to participating in a lethal encounter requires OODA, being at "D" or earlier puts you behind the threat.

I have never had to end a threat confronting innocents. But I know as surely as I know my own name I could not tolerate spending the rest of my days wondering if I could have saved just one by acting instead of exiting.

"Sheepdogs". That has come up recently, at the moment I do not recall if it was in this thread or another. But I know how to identify one.

On September 11th, 2001. On airliners over PA and DC. The sheepdogs said without hesitation: "God I wish I could have been there, maybe I could have made a difference." The not a sheepdogs said, "Thank God I was not on those airplanes."

OscarMike1127
March 17th, 2014, 01:44 AM
Dale, no that type of information would not be admissible. But jurors are humans. The thought would cross their minds whether mentioned or not. That's the same reason why Zimmerman was brought to trial even with a lack of substantiating evidence. The human element, the emotional element...

Airgator0470
March 17th, 2014, 04:35 AM
Bob, (rumber, oscarmike, 317, etc) I am glad their are people like you around. I wish I could feel the same way. However I'm not going to put up a bullshit hero screen that so many gun owners are willing to do. I have big reservations about doing the right thing outside of my family or friends. I carry a gun, I have a CWP, but I am not a cop, and I don't have shit behind me if I do my best and shit goes sideways.

Look at the total destruction around Zimmerman's life. I do not want and can not afford the same visited upon my house.

I think comparing a case like Zimmerman to a case involving confronting an active shooter (the topic of this debate) is an APPLES vs. ORANGES thing.

Look man... you HAVE A RIGHT to your opinions, I'm NOT here to judge you either way. We (people) are all different in our own way(s). No keyboard bravado here... I just don't think I'd feel good about myself if I COULD do something but CHOSE not to.

DaveW
March 17th, 2014, 11:34 AM
I firmly understand and respect both sides of this conversation. I don't need anymore help losing sleep and knowing innocents fell on my watch, but I also disdain the milktose loafer wearing panty waists that spent their time playing golf and fantasy football rather than being at the range and being capable of protecting them and theirs.

That being said, I think I offer a compromise; I carry a weapon, and or the means to protect myself, everywhere I go.

That includes gun free zones. Every place I see a sign that says "no firearms" I walk right by it as if I never saw it. Is it breaking the law? You betcha. Do I give a fuck? Absolutely not.

In this manner I can protect myself by immediately removing the threat and evacuating with the innocents at the same time. "But that's buh-buh-breaking the law," you say. So is going to your vehicle, getting a gun, and going back in. Back at square one, minus the loss of operational tempo.

I am not committing suicide for anyone by going back in and being gunned down the responding police. Love you guys, mean it, but we know exactly what the fuck will happen when your dicks get hard and the MP5's come out of the cases.

Thats my compromise and the boundaries of my participation. I'm no hero, but I'm no coward either.


Quintessential Labrador. Not a sheepdog, definitely not a wolf or a sheep, and ready for the fight if it comes your way. If not a sheepdog, I consider it every mans duty to at least train and aspire to be the Lab.

Evil_McNasty
March 17th, 2014, 12:39 PM
"but I also disdain the milktose loafer wearing panty waists that spent their time playing golf and fantasy football"
Beautiful god damn quote!!! Give this man a candy bar.

I would go back in if intelligently and tactically it would make a difference. If I am plain clothes and I have a Glock 26, but Mr Bad guy has a fully auto AK and body armor, then my effectiveness is likely quite low. But maybe not, if I know the building well and know of a sound entry point that could probably get me near to his position while providing good cover........yeah I am going back in. This would be right after I made a phone call to dispatch and explained everything I knew about the situation and that I would be entering the east side of the building, wearing a red shirt, etc..........

Now if people are still pouring out and little old ladies are getting trampled on in the door ways, I am going to help them first. There are so many situational variables that saying exactly what you would do in that moment is near impossible. But I will say that every person who is not a panty waist should do whatever they can to improve the situation for maximum effect. That may be gunning him down, that may be rushing shocked people towards a door, that may be staying on the phone and giving the only available live updates to dispatch, hell....that may be driving your car into the front door and running the guy over. Who knows. Just don't be a coward.

0utlaw
March 17th, 2014, 12:42 PM
Just don't be a coward.

Yep, that summed it up for me.

crawdaddy34
March 17th, 2014, 12:47 PM
The part of this I'm stuck on is calling 911 and telling them that you are re-entering.

Guaranteed they will tell you not to.

If you do it anyway, and survive the incident, there is a HIGH probability of you landing in some pretty deep do-do...

Airgator0470
March 17th, 2014, 12:56 PM
I am not committing suicide for anyone by going back in and being gunned down the responding police. Love you guys, mean it, but we know exactly what the fuck will happen when your dicks get hard and the MP5's come out of the cases.



MP5's.....? That's so 1980's... lol

Rumbler
March 17th, 2014, 01:01 PM
No problem, CrawPawPaw.

That is when you provide proof you have the professional training necessary in the mind of a reasonable person to conclude there was a realistic possibility your rentering stood a larger probability preserving innocents lives.




The part of this I'm stuck on is calling 911 and telling them that you are re-entering.

Guaranteed they will tell you not to.

If you do it anyway, and survive the incident, there is a HIGH probability of you landing in some pretty deep do-do...

crawdaddy34
March 17th, 2014, 01:08 PM
AG - You just went thru the training...

Isn't current SOP to bypass the wounded and actively seek out, engage, and neutralize the bad guy?

Frady
March 17th, 2014, 01:16 PM
No problem, CrawPawPaw.

That is when you provide proof you have the professional training necessary in the mind of a reasonable person to conclude there was a realistic possibility your rentering stood a larger probability preserving innocents lives.


And it's just that simple right? :yup:




Someone gave me a really good perspective on whether to make that choice to get involved or not. Imagine for a moment one of the people we're talking about saving developed a curable form of cancer but they had no money and just needed $20k to live. Would you write them a check for their medications? If no, then why are you so eager to run into that situation with a gun?

While not quite apples to apples, I think it's a great analogy for deciding whether or not to get involved. In all but the best of scenarios you're going to need to hire legal council and your name may get drug through the mud (ie: Zimmerman) before you finally get clear of all the legal hurdles. By the time you factor in attorney fees, lost wages, all the possible negative attention you'll receive and stress $20k might not even come close to covering it.

I have had two instances in my life of intervening on behalf of an unknown woman getting smacked around only to have the crazy bitch come swinging at me when things went sideways. How thankful do you think the masses will be for your actions? Remember, these are the same people that suspend teenagers who step in to defend others being bullied for fighting.

I'm not saying I wouldn't take action in any scenario, but considering all the problems (LEO shooting you, legal troubles, thankless masses, etc.) I'd take a moment to really think about it before taking action.

Airgator0470
March 17th, 2014, 01:22 PM
AG - You just went thru the training...

Isn't current SOP to bypass the wounded and actively seek out, engage, and neutralize the bad guy?

Yes.

crawdaddy34
March 17th, 2014, 01:32 PM
Yes.

So you roll on an active shooter call, actively seek out someone with a gun, and neutralize the threat by whatever means necessary...

If it so happens that an armed citizen that is trying to help is the first person you see, what's your reaction?

I’m not trying to put you on the spot here AG. Just curious as to how this works out from a LEO perspective…

Airgator0470
March 17th, 2014, 01:53 PM
So you roll on an active shooter call, actively seek out someone with a gun, and neutralize the threat by whatever means necessary...

If it so happens that an armed citizen that is trying to help is the first person you see, what's your reaction?

I’m not trying to put you on the spot here AG. Just curious as to how this works out from a LEO perspective…

I'm unaware of any LAW or AGENCY POLICY that would PROHIBIT me from asking for help or accepting offers for help... even from ARMED CITIZENS. In fact, by statutory law, refusing a LAWFUL request for help is a violation of FSS 843.06.

I'm sure we will need an entirely new thread to debate the merits of such a topic...

If, UNDER THE RIGHT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, I encountered an armed citizen who appeared to be capable of helping until more "OFFICIAL" help arrived, I don't think I'd turn the help down. On the other hand, if an elderly citizen who was shaking uncontrollably offered help, I think I'd help them just go to safety.

Now... this thread ought to get really interesting...

crawdaddy34
March 17th, 2014, 02:00 PM
I'm unaware of any LAW or AGENCY POLICY that would PROHIBIT me from asking for help or accepting offers for help... even from ARMED CITIZENS. In fact, by statutory law, refusing a LAWFUL request for help is a violation of FSS 843.06.

I'm sure we will need an entirely new thread to debate the merits of such a topic...

If, UNDER THE RIGHT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, I encountered an armed citizen who appeared to be capable of helping until more "OFFICIAL" help arrived, I don't think I'd turn the help down. On the other hand, if an elderly citizen who was shaking uncontrollably offered help, I think I'd help them just go to safety.

Now... this thread ought to get really interesting...


Well you certinly pulled a quick left turn there, didn't you! LOL.

What I was getting at was what would you do if you encountered a man with a gun after you got a call about a man with a gun... Or, if you would prefer, what do I NEED TO DO, to keep you from shooting me.

See what I'm getting at here?

And I'm kind of suprized that there ISN't a law prohibiting that... I imagine that would open up an agency for ALL SORTS of liability if you ask me to help clear a building and shit goes sideways because of something I did/didn't do/did wrong...

DaveW
March 17th, 2014, 02:01 PM
About a year ago I took a class up here in Ky called Surviving Lethal Encounters, here is the link instead of a description: http://aimperfect.com/events/2014/2/1/surviving-lethal-encounters-workshop It's taught by Jim Higginbotham and a former high up State Prosecutor for the state of Kentucky. Much of what is being discussed in this thread is covered in the class and is designed for civilians. Jim is a very interesting guy that ran in the same circles and on occasion worked with Jeff Cooper. Google Jim's name, he has some impressive shooting vid's and some really good articles. Anyway, if there seems to be enough interest, I'll run over there (about 10 min away) and see if he would be willing to come to Talon and do the class. I'm sure it would cost more than the $100 it is up here but even at double that it would still be worth it.

crawdaddy34
March 17th, 2014, 02:01 PM
and no one wants to shoot a naked guy.

That depends on why he's naked brother....

Remember the thread about the kid in the daughters bed???

DaveW
March 17th, 2014, 02:07 PM
If I were to call dispatch and let them know what I was about to do, I would tell them I was going to be naked and then strip down and run in. There might be two guys in there with red shirts on, but an exponentially higher chance that I'm the only nude gunman inside.

and no one wants to shoot a naked guy.

Sorry but I had to click the disapprove button, only because that was an image that I did not need in my head. I hope I'm not scarred for life.

Airgator0470
March 17th, 2014, 02:20 PM
Well you certinly pulled a quick left turn there, didn't you! LOL.

What I was getting at was what would you do if you encountered a man with a gun after you got a call about a man with a gun... Or, if you would prefer, what do I NEED TO DO, to keep you from shooting me.

See what I'm getting at here?

And I'm kind of suprized that there ISN't a law prohibiting that... I imagine that would open up an agency for ALL SORTS of liability if you ask me to help clear a building and shit goes sideways because of something I did/didn't do/did wrong...

Too many variables to give a straight answer... obviously I'd have to make a determination YOU are not the guy I'm looking for. If you see or hear LEO coming.... disarm, hold your hands high, and DO WHAT EVER YOU ARE TOLD WITHOUT DELAY. Face away from approaching officers, make no sudden movements.

Don't worry... I don't think cops will be asking for help because of what you mentioned.

crawdaddy34
March 17th, 2014, 02:45 PM
Too many variables to give a straight answer... obviously I'd have to make a determination YOU are not the guy I'm looking for. If you see or hear LEO coming.... disarm, hold your hands high, and DO WHAT EVER YOU ARE TOLD WITHOUT DELAY. Face away from approaching officers, make no sudden movements.

Don't worry... I don't think cops will be asking for help because of what you mentioned.


Which is exactly the catch-22 I thought we would end up at...


SEEING officers approaching is one thing. In that case, I'm cool with all of the above.

But If I know that there is a guy wandering around in here with a gun, looking to shoot people, and all of the sudden someone behind me tells me to drop my gun and put my hands up, I'm gonna want to take a peak and see WHO exactly that is. If he's done up in full tactical gear with six of his buddies stacked off his left shoulder, all is good. If it's one crazy sumbitch with a rifle pointed at me, well I'm probably already screwed, but in an effort to save my own life, or at least take that fucker with me, me and my weapon need to be QUICKLY moving in a lateral fashion AND on the way to acquiring a target the SECOND he starts speaking... Which will get you shot at if it is LEO's...

So...
Option 1 is stand still and hope it's not the bad guy.
Option 2 is move and hope it's not the cops.





SIDE BAR - What's the rational for "Face away from approaching officers"?

Evil_McNasty
March 17th, 2014, 03:07 PM
If I were to call dispatch and let them know what I was about to do, I would tell them I was going to be naked and then strip down and run in. There might be two guys in there with red shirts on, but an exponentially higher chance that I'm the only nude gunman inside.

and no one wants to shoot a naked guy.

Gurkha style. That might actually work.

DaveW
March 17th, 2014, 03:16 PM
1911+beard+tea bag = dead bad guy

Redemption is yours Sir.

AB
March 17th, 2014, 03:20 PM
See, I thought he was going the Celtic route...

Rumbler
March 17th, 2014, 03:39 PM
And it's just that simple right? :yup:

Ultimately; yes.

Of course that is somewhat perspective qualified.





Someone gave me a really good perspective on whether to make that choice to get involved or not. Imagine for a moment one of the people we're talking about saving developed a curable form of cancer but they had no money and just needed $20k to live. Would you write them a check for their medications? If no, then why are you so eager to run into that situation with a gun?

No, I would not cut the check. Yes I would run in to the situation. "Eager" is not mentioned by anyone anywhere, so I don't know how to address that aspect except to say that it is a sociopath that is EAGER to kill another human. I think that you may be confusing "willing to without hesitation" with "eager". But I assure you that they are very different things.

At least that is my opinion as one who has often stated they are "willing to without hesitation".

I say "no" to the cut the check part for three reasons:

1) Having cancer is not even close to being the same thing as "we were at the mall, Junior, Sissy, the baby and I, were just sitting there having ice cream, when . . . "
2) Social service programs abound to help with this. Even drug companies often subsidize treatment in exchange for allowing them to do research on treatment of the victim.
3) Obamacare. Remember that?





While not quite apples to apples, I think it's a great analogy for deciding whether or not to get involved. In all but the best of scenarios you're going to need to hire legal council and your name may get drug through the mud (ie: Zimmerman) before you finally get clear of all the legal hurdles. By the time you factor in attorney fees, lost wages, all the possible negative attention you'll receive and stress $20k might not even come close to covering it.

Um, no. If you are charged with a crime "you have a right to legal representation. If you can not afford an attorney the court will provide one . . . " 'member that part?

Even a lowly public defender can present proof of training certificates into the prosecution proceedings.

As for Zimmerman having his life ruined. Yeah. Good point. My personal choice is; screw that. If they want to ruin my life let them have at it. I will be the one looking in the mirror every morning knowing I did my level best to protect Junior, Sissy, Baby, and Momma. That is far more important to me than what a bunch of racist assclowns think of me.

'course, I may be in the minority on that perspective..


I have had two instances in my life of intervening on behalf of an unknown woman getting smacked around only to have the crazy bitch come swinging at me when things went sideways. How thankful do you think the masses will be for your actions? Remember, these are the same people that suspend teenagers who step in to defend others being bullied for fighting.

I'm not saying I wouldn't take action in any scenario, but considering all the problems (LEO shooting you, legal troubles, thankless masses, etc.) I'd take a moment to really think about it before taking action.


Personal perspective: "Screw the masses. They don't have to live in my skin."

Airgator0470
March 17th, 2014, 06:25 PM
Which is exactly the catch-22 I thought we would end up at...


SEEING officers approaching is one thing. In that case, I'm cool with all of the above.

But If I know that there is a guy wandering around in here with a gun, looking to shoot people, and all of the sudden someone behind me tells me to drop my gun and put my hands up, I'm gonna want to take a peak and see WHO exactly that is. If he's done up in full tactical gear with six of his buddies stacked off his left shoulder, all is good. If it's one crazy sumbitch with a rifle pointed at me, well I'm probably already screwed, but in an effort to save my own life, or at least take that fucker with me, me and my weapon need to be QUICKLY moving in a lateral fashion AND on the way to acquiring a target the SECOND he starts speaking... Which will get you shot at if it is LEO's...

So...
Option 1 is stand still and hope it's not the bad guy.
Option 2 is move and hope it's not the cops.





SIDE BAR - What's the rational for "Face away from approaching officers"?

So as not to be perceived to be confronting or squaring off... in hopes the perception of facing away is less threatening. Just another thing to consider.

YankeeFingergasm
March 17th, 2014, 10:14 PM
I think this relates some

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=4701 part one

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6844 part two

BlueBronco
March 18th, 2014, 11:40 PM
I'm supposed to hide under my desk and throw a stapler at the shooter, I seen the DOJ training video:sadwave:

Ditto. Except I am required to lock my .357 SIG in the vehicle in order to hide under a desk and not fight back unless I am singled out. Then I am supposed to fight back vigorously with a pair of dull scissors or a stapler. I am so thankful they sent those videos out to the universities.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/customsmilies/mysmilie_145.gif

0utlaw
March 19th, 2014, 07:46 AM
Well BB if you had that evil, high powered, high capacity, hair triggered, did I mention EVIL(?) handgun someone might get hurt :headslap:

0utlaw
March 19th, 2014, 11:52 AM
If I'm in a mall or other public place there is no way I would exit and re-engage. At work or other familiar places I can pretty much tell who belongs there and who doesn't, in a place full of strange faces I'm just as likely to engage a plain clothes or off duty LEO as I am the shooter and vice versa. If I see the shooter and I have the shot I'll take it but I'm not going hunting. I will try to move as many people as possible to safety and cover them as they go but when we are out we are out, but going back in Rambo style is just buying trouble.

I'll stand by that and say I think we are pretty much on the same page

BlueBronco
March 19th, 2014, 12:03 PM
Originally Posted by 0utlaw http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?p=51905#post51905) If I'm in a mall or other public place there is no way I would exit and re-engage. At work or other familiar places I can pretty much tell who belongs there and who doesn't, in a place full of strange faces I'm just as likely to engage a plain clothes or off duty LEO as I am the shooter and vice versa. If I see the shooter and I have the shot I'll take it but I'm not going hunting. I will try to move as many people as possible to safety and cover them as they go but when we are out we are out, but going back in Rambo style is just buying trouble.




I'll stand by that and say I think we are pretty much on the same page

I agree with this but mostly just for my building.

BlueBronco
March 19th, 2014, 12:06 PM
Another point that I'd like to bring up here is the legality for civilians. I know the LEO's here said they would initially go in, or go out and come back in.

But you're allowed by law to do that, whereas the law does not favor us. If I decided to go in and intervene, I would theoretically be acting under law by using a weapon to stop a forcible felony from occurring to another individual. But would that hold up in court?

What if the only shot I could take ended up with the round going through the aggressor and striking an innocent hiding in a closet behind them. Am I now liable to face criminal and/or civil pursuit?

What if I came across another armed citizen who was trying to intervene, saw his weapon pointed at me or another, and I engaged him? Would that not be manslaughter?

I fully agree that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, and not see innocents killed, but my faith in humanity is not what it used to be. Will the court of public opinion leave me with my ass in the wind and facing criminal charges? God forbid that the perpetrator is black or a minority. Will I then have Jesse and Al lead a crusade against me and the perpetrators family sue me? These are all very likely events.

I know we all want to be John Wayne's and we want to have our honor and walk a hard line. But what happens when there isn't anyone left who deserves our honor?

I like to pick battles that I can win, and I just can't see that being the case with this scenario.

The hairy part is for "Gun Free Zones" and they are all somewhat different. For example, a k-12 is the most problematic. But on a Florida University, with a ccw license, the possession of a pistol is a misdemeanor. However, that would require me to exit retrieve and re-enter the building. That can also be problematic. It means I have either left students etc. behind, or I have already brought them out when I exited.

OscarMike1127
March 19th, 2014, 01:16 PM
Another point that I'd like to bring up here is the legality for civilians. I know the LEO's here said they would initially go in, or go out and come back in.

But you're allowed by law to do that, whereas the law does not favor us. If I decided to go in and intervene, I would theoretically be acting under law by using a weapon to stop a forcible felony from occurring to another individual. But would that hold up in court?

What if the only shot I could take ended up with the round going through the aggressor and striking an innocent hiding in a closet behind them. Am I now liable to face criminal and/or civil pursuit?

What if I came across another armed citizen who was trying to intervene, saw his weapon pointed at me or another, and I engaged him? Would that not be manslaughter?

I fully agree that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, and not see innocents killed, but my faith in humanity is not what it used to be. Will the court of public opinion leave me with my ass in the wind and facing criminal charges? God forbid that the perpetrator is black or a minority. Will I then have Jesse and Al lead a crusade against me and the perpetrators family sue me? These are all very likely events.

I know we all want to be John Wayne's and we want to have our honor and walk a hard line. But what happens when there isn't anyone left who deserves our honor?

I like to pick battles that I can win, and I just can't see that being the case with this scenario.

There are liability risks these days with everything you do. With society today being so litigious, I don't blame you for taking pause. I respect that perspective and I am glad that you are thinking outside the box and not walking around in Condition White like the sheep.. That being said, I think it boils down to a personal decision before hand coupled with situational awareness. I know I don't have to preach the last weapons safety rule to you (Know your target and what lies beyond and in between).


Also, I am on the level with you when it comes to honor. However, the best type of honor is not contingent on the perspective of others, and given or taken away due to their own tender sensibilities. It is something indescribable and intangible that lies within yourself. My honor will not come and go due to what the unknowing court of sheep decides on whether or not the sheepdog was involved in a good or bad shoot, or the unlawful or righteous kill. My honor lies in standing like a rock in matters of principle, and that includes the risk of prison or death for deciding to save lives.


Again, a personal choice...

Greg Kulbick
March 19th, 2014, 01:47 PM
How do you think the media would spin it? "Man leaves survivors behind, retrieves gun and rushes to fullfill vigilante bloodlust."

DaveW
March 19th, 2014, 01:55 PM
Maybe age has turned me into a coward.

No, experience and observation has turned you into a justifiably cynical realist. As I posted on Yahoo News, "If it is not fair to expect others to provide for themselves, how is it fair to expect others to provide for them?"

Airgator0470
March 19th, 2014, 02:59 PM
Another point that I'd like to bring up here is the legality for civilians. WHAT ABOUT IT? NO DIFFERENCE. I know the LEO's here said they would initially go in, or go out and come back in.

But you're allowed by law to do that, whereas the law does not favor us. IN FLORIDA THIS IS INCORRECT... FLORIDA LAW ALLOWS YOU TO USE FORCE, INCLUDING DEADLY FORCE, IN DEFENSE OF OTHERS. A DISPATCHER ON A TELEPHONE CAN NOT ISSUE YOU A LAWFUL COMMAND SUCH AS "DON'T GO BACK IN THAT BUILDING". If I decided to go in and intervene, I would theoretically be acting under law by using a weapon to stop a forcible felony from occurring to another individual. But would that hold up in court? READ CHAPTER 790 OF THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTES... YOU WILL FIND A "LAWFUL AUTHORITY FOR USE OF FORCE" ANSWER THERE. HOWEVER, YOU WOULD NOT BE OPERATING UNDER WHAT IS CALLED "COLOR OF LAW".

What if the only shot I could take ended up with the round going through the aggressor and striking an innocent hiding in a closet behind them. Am I now liable to face criminal and/or civil pursuit? CRIMINAL NO... CIVIL... MAYBE, SO WOULD A COP... NO DIFFERENCE. GETTING SUED DEPENDS ON WHO YOU HIT AND HOW THEY FELT ABOUT IT. WE HAVE A SGT THAT HIT A CARJACKING VICTIM... HE DID NOT GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT BEING SHOT... HE APPRECIATED THE SGT'S EFFORTS.

What if I came across another armed citizen who was trying to intervene, saw his weapon pointed at me or another, and I engaged him? Would that not be manslaughter? IT COULD... IT COULD NOT... THERE IS NO 100% SURE ANSWER TO THAT ONE. SAME STANDARD IF I POP THE WRONG PERSON... I MIGHT GET A PASS, I MIGHT NOT.

I fully agree that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, and not see innocents killed, but my faith in humanity is not what it used to be. CAN'T BLAME YOU THERE. Will the court of public opinion leave me with my ass in the wind and facing criminal charges? IT'S POSSIBLE. God forbid that the perpetrator is black or a minority. YEP. Will I then have Jesse and Al lead a crusade against me and the perpetrators family sue me? WOULD YOU EXPECT ANYTHING LESS? These are all very likely events. YES SIR THEY ARE.

I know we all want to be John Wayne's and we want to have our honor and walk a hard line. I DON'T SEE IT AS A JOHN WAYNE THING. But what happens when there isn't anyone left who deserves our honor? I WILL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN I GET TO IT.

I like to pick battles that I can win, and I just can't see that being the case with this scenario. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS FROM YOUR OWN THREAT ASSESSMENT.

ADDED: IN FLORIDA... YOU (as Joe Q. Public) and I (as Jonny law) are NO DIFFERENT in the eyes of the law when it comes to using force to protect ourselves or another person. We both still must say WHY we did WHAT we did. The same laws that apply to ME apply to YOU. I would submit to you that I (a cop) would have a steeper hill to climb in the evaluation of a fuck up due to "training"... not that your experiences are ANY LESS than mine, and the fact most people just view cops as SUPER HUMANS who should NEVER fuck up.

One last thing... I think some of you guys are looking WAY TOO DEEP into that damn video...

OscarMike1127
March 19th, 2014, 04:06 PM
Jafar - I hope you didn't take that as disrespect. I was simply giving my own perspective in conjunction with yours. Being a warrior or sheepdog (or both) is a blessing and a curse. A gift with heavy responsibility.

What at a great discussion this is!

0utlaw
March 19th, 2014, 04:08 PM
If you think you can hurt his feeling THAT easy, you have a rude wake up coming:swordfight:

FLT
March 19th, 2014, 04:43 PM
If you think you can hurt his feeling THAT easy, you have a rude wake up coming:swordfight:

What feelings? He gave those up years ago! :yup:

Airgator0470
March 19th, 2014, 05:46 PM
Bob, you know I would shoot up the whole world with you, right?

I know... I just wanted to make sure you, as a civilian, realize you have just as much to gain or lose as a cop does by thrusting yourself into a situation... and you have the same playing field regarding use of force as I do.

Risk... everyone has to define it in their own way and assess the good/bad, pros/cons, on their own terms.

Rumbler
March 19th, 2014, 06:51 PM
http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Man-Shoots-Himself-In-The-Head-At-A-Lake-City-Pawn-Shop-250998651.html


Man shoots himself in the head at Lake City pawn shop.

Upon reading this my first reaction was to be angry at the pawn shop guy. Why?

Because the "customer" took the shotgun, loaded it, stepped back (apparently) and at that point the pawn shop guy had not excised at least the top of the "customer's" head.

I guess the pawn shop guy was waiting to see if the "customer" was going to shoot him, or himself.

Dang. Stupid mistake, don't you think?

Why, you ask? Easy two word answer "OODA Loop". Maybe I am weird, but I can not imagine ever intentionally putting myself behind the bad guy's OODA loop. It just makes no sense to me. In fact, I would bet that if I knew a "reasonable person" they would be inclined to agree . . . . .

Food for thought. Hopefully the relevance is obvious if subtle.

Airgator0470
March 19th, 2014, 07:51 PM
http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Man-Shoots-Himself-In-The-Head-At-A-Lake-City-Pawn-Shop-250998651.html


Man shoots himself in the head at Lake City pawn shop.

Upon reading this my first reaction was to be angry at the pawn shop guy. Why?

Because the "customer" took the shotgun, loaded it, stepped back (apparently) and at that point the pawn shop guy had not excised at least the top of the "customer's" head.

I guess the pawn shop guy was waiting to see if the "customer" was going to shoot him, or himself.

Dang. Stupid mistake, don't you think?

Why, you ask? Easy two word answer "OODA Loop". Maybe I am weird, but I can not imagine ever intentionally putting myself behind the bad guy's OODA loop. It just makes no sense to me. In fact, I would bet that if I knew a "reasonable person" they would be inclined to agree . . . . .

Food for thought. Hopefully the relevance is obvious if subtle.

Excellent point... by the time someone's actions make you think "WHAT THE FUCK"... you're pretty much screwed/behind the 8-ball between the "WHAT" and "THE"... failure to act between the "THE" and "FUCK" is what costs the most...

Frady
March 19th, 2014, 08:10 PM
ADDED: IN FLORIDA... YOU (as Joe Q. Public) and I (as Jonny law) are NO DIFFERENT in the eyes of the law when it comes to using force to protect ourselves or another person. We both still must say WHY we did WHAT we did. The same laws that apply to ME apply to YOU. I would submit to you that I (a cop) would have a steeper hill to climb in the evaluation of a fuck up due to "training"... not that your experiences are ANY LESS than mine, and the fact most people just view cops as SUPER HUMANS who should NEVER fuck up.

Bob- Respectfully, I'm not convinced. I agree with you that if reasonable people read the laws we would come to that conclusion. In practice, however, I don't know that things really play out that way.

Imagine we were having this conversation a couple years ago and we asked how to law protected us if we saw someone walking through the neighborhood and followed them to see what they were up to. As we now know, a "wannabe cop" doesn't get treated with the same perspective of a real cop.

Rumbler
March 19th, 2014, 08:35 PM
David,

step #1 is to determine priorities.

What is more important; public perception or one's own personal perception.

In the case of Zimmerman - again - it has been decided by a court of law Zimmerman acted legally. IF Zimmerman loses sleep I'd bet it is not because he thinks he acted unethically or illegally.

As for the rest of the "legal protection". I can't even imagine him not suing the pants off the race baiting bastards that have caused and continue to cause him grief. That IS his legal right.

Airgator0470
March 19th, 2014, 08:37 PM
Bob- Respectfully, I'm not convinced. I agree with you that if reasonable people read the laws we would come to that conclusion. In practice, however, I don't know that things really play out that way.

Imagine we were having this conversation a couple years ago and we asked how to law protected us if we saw someone walking through the neighborhood and followed them to see what they were up to. As we now know, a "wannabe cop" doesn't get treated with the same perspective of a real cop.

I know what you are saying... BUT... You're mixing CIRCUMSTANCES. The case you are referring to was NOT a case involving a citizen involving themselves with an active shooter. The topic/point of the thread is CIVILIANS using force to inject themselves into an ACTIVE SHOOTER situation and then using force.

You have just as much "authority" to "use force to protect" as any cop does... and your actions and the results face the same legal test as a cops would. Perhaps you misunderstood the context of my post.

Airgator0470
March 19th, 2014, 08:42 PM
David,

step #1 is to determine priorities.

What is more important; public perception or one's own personal perception.

In the case of Zimmerman - again - it has been decided by a court of law Zimmerman acted legally. IF Zimmerman loses sleep I'd bet it is not because he thinks he acted unethically or illegally.

As for the rest of the "legal protection". I can't even imagine him not suing the pants off the race baiting bastards that have caused and continue to cause him grief. That IS his legal right.

Actually... he was found to have acted WITHIN the law INITIALLY by the agency of initial jurisdiction AND the local SAO, initially, the LAW did protect him... we all know what happened when politics took over...

Frady
March 19th, 2014, 09:49 PM
Rumbler- It's not simply a matter of public perception. Z-man was very lucky that two very competent attorneys stepped up to defend him (of course to get tons of free PR) without bankrupting him. If not for those two guys, he would have been stuck with a public defender -- not to crack on PDs, but they are generally overworked and do not have the same resources -- or bankrupt himself to pay for defense.

Beyond that, while he prevailed in court what would you say his job prospects are right now? What if he were a professional working in the business community?

As for the lawsuits, he has what we would think is a slam dunk against NBC yet as far as I know he hasn't seen a dime. They have the lawyers and resources to keep him in court for years and drag it out. Has he actually won any civil suits against anyone? If he's willing to do celebrity boxing matches with DMX I would certainly think he's willing to sue a major news outlet. I think you have WAY overestimated his ability to get compensation for his tarnished name.



Airgator- I understand I'm not comparing apples to apples. My point is the law is pretty clear on self defense, or at least as clear (if not more) than the authority of citizens vs. LEO. If the law that has been written specifically to protect us didn't protect Z-man (and I'm just using him because it's such a clear misuse of the justice system) then is it unreasonable to believe the same could happen to any of us?



Actually... he was found to have acted WITHIN the law INITIALLY by the agency of initial jurisdiction AND the local SAO, initially, the LAW did protect him... we all know what happened when politics took over...

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. There is the law as it was written and intended, and there is real life. Does it really matter to Z-man that the initial agency and the local SAO acted reasonably? Did it make his situation any better in the long run?

Again, reading the law I agree with you, it's what happens when politics get involved that worries me.


btw- I'm not saying I would never run into a situation, I'm just saying there would be a brief moment to really think about it. Of course if it's a school, any place one of mine is in or a host of other scenarios I'm going in no matter what.

Rumbler
March 19th, 2014, 10:27 PM
Right off the top of my head I can think of several businesses Zimmerman could theoretically start/use to maintain anonymity and generate revenue for his family.

I have the feeling that we (collectively) are not privy to the big picture from his perspective.

You and I have different life perspectives; you have a wife and baby to consider. I have a dog that bites . . . and farts, and then looks at me like I did it. Anyway, I certainly do not fault you for your perspective. . . or at least I don't think I do . . . :chinscratch:

Evil_McNasty
March 20th, 2014, 12:33 AM
Jafar, thank you for your service. Especially if overseas. My dad is very much the same. He is a Vietnam vet and is very pragmatic with the value of ordinary citizens. He has seen and done enough that he is no longer a glossy eyed patriot. He would kill every living thing that got in the way of his family's safety but would not become John Wayne for your average baggy pants, bone head, mall dweller. He has a different perspective on the value of human lives. And it is totally understandable. When you pack your friends' body parts into bags to be shipped home, it kinda changes your value system.

I was driving tonight and was thinking a little more about the situation we have all been discussing. In my previous post I was being very matter-of-fact in my response to a thought provoking question. I already said I would go back inside. But upon further thought, I kinda simplified it to a more "on the scene" response. I came up with this: if I was outside the building and could hear women and children inside screaming between gunshots???? There is no way I could stay outside. I would go in with a garden rake if it's all I had. Think about it in those terms. I think in that scenario, even my dad would be indistingishible from a wolf.

Rumbler
March 20th, 2014, 09:02 AM
Wolves and sheepdogs have a lot in common. They both have fangs, and a capacity for violence.

The real difference comes in their values - their perspectives - if you will.

crawdaddy34
March 20th, 2014, 09:16 AM
Right off the top of my head I can think of several businesses Zimmerman could theoretically start/use to maintain anonymity and generate revenue for his family.

I have the feeling that we (collectively) are not privy to the big picture from his perspective.

You and I have different life perspectives; you have a wife and baby to consider. I have a dog that bites . . . and farts, and then looks at me like I did it. Anyway, I certainly do not fault you for your perspective. . . or at least I don't think I do . . . :chinscratch:


Everyone always blames the dog....

:stinker:

Evil_McNasty
March 20th, 2014, 11:19 AM
Wolves and sheepdogs have a lot in common. They both have fangs, and a capacity for violence.

The real difference comes in their values - their perspectives - if you will.

Exactly. What I am saying is that in the case of hearing kids screaming, even my cynical dad would come out of his shell and sheepdog to such a degree that he would look extremely wolf-like. It would amaze me if any person on this forum could stand around outside and hear that. But my values and expectations of armed males may be different than others. I do know that if my role turned out to be such that I only helped get people out of the building, then I would always wonder if I could have done more.

Airgator0470
March 20th, 2014, 11:19 AM
Rumbler- It's not simply a matter of public perception. Z-man was very lucky that two very competent attorneys stepped up to defend him (of course to get tons of free PR) without bankrupting him. If not for those two guys, he would have been stuck with a public defender -- not to crack on PDs, but they are generally overworked and do not have the same resources -- or bankrupt himself to pay for defense.

Beyond that, while he prevailed in court what would you say his job prospects are right now? What if he were a professional working in the business community?

As for the lawsuits, he has what we would think is a slam dunk against NBC yet as far as I know he hasn't seen a dime. They have the lawyers and resources to keep him in court for years and drag it out. Has he actually won any civil suits against anyone? If he's willing to do celebrity boxing matches with DMX I would certainly think he's willing to sue a major news outlet. I think you have WAY overestimated his ability to get compensation for his tarnished name.



Airgator- I understand I'm not comparing apples to apples. My point is the law is pretty clear on self defense, or at least as clear (if not more) than the authority of citizens vs. LEO. If the law that has been written specifically to protect us didn't protect Z-man (and I'm just using him because it's such a clear misuse of the justice system) then is it unreasonable to believe the same could happen to any of us?




This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. There is the law as it was written and intended, and there is real life. Does it really matter to Z-man that the initial agency and the local SAO acted reasonably? Did it make his situation any better in the long run?

Again, reading the law I agree with you, it's what happens when politics get involved that worries me.


btw- I'm not saying I would never run into a situation, I'm just saying there would be a brief moment to really think about it. Of course if it's a school, any place one of mine is in or a host of other scenarios I'm going in no matter what.

All of your concerns ARE valid... no question about it. It's too bad we all have to add such considerations to out total thought process when considering whether or not to act.

Me... I'll roll the dice in a pure active shooter situation. However, should I see two strangers getting into it... I, as a civilian, perhaps would not be so quick to act for the very reasons you pointed out.

When we conduct our annual HR218 qualifications, the retired cops are CAUTIONED very strongly against injecting themselves into a situation between two distinct parties. You DO NOT know WHO has done WHAT to initiate the conflict... thus you could very well take action against a real victim w/o knowing it.

All good points in this thread to consider... in the end, the INDIVIDUAL has to retain the final say-so as to what he or she is willing to do w/o pressure from anyone or anything.

Dale Gribble
March 21st, 2014, 05:48 PM
ADDED: IN FLORIDA... YOU (as Joe Q. Public) and I (as Jonny law) are NO DIFFERENT in the eyes of the law when it comes to using force to protect ourselves or another person. We both still must say WHY we did WHAT we did. The same laws that apply to ME apply to YOU. I would submit to you that I (a cop) would have a steeper hill to climb in the evaluation of a fuck up due to "training"... not that your experiences are ANY LESS than mine, and the fact most people just view cops as SUPER HUMANS who should NEVER fuck up.

Explain Roy Middleton.

YankeeFingergasm
March 21st, 2014, 06:25 PM
Explain Roy Middleton.




Pretty sure they answered your question of Why and What they did.

Dale Gribble
March 21st, 2014, 06:28 PM
Pretty sure they answered your question of Why and What they did.

If I shot a guy in his own driveway, in his own car, I would be in jail. We (citizens and LEO's) are not treated the same.

YankeeFingergasm
March 21st, 2014, 06:31 PM
If I shot a guy in his own driveway, in his own car, I would be in jail. We (citizens and LEO's) are not treated the same.

Why would you a citizen be responding to a burglary in progress at someone else's home?

Dale Gribble
March 21st, 2014, 06:33 PM
Why would you a citizen be responding to a burglary in progress at someone else's home?

I don't know, but Bobs point was the law sees us the same. That may be what is written, but it isn't reality.

YankeeFingergasm
March 21st, 2014, 06:39 PM
I think you know the scenario you presented and replacing yourself as the deputies isn't the same as what Bob was talking about and nothing to do with an active shooter situation.

0utlaw
March 21st, 2014, 06:41 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/21/fbi-agent-in-fatal-shooting-during-boston-marathon-investigation-wont-be/?intcmp=latestnews

If it were an isolated incident would be one thing but it is certainly a trend

Dale Gribble
March 21st, 2014, 06:43 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/21/fbi-agent-in-fatal-shooting-during-boston-marathon-investigation-wont-be/?intcmp=latestnews

If it were an isolated incident would be one thing but it is certainly a trend

Perhaps we should be afraid of cops. I'm sure if we yelled stop and killed one because of a furtive movement we would walk free. In Bizarro world.

0utlaw
March 21st, 2014, 06:45 PM
I don't feel like civilians are getting a raw deal, I think that LEO's are getting passes in SOME situations that don't appear to warrent it.

Rumbler
March 21st, 2014, 06:47 PM
What? You mean not providing enough information to the public to form an informed opinion regarding the incidents?


I agree 100% what we are told is very obviously filtered to the point of force feeding us a narrative we are expected to swallow blindly. It is pathetic.


I also wish it was criminal.

YankeeFingergasm
March 21st, 2014, 06:47 PM
I don't feel like civilians are getting a raw deal, I think that LEO's are getting passes in SOME situations that don't appear to warrent it.

That's a fair statement.

Airgator0470
March 21st, 2014, 08:30 PM
Explain Roy Middleton.




I can't... I wasn't there. Were you?

Rumbler
March 21st, 2014, 08:47 PM
Exactly.

Dale Gribble
March 22nd, 2014, 08:26 AM
I can't... I wasn't there. Were you?

Nope. But I can't imagine a situation where I would shoot a man in his car at his house and not at least be arrested.

If its all kosher than release all the data.

Sorry, I have trust issues with all government. Cops, and Courts are part of that. Individuals that I've dealt with from those realms have ranged from the very trustworthy to one step above scumbag.

Dale Gribble
March 22nd, 2014, 04:22 PM
Airgator, Rumber and Yankee miss the point.

If a civilian encounter had the same outcome as most of these police incidents, we would be arrested, and if we couldn't make bail we would be staying in jail.

However when this happens with cops they are put a paid administrative leave.

We are not treated the same.

BlueBronco
March 22nd, 2014, 08:26 PM
I can't... I wasn't there. Were you?

No, but Roy Middleton was in fact in his own carport in his own car and drilled by multiple deputies. Then again, Escambia County has a track record such as crawling through open windows at 10 pm and shooting dogs in bedrooms. I think the point being made is more transparency and less hiding behind unions. Perhaps the public would then have more faith in IAD such as the current situation with TPD and warrantless searches. Of course this is thread drift from the active shooter discussion.

Rumbler
March 22nd, 2014, 11:42 PM
BBI know you don't like it but the fact of the mater is that approximately 70% of the people who physically fit Roy Middelton's description have either done prison time, will do prison time, or currently are doing prison time.

That is according to the statistics of the DOJ, FBI, and BOP (bureau of prisons).

That means a reasonable person would be highly 'on alert' when encountering such a person in what a reasonable person could conceive is the commission of a felony. Further, a reasonable person, upon realizing the Roy Middleton was not responding to lawful orders, might even conclude that IN FACT they were encountering a felon committing another felony crime.

Ever heard of "three strikes"? If a reasonable person was charged with apprehending criminals they could very reasonably wonder . . . . will this be strike two or three?

I'd have been ready to shoot the SOB full of holes if he didn't get completely compliant completely quickly.

Your opinion is based on HIND SIGHT. Now I can't help your thinking that condemning the people who would die if necessary to protect your ass are slime balls because they do not have the gift of pre-hind sight is appropriate. But I can sure get upset about you being part of the problem that causes shit like that to happen in the first place. Isn't your job teaching little "Roy Middeltons"?

BlueBronco
March 23rd, 2014, 10:27 AM
BBI know you don't like it but the fact of the mater is that approximately 70% of the people who physically fit Roy Middelton's description have either done prison time, will do prison time, or currently are doing prison time.

That is according to the statistics of the DOJ, FBI, and BOP (bureau of prisons).

That means a reasonable person would be highly 'on alert' when encountering such a person in what a reasonable person could conceive is the commission of a felony. Further, a reasonable person, upon realizing the Roy Middleton was not responding to lawful orders, might even conclude that IN FACT they were encountering a felon committing another felony crime.

Ever heard of "three strikes"? If a reasonable person was charged with apprehending criminals they could very reasonably wonder . . . . will this be strike two or three?

I'd have been ready to shoot the SOB full of holes if he didn't get completely compliant completely quickly.

Your opinion is based on HIND SIGHT. Now I can't help your thinking that condemning the people who would die if necessary to protect your ass are slime balls because they do not have the gift of pre-hind sight is appropriate. But I can sure get upset about you being part of the problem that causes shit like that to happen in the first place. Isn't your job teaching little "Roy Middeltons"?

You dodged the second part of the example in Escambia county where the white couple was dragged out of bed into the hall and their dogs shot in the bedroom. For the record I don't teach "little Roy Middletons." I am mostly a researcher for the A & M part and prat of my unit is made up of USDA. The courses I teach are graduate level courses. Furthermore, I have sent several graduate students and seniors for ccw licenses etc and I wouldn't do that for people I wouldn't turn my back on. I have news for you Mike, there are white people in all walks of life I wont turn my back on. Frankly I don't give a damn if you get upset about my job. It has nothing to do with the fact that I am pro-LEO. I also believe that if the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments can be violated for any race, religion or political party, it will be done for everyone.

Rumbler
March 23rd, 2014, 04:21 PM
BB how many arrests are made every day? How many dopers and gangbangers taken down every day?

Do you not think that some sense of scale is in order?

You know, like when one can say with certainty that approximately 70% of one demographic group is known to a specific behavior pattern expecting that pattern in general on some level is just plain common sense.

Think about this. There is this room you have to go into every day. It is full of people. These people are black, white, yellow, red, brown, pink, and some in between. But they only wear red, blue, or white shirts. First trip into the room two people in blue shirts step on your foot. It hurts but you write it off as being crowded.

The next time you go in the room one different person in a blue shirts step on your foot. You write it off because it is a redhead with big boobs. But it still hurts.

Next day, more people in blue shirts stomp on your aching foot.

How many days do you need to have your foot stomped before you get very 'antsy' around anyone wearing a blue shirt? Doesn't matter if they are black, white, yellow, red, brown, pink, young, or old.

By the way. If you are pro-LEO, I am Mary Poppins.:headslap:

BlueBronco
March 23rd, 2014, 04:29 PM
. . .

By the way. If you are pro-LEO, I am Mary Poppins.:headslap:

How do you like flying the umbrella around? Anything I have posted has been about a situation and not about being anti-LEO. I am anti-criminal. I sure as hell don't train criminals like you implied in the last couple of sentences of your last post.

Evil_McNasty
March 23rd, 2014, 04:35 PM
Show me where this room is so I can visit the redhead.

Rumbler
March 23rd, 2014, 06:21 PM
How do you like flying the umbrella around? Anything I have posted has been about a situation and not about being anti-LEO. I am anti-criminal. I sure as hell don't train criminals like you implied in the last couple of sentences of your last post.

I can not think of one single incident when the topic was performance of a LEO where you did not voice a negative opinion or perspective of law enforcement officers if you responded at all.

Not a one.

of course, I am willing to admit my mistake(s) so feel free to prove me wrong.

Unless you do not speak to your students about current events ever - at all - your negative and usually severely biased perceptions are conveyed to them.


This is the end of this pissing match from my perspective. You and I have known each other for a fairly long time and I would like to keep our relations fairly amiable. But I have a very low tolerance for having smoke blown up my ass. You know that. So the mere fact that I am bowing up at you should be a pretty clear signal that my threshold has been met.

BlueBronco
March 23rd, 2014, 07:20 PM
I can not think of one single incident when the topic was performance of a LEO where you did not voice a negative opinion or perspective of law enforcement officers if you responded at all.

Not a one.

of course, I am willing to admit my mistake(s) so feel free to prove me wrong.

Unless you do not speak to your students about current events ever - at all - your negative and usually severely biased perceptions are conveyed to them.


This is the end of this pissing match from my perspective. You and I have known each other for a fairly long time and I would like to keep our relations fairly amiable. But I have a very low tolerance for having smoke blown up my ass. You know that. So the mere fact that I am bowing up at you should be a pretty clear signal that my threshold has been met.

http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?1895-Two-Men-On-Trial-In-Misty-Garden-Circle-Shooting-AT-LEO-25-times


http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?1797-LEO-shoot-and-kill-14-year-old-gunman-in-the-Bronx-in-Clean-Shoot


http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?466-Louisiana-ambush-kills-2-deputies-wounds-2


http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?421-Dashcam-video-shows-ambush-on-Fortville-police-officer


http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?1668-good-cop-alert


http://forum.capitalcitygunforum.com/showthread.php?2707-JURY-SEATED-FOR-TRIAL-OF-SHERIFF-FINCH

NJC
March 23rd, 2014, 11:52 PM
We need a popcorn smiley

Rumbler, you should change your handle.

Frady
March 24th, 2014, 09:02 AM
You know, like when one can say with certainty that approximately 70% of one demographic group is known to a specific behavior pattern expecting that pattern in general on some level is just plain common sense.


Could you show where you're getting this statistic, and define what it is? A quick cursory search and simple common sense indicate it is a wildly exaggerated made up statistic. That being said, maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Rumbler
March 24th, 2014, 09:32 AM
Common sense? Look at the daily arrest reports from here or any other city they are published in.


As for the data; dig for it at the sources I cited. You really do not expect Obama's lapdog Eric Holder to make such data easy to find on the DOJ site do you? The information is there. Nothing that ever shows a contrary finding to the BS an administration is perpetrating is or has ever been easy to find on the FBI site, but with diligence it can be found. The DOP data is provided in inmate demographic and number of reincarcerated inmates information.

In other words; Step #1 is to actually want to find the information you have been programmed not to want to believe.


I'm not going to debate or defend my conclusions based on information available to anyone who wants to find it further. Fraidy, I would have expected that having had a close friend brutally murdered recently by career thugs that DO NOT look like the pillsbury doughboy you would see through the programming being perpetrated on the minds of not just college students but people in general (you want proof of that you need look no further than the oval office). I am a bit disappointed to see you still dubious of something so self evident. :(

0utlaw
March 24th, 2014, 09:43 AM
Have a snickers Betty Blue, it'll help you outta this funk.

You're just not yourself when you're hungry

BlueBronco
March 24th, 2014, 10:45 AM
FBI UCR for 2012 for arrests Suburban areas by Race. That is for 49 states.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/67tabledatadecpdf

Here it is for cities

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/49tabledatadecpdf


Florida isn't in there and will require getting it from FDLE. Here it is for 1998-2012.

https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/2c4b035b-369b-406f-a729-dc898ae08996/arr_age_race.aspx

Frady
March 24th, 2014, 02:43 PM
Rumbler-


Fraidy, I would have expected that having had a close friend brutally murdered recently by career thugs that DO NOT look like the pillsbury doughboy you would see through the programming being perpetrated on the minds of not just college students but people in general (you want proof of that you need look no further than the oval office). I am a bit disappointed to see you still dubious of something so self evident. :(

The plural of anecdote is not data.

One of those guys has something like 9 or 10 brothers and sisters who are all successful professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.); as far as I can tell are productive members of society and his father was a nationally known minister. Should they be shot on sight because they fit the same demographic as their sociopath brother/son?

I've had a close friend murdered, but this isn't my first experience with murder and loss at the hands of evil people. I've been through this a few times now, some were black and others were white.


I'm not saying that black men aren't committing crimes at a higher rate than other demographics, but the 70% statistic is wildly exaggerative. Even if it weren't, that has nothing to do with an individual. What if we applied your logic to everything else?

Domestic dispute... arrest the man and take away his rights.
Murdered woman... send the husband to prison
woman files rape charges... he did it, label him a sex predator


I'm not saying these officers acted inappropriately, I don't have enough info on that, but the assertion that skin color should be a factor is use of force is preposterous.






As for the data; dig for it at the sources I cited.


That is according to the statistics of the DOJ, FBI, and BOP (bureau of prisons). Does not equal citations.


DOJ- 36.7% of jail inmates
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim12st.pdf

BB covered the FBI and those numbers aren't anywhere close to your assertion.

BOP- 37.2% of all inmates
http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp







In other words; Step #1 is to actually want to find the information you have been programmed not to want to believe.

Or perhaps recognize confirmation bias that may lead you to ignore the data and come to conclusions that have no basis in fact (or are exaggerated) based on anecdotal observations.

crawdaddy34
March 24th, 2014, 02:50 PM
http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/costanza-popcorn.gif (http://persephonemagazine.com/?attachment_id=106938)

Airgator0470
March 24th, 2014, 02:52 PM
Talk about a thread derail....lol.

Frady
March 24th, 2014, 02:57 PM
Talk about a thread derail....lol.

To be fair, this thread went farther than most on this forum before being sent off the rails into the canyon. :D

0utlaw
March 24th, 2014, 03:18 PM
To be fair, this thread went farther than most on this forum before being sent off the rails into the canyon. :D

Truth

Airgator0470
March 24th, 2014, 03:25 PM
Well... at least I hope it got some folks to thinking about OPTIONS now before confronted with a situation and getting caught flat-footed.

crawdaddy34
March 24th, 2014, 03:30 PM
Well... at least I hope it got some folks to thinking about OPTIONS now before confronted with a situation and getting caught flat-footed.

That it did.

+1 for AG for starting an excelent thread.

-1 for all you thread jackers.

Dale Gribble
March 24th, 2014, 03:31 PM
-1 for all you thread jackers.

Dude, you have been jacking threads so long you can even feel your hands anymore.

BlueBronco
March 24th, 2014, 03:33 PM
Well... at least I hope it got some folks to thinking about OPTIONS now before confronted with a situation and getting caught flat-footed.

Regarding active shooters, I think the biggest challenge is figuring out who is supposed to be there and who isn't. That is challenge enough in my building, but the neighboring buildings even more so. There was a bomb blast in the 2nd floor of my current building about 14 years ago that took the door off the hinges. It turned out to be the Coca Cola delivery guy. It missed one of the Naval officers by about a minute or less. The unsettling thing is that a spree shooter could be someone you know or recognize.

crawdaddy34
March 24th, 2014, 03:41 PM
Dude, you have been jacking threads so long you can even feel your hands anymore.

First, I don't believe you.

Second, I was on topic all the way up to post 98.


Third, it's funny how much one little "t" can make such a difference.

0utlaw
March 24th, 2014, 03:49 PM
That it did.

+1 for AG for starting an excelent thread.

-1 for all you thread jackers.

Still want to see if someone ends up with an umbrella avatar and new screen name :flamer:

crawdaddy34
March 24th, 2014, 03:57 PM
Still want to see if someone ends up with an umbrella avatar and new screen name :flamer:


Keep stirin that pot boy...

Dale Gribble
March 24th, 2014, 03:57 PM
Second, I was on topic all the way up to post 98.



Yea, and I was for it before I was against it. I didn't inhale.

crawdaddy34
March 24th, 2014, 03:58 PM
Yea, and I was for it before I was against it. I didn't inhale.

OK then.

Glad we cleared that up...

:thinking:

0utlaw
March 24th, 2014, 04:02 PM
Yea, and I was for it before I was against it. I didn't inhale.

:joint: ahhhhh yeah right.

Rumbler
March 24th, 2014, 04:15 PM
" the assertion that skin color should be a factor is use of force "

Funny, I thought I was making a case for being on extra high alert. Having reason to strongly suspect. Oh well. Wouldn't be the first time I learned I had no idea what I meant from an on-line fourm. Heck remember that was how I learned I was guilty of treason on TGF!


Oh, and David, even the Huffington Post says it is in excess of 50%.

The NAACP says 1 million out of 2.3 million

USA Today says by age 23 OVER HALF of all black males have been arrested.


That is three notoriously liberal "minded" sources. Two out of three places the number OVER HALF.


That was one quick search on Google. Like I have said; step #1 is wanting to see.


I gotta go now. I need to find a mary poppins avatar . . .

0utlaw
March 24th, 2014, 04:17 PM
Keep stirin that pot boy...

It IS what I do:cool:

Frady
March 25th, 2014, 11:07 AM
That was one quick search on Google. Like I have said; step #1 is wanting to see.

So you chose to ignore the links to the sources you previously "cited" showing your numbers were made up/wildly exaggerated and now have three new vague sources to support your position?

This is a great strategy to never have to change your mind about anything eh? :moon::D

0utlaw
March 25th, 2014, 11:13 AM
Keep stirin that pot boy...


It IS what I do:cool:

If you stir long enough sometimes it turns to gravy.....note the big guy's new avatar :goodjob:

Rumbler
March 25th, 2014, 10:53 PM
So you chose to ignore the links to the sources you previously "cited" showing your numbers were made up/wildly exaggerated and now have three new vague sources to support your position?

This is a great strategy to never have to change your mind about anything eh? :moon::D


No David, I am not going to dig out the information again. I know what it says.

I quoted three bleeding heart liberal sources that say AT WORST the number I quoted is SLIGHTLY high.


You believe what you want to believe. I believe that when my ass is on the line I am paying extra special attention to what *I KNOW* poses the greatest potential for my untimely demise. If that makes me a racist, if that makes me a bigot, if that makes me a shit eating ass hole, I really couldn't care less. I WILL win the fight by being the most aggressive with the least hesitation.

If that philosophy don't work for you, I am OK with that. It makes me feel bad because I like you and your wife a lot, but I respect your right to make your own decision(s).

BlueBronco
March 26th, 2014, 07:48 AM
No David, I am not going to dig out the information again. I know what it says.

I quoted three bleeding heart liberal sources that say AT WORST the number I quoted is SLIGHTLY high.


You believe what you want to believe. I believe that when my ass is on the line I am paying extra special attention to what *I KNOW* poses the greatest potential for my untimely demise. If that makes me a racist, if that makes me a bigot, if that makes me a shit eating ass hole, I really couldn't care less. I WILL win the fight by being the most aggressive with the least hesitation.

If that philosophy don't work for you, I am OK with that. It makes me feel bad because I like you and your wife a lot, but I respect your right to make your own decision(s).

I generally use the FBI UCR and FDLE statistics for various crime data as well as murders by weapon type because they go back for quite a ways. The problem with places like Huff Po is they get data from irregular sources and they tend to push Social Justice and they want said numbers to look out of alignment. At the end of the day, those are descriptive statistics and not inferential or predictive.

Deputy Pine was murdered by an Asian Decent looking guy although is g.f. (Pugh) is black. Deputy German was murdered by an 18 y.o. white kid looking punk accompanied by a 17 y.o. white girl. It is unclear if the 17 yo girl was an accomplice or just murdered. Pugh was part of the robbing and stealing and hope the charge her with murder 1 with special circumstances.

cceveland
March 26th, 2014, 08:34 AM
I generally use the FBI UCR and FDLE statistics for various crime data as well as murders by weapon type...
I'm sure you know this, but murder is the ONLY crime remotely close to being accurately reported on the UCR, and FDLE statistics are simply the Florida UCR stats aren't they? I want nothing to do with the debate, I simply don't want anybody to think that any of the statistics cited here (and I mean everyone) are to be taken seriously.

BlueBronco
March 26th, 2014, 02:34 PM
I'm sure you know this, but murder is the ONLY crime remotely close to being accurately reported on the UCR, and FDLE statistics are simply the Florida UCR stats aren't they? I want nothing to do with the debate, I simply don't want anybody to think that any of the statistics cited here (and I mean everyone) are to be taken seriously.

Florida doesn't submit data to the FBI UCR which is why I included a separate link. That said, if the FBI UCR data aren't accurate, do you thing the Puffington Compost et al. are going to be better? The WANT high numbers to push their social justice agenda. That said, do you have a better set of data than the FBI UCR? I know they are far from perfect, but don't know another set that is compiled annually for as long as those to organizations. I can tell you right now that the Gun Ban Lobby doesn't like them because it allows to break out the murder data by handguns, long guns, knives, fists/feet etc. and it breaks up their average of 30,000 gun deaths a year into perspective given roughly half of those are suicide. Plus, it gives a number for justifiable police shootings and citizen shootings (except for Florida which is tabulated by FDLE).

Johnny
March 26th, 2014, 07:21 PM
I agree with your last post whole heartly RUMBLER!