decision making process of when to draw

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Oh come on, the next thing you're going to say is that the former Mayor of Washington D.C., (the captial of the United States of America), is a crack addict and a convicted felon!!!

It could happen

[Maytime]

I guess I have a question of semantics, but is displaying your firearm in your holster, with your hand on or off it, a form of brandishing? Such a situation may be where verbal warnings are not enough to diffuse, but lethal force is not yet needed or warranted.

I'm not sure if letting someone know that you have a weapon (and its position on your body) is wise, but if it's a legal way to diffuse a potential hostile situation, should it be used?

[lindy]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Is anyone here informed as to the hiring standards of the DC Metro Police Department and their generally lax standards for officers, to include permissable arrest records?

TR

I could only find this from the late 90's.

You'll never guess who was Mayor at the time. Well, TS may be on the right track.

There's also a report on Deadly Force in DC. Here's the lead paragraph:

The District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department has shot and killed more people per resident in the 1990s than any other large American city police force.

Regarding the situation of the snowball fight: we're living in a crazy world. High schools, colleges, Post Offices, shopping malls, and highways (road rage) have all seen gunfire by wackos. My first thought was that no cop would pull his weapon because his vehicle was hit by some snowballs. My logic tells me that if he isn't a cop (my stereotype is that cops use verbal threats before going to the gun) then he's a wacko. He's angry, he has a weapon in his hand, and is thereby unpredictable. I say he is a threat.

Are there thoughts thwarting my threat thinking? Who brings a snowball to a gunfight anyway?

Here's the reality: Detective Baylor is a LEO who is authorized to carry in EVERY state.

Be safe.

[IrishYanksFan]

Originally Posted by Sten

In DC I have no carry rights

Didn't Heller v. District of Columbia rule their gun laws unconstitutional, or did the DC City Council already replace them with something almost as harsh and technically within constitutional bounds?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by IrishYanksFan

Didn't Heller v. District of Columbia rule their gun laws unconstitutional, or did the DC City Council already replace them with something almost as harsh and technically within constitutional bounds?

No.

You need to do a search for Heller and do some reading.

TR

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Maytime

I guess I have a question of semantics, but is displaying your firearm in your holster, with your hand on or off it, a form of brandishing? Such a situation may be where verbal warnings are not? enough to diffuse, but lethal force is not yet needed or warranted.?

Are you speaking of an LEO doing this or you as a private citizen/CCW?

I'm assuming you mean as a private citizen, it would depend on the state, but it could be.

Originally Posted by Maytime

I'm not sure if letting someone know that you have a weapon (and its position on your body) is wise, but if it's a legal way to diffuse a potential hostile situation, should it be used?

Ok first letting anyone know you're carrying especially a threat is a very, very, very bad idea, second showing a weapon is a nearly sure fired way to escalate, not diffuse a situation, do not under any circumstances show a weapon in order to try to bring calm to a heated situation it will not have the effect you want, and you will likely go to jail or end up in a gun fight.

[Maytime]

Thanks for the input Defender, I appreciate it.

[dr. mabuse]

Definitely depends on the state you're in.

If you can talk your way out, do it.

Don't EVER be in a position where an LEO can determine that you escalated a situation so you could wave your gun around.

Generally, you display/present a firearm only if it is legally appropriate to shoot anyway.

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by Maytime

I guess I have a question of semantics, but is displaying your firearm in your holster, with your hand on or off it, a form of brandishing? Such a situation may be where verbal warnings are not enough to diffuse, but lethal force is not yet needed or warranted.

I'm not sure if letting someone know that you have a weapon (and its position on your body) is wise, but if it's a legal way to diffuse a potential hostile situation, should it be used?

I'm not a Cop anymore. But when I was. If I see a Weapon on you. I am drawing down on you. You will get one warning. If you make one hesitant move or don't obey my commands immediately. You will most likely get shot. This is the mentality of most Cops. Cops are told to do this every day in their roll calls.
Concealed carry means just that. You carry for your protection. Only if your life is threatened. Your job is not to defuse arguments. Or get involved in other peoples arguments or fights. Pull it out in any other situation and you become the threat.

[Streck-Fu]

You will most likely get shot. This is the mentality of most Cops. Cops are told to do this every day in their roll calls.
Concealed carry means just that. You carry for your protection. Only if your life is threatened.

With regards to the concept of 'concealed' carry:

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, There are states like Virginia in which you may not carry concealed all the time. If you enter into a restaurant that serves alcohol, you must uncover the weapon and expose it only to cover it again upon leaving (strange, I know....).
Other states like Indiana, Vermont (no defined carry laws at all), and Alaska (I believe) permit open carry. Now, tactically speaking, I believe that concealed is the best way to carry so that you are not broadcasting to the world to include any potential threats.
But, in places like Virginia, that's not always possible.

[Sten]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

I'm not a Cop anymore. But when I was. If I see a Weapon on you. I am drawing down on you. You will get one warning. If you make one hesitant move or don't obey my commands immediately. You will most likely get shot. This is the mentality of most Cops. Cops are told to do this every day in their roll calls.
Concealed carry means just that. You carry for your protection. Only if your life is threatened. Your job is not to defuse arguments. Or get involved in other peoples arguments or fights. Pull it out in any other situation and you become the threat.

Great advise, thank you.

[ChickenMcFuggit]

Most advice on this thread is right on the money IMHO. Good train of thought is, if you can articulate the threat you felt and why, you're in the right ball park self defense wise. LEO's develop a mind set that keeps us on condition yellow most of the time and stands us in good stead when bad things happen to good people. A book I once read might help those of you who don't face threats daily. I reccommend it highly to everyone. Its focus is on mind set and that is half the battle.

http://www.selfdefenseresource.com/g...on-defense.php

[Arctic]

This is a very well put together thread. The only thing I think was missed was the inclusion of lawyers in the after action. Regardless of your individual rights to carry and the state you live in; as soon as you draw a weapon and fire it in a public space or residence you need a lawyer. You should not talk to the police or anyone regardless of how clean and well defined the shoot was without an attorney. You need to know your Miranda rights; they can’t force you to talk without an attorney. It doesn’t matter if the guy you shot was a meth head raping your mother with a knife to her throat, it is never about what the situation was but what it can be made to be. Consider also that almost everyone on earth has a relative that can come after you in civil court and if they don’t you always have to worry about the DA.

My family has been defending “LEO’s” in California for the last 33 years, my father being a vet turned LEO turned lawyer its one of the things he enjoys most. (Tho he sends lesser mortals to deal with the shots fired at 3 in the morning cases now.)

Originally Posted by Arctic

This is a very well put together thread. The only thing I think was missed was the inclusion of lawyers in the after action. Regardless of your individual rights to carry and the state you live in; as soon as you draw a weapon and fire it in a public space or residence you need a lawyer. You should not talk to the police or anyone regardless of how clean and well defined the shoot was without an attorney. You need to know your Miranda rights; they can’t force you to talk without an attorney. It doesn’t matter if the guy you shot was a meth head raping your mother with a knife to her throat, it is never about what the situation was but what it can be made to be. Consider also that almost everyone on earth has a relative that can come after you in civil court and if they don’t you always have to worry about the DA.

As you wish.

Don't Talk to the Police - Part 1
Don't Talk to the Police - Part 2

I show at least part one in the CCW classes I teach.

[craigepo]

Howard, do you ever teach the "castle doctrine", or is that relevant in your jurisdiction?

FWIW, there is a good reason to not discuss matters until you have talked with an attorney(besides the obvious). In court, rules of evidence are used to either admit or deny the introduction of evidence to the court/jury, whether statements, objects, or other. Hearsay is defined as "an out-of-court statement, made by a person, NOT A PARTY, used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. An admission, on the other hand, is an out-of-court statement made by a party(of course used to prove a matter relevant at trial).

So, when Jack Webb was telling people "you have the right to remain silent, what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law", he was essentially explaining to them that if they are criminally charged, they become a "party" and anything they say, at any relevant time, becomes admissible. The conversation about whether the Miranda warnings are constitutionally proper I will save for a later time, but essentially a failure of a policeman to properly Miranda-ize a criminal defendant often forces a court to throw out relevant admissions made by a criminal defendant.

On the other hand, an out-of-court statement made by a person who is not a party (person not charged or sued) is, generally, hearsay, and inadmissible unless it falls within a few narrow exceptions.

In sum---if you experience an instance where you might be charged or sued, shut up. If you are just a witness, help the cops.

My apologies for the hip-pocket evidence class.