Officer kills armed civilian

[Kutnupe14]

Yet, I've never been shot ,or lectured , by a CO. And I've been approached by one, several times, while holding a loaded shotgun or rifle. By the same token, I've been ordered out of my vehicle, and disarmed, by a city police officer, because he saw a pink piece of paper next to my driver's license. Seems like a training, or mind set kind of thing.

Lots of times it's an experience thing. When I was at the academy, they taught disarming everybody with a good saying "You should be the only one with access to a weapon, during non-consensual encounters," and though not stated explicitly we all took it to mean "disarm everybody." When you hit the road alone, you rely hard on that training, because you're at first uncomfortable, and not fully confident in you abilities. As time goes on, you get the understanding that vast majority of legal carriers are good guys. I don't know when I stopped disarming people, but it was fairly quickly after I made that realization.... but, I will freely admit, if my spidey sense went off, and person was carrying, I would disarm them.

 

[Sigblitz]

What is the logic here? A civilian is never allowed to touch his gun, for any reason, in front of a cop, because the cop might think he's pulling the gun on him, and kill him? How is that reasonable on any level? What if there's a threat the cop isn't aware of yet, and you're preparing to draw against it? You get killed because the cop thinks he has a monopoly on touching loaded firearms, and anyone else touching one can be shot on sight? That doesn't seem like a reasonable attitude to me.

Agree that if there's any hangups about carrying, have you ever known someone to carry and be looking for trouble? Yes there's always the one guy that thinks he's more powerful because he's got a gun. Or the Walmart guy with the biggest Desert Eagle he could find on his hip. But besides these two with the mental disabilities, carrying does not mean you're out looking for trouble and in no way should be perceived as such or infringed upon.

 

[Sigblitz]

Posted before I read Kut. Well said Kut.

 

[Terry4570]

Despite my earlier comments, I'm right there with you. I used to OC a lot in Ohio, not so much here.

There have been enough incidents nationally lately of a good guy with a gun being shot it's changed my outlook on whether or not I would intervene in any sort of public shooting. We're all on our own at this point. I'm not willing to help anyone I do not know, and that's sad in and of itself.

I feel and think about the same as you do, I may open carry sometime hunting in the woods but any place else I just don't feel at ease . The USCCA has said over and over what you said here and that is what I am going to do also ,be a good witness and don't pull that gun unless you have no other choice .

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Did that apply to this situation?

The way it is reported, yes. In reality, don't know.

 

[KLB]

People can say that open carry had nothing to do with this, but I think it had everything to do with it. It's hard for a cop to shoot someone "reaching for a gun" if he doesn't even know that the guy on the side of the road has a gun. Even from the limited information we have so far, it can be determined that the cop knew the guy was armed and the cop ended up shooting him. Take away that openly carried pistol and the entire situation may have played out differently.

You absolutely should not be shot by an officer mistaking your intent with an openly carried handgun, but then again, cops are human, aren't they?

You think an officer would not notice you reaching for and touching a concealed handgun?

 

[Coach]

People can say that open carry had nothing to do with this, but I think it had everything to do with it. It's hard for a cop to shoot someone "reaching for a gun" if he doesn't even know that the guy on the side of the road has a gun. Even from the limited information we have so far, it can be determined that the cop knew the guy was armed and the cop ended up shooting him. Take away that openly carried pistol and the entire situation may have played out differently.

You absolutely should not be shot by an officer mistaking your intent with an openly carried handgun, but then again, cops are human, aren't they?

You could also say he was shot because he was armed and if he was not armed this would not have happened.

 

[Expat]

Or he shouldn't have been working on a car on the side of the road, if he had just had it towed this would have never happened,

 

[Denny347]

You think an officer would not notice you reaching for and touching a concealed handgun?

Maybe. We have a specific class we teach our recruits, "Characteristics of armed persons". It's a great class taught by one of our instructors who travels around the country teaching it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Maybe. We have a specific class we teach our recruits, "Characteristics of armed persons". It's a great class taught by one of our instructors who travels around the country teaching it.

That sounds really interesting. I'm guessing it's far beyond how ones dressed, their walk/lack of arm-swing, and the INGO bling dead-giveaway?

 

[Kutnupe14]

That sounds really interesting. I'm guessing it's far beyond how ones dressed, their walk/lack of arm-swing, and the INGO bling dead-giveaway?

I'll play along...
also:
-constantly adjusting clothing (area weapon is concealed)
-angling weapon side away from people
....

 

[Coach]

Maybe. We have a specific class we teach our recruits, "Characteristics of armed persons". It's a great class taught by one of our instructors who travels around the country teaching it.

Sounds like a great class. But armed persons would still fall into two groups. Does the class involve knowing who is armed and a threat or just armed? Seems such a distinction would have to be made. Making such a distinction could be really tough.

 

[Jaybird1980]

If an officer is approaching you, and it's clear he's approaching you, then yeah a civilian, private citizen, or whomever should NOT touch his gun, or even make a motion in that direction. I would think, or rather hope, that's common sense.

I agree, but if the officers training leads him to shoot people that he thinks might draw a weapon, then the system is flawed.

 

[Shollz]

Agreed

Agree that if there's any hangups about carrying, have you ever known someone to carry and be looking for trouble? Yes there's always the one guy that thinks he's more powerful because he's got a gun. Or the Walmart guy with the biggest Desert Eagle he could find on his hip. But besides these two with the mental disabilities, carrying does not mean you're out looking for trouble and in no way should be perceived as such or infringed upon.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sounds like a great class. But armed persons would still fall into two groups. Does the class involve knowing who is armed and a threat or just armed? Seems such a distinction would have to be made. Making such a distinction could be really tough.

I disagree. Everyone armed (or not), and unknown to me, is potentially a threat. Now there may be those who warrant extra attention, because of size, demeanor, or what you think they may be potentially armed with, but IMO, it is best not to assume who is "ok" and who is not "ok."

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree, but if the officers training leads him to shoot people that he thinks might draw a weapon, then the system is flawed.

I agree with this.. But, having a gun, and thinking they might draw, is different from (as reported) having a gun, being approached by a police officer, disregarding his commands, and then appearing to reach for your weapon.

 

[Route 45]

You could also say he was shot because he was armed and if he was not armed this would not have happened.

I don't know why he was shot, but going from the limited information available, it does seem that the fact that he was obviously armed may have played a role.

 

[Route 45]

Sounds like a great class. But armed persons would still fall into two groups. Does the class involve knowing who is armed and a threat or just armed? Seems such a distinction would have to be made. Making such a distinction could be really tough.

It is impossible to make that determination with 100% certainty.

 

[Route 45]

Or he shouldn't have been working on a car on the side of the road, if he had just had it towed this would have never happened,

I think that any rational person can look at the situation and see that the openly carried weapon may have played a bigger role in the person being shot than when or where the incident took place. I am not factoring in the weapons-grade butthurt that rears its head every time anyone suggests that open carry is anything other than a holy ritual ordained by the founding fathers themselves.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I agree with this.. But, having a gun, and thinking they might draw, is different from (as reported) having a gun, being approached by a police officer, disregarding his commands, and then appearing to reach for your weapon.

Agree, but since we can only get the report from one side we are expected to take it as truth?. I am not saying the officer is lying, but what he says happened may not of been what was really happening, and without video we will never know.
Time for dash cams?