A Police Perspective

I see. I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, and perhaps on the average, the results of such situations substantiate those fears. It bears a striking resemblance to the theory of, 'Don't open-carry, you will only end up being a target of criminals', or 'I'll not resist if held up by a robber, he'll just harm or kill me'. My intention is not sarcasm, but has anyone heard of these type of situations occuring? Not that they don't, but to substantiate such concerns? It seems that anticipating your own demise, whether bleeding out on the pavement or rotting in a cell, as the most likely results of defending your liberty, flies in the face of standing up for it to begin with.

Perhaps we simply draw the line in different places, you and I. I'm no more interested in a showdown with a cop than most anyone else. I've been in one, very unusual circumstances, and I realized I was up poop-creek before I knew it. I was abiding the law to the letter, yet there I was, on the wrong end of an officers sidearm. Since then, I pay much more attention to where and when my activities take me, thinking through consequences more, rather than simply intentions. But I digress.

For the record, I did not disarm, and happily live to tell the tale, a little wiser for it.

aktion said:

If a police officer demands your weapon, even if you've done nothing wrong, you'll comply? Specifically out of fear for what they might/will do to you? We appear to differ in some of our reasons for carrying weapons at all; I carry to protect myself from anyone seeking to visit harm upon me, uniformed or not. You'd rather sit in court/jail/prison, knowing you surrendered your means of defense despite your innocence, rather than jealously guard your rights, even with threat of force?

Maybe I just misunderstood you both, Sylvia and devildoc5.

Click to expand...

If an LEO walks up to me while I am out shopping, minding my own business and demands that I give him my sidearm, I would ask if I am being detained, and why.

All I am saying is that if it came down to self-defense and you painted yourself in a corner by denying the officer access to disarm you, you better have a lot of witnesses and a good lawyer if SHTF. An LEO almost ALWAYS gets away with excessive force, but you fight back you are going down either legally (if you defended yourself) or fatally.

Dealing with others who are armed is a sensitive situation. You are both capable of dropping the other. A stand-off is a bad situation to be in.

For example (I hope it wasn't someone on here)..road rage situation, both guys are armed, one shoots the other in the back and says that the man went for his waistband...I am sure he did, and the man didn't lie.

When both people are armed, it becomes a volatile situation damn quick, and as a civilian the burden of proof will be on you, not the LEO.

I do not think there are very many instances of lawfully armed citizen v. LEO, and the reason being, the firearm is the equalizer and both parties understand the consequences for uncivil behavior can be deadly, IMO.

aktion said:

I see. I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, and perhaps on the average, the results of such situations substantiate those fears. It bears a striking resemblance to the theory of, 'Don't open-carry, you will only end up being a target of criminals', or 'I'll not resist if held up by a robber, he'll just harm or kill me'. My intention is not sarcasm, but has anyone heard of these type of situations occuring? Not that they don't, but to substantiate such concerns? It seems that anticipating your own demise, whether bleeding out on the pavement or rotting in a cell, as the most likely results of defending your liberty, flies in the face of standing up for it to begin with.

Perhaps we simply draw the line in different places, you and I. I'm no more interested in a showdown with a cop than most anyone else. I've been in one, very unusual circumstances, and I realized I was up poop-creek before I knew it. I was abiding the law to the letter, yet there I was, on the wrong end of an officers sidearm. Since then, I pay much more attention to where and when my activities take me, thinking through consequences more, rather than simply intentions. But I digress.

For the record, I did not disarm, and happily live to tell the tale, a little wiser for it.

Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding my point here (no arguement intended btw)

I would never WILLINGLY hand over my pistol to anyone (except friends and family at ranges or something similar)

HOWEVER if an officer is reaching for my pistol, especially if he has me in a pat down position or even in cuffs I WILL NOT physically resist as the "tactical odds" (as well as legal) are with the officer.

Now if a cop were to just walk up and try and grav my pistol without talking to me or without having a damned good reason I MIGHT turn my weak side to him and take a step back. However if the cop draws down or pulls the pepper or anything else that signifies force on his part, I will not resist as that is where legal and possibly life problems come in to play.

I guess it is more of a tactical advantage assessment type thingamabobdealiething (registered trademark of DevilDoc Incorporated)

nope

devildoc5 said:

I guess it is more of a tactical advantage assessment type thingamabobdealiething (registered trademark of DevilDoc Incorporated)

Click to expand...

NOPE! I have already registered this! LOL

Verbally resist. Do not physically resist.

devildoc5, no problem, I didn't take it as argumentative. We simply draw the lines in different places.

For my part, I make decisions about what I am and am not willing to do or say in a given situation. We clearly can't imagine every possible situation, but nonetheless I choose to mentally train myself for those that I see as clearly possible in my daily life. While reserving situational discretion, the mental training, like physical training, aids me when something comes up I'm not anticipating. It happens. Notice when others say something to the effect of 'I didn't know what else to do', 'I wasn't sure how to respond, so I handed it over', 'I was in a hurry....' etc.

There's a saying, from who-knows-where. 'Under stress and under fire, people generally don't rise to the occasion, they fall back on their training'. Now training may include a variety of different things, but the point is clear. When not mentally or physically prepared, many of us submit to perceived authority. If you're afraid you'll break the law if you don't comply with a direct order, even though you're 'pretty sure' you're right, you comply because, well, the officer was adamant that he was right, and that you were wrong.

I can't help notice 'Verbally resist. Do not physically resist.' Then the signature 'Live free or die'. When does the risk of dying enter the equation, if not because of physical resistance?

When the time comes...

aktion said:

I can't help notice 'Verbally resist. Do not physically resist.' Then the signature 'Live free or die'. When does the risk of dying enter the equation, if not because of physical resistance?

Click to expand...

Would I choose to die during a traffic stop or Terry stop on the street with an officer of the law? No. (This would be a temporary limit of freedom)

Would I choose to die for a larger cause of liberty and freedom? Yes. (Tyranny)

gogodawgs said:

Would I choose to die during a traffic stop or Terry stop on the street with an officer of the law? No. (This would be a temporary limit of freedom)

Would I choose to die for a larger cause of liberty and freedom? Yes. (Tyranny)

Click to expand...

I see. I was addressing that blurry middle ground, between those two positions. It's largely philosophical for most of us; for the remaining few, all too real.