Pistol deployment police vs citizen

Pistol deployment police vs citizen

This is a discussion on Pistol deployment police vs citizen within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The easiest shortest drill (but telling) can be done with two spring loaded air soft guns and cheap holsters. Get two shooters to stand with ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Pistol deployment police vs citizen

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array mercop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,067

    Pistol deployment police vs citizen

    The easiest shortest drill (but telling) can be done with two spring loaded air soft guns and cheap holsters. Get two shooters to stand with guns concealed at arms distance with firearms concealed. I have not done so yet but if you put BP cuffs on them there is no doubt they will show a significant rise in BP and pulse. The shooters are instructed that once you drop a t-shirt or other item on the ground they are to draw and fire on each other. You will see all kinds of crazy stuff in the way of body positions and responses. Just one example.

    Recently on another forum someone commented on the low round count in our Combative Pistol Course I had posted (about 400 rounds). I replied that the idea of the course was not to teach you how to shoot or to teach you how to shoot fast at stationary targets. That would be like training a QB by having him stand still and throwing a football through a tire. We train on when and how to get your pistol into the fight during bad situations.

    Here is the comparison between police and citizen I will go a bit further. Most police whether on or off duty will not hesitate to draw their pistol in reaction to the sound of a scream, gun shot or whatever. A citizen likely will hesitate for fear or repercussions. It is my experience that police are more likely to pre-deploy their weapon. Because of this just like you stated lots of police involved shootings occur after the police have already drawn down on subject. There is no perceived reason to create distance to draw your weapon since it is already out. People seem to stay flat footed and fixate on putting rounds on target. Even then we have seen some alarming hit rates.

    The reaction of the police officer or armed citizen during a spontaneous attack is likely to be the same in regards to trying to get their gun out and into the fight while trying to avoid getting shot. We have seen videos of these shootings where it looks like the officer has hips like Elvis. The primary reason is that humans usually respond to their weak side when trying to get away and their strong side when deploying their firearm. Under combat stress with the trained/untrained minds battling each other you see people falling down, tripping, all kinds of crazy stuff.

    When people are primarily trained with an audible que they will likely stand their ground or step back slightly with the strong side foot when the buzzer sounds. Why? Because even if their is a threat it is likely not to be rushing them.

    In contrast when you are rushed by someone (visual que) and do not automatically see a weapon your instinct tells you to create distance. To do this you usually step back with your reaction side foot. If you do see a weapon and are trying to get away at the same time you are drawing your gun it will likely be one handed shooting as your barrel comes up horizontal between you and the threat.(picture you pointing your finger at the threat) I realize this can be hard to visualize this but hope I am getting the point across.

    So the police are more likely to pre-deploy their weapon even if 99% of the time they never have to fire. The citizen is very unlikely to pre-deploy his weapon (at least in public) and when he does he is usually going to be in a situation where he shooting as he draws. Firing upon drawing in response to a visual que while retreating to the reacting side is one of the missing links in combative pistol. Everyone looks silly doing it but it is a very important survival skill IMHO.


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Mercop,
    I think those are very interesting observations. I think it should also be noted that as LEO's, because we so often enter a situation with a weapon already drawn, also very often end up having to reholster and go hands-on with a subject. Our "use of force" very often take a downward departure. As a law enforcement officer, I have drawn my weapon countless times, but I have only have to fire it once. On the other hand, I cannot count the times I drew my weapon, realized the threat did not justify deadly force, reholstered, and utilized another tactic (baton; pepper spray; hands-on; verbal de-escalation; tactical withdrawel; a sheepish grin and an apology; etc). Generally, once a citizen draws a firearm, they simply have to decide whether to fire, or put it away. If the threat is diminished, they simply reholster. A LEO has to stay and investigate; effect an arrest; administer first aid; etc. While deadly force is deadly force, be it exercised by a LEO or civilian, the dynamics in which LEO's and non-LEO's utilize firearms is very different.
    Gonzo
    Last edited by TheGreatGonzo; January 8th, 2009 at 06:12 PM.
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  3. #3
    TOF
    TOF is offline
    Member Array TOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    342
    The various laws regarding "Brandishing" are undoubtedly a big reason for the delayed reaction of non LEO's. They place us under a severe handicap when we might feel the need to draw but don't actualy see a weapon yet.

    The Nappy one ( AZ Gov.) recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed Arizona residents to reholster without shooting if they had drawn but the threat dissipated. As it stands now if we draw we must shoot or potentialy face brandishing charges. The alternative of course is Murder charges if the threat had already dissipated by a second or two prior to the squeeze.

    I certainly don't advocate everyone pulling a gun at the slightest provocation but would like to see a more reasonable approach to the issue of brandishing than we find in many States.
    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatGonzo View Post
    Mercop,
    I think those are very interesting observations. I think it should also be noted that as LEO's, because we so often enter a situation with a weapon already drawn, also very often end up having to reholster and go hands-on with a subject. Our "use of force" very often take a downward departure. As a law enforcement officer, I have drawn my weapon countless times, but I have only have to fire it once. On the other hand, I cannot count the times I drew my weapon, realized the threat did not justify deadly force, reholstered, and utilized another tactic (baton; pepper spray; hands-on; verbal de-escalation; etc). Generally, once a citizen draws a firearm, they simply have to decide whether to fire, or put it away. If the threat is diminished, they simply reholster. A LEO has to stay and investigate; effect an arrest; administer first aid; etc. While deadly force is deadly force, be it exercised by a LEO or civilian, the dynamics in which LEO's and non-LEO's utilize firearms is very different.
    Gonzo
    Good points and good post.

    The legal dynamics alone have generated many heated debates here and at other discussion boards.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by TOF View Post
    ( AZ Gov.) recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed Arizona residents to reholster without shooting if they had drawn but the threat dissipated. As it stands now if we draw we must shoot or potentialy face brandishing charges. The alternative of course is Murder charges if the threat had already dissipated by a second or two prior to the squeeze.
    That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The state has backed you into a corner!
    Gonzo
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  6. #6
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by TOF View Post
    The various laws regarding "Brandishing" are undoubtedly a big reason for the delayed reaction of non LEO's. They place us under a severe handicap when we might feel the need to draw but don't actualy see a weapon yet.

    The Nappy one ( AZ Gov.) recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed Arizona residents to reholster without shooting if they had drawn but the threat dissipated. As it stands now if we draw we must shoot or potentialy face brandishing charges. The alternative of course is Murder charges if the threat had already dissipated by a second or two prior to the squeeze.

    I certainly don't advocate everyone pulling a gun at the slightest provocation but would like to see a more reasonable approach to the issue of brandishing than we find in many States.
    Not familiar with AZ law, so I cannot comment on that. However, in general terms, my belief is that the law on self defense should provide that a person is authorized to employ "the threat or use of deadly force" to counter a reasonable belief that they or another are at risk of great bodily harm or death. That would then cover the drawing or showing of a firearm without the actual firing of the weapon. The problem, of course, is that when your are restricted to the actual "use" of deadly force, then you are much less likely to ever deploy your weapon before the time for shooting has already arrived, meaning: (a) you are behind the 8-ball; and (b) you have no intermediate escalation opportunity to end the confrontation--you go directly from "A" to "Z" without the chance that, merely by drawing your weapon, the BG will realize the error of his ways and hot foot it outta there...

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by XDFender View Post
    Not familiar with AZ law, so I cannot comment on that. However, in general terms, my belief is that the law on self defense should provide that a person is authorized to employ "the threat or use of deadly force" to counter a reasonable belief that they or another are at risk of great bodily harm or death. That would then cover the drawing or showing of a firearm without the actual firing of the weapon. The problem, of course, is that when your are restricted to the actual "use" of deadly force, then you are much less likely to ever deploy your weapon before the time for shooting has already arrived, meaning: (a) you are behind the 8-ball; and (b) you have no intermediate escalation opportunity to end the confrontation--you go directly from "A" to "Z" without the chance that, merely by drawing your weapon, the BG will realize the error of his ways and hot foot it outta there...
    IANAL but I'm with you on the confused part.

    The statute gives me a completely different impression than what TOF has voiced. I wonder if there's an issue in regards to application of the law.

    13-411 - Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

    A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Whenever the government (at any level) endeavors to write "new and improved" laws, confusion and disaster always seem to follow.
    Gonzo
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,093
    I share XDFender's view about what the law should be and also the view that the AZ law should have been changed.

    It is far preferable that people feel free to draw under appropriate circumstances, and re-holster, than life is lost by failure to draw in time, or firing instead of re-holstering.

    Brandishing and 'intentional display' laws need some tweaking to accommodate reality.

    As for LE v citizen presentation of a gun, I have been told (don't know if it is true or not) by my LE friend that he has exactly the same use of deadly force laws to deal with as anyone else, except that he doesn't have the obligation to retreat.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array mercop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,067
    Wow, I had no idea that was the law in AZ.

    The only thing sadder that some of our officers performance during qualification was what I saw when I put together our off duty concealed course.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array AZ Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,244
    No kidding mercop. Our guys were averaging a 30% hit ratio WITH THEIR GUNS DRAWN ALREADY. I don't have any data about quick draw/fire, but the civilians I shoot with put almost all the cops I've served with for 20 years to shame.

    I never heard about that AZ proposed law.
    Treat me good, I'll treat you better. Treat me bad, I'll treat you worse.

  12. #12
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    13-411 - Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

    A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
    If that is how the AZ statute reads, then it basically says what I suggested the law should be! I.e., it states that the threat or use of deadly force is permitted when reasonably believed necessary to prevent the listed offenses. To me, that means that a person may draw their weapon and threaten to use it if they have such a reasonable belief.

    I'm interested to know--did the OP raise the question b/c of actual incidents where someone drew, but did not fire, and was prosecuted???

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array mercop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,067
    No, the reason for the thread was to show how even though most people practice-

    1- Engaging a target when the firearm is already drawn
    2- Engaging a target that is not moving towards you

    During a spontaneous shooting you will likely have to draw your pistol as your move, often backwards to your reaction side, and that you need to train for it. At leas that was my main point.

  14. #14
    TOF
    TOF is offline
    Member Array TOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    342
    You will not find the following in the Arizona Revised Statutes because our Govenor, soon to be head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolotano, vetoed it about a year back. I am hopeful our new Govenor Jan Brewer will sign it should it reach her desk. It cleared up what some felt was an unclear area of firearm law.

    HB 2629
    - 1 -
    1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
    2 Section 1. Title 13, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
    3 by adding section 13-421, to read:
    4 13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm;
    5 definition
    6 A. THE DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM BY A PERSON AGAINST ANOTHER IS
    7 JUSTIFIED WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THAT
    8 PHYSICAL FORCE IS IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE
    9 OTHER'S USE OR ATTEMPTED USE OF UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE.
    10 B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO:
    11 1. POINTS THE MUZZLE OF A FIREARM DIRECTLY AT ANOTHER PERSON.
    12 2. DISCHARGES A FIREARM IN THE DIRECTION OF ANOTHER PERSON.
    13 3. INTENTIONALLY PROVOKES ANOTHER PERSON TO USE OR ATTEMPT TO USE
    14 UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL FORCE WHEN THE PERSON POSSESSES A FIREARM.
    15 4. OFFENSIVELY DISPLAYS OR SHOWS A FIREARM WHILE VERBALLY THREATENING
    16 ANOTHER PERSON.
    17 C. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "DEFENSIVE DISPLAY OF A FIREARM"
    18 INCLUDES:
    19 1. OPENLY WEARING, CARRYING OR POSSESSING A FIREARM.
    20 2. VERBALLY INFORMING ANOTHER PERSON THAT THE PERSON POSSESSES OR HAS
    21 AVAILABLE A FIREARM.
    22 3. HOLDING A FIREARM IN A POSITION SO THAT THE FIREARM DOES NOT POINT
    23 DIRECTLY AT ANOTHER PERSON.
    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Member Array dreyerba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    59
    This is true for most non LEO, however there are some exceptions to that one is us in the military. I know I have pulled a few times cause of threat and reholstered my pistol when I was out in town. Some of the reason non LEO do pull is the laws but most it is the lack of training. With me being in the military for so many years I hear a gun shot I'm pulling my pistol and looking around for were the shot came from and why and were is my cover at. For me that is reaction. I think that more non LEO would do the same thing I do if they would go though more training. That is my $.02 on this.
    Bryan A Dreyer
    Sgt USMC/US Army
    .45 ACP

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Armed Citizen: Falls man shoots burglar, Falls police say
    By mrreynolds in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 19th, 2010, 12:29 PM
  2. Massachusetts police disarm permitted citizen
    By tiwee in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: January 8th, 2010, 07:02 AM
  3. Nashville Tn Metro police on citizen carry
    By tbmccord in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 18th, 2009, 11:05 AM
  4. West Fargo, ND - Citizen's Police Academy - Week 4
    By ryanjensen in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 17th, 2008, 09:57 PM
  5. Police Release 911 Tapes Of Woman Who Killed Intruder (Armed Citizen)
    By ExSoldier in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2005, 08:24 PM

Search tags for this page

carry tactical baton in az

Click on a term to search for related topics.