One of the problems for armed citizens is that police officers not only have more training and more authority, but they have more alternatives. A police officer typically carries not just a handgun, but also a slapjack, a gas spray and/or an electronic stun gun. In most jurisdictions in the U.S. there is no legal way to carry or use (or sometimes even own) any of those except the handgun. The police officer also has a radio permanently connected to the police system; there is no need to "dial" a cell phone and wait for an operator if he/she needs backup.
So the citizen has only one option in self defense, the use of deadly force. For that reason, the citizen must be sure that the use of deadly force is necessary and justified. A person facing an immediate threat of death or GBH should not have to spend a lot of time considering the legal aspects, but part of his/her training should be the recognition of an actual threat vs an overactive imagination.
In Detroit, a man was convicted of second degree murder in a killing that should not have happened. Put bluntly, he used his gun instead of his brain.
There may be times when firing the gun is the only alternative. But it almost never needs to be automatic or done without thought. There may be situations where there is no alternative and the decision to fire has to be instantaneous. But those situations are certainly rare; the more normal case involves some time to consider the action to be taken and to assess the real need for deadly force.
Another problem for the citizen is that there is no real way to detain a suspected criminal. The citizen can draw a gun to stop an attack on himself/herself or on another innocent person, but cannot "hold" the alleged attacker. The "bad guy" can simply walk away laughing, and it will be illegal to shoot him or even fire at him, since the immediate threat is over.
(Yes, I know about citizens' arrest. I also know that if it is not done "by the book", Miranda warning and all, the alleged criminal will walk and the citizen can be sued for illegal detention.)
Jim
So the citizen has only one option in self defense, the use of deadly force. For that reason, the citizen must be sure that the use of deadly force is necessary and justified. A person facing an immediate threat of death or GBH should not have to spend a lot of time considering the legal aspects, but part of his/her training should be the recognition of an actual threat vs an overactive imagination.
In Detroit, a man was convicted of second degree murder in a killing that should not have happened. Put bluntly, he used his gun instead of his brain.
There may be times when firing the gun is the only alternative. But it almost never needs to be automatic or done without thought. There may be situations where there is no alternative and the decision to fire has to be instantaneous. But those situations are certainly rare; the more normal case involves some time to consider the action to be taken and to assess the real need for deadly force.
Another problem for the citizen is that there is no real way to detain a suspected criminal. The citizen can draw a gun to stop an attack on himself/herself or on another innocent person, but cannot "hold" the alleged attacker. The "bad guy" can simply walk away laughing, and it will be illegal to shoot him or even fire at him, since the immediate threat is over.
(Yes, I know about citizens' arrest. I also know that if it is not done "by the book", Miranda warning and all, the alleged criminal will walk and the citizen can be sued for illegal detention.)
Jim