Stand and fire? or evade first?

This is a variation that private citizens should train on as well. You might be attacked in the mall parking lot while you
Click to expand...

both the cop and the citizen
Click to expand...

LE, Military, Civillian...it doesn't matter
Click to expand...


It does matter, and not only in threads that are explicitly discussing civil liberties.

There are only two categories; civilian and military. LEOs are civilians.

The mindset expressed (unintentionally, I'm quite sure) in the above posts is a threat to your freedom.


mannlicher, if you are interested in some excellent defensive firearms training in the sub $500 category, check out http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98220
 
Yes, Erick, it's one thing to say that some things don't apply if one is not in the police business. Quite correct. That is a distinction between job requiremnts. Most folks don't need to know much about RF safety, but it does apply in my field.

But the distinction between LEOs and civilian is NOT valid - in fact is dangerous. And that point needs to be made and made and made again. BATF, Secret Service, FBI, local deputy - all are civilians.
 
captainHoek...

But the distinction between LEOs and civilian is NOT valid - in fact is dangerous. And that point needs to be made and made and made again. BATF, Secret Service, FBI, local deputy - all are civilians.
Click to expand...

If you go back and read my post, note that I referred to 'the average citizen' as opposed to 'cops' (meaning any law enforcement type). In 'use of deadly force' issues this IS a valid and important distinction, as police WILL get different treatment in court, both criminal and civil. Yes, they are all 'civilians', but courts look upon 'trained' police very differently than they do 'untrained' civilians. That is the context in which I said what I did. It is a simple fact that 'police' have different obligations regarding the law, (especially after the fact of an encounter), than the rest of us do. In this sense, most military personnel would be 'citizens', as well.

Hope this clears up some apparent confusion in semantics.
 
My step-father is a police officer of over 20 years experience. During his yearly training (and perhaps more often), each officer is tested in their reaction time and ability to respond in a knife situation. As I recall now, I believe this is a common exercise for him and his fellow officers. I believe the distance at which the attacker starts is 6 yards. The drill involves the attacker running at the officer as the officer attempts to back away/avoid and draw/shoot the attacker. My step-father has been in his present location for over 15 years, doing this each year. He said that in his entire time training in this particular exercise, no officer has been able to draw and shoot the attacker successfully without first being "stabbed" by the rubber knife. And these are not below average officers. They are top rate. My step dad has never been able to defend himself, and he is a Sgt. now. Though he always wins as the attacker ;)
All that to say that an attacker with an knife taking you by surprise even at a fairly decent distance, has an incredible advantage. My personal choice would be move out of the dang way. Or learn some hand to hand and maybe take one in the arm as you remove the assailant's eyes without anesthesia.:D
 
Gotcha, trapshooter. Valid distinction in job description, and therefore in the likelyhood of various types of encounters.
 
captainHoek...

No sweat. I (briefly) thought about discussing the 'court' situation in detail, but didn't want to open that can of worms, which is really getting off the subject anyway.

Personally, although I have carried one kind of knife or another for over 20 yrs, I don't like them. And I like them even less when I don't have control of an exposed blade in my presence. Since the knife is (on one level anyway) a stealthy weapon, it can be one of the hardest items to defend against, especially when used by someone who knows his business.

Given that, assuming I even see a knife in time to act, I'd just cap the BG once he broke the ten yard barrier, if possible. I'll take my chances in court, in preference to the morgue.

BTW, who is Elmer Davis? I like all the quotes, but that one is new to me.
 
Elmer Davis? Elmer Davis?

You're asking who Elmer DAVIS IS?!?!?!?!


I dunno. I just saw the quote and liked it. I think I reconize the name, but the details escape me....

:D
 
I'm new to this forum so please forgive any of my deviations from what is expected of me in a reply.
There are only two basic human instincts: reproduction and survival, I prefer the latter, but, have some small tactical knowledge of survival.
BG with a knife and I'm outta there as fast as my feet will go. Cornered by a BG with a knife, IMHO, drop to the ground and retrieve your trusty BG(big gun in this case) and shoot. I respectfully disagree with any one who thinks they can side step and evade, it ain't gonna happen. By dropping you confuse the attacker and puts them in an instinctively poor position to stab. The only other good option may be is to train everyday.
 
Nuthin' wrong with your reply, Ivalley, and welcome to TFL.

'Course, a lot of folks are likely to disagree with your reply, but that don't matter none. You are entitled to your opinion, ridiculous though it may be. ;)


On a serious note, I do agree with your first course of action, if that option is available. Beat feet beats beat heads anytime.

But if he's close, a sidestep is likely to be a lot more effective than turning and running. If he's already moving, you need two blocks of time - reaction time, and get up to speed time. You can sidestep a lot quicker than you can turn and run - it's just a much simpler move. Now, you still have the BG to deal with, but you have taken the initiative and have a larger widow of opportunity to pull your weapon and persuade him of the error of his ways. HE has to react, and then change direction. The same intertia that made it hard for you to get up to speed now makes it hard for him to change his direction of attack. And the sidestep is a much less expected response.

It's been taught that way in many a class by many an experienced instructor, and proven in many a real encounter.

BTW, with just a little practice that sidestep can be mighty quick.
 
trapshooter: I just want to comment on your statement that courts give special treatment to Police officer compared to untrained civilians in case of litigation. I am not amenable to this particualr statement of yours.

In my country which is even considered as 3rd world, I can say absolutely that, that is not the practice. Evidences will prove things. I myself who has experienced having legal problems with Military and LE's always won in court because I am only after the truth. There were many judges who are impartial. There might be some but still it depends on the evidences submitted by the plaintiff or respondent to prove their allegations be it a Mil, LE, or Civilian.

There is no difference between LE and Civilians, just the uniforms and guns they are carrying, we are all civilians including the commander in chief of the military.


Thanks, this is just my reactions only.
 
shy_man...

Without getting too far into this subject, which is the focus of much attention in most law enforcement academies in the US, there are two views from the bench regarding police.

On the one hand, what they say may be given more weight because they are (supposed to be) trained observers, dedicated to justice, etc., etc.

On the other hand, because of thier training, in law, use of force, weapons, etc., they are generally (not always) considered to be 'held to a higher ' standard than the average citizen.

In other words, we expect them (police) to be better in law enforcement duties because we have spent a great deal of money and time insuring that they are. This 'higher' standard argument can break down when it is blatantly disregarded, as in the case of our most recent ex-President. It is, however, the way I was trained, and I expect more from a legally knowledgeable public servant than I do a school teacher or auto mechanic.

Again, sometimes our higher expectations are met with lower results, but, on the whole, by a small percentage of law enforcement overall. The vast majority of police officers look at this issue as I do, I think. When the failings of the minority are exposed, it generally results in the accused going free, if not immediatey, then eventually.

Nothing's perfect. But most of us do try. Politicians are a glaring exception.
 
To expand somewhat on what I said in my most recent post.

Police officers have the authority to arrest for felonious conduct.
So does any citizen that happens to witness such conduct.

(Keep in mind, to effect an arrest, one must have authority, knowledge, and ability, all in the legal sense).

The average citizen does not have the authority (unless 'deputized') to make arrests for felonious conduct that he personally did not see, nor can he or she make an arrest for conduct that does not meet the felony standard, such as a traffic violation.

I'll cut to the chase, and in my brevity take note that there is more that needs to be said here than we have time for, so I don't want anyone running out looking for drug dealers, ok?.

The difference between the average citizen and the police officer also extends to actions taken during events leading to an arrest.

If I see crime take place that I, in all honesty and good faith, believe to be a felony, and I do what I feel is needed to stop the crime, get the BG, etc. Say I am correct, but I forgot the Miranda warning. A judge might allow my oversight to pass. NO sworn, trained police officer in this country would get away with that (assuming he/she did something that would require such warning). If he or she did, the accused might walk free, even if guilty.

This is illustrative of the difference between law enforcement personnel and citizens that I spoke of.
 
Good Morning trapshooter:

I agree with you on the arrest issue by a police that has more authority. I have no question on that. In fact even our law and the constitution will allow us private civilian of "citizen arrest" but I will not do that, I'll just leave to the Police. I am only concern for self defense including our closed relatives or love ones.

Just forgive me if I am a little bit agressive on answering the issue of giving more attention to Police officer than to a civilian if it comes to court litigation. The reason I am like that is, I am already fed up of hearing and reading misconduct nor abusive acts of few persons in uniform or having Police authority "I am referring to my country", that when the pity innocent civilian is arrested as if there is license to abuse or to hurt sometimes by the police, invoking their authority, but if we scrutinize well, there are many rights of a civilian being trampled because they are are always the underdog if it comes to Police vs. civilian by all respespect. But then this only happens to those who are less educated or underpriviliged civilian.

On the other hand, I am on the police side also if their victims are real BG's or criminals who commit crimes as there is no excuses at all to commit such crimes. In fact, I prefer the Police to shoot a holduppers instantly rather then arresting them and put them in jail, for if they were arrested and can post bail, again they will be out to commit the same crime and the Police efforts to combat crime is in vain. What can we do, it is the system.

Thanks trapshooter for our conversation. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top