I absolutely agree with the above (Rogerzvz), and feel it's a great error to conflate civilian roles with law enforcement in the selection of equipment and tactics. However, I do not think the different role of civilians calls for lesser equipment. Instead, it allows for a greater variety of choice based on personal preferences rather than institutional standardization and conformity.
I'm also convinced that civilians, who in the United States are regarded as the highest order of person or rank, will be seriously offended at any implication that they should not have equivalent or better capability than their public servants. While I agree with the principle, I do not make it point simply to arm myself equal or superior to officers. Instead, I think it's more important to arm each as best as practical for their respective roles.
Some differences to consider:
The civilian is unlikely to have a partner.
The civilian does not have dispatch standing by on their radio.
The civilian is not likely to have a baton or taser or sticky foam and is less likely to have a large can of OC spray.
The civilian can't call for a K9 unit if they don't have a dog.
The civilian probably has no air assets.
The civilian probably has no vest or plate carrier on.
The civilian cannot lawfully demand people to comply with their commands or force compliance.
Given all those disadvantages, the civilian is not well-advised to be poorly equipped with respect to their side arm.
Another thing to consider is that a civilian is likely to be given less deference with respect to the results of their use of force. We have countless examples of people acting with force for law enforcement purposes whose actions resulted in very undesirable outcomes and yet they were protected from personal or criminal liability, from prosecution, and from conviction. The bottom line is a law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty has protections that a civilian does not. I'll admit they're also held accountable and to a degree of scrutiny in some ways a civilian is not. What we know for sure is the civilian is almost always on their own following a lethal force incident. There is no "system" to shield them from individual responsibility. It would be ill-advised for the civilian to use equipment that improperly places an excess number of bullets or which makes it difficult to place shots under circumstances which demand the highest level of accountability. Even if we don't agree about whether an officer or civilian is held to a greater level of accountability, we can be sure that it is not widely accepted for officers to shoot mouse guns in the line of duty, and part of the reason for that is the liability for the poor performance that can be expected. I don't see how a civilian is in any way exempt from those concerns.
I'm also convinced that civilians, who in the United States are regarded as the highest order of person or rank, will be seriously offended at any implication that they should not have equivalent or better capability than their public servants. While I agree with the principle, I do not make it point simply to arm myself equal or superior to officers. Instead, I think it's more important to arm each as best as practical for their respective roles.
Some differences to consider:
The civilian is unlikely to have a partner.
The civilian does not have dispatch standing by on their radio.
The civilian is not likely to have a baton or taser or sticky foam and is less likely to have a large can of OC spray.
The civilian can't call for a K9 unit if they don't have a dog.
The civilian probably has no air assets.
The civilian probably has no vest or plate carrier on.
The civilian cannot lawfully demand people to comply with their commands or force compliance.
Given all those disadvantages, the civilian is not well-advised to be poorly equipped with respect to their side arm.
Another thing to consider is that a civilian is likely to be given less deference with respect to the results of their use of force. We have countless examples of people acting with force for law enforcement purposes whose actions resulted in very undesirable outcomes and yet they were protected from personal or criminal liability, from prosecution, and from conviction. The bottom line is a law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty has protections that a civilian does not. I'll admit they're also held accountable and to a degree of scrutiny in some ways a civilian is not. What we know for sure is the civilian is almost always on their own following a lethal force incident. There is no "system" to shield them from individual responsibility. It would be ill-advised for the civilian to use equipment that improperly places an excess number of bullets or which makes it difficult to place shots under circumstances which demand the highest level of accountability. Even if we don't agree about whether an officer or civilian is held to a greater level of accountability, we can be sure that it is not widely accepted for officers to shoot mouse guns in the line of duty, and part of the reason for that is the liability for the poor performance that can be expected. I don't see how a civilian is in any way exempt from those concerns.
