TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:

...
And an answer might be:
Because they were hired to do that job, you the CHL'er volunteered. The LEO is required under the terms of their employment to go out each day and purposely place them self in those difficult situations, making life and death decisions... You the CHL'er volunteered to do the same.
...

Another possible answer is that CHLs didn't volunteer for anything. A CHL is required in Texas to legally exercise a constitutional right to defend oneself; having one doesn't mean you volunteered, it means you paid the fee and took the course. Altho there are no doubt exceptions, the vast majority of non-LEO people who end up in gun battles generally didn't have the choice -- as did the NYC police officers -- about whether or how or why they were going to engage in a confrontation, and they generally do not have partners, back up, body armor, publicly funded-training-and-liability protection, or any of the other enhancements that a police officer has. So I would certainly cut a citizen more slack about missed shots than a police officer.

You expressed my thoughts exactly, but much more eloquently. Are you related to TAM in any way?

E.Marquez wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:
I do appreciate your comment, but I intentionally avoided that question - since I don't want this to become another 'us vs. LEO' thread. But, I do have to challenge one statement: they volunteered as well.

True enough..
They volunteered to apply for the job.
.. BUT were hired, are paid to engage in those activities and be placed in those situations as a condition of employment.

As were you, as you serve our country in the US Army - for which I have the greatest respect.

But my comment above was just a segue to the more important part of the post:

Vol Texan wrote:But once in harm's way (e.g. if I'm in a convenience store and in walks an armed robber), then it's life-or-death for me as well. Why then, wouldn't anyone in harm's way get the same protection? Note, I'm not suggesting that it's OK to hit bystanders, nor am I suggesting we should become trigger-happy. I think we should all have a respectable amount of constraint for the force we're able to unleash. However, I feel it's a shame that we should have more fear in our hearts from the impending bureaucratic nightmare we're about to undergo if we decide to defend ourselves, than from the criminal who is standing before us with the gun.

We should all be held accountable in the same way.

I understand the law, but I wish that once someone finds themselves in harm's way (whether through their choice of employment or by happenstance), they could be offered the same levels of protection as do any other people if things don't go 100% as planned.

E.Marquez wrote:Perhaps the question should be..

"But why the extra protection for them?"

And an answer might be:
Because they were hired to do that job, you the CHL'er volunteered. The LEO is required under the terms of their employment to go out each day and purposely place them self in those difficult situations, making life and death decisions... You the CHL'er volunteered to do the same.

That is just one possible answer... and that said.... I do not agree that officers are not held responsible necessarily, I do agree they are held accountable in a much different way, by different rules and standards then you or I would be in the same situation.

I do appreciate your comment, but I intentionally avoided that question - since I don't want this to become another 'us vs. LEO' thread. But, I do have to challenge one statement: they volunteered as well.

True, they volunteered to put themselves in harm's way on a regular basis, and I opt not to do the same (of course, as I write this, I'm sitting in Oman, heading to Nigeria in two days, but that's another story).

But once in harm's way (e.g. if I'm in a convenience store and in walks an armed robber), then it's life-or-death for me as well. Why then, wouldn't anyone in harm's way get the same protection? Note, I'm not suggesting that it's OK to hit bystanders, nor am I suggesting we should become trigger-happy. I think we should all have a respectable amount of constraint for the force we're able to unleash. However, I feel it's a shame that we should have more fear in our hearts from the impending bureaucratic nightmare we're about to undergo if we decide to defend ourselves, than from the criminal who is standing before us with the gun.

We should all be held accountable in the same way.

Note: This is NOT a LEO-bashing thread, but the headline caught my eye.

Cops trying to subdue an emotionally disturbed man accidentally shot two female bystanders outside Port Authority Bus Terminal on Saturday night.

One victim, 54, was struck in her leg — breaking two bones in her calf — as she stood leaning on her four-wheeled walker across from the terminal; a second woman, 35, was grazed in her buttocks.

Two cops pulled off a total of three shots in the mistaken belief that the deranged man was armed after he reached into his pocket as they approached him, officials said.

The man took his hand out of his pocket and “simulated shooting the officers,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters.

I understand that mistakes happen, and that nobody is 100% accurate with their shots all the time. I'm sure there will be an internal investigation, and these officers will (rightfully) be able to keep their jobs. Based on the limited data presented in the article, it appears that they were in fear of their life, and they acted accordingly.

What bothers me is that if such a thing happened to me (or any of us) and we accidentally injured someone else, then we are criminally liable for it. I know it's the law, and I agreed to such when I got my CHL, but why the extra punishment for us?