TexasCHLforum.com

What this makes me think is that once I am forced to draw my weapon I might be better off to go ahead and shoot the bad guy. Playing the "halt or I will shoot" game sounds like something for the trained officer or military guy. There is also one thing for certain about me. I won't draw unless I truly feel my life or loved ones life is in jeopardy. If a person has put me in this position, tough cookies for them. To late to change your mind once you forced me to draw. So.... when the police arrive at my home, I will not be standing there with a drawn gun in my hand. there will be an immobilized bad guy laying on the ground and I will be standing with my hands in plain view and making no sudden moves. No gun will be visible. I draw.... I am going to fire. Sorry folks.... but that is just the way it is. Thank your lucky stars I am not the type to draw a weapon on Mormons or motor cycle guys wearing ski masks. If I draw, it is because you made my kill switch go off.

Now where I may have a problem is if in public and a police officer witnesses my self defense go down at the wrong time. If the action is of this nature.... there will be no time for a sash , badge or anything else. I am working under the assumption that we are not to be wearing the sash at all times. So.... I am not sure there is a good answer for how to signify your a GG.I will not draw unless I know the issue is life or death and like I said... the police will arrive after my gun is holstered and I am standing away from the bad guy watching out for any buddies he may have that need shooting too.

Please look at my avatar and forgive any missed keys I typed.

One thing here... IANAL....and I really don't care what a lawyer thinks on this issue. My policy is this... don't draw unless you truly believe your life is in danger. If you draw.... shoot the bad guy. Look all directions for BG's friends and upon feeling you have taken the only one down... reholster and go back to appearing non-threatening for when the police arrive.

Really folks... sometimes we act as if this gun carrying thing is complicated. It isn't. I am not going to hit a guy with a ball bat or punch him in the face unless I have to. I am also not going to threaten to punch a guy or threaten to hit him with a ballbat. Why would my gun be any different? If I pull it, it is because my life is in danger and I am going to use it. Nobody, cop or otherwise, will ever come up on me holding a BG at gun point while I pray said BG doesn't outsmart me and kill me first.

If I shoot an intruder in my home, there is no need for me to play any games at all. I am not required to prove said intruder had a weapon. My defense. I was in fear for my life and shot said intruder to stop him/her from killing me. The broken door or window is all the evidence needed to show the BG broke in. Thank god we live in Texas and don't have to prove the BG had a weapon or evil intentions. I have heard this crazy thought before about dragging bad guys around or throwing weapons near them. we don't have to do that in Texas. We are allowed by law to protect our castle.

This was in response to the post about having a knife and cut to justify defending your life and home. None of that is needed.

Again.... IANAL....but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a while back.

AndyC wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:If he is in my house I will not take any chances. I am not a cop. I do not have to “Have him move well away from the knife, then prone him out through verbal commands”.
I am also not going to worry about him coming back to “visit” me when he gets out of prison.

When the police arrive he will have a knife in his hand and I will be cut guaranteed.

Just... wow

Voice of Reason has already thought the better of this statement, but I want to elaborate on the thought because we see it so often here in different forms.

Creating false evidence of what really happened or tampering with the real evidence of what did happen is a defining moment - it turns you from a clear good guy into some degree of a bad guy in terms of both the law and morality.

When this is discovered by investigators, it will call into question everything as you've represented it, and may cause them to disbelieve things that you reported accurately if the evidence is not absolutely clear in your support - and it isn't always. If you lose the good guy mantle, it won't come back later and you're in for a long and unpleasant ride.

I made a point earlier that tampering with or falsely creating evidence is so hard to do successfully when competent investigators are assigned to the case because while you have only a short time to figure out how to fake it, they have days, weeks, months, and years to chew on it and test it up, down, and sideways. They also have access to investigative techniques that may be newly developed or that you've never heard of and therefore couldn't be taken into account. The more one knows about forensics, the harder one realizes it is to fake something and get away with it.

Here's a real life example from a case I personally investigated. An intruder broke a small pane of glass in a french door of a residence, unlocked the door, and confronted two teenage girls he found inside. He fired a .22 caliber rifle wildly, killing one girl with multiple rounds to the chest and head, and severely wounding the other in the neck, leaving him to think she was dead - but she survived. We found bulletholes in the walls, ceilings, and windows too - he fired a lot of rounds.

The surviving victim said his face was covered with a mask, he wore gloves, and his clothing had some kind of covering over it (it turned out to be a garbage bag). He did these things to prevent recognition, the possibility of leaving fingerprints, or getting blood spatter on his clothes. When he left he immediately got rid of the gun in a manner that prevented recovery.

We very quickly developed a suspect, who denied having anything to do with it and was pretty smug, figuring he had all his bases covered. What we knew and he didn't was that when glass is broken, very fine microparticles become airborne and settle on everything - including the person who broke the glass. We also knew that the small pane of glass he had broken was quite old and made at a time when the chemical composition of the glass would make it significantly different from modern production. This meant that a match between microparticles found on the suspect's clothing, shoes or areas he had exclusive control over would only be there if he had been at the door when the glass was broken, and would be pretty hard to explain away.

We secured a search warrant that included the suspect's vehicle and used an evidence vacuum (a special vacuum with a filter that captures any fine particulates like fibers, dust - and glass particles) to pull material from the driver's seat, the floor mat, and soiled pants and shoes from his residence that matched what the suspect wore. We sent the filter and known samples of the broken glass from the crime scene to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C. It came back as a match. That, along with the rest of the investigation that showed the suspect was in the area at the time of the crime and was seen leaving it in his vehicle just before the incident was reported was enough for the jury to convict him, even though the murder weapon was never recovered and the suspect had been successful in not leaving hair, fiber, or fingerprint evidence at the scene.

Please don't ever be tempted to misrepresent what happened. Real incidents are often messy and actions taken aren't perfect. Investigators understand that. However, the law generally works in favor of folks who act reasonably, with good intentions, and honestly. On the other hand, it comes down like a hammer on folks who mess with evidence.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper

That's the bottom line. If a criminal breaks into your home, you don't prevail by fleeing from him or debating him. You prevail by shooting him. Again and again until you're 100% sure he's no longer a threat.

snorri wrote:"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper

That's the bottom line. If a criminal breaks into your home, you don't prevail by fleeing from him or debating him. You prevail by shooting him. Again and again until you're 100% sure he's no longer a threat.

Truth is, I would be so darned freaked out by a person breaking into my home, I am not sure that I wouldn't keep firing until he/she fell to the ground. This isn't a tough guy thing, this would be a reaction based on being scared silly. I can promise I would not have the thought to hold a weapon on them while waiting for the cops to show up. I would just react with a survival instinct and shoot to stop the threat. Nothing more.... nothing less. By the way... Jeff Cooper is "The Man".

Excaliber wrote: Please don't ever be tempted to misrepresent what happened. Real incidents are often messy and actions taken aren't perfect. Investigators understand that. However, the law generally works in favor of folks who act reasonably, with good intentions, and honestly. On the other hand, it comes down like a hammer on folks who mess with evidence.

I wish I had a nickle for every time I have listened to someone make the proclamation that if you shoot an intruder and he crawls or falls outside because he/she is half way through the window, to drag him back in the house. Every time I hear someone say that, I have to fight the urge to slap them...LOL. I usually try to educate them about how trying to fool the law in a situation like this is not a smart technique and can actually backfire, making you look like your trying to cover something up. Someone once told me where that thought came from but I forget now what it was that inspired that thinking.

Excaliber wrote: Please don't ever be tempted to misrepresent what happened. Real incidents are often messy and actions taken aren't perfect. Investigators understand that. However, the law generally works in favor of folks who act reasonably, with good intentions, and honestly. On the other hand, it comes down like a hammer on folks who mess with evidence.

and congratulations on solving this crime. In a case involving a friend, the victim of a sexual assault was brutally raped for most of a day while being bound and blindfolded so she never saw her attacker. But he told her things about himself and his past that she remembered. She did not make up any stories or embellish what she was told. She just told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When the perp was caught later, these things were confirmed as being true and unique to him from independent sources, newspaper articles, etc.. He was convicted. Great work on the victim's part and the investigators and prosecutors to put this rapist away.

Again, I regret my statement. It is no excuse, but I suppose I have dealt with so many of these “people?” that I sometimes say things that I wouldn’t actually do.

I have however, never let my anger overrule my self control while making an arrest or bringing a situation under control. I have, at a later time thought “I should have thumped on him a while” knowing all along I would not do it.

I pride myself in my self control and honesty. I have never fabricated evidence or a report.

For those that don't know, I have been out of that line of work for quite a few years (totally my decision).

lonewolf I will PM you when I get time.

VoiceofReason wrote:Again, I regret my statement. It is no excuse, but I suppose I have dealt with so many of these “people?” that I sometimes say things that I wouldn’t actually do.

I have however, never let my anger overrule my self control while making an arrest or bringing a situation under control. I have, at a later time thought “I should have thumped on him a while” knowing all along I would not do it.

I pride myself in my self control and honesty. I have never fabricated evidence or a report.

For those that don't know, I have been out of that line of work for quite a few years (totally my decision).

lonewolf I will PM you when I get time.

You are what I would refer to as human. We humans say things at times out of frustration that we do not really mean. I understand that and I am willing to bet others here do also. God knows, we are all getting sick and tired of being victims of crime. I for one think you are an alright feller.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Again, I regret my statement. It is no excuse, but I suppose I have dealt with so many of these “people?” that I sometimes say things that I wouldn’t actually do.

I have however, never let my anger overrule my self control while making an arrest or bringing a situation under control. I have, at a later time thought “I should have thumped on him a while” knowing all along I would not do it.

I pride myself in my self control and honesty. I have never fabricated evidence or a report.

For those that don't know, I have been out of that line of work for quite a few years (totally my decision).

lonewolf I will PM you when I get time.

You are what I would refer to as human. We humans say things at times out of frustration that we do not really mean. I understand that and I am willing to bet others here do also. God knows, we are all getting sick and tired of being victims of crime. I for one think you are an alright feller.

Thanks bud. The kind words are appreciated.

Hey Excaliber, how long have you been a LEO?

What was your ratio of friends before/after you put on the badge?

Work much patrol?

Have very many "ghosts"?

I am not trying to pry, just give a few people a little insight.

Edit
Oops. I just realized I should have explained a term. I call the memories I have of innocent people and children dying, that I can’t get rid of, “the ghosts that haunt me”.

We all have "ghosts" of one kind or another. I just do the best I can to make sure mine don't rule my life.....

Hindsight isn't always 20/20, either.

VoiceofReason, I consider you to be "good people", and that's a compliment. I've never met "perfect people", only those who think they are, and I don't associate with them very long, because I can't live up to their perfection. Our differences, our perceptions, our experiences are what make us human, and if we were all the same, we wouldn't need/want to associate with others, would we?

I got you PM, and have responded.

What if instead of saying ARMED or CCW the shash just had an easily identifiable symbol, such as a cross, triangle, circle or square, and color when on the phone with 911 you just say I'm the man with the RED SQUARE or BLUE CIRCLE on my back.

This would make it harder for criminals to wear the right shash and at least give you a better shot when dealing with the police.

VoiceofReason wrote:Hey Excaliber, how long have you been a LEO?

What was your ratio of friends before/after you put on the badge?

Work much patrol?

Have very many "ghosts"?

I am not trying to pry, just give a few people a little insight.

Edit
Oops. I just realized I should have explained a term. I call the memories I have of innocent people and children dying, that I can’t get rid of, “the ghosts that haunt me”.

I retired after a little over 20 years of service with an agency of a couple of hundred officers in a good sized northeastern metro city.

Not long after I was hired I moved some distance to a new neighborhood. I don't recall losing any long time friends due to my line of work, largely because I hadn't lived in the state long enough to make any such friends. Many but not all of my new friends were police officers from several different agencies.

I spent 7 years in patrol - 2 as a front line officer, and, after a stint in investigations, 5 more as patrol division commander. Most of the rest of my career was spent in various investigative and supervisory roles with a few years in command of training operations, special projects, the armory and the range.

I believed in leading from the front, so when command duties didn't shackle me to the office, I spent a lot of duty time in the street at the scenes of major incidents that happened while I was working.

I've been retired for over 15 years and don't have any current "ghosts."

During my career, non-LEO friends who didn't avoid me because of my career often asked me how I could continue to function with the cruelty, depravity, and death I saw over so many years.

Truth be told, I never found it necessary to do anything special to manage it. While it was certainly true that I saw lots of things that no one would enjoy seeing, and the aftermath of some incidents were much worse than others, I tried to keep the perspective that those things are simply part of life. I had excellent support from my family, and I would share the things I could with them so they could get a glimpse of my world and better understand and respect why there were some days when I didn't want to socialize.

I felt I was privileged to go behind the crime scene tape to see things most folks never get to experience except as victims, and to hunt down the folks who committed those crimes.

More importantly, I constantly witnessed so much courage, generosity, heroism, and selflessness that most folks never get to see on the part of my fellow officers, paramedics, firefighters, trauma surgeons and nurses, that I was constantly in awe of what they did.

Maybe time has smoothed the memories of a lot of things that were painful when they happened, but, on balance, in my view, the nasty stuff just seems less important than the good stuff.

I know that the experience of police work is different for everyone, but this is the best I can describe what it was like for me and how I look back on it today.

Update on identification sashes for helping avoid mistaken identity shootings:

Brownell's thinks enough of the concept to have added them to its offerings. The accompanying video is here.

Brownell's is one of the biggest suppliers to the law enforcement and civilian self defense market, and they're not know for carrying cheesy products.

I'll bet the guy who was holding the Tucson shooter's gun when he was approached by an
armed citizen who thought he was the bad guy wouldn't have minded having something along those lines at just that moment.