Anticipation

I touched on something here that I believe deserves much wider consideration:

[T]he scenario he teaches does not include what a cop should do when encountering an armed citizen defending himself and others around him. The short-sighted chief I addressed earlier had the primary worry that seeing an armed citizen might prompt his men to shoot the wrong person. Now that we have 48 states with some form of "legal" carry provisions, to not be anticipating this, and preparing and training for it, amounts to nothing less than criminal negligence.

With concealed and in some cases open carry becoming more widespread, what are police departments doing to provide for the eventual scenario where officers arrive at a shooting scene involving an armed citizen defending himself?

Right now, the prevailing noises coming from "The Only Ones" brass is they'll have no way of knowing, and somebody's going to get killed.

That's not good enough. It's their job to figure out the dynamics of the society they're paid and expected to operate in, and to just throw out predictions so they can come back with an "I told you so" when they self-fulfill is unacceptable.

What training are police and sheriffs' departments doing to prepare officers for such an encounter? How many simulator programs anticipate an armed citizen with a shoot/don't shoot decision point in their scenarios? What instructions are officers given, and what opportunities do they have to practice for such eventualities?

And importantly, if there is anything out there along these lines, how effective has it proven to be? Who's got the best developed methodology and what mechanism exists to impart lessons learned across the policing community?

That's why this really ought to be a top-down effort. National police groups and major departments ought to be developing such training in coordination with national groups representing armed citizens. Are they? Who? And what?

If there is such a national effort already in existence, and I don't know about it, I submit many others probably don't either--and some public education is in order.

If there isn't, why not? What are we waiting for--a prophecy to come true?

Confronting Reality With Mr. X

Our policy is that employees are never to do anything to endanger themselves, co-workers or customers in the event of a robbery. In fact, the first principle in the policy is, “Cooperate! Don’t argue, resist or attack the robber.” Law enforcement officials support our position to avoid any confrontation during a robbery.--Anthony Kenney, President, Speedway SuperAmerica

Dear Mr. Kenney,

Let me see if I've got this straight. That's a universal "zero tolerance" policy, right? Your position is that only law enforcement is trained and equipped enough to confront an assailant on your premises? And any employee resisting an assailant will be terminated because they have endangered themselves and others?

And yeah, I know you qualified your position to state "robbery," but really--how do you know what an attacker truly wants? And what if he wants no surviving witnesses?

So, hypothetically now, if an assailant, for convenience let's call him "Mr. X," enters Speedway SuperAmerica corporate headquarters and ignores the receptionist's request to sign in at the front desk, s/he and any on-site employed security should cooperate? Even if that includes Mr. X ordering them to accompany him to your office suite?

And if Mr. X decides he wants to tie you all up, you'll let him? You really won't fight back? Under any circumstances? What was the word you used? "Never"?

Really?

Would you act the same way if Mr. X forced his way into your home? Assuming no fundamental principles have changed and that "law enforcement officials" are still "the Only Ones" who know what's best, would you cooperate and not resist with your family in immediate danger?

Really?

A Single Entry

Based on his on-going research of active-shooter realities, he’s convinced that single-officer entries can potentially lessen the toll of casualties while exposing the responders involved to little additional risk.

This is a refreshing change in attitude , and he backs it up by making sense and assuming the attitude of what a man should be.

Still, here's the most telling part for me:

"They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant. The tracking history of these murderers has proved them to be unlikely to be aggressive with police. If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves."

Exactly. Which is why, even though this article is geared toward police training and responses, it is incomplete without acknowledgment of an armed citizen effect.

First I don't need a hero. I don't expect another man to assume such risks on my behalf. That's my job. And while I may someday be grateful to another for saving me, that's not what I plan and prepare for. What I want from the cops is to leave me the hell alone and to not treat me like the criminal.

Second, the scenario he teaches does not include what a cop should do when encountering an armed citizen defending himself and others around him. The short-sighted chief I addressed earlier had the primary worry that seeing an armed citizen might prompt his men to shoot the wrong person. Now that we have 48 states with some form of "legal" carry provisions, to not be anticipating this, and preparing and training for it, amounts to nothing less than criminal negligence.

Comments are mixed, with one I read even calling for arming teachers, but I find the naysaying from the hide-behind-trees-and-cars-crowd to be the most enlightening. Some are so slick at it, you almost don't realize what they're doing is excusing themselves for not upholding principles.

[Via Carl S]

Calling it Quits

And so, in the interest of Party unity, and his own health, I am calling on Senator Obama to gracefully accept defeat.

Pretty darn funny.

[Via Michael G]

This Day in History: May 25

The 1st New York Regiment in the Revolutionary War...

Authorized on May 25, 1775 in the Continental Army as the 2nd New York Regiment. They were assigned to the New York (subsequently the Northern) Department.