TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

MONGOOSE wrote:If a CHL r is on the scene with a weapon then he or she is a first resonder that has had even less time and with less info to access a dangerous situation than the second responder LEOs.

OK, let's look at some hypotheticals, shall we?

You're in a classroom attending a lecture. An armed assailant bursts through the door and begins firing. What information are you missing to know you need to take action?

You're in a classroom attending a lecture. You hear shots being fired somewhere in the building. What information are you missing to know you need to shelter in place and be at the low ready in case the shooter enters your classroom?

You're in a hallway walking when a shooter rounds the corner and points his weapon at you. What information are you missing to know you need to deploy deadly force immediately to survive?

You're in a hallway walking when you hear shots coming from somewhere in the building. What information are you missing to know you need to find cover and be at the low ready in case he rounds the corner?

baldeagle wrote:Law enforcement officers have a special burden. In any situation that involves a man with a gun, a CHL holder only has to determine one thing; is the person with the gun a threat to me or others in the immediate area? If the answer is yes, then you fire. You are in the situation, you've seen the initial action, you know what's going on.

When a LEO arrives on the scene they know very little about the situation other than what they've been told by a dispatcher relaying secondhand information from people whose fear colors their reporting. They have to determine who the bad guy(s) is or are, determine whether they represent a current threat and be aware of everyone around them, because they don't even know if there's more than one. In fact, they'd better assume there's more than one, because their life may depend on it.

(It's important to note here that an unobservant or unalert CHL holder wouldn't know this either. CHLers should always keep in mind that the likelihood of a man with a gun having accomplices is high enough to be a concern.)

The Erik Scott shooting at the Costco in Las Vegas is a perfect example of where incorrect information relayed through dispatchers colored the LEOs' assessment of the situation and caused the death of an innocent man.

So the police can't just go in to a situation with guns blazing. They have to be on high alert, assess, under extreme stress, a situation and sort out the threats very quickly, isolate them and then engage, which could mean yelling "put the gun down" or immediately taking the threat out. IOW, while the CHL has watched the situation unfold and has a sound basis for deadly force deployment, the LEO has to include all of the assessment phase AFTER arrival on the scene in a very chaotic and extremely dangerous situation.

An example of this is the Abby Giffords situation. A CHLer arrived on the scene AFTER others had taken the shooter down. He saw a good guy with a gun in his hand (he had disarmed the shooter) and had to decide if he was a threat or not. He decided, correctly, that the man with the gun was not a threat and holstered his weapon.

If police are being trained to go into an active shooter situation with guns blazing, then the trainers, as well as the involved officers, are criminally liable for the outcome, because they are NOT training lawful tactics.