TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote: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.

Maybe Jared wouldn't have minded having one of those too.

Ameer wrote:

Excaliber wrote: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.

Maybe Jared wouldn't have minded having one of those too.

Perhaps not, but he wouldn't have gotten one from Brownell's due to their "Product restricted to law enforcement only" sales policy which is clearly posted in the third line below the picture in their ad.

The inventor (who is an active duty LEO) requires this policy from any distributors for self evident reasons.

Excaliber wrote: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.

Maybe so, but you said he wouldn't be allowed to buy one, and neither would most members of this forum.

Excaliber wrote:Perhaps not, but he wouldn't have gotten one from Brownell's due to their "Product restricted to law enforcement only" sales policy which is clearly posted in the third line below the picture in their ad.

The inventor (who is an active duty LEO) requires this policy from any distributors for self evident reasons.

cbr600 wrote:

Excaliber wrote: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.

Maybe so, but you said he wouldn't be allowed to buy one, and neither would most members of this forum.

Excaliber wrote:Perhaps not, but he wouldn't have gotten one from Brownell's due to their "Product restricted to law enforcement only" sales policy which is clearly posted in the third line below the picture in their ad.

The inventor (who is an active duty LEO) requires this policy from any distributors for self evident reasons.

When I spoke to the inventor several months ago, he was considering how to control distribution to make a CHL version available to CHL holders while barring those without CHL's. I don't know the current status of that effort. You could check his web site if you have an interest.

Brownell's is only distributing the LEO versions at this time.

the problem I can see that anyone can make his own "LE Only" copy. What is so tough as not to replicate?

This idea of the sash is actually being talked about in law enforcement circles as a good idea for off duty or plainclothes officers. There have been enough friendly fire incidents over the years that the problem is demonstrable. And most cops badges can only be seen from a narrow angle (usually the front).

I am undecided on the sash as a solution. If it is good for cops, it is also good for CHLs. But I really think the better answer is training (both off duty cops in how to act and on duty cops in how to respond). Make sure the off duty cop or CHL knows to obey the orders of the responding officer and expect to be cuffed first, then also make sure the on duty cop knows to not just walk in shooting but take a minute to give orders, and there is not a problem.

Of course, some police officials (thinking Texas State Campus PD here IIRC) have publicly stated they train their officers to shoot anyone with a gun.

Beiruty wrote:the problem I can see that anyone can make his own "LE Only" copy. What is so tough as not to replicate?

That's what I'm thinking. I've never sewn a stitch in my life, but I'm pretty sure I could get all the materials and make a perfect copy in an afternoon.

TexasComputerDude wrote: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.

Just use the universal protection symbol that cops can't shoot even when they want to:

Beiruty wrote:the problem I can see that anyone can make his own "LE Only" copy. What is so tough as not to replicate?

They can buy badges on the internet and make up ID's on their home PC's too, although the BG's who go to these lengths are, as a matter of fact, few and far between.

Keep in mind that a sash or any other identifier (badge, raid jacket, etc.) only provides an initial indication that the wearer may be a good guy. The point is to provide a visual indication that suggests there is no threat to officer safety from that person and get responding officers to make further inquiries and establish who or what that person may be instead of preemptively taking him out.

If officers feel threatened by an obviously armed individual at a scene of violence and they see nothing to suggest he might be a good guy, there is a much greater chance they will make a "better safe than sorry" decision that they might later regret - but you'll regret even more.

srothstein wrote:This idea of the sash is actually being talked about in law enforcement circles as a good idea for off duty or plainclothes officers. There have been enough friendly fire incidents over the years that the problem is demonstrable. And most cops badges can only be seen from a narrow angle (usually the front).

I am undecided on the sash as a solution. If it is good for cops, it is also good for CHLs. But I really think the better answer is training (both off duty cops in how to act and on duty cops in how to respond). Make sure the off duty cop or CHL knows to obey the orders of the responding officer and expect to be cuffed first, then also make sure the on duty cop knows to not just walk in shooting but take a minute to give orders, and there is not a problem.

Of course, some police officials (thinking Texas State Campus PD here IIRC) have publicly stated they train their officers to shoot anyone with a gun.

LEO's tend to have a better appreciation for what's involved here because most of them have faced these situations (on either or both sides) and know just how dicey those times are. There's nothing quite like staring down the barrel of another officer's gun and seeing that his finger is on the trigger, or starting to put pressure on the trigger of your own gun with another human being in your sights and then trying to stop the trigger pull in mid stroke to clarify just how big a deal this issue really is.

As I've said before, I don't see the sash as a "hurrah" solution to the problem, but I think it is a viable piece of equipment that can serve a critically important role and potentially save the lives of some good guys who might otherwise be killed by their own in error. The FBI and other serious agencies have apparently come to the same conclusion, so I'm not uncomfortable with the company I find myself in with that opinion. I wish I had a better answer to the very real IFF problem, but I don't, and I'd be the first to welcome any that might be out there.

I agree with Steve that a sash or any other device will not replace the imperative to train officers to approach these situations carefully and to challenge from behind cover whenever possible to avoid forcing the issue into a split second potentially bad decision by confronting an armed individual from an exposed position.

I am acutely aware of the amount of training it takes to prepare officers to manage these situations successfully. The city I worked in was the financial and governmental hub for the area, which was just a few miles north of New York City. We had 44 different armed law enforcement agencies operating in the county that I knew about, and all of them, as well as many more from miles around, shopped and came to court there. Lots of stuff happened all the time, and it wasn't at all unusual to encounter an armed officer we'd never met from another agency with a gun in his hand when our officers rolled up on an incident. Sometimes that gun was smoking when we got there, a bleeding body was on the ground, and the local crowd was pointing the officer out (incorrectly) as the bad guy. We couldn't afford just a "pretty good" record on getting these things right.

As the training division commander responsible for 200 officers, one of my worst nightmares was a blue on blue shooting. I and my successors in that role put intense and sustained effort into preventing that from happening with one of our own. To date, those efforts have been successful.

Unfortunately, an off duty officer from another municipality was killed in our city in a blue on blue shooting there when on duty officers from a county LE agency came upon him with a gun drawn on a suspect he had fought with and was trying to apprehend. They perceived a threat to themselves and fired on the off duty officer with tragic results.

I am aware that some police administrators train their officers to act in a way that may very well be unlawful in a given situation. IANAL, but as I read the law, mere sight of a man with a gun at an incident scene does not provide justification for the use of deadly force in Texas. In my opinion training officers to react with gunfire whenever this situation is encountered without first determining if there is a threat to innocent life and deadly force is necessary to resolve it or not is reckless in the extreme.

Such training sets the stage for an easily foreseeable tragedy where, for example, an off duty officer who is attending classes (and is exempt from the PC46.03 campus carry prohibition) disarms and detains a violent suspect at gunpoint and responding college police execute him or her on sight.

I wouldn't envy the responsible administrator's turn on the witness stand when that bowl of kimchee hits the courts.