TexasCHLforum.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_baltimore_police_shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Officer William Torbit Jr. was on duty in plainclothes when he responded to a report of trouble at the club. Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi (goo-lee-EHL-mee) says Torbit was trying to break up a fight when he was attacked and pulled out his weapon to defend himself.

At some point after that, officers opened fire, killing the officer. Police say Torbit was wearing his badge but there were no other indicators he was police."

Guys THIS could happen to any one of us. If an officer that was on duty, can be gunned down after drawing his weapon to defend himself, the liklihood of it happening to a civilian is pretty good.

RIP, Prayers go out to his family.

What a tragic death. How sad. And scary for any CHL. I think there needs to be more focus on officer training that keeps it in mind the person with the gun may be the GOOD guy and try to determine that first.

TexasGal wrote:I think there needs to be more focus on officer training that keeps it in mind the person with the gun may be the GOOD guy and try to determine that first.

What would this training look like? How much training do officer's receive regarding this topic currently, if any? Since you say more focus, is there some area of LEO training that you feel is over emphasized? Please clarify.

This is a sad situation for all involved. If we're going to armchair quarterback, I think going into a disturbance at a club in plainclothes is not a great idea. If I am picturing it correctly, the officer would not have less lethal force options, or even a radio to give other officers a heads up. As I wasn't there, and the article isn't super rich with info, there very well may have been some other compelling reason to go into the club UC to break it up, but that is my initial thought. The article is so vague it doesn't even mention why the 22 yo "civilian" was killed.

Any of us could've made the same shot in good faith. Defense of a third person can get messy.

HotLeadSolutions wrote: Guys THIS could happen to any one of us. If an officer that was on duty, can be gunned down after drawing his weapon to defend himself, the liklihood of it happening to a civilian is pretty good.

Any of us non LEO’s drawing a concealed weapon are doing so (assumable) because our lives are in danger, So you have a tangible danger in front of you, your choice is simple you draw and defend yourself..

Not drawing your CW, or hesitating to do so because you might be shot by a responding LEO is a non starter.. when you have a valid threat in front of you that WILL shoot you (stab, bite, etc) if you do not draw seems to be a circular logic failure… If you’re not going to use your CW to defend yourself because of something that COULD happen..vice what WILL happen why carry it?

I'll take the draw option and deal with the known threat every day and not in the lest concern myself with the unknown, possible, no way to do anything about the possible threat of a responding LEO.

ID threat, withdraw using non violent resolution if possible, draw and stop the threat if not.. Holster or drop the gun immediately and call police FIRST before another has the chance to.. Wait for the police in a non threatening position...


Bottom line,, yes,, choosing to defend yourself against a threat with a weapon has associated risks... I would hope a reasonable, and educated person would understand this well in advance of ever holstering a CW.. Along with the copious other valid concerns associated with carrying a legally owned concealed weapon.

gigag04 wrote:

TexasGal wrote:I think there needs to be more focus on officer training that keeps it in mind the person with the gun may be the GOOD guy and try to determine that first.

What would this training look like? How much training do officer's receive regarding this topic currently, if any? Since you say more focus, is there some area of LEO training that you feel is over emphasized? Please clarify.

This is a sad situation for all involved. If we're going to armchair quarterback, I think going into a disturbance at a club in plainclothes is not a great idea. If I am picturing it correctly, the officer would not have less lethal force options, or even a radio to give other officers a heads up. As I wasn't there, and the article isn't super rich with info, there very well may have been some other compelling reason to go into the club UC to break it up, but that is my initial thought. The article is so vague it doesn't even mention why the 22 yo "civilian" was killed.

Any of us could've made the same shot in good faith. Defense of a third person can get messy.

If I annoyed you somehow, I did not mean to and I apologize. I don't know the typical scope of training officers receive in relation to considering a person with a gun may be the good guy. I just wish this policeman had not been killed because of an assumption. Obviously, it was a mistake. People are not perfect. As for thinking there is an area that is over emphasized. I don't think that at all. I respect the job they do and any officer who does his or her job with integrity and ethics.

Hard case. Other stories now are backing away from calling him a victim. There were already officers in uniform there when he got there. He shot and killed an unarmed man then four officers shot at him and killed him.

I sure can't lay much blame on the other uniformed officers.

bronco78 wrote:

HotLeadSolutions wrote: Guys THIS could happen to any one of us. If an officer that was on duty, can be gunned down after drawing his weapon to defend himself, the liklihood of it happening to a civilian is pretty good.

Any of us non LEO’s drawing a concealed weapon are doing so (assumable) because our lives are in danger, So you have a tangible danger in front of you, your choice is simple you draw and defend yourself..

Not drawing your CW, or hesitating to do so because you might be shot by a responding LEO is a non starter.. when you have a valid threat in front of you that WILL shoot you (stab, bite, etc) if you do not draw seems to be a circular logic failure… If you’re not going to use your CW to defend yourself because of something that COULD happen..vice what WILL happen why carry it? I'll take the draw option and deal with the known threat every day and not in the lest concern myself with the unknown, possible, no way to do anything about the possible threat of a responding LEO.

ID threat, withdraw using non violent resolution if possible, draw and stop the threat if not.. Holster or drop the gun immediately and call police FIRST before another has the chance to.. Wait for the police in a non threatening position...


Bottom line,, yes,, choosing to defend yourself against a threat with a weapon has associated risks... I would hope a reasonable, and educated person would understand this well in advance of ever holstering a CW.. Along with the copious other valid concerns associated with carrying a legally owned concealed weapon.

Not AT ALL what I was saying. Summed up you said it best:
"Holster or drop the gun immediately and call police FIRST before another has the chance to.. Wait for the police in a non threatening position..."

Bullwhip wrote: ...There were already officers in uniform there when he got there. He shot and killed an unarmed man then four officers shot at him and killed him...

Yes, this would change the view of the situation a lot.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/26453680/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Police Commissioner Fred Bealefeld has confirmed that police officers fired 41 shots during the melee that occurred early Sunday.

......Investigators are still sorting out the circumstances of the shooting, but according to experts, that number suggests that Torbit was being fired on well after he was down on the ground.

Mob Mentality? IDK

I've pretty much decided that if I ever am forced to unconceal my weapon, as soon as possible it is concealed again.

Very tragic.

As someone who worked security at a club, I wouldn't get involved in a club/bar fight unless I had no other choice. i.e. - I'm in the middle of it as it starts or a loved one or really, really good friend is in the middle of it. If a friend started it, well, he's on his own.

In a situation like that, stuff happens very quickly and beer bottles will come flying out of nowhere. If you're not easily identifiable as LEO or Staff, don't expect either from those two groups to recognize you as a good guy.

After a 15+ person brawl one night the other bouncers and I had to stand shoulder to shoulder with the 5 or 6 responding LEOs after they tazed a guy and his homies were seriously considering pummeling the officers outside in the street.

There's a reason I don't work that job anymore.

Lessons learned from the Baltimore shootings:

1. Don't voluntarily join a bar fight, especially one that's already in progress.

2. Don't shoot an unarmed man while uniformed police officers are watching.

Bullwhip wrote:Hard case. Other stories now are backing away from calling him a victim. There were already officers in uniform there when he got there. He shot and killed an unarmed man then four officers shot at him and killed him.

I sure can't lay much blame on the other uniformed officers.

Do you have a link to the article you read this in. I cant seem to find it. Thanks in advance.

My previous attempt to outline the issues and some of the imperfect solutions available in this thread didn't get very far, but I sense folks are now getting a better picture of just how serious the IFF (Identification - Friend or Foe) problem is when a gun comes out of the holster of someone who is not in uniform.

Here's another incident that occurred in the county where I worked that may help illustrate just how confusing and deadly these encounters can be.

Attempts to address the problem with things like an easily deployable and visually high profile sash may sound funny at first - until you consider what happens when someone who observes an armed person in a fast breaking and confusing encounter decides to use deadly force to end what he believes to be a life threatening situation and creates a tragedy for all involved.