Run away Run away .. I don’t think so “I’m Standing My Ground”

• Heretic

  

  Me?;1540537 wrote:I don't think a lot of people realize that most police officers, especially in small towns, are just average joes in that situation as well--but you'd never question their ability to take control.

  I kind of have more the same opinion as Gut in #90, where you see how often things can go wrong with them in charge. Stories like that pop up on this site from time to time. In particular, I remember a reasonably recent (at least this year, maybe summer) thread here about a cop opening fire on a breaking-and-entering guy and blasting a college co-ed who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  
  If the guys who supposedly are trained to handle these situations have the potential to commit major-league fuck-ups, I sure wouldn't want to be in a situation where I'd have to put faith in a random civilian packing heat to act in a remotely proper manner.
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540540 wrote:Average Joes with hundreds of hours of training and practice in handling such situations.

  And most with no experience in the actual situation. Why does a few hundred hours of training by law enforcement mean more than a few hundred hours of training by a private citizen? I personally know some cops who wouldn't hold a candle to me in a situation like that. I don't think a lot of cops train as often as you think they do. There is no difference between a cop spending 4 hours at the range and a private citizen spending 4 hours at the range. A badge doesn't magically give you a better handle on your weapon or better situational awareness. There are thousands of private citizens who are far better trained than police, but like I said, no one would really question the cops ability to get the situation under control. The idea that they're better trained just because their cops is largely a fallacy. When I'm at a gas station in East Liverpool, Ohio, the cops that are in the area aren't LAPD SWAT.
• queencitybuckeye

  Me?;1540548 wrote: I personally know some cops who wouldn't hold a candle to me in a situation like that.

  and I personally know that the vast majority are far and away better trained than you.
• Me?

  

  Heretic;1540542 wrote:I kind of have more the same opinion as Gut in #90, where you see how often things can go wrong with them in charge. Stories like that pop up on this site from time to time. In particular, I remember a reasonably recent (at least this year, maybe summer) thread here about a cop opening fire on a breaking-and-entering guy and blasting a college co-ed who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  
  If the guys who supposedly are trained to handle these situations have the potential to commit major-league fuck-ups, I sure wouldn't want to be in a situation where I'd have to put faith in a random civilian packing heat to act in a remotely proper manner.

  I understand that completely, bottom line is no matter who is packing you hope to never face that kind of situation because even a good outcome is terrifying. My only point is, most people wouldn't have an reservations about the cops. But they would about a random citizen. That random citizen could be an experienced combat veteran that would be more effective than 2 or 3 local cops. Of course it could also be some dumbass lady that doesn't even know how to tear down her gun. I just think people have an irrational idea of what most cops are.
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540552 wrote:and I personally know that the vast majority are far and away better trained than you.

  No, you don't. That is absolutely a fallacy. First of all, you know nothing of me. And second, the vast majority of cops haven't gone through much training other than being able to safely operate their weapons and be able to target shoot fairly well. I have a few friends who are cops and I go to the police range with them quite often. I shoot A LOT better than damn near every one of them. Again, we aren't talking about LAPD SWAT. Most local cops don't go through much combat training.
• queencitybuckeye

  Are you really going to pretend that the average yahoo with a CCW is in the same league, training-wise and experience-wise than the average cop? You're a fool.
• hasbeen

  

  Belly35;1540448 wrote:Seems that many have never faced the barrel of a weapon, had the nightmare of seeing the carnage of a human shot or pulled the trigger on another individual.

  tell us more about how you've killed people.
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540558 wrote:Are you really going to pretend that the average yahoo with a CCW is in the same league, training-wise and experience-wise than the average cop? You're a fool.

  Yes, absolutely. Average is the key word. There are cops who are VERY well trained. Many former military. SWAT officers. Some higher levels of law enforcement. There are some cops who are poorly trained. There are CCW people who are average, there are people who don't even know how to clean their weapon...there are also CCW holders who are the same as the cops--former military, even militia. There are people who have set up training ranges with their friends and do their own training that is more stringent than what most cops ever go through. Why on Earth would you assume that there aren't very well trained CCW holders? It doesn't even make sense.
• I Wear Pants

  Me?;1540557 wrote:No, you don't. That is absolutely a fallacy. First of all, you know nothing of me. And second, the vast majority of cops haven't gone through much training other than being able to safely operate their weapons and be able to target shoot fairly well. I have a few friends who are cops and I go to the police range with them quite often. I shoot A LOT better than damn near every one of them. Again, we aren't talking about LAPD SWAT. Most local cops don't go through much combat training.

  But they go through vastly more training than your average CCW holder does or ever will, and the cops still make mistakes pretty often in situations where guns are involved. I'm not confident that changing a law and encouraging CCW holders to act in something that isn't self defense is a good idea.
  
  Me? isn't understanding that queencitybuckeye wasn't saying no CCW holders are well trained, but they on average have less training than the police.
• queencitybuckeye

  Me?;1540562 wrote:Yes, absolutely. Average is the key word. There are cops who are VERY well trained. Many former military. SWAT officers. Some higher levels of law enforcement. There are some cops who are poorly trained. There are CCW people who are average, there are people who don't even know how to clean their weapon...there are also CCW holders who are the same as the cops--former military, even militia. There are people who have set up training ranges with their friends and do their own training that is more stringent than what most cops ever go through. Why on Earth would you assume that there aren't very well trained CCW holders? It doesn't even make sense.

  Because EVERYONE taking the CCW training passes? Those tens of hours of training is the equivalent to a police academy, of course it is.
  
  Put away the internet muscles, tough-guy, and try to keep this discussion real. You're hurting your "side's" cause and embarrassing yourself.
• Me?

  

  I Wear Pants;1540567 wrote:But they go through vastly more training than your average CCW holder does or ever will, and the cops still make mistakes pretty often in situations where guns are involved. I'm not confident that changing a law and encouraging CCW holders to act in something that isn't self defense is a good idea.
  
  Me? isn't understanding that queencitybuckeye wasn't saying no CCW holders are well trained, but they on average have less training than the police.

  But that isn't based in anything other than looking at what a cop goes through at the academy and comparing it to the 12 hour concealed carry course. It's completely omitting any training done outside of either, by either party. Where the truth is, most cops shoot far less than most private citizens--municipalities aren't shelling out thousands of dollars per cop so that they can have range time. So the entire notion isn't really based in anything but assumptions. Again, I don't think you two are understanding what my point was--that no one questions whether or not a cop will get a situation under control based simply on a false idea that cops are very highly trained individuals with their firearms and for situations like that.
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540572 wrote:Because EVERYONE taking the CCW training passes? Those tens of hours of training is the equivalent to a police academy, of course it is.
  
  Put away the internet muscles, tough-guy, and try to keep this discussion real. You're hurting your "side's" cause and embarrassing yourself.

  I've taken a side?
• gut

  Me?;1540537 wrote:I don't think a lot of people realize that most police officers, especially in small towns, are just average joes in that situation as well--but you'd never question their ability to take control.

  By the same token, there's little to no such violent crime in the vast majority of small towns.
  
  And aside from the training, you're ignoring experience - ACTIVE experience. Not to mention actively learning thru shared experiences of their fellow officers.
  
  Truthfully this is less about who is the better shooter and more about who is better equipped, thru active training and experience, to make the decision of whether or not to shoot in the first place.
• Me?

  

  I'm not embarrassing myself at all. I'm not the one basing my arguments in assumptions and hypothetical situations that you conveniently change the parameters of so that you can tell people they're wrong. I'm simply saying, and have first hand experience with my point, that the vast majority of cops are not some one man army that is really well trained to handle that situation and just because they're a cop it certainly doesn't mean they're more trained than a citizen with a concealed weapon. And just because everyone passes also doesn't mean everyone carries. My instructor is a friend of mine, he's former military and I took his first class--so it was a bunch of his friends and he gave us a discounted rate so he could work through his first class patiently. About half the class has very little or no experience with firearms. By the end they were competent enough to carry. Since I do know the people, I'm also aware that those people who didn't have much experience also never carry. Of course that absolutely does not mean that there aren't some inexperienced people carrying. But this fantasy that most of the people running around with guns strapped on every day don't know what the hell they're doing is just that, a fantasy.
• I Wear Pants

  Me?;1540575 wrote:But that isn't based in anything other than looking at what a cop goes through at the academy and comparing it to the 12 hour concealed carry course. It's completely omitting any training done outside of either, by either party. Where the truth is, most cops shoot far less than most private citizens--municipalities aren't shelling out thousands of dollars per cop so that they can have range time. So the entire notion isn't really based in anything but assumptions. Again, I don't think you two are understanding what my point was--that no one questions whether or not a cop will get a situation under control based simply on a false idea that cops are very highly trained individuals with their firearms and for situations like that.

  Only 32% of households even own a gun. So most private citizens don't shoot...ever.
• Me?

  

  gut;1540580 wrote:By the same token, there's little to no such violent crime in the vast majority of small towns.
  
  And aside from the training, you're ignoring experience - ACTIVE experience. Not to mention actively learning thru shared experiences of their fellow officers.

  The cops in my town haven't shot a round in any situation in my entire life and all but probably one or two has never even had to pull their duty weapon. So yeah, that experience really puts them ahead of any CCW holder. Like my friend who is a former special operator and could probably eliminate my towns entire police force by himself before anyone would ever notice.
• Me?

  

  I Wear Pants;1540584 wrote:Only 32% of households even own a gun. So most private citizens don't shoot...ever.

  Which means that most also do not carry, correct?
• gut

  Me?;1540585 wrote:The cops in my town haven't shot a round in any situation in my entire life

  So it's a safe bet that an ordinary citizen in that town isn't going to find themselves in a situation where they have to fire a round? I don't hear about many cops hitting innocent bystanders, and I'm not that worried about a cop with a full clip failing to effectively intervene.
  
  Even most military training is very different. You'll not convince me a vet who left the military 10 years ago is better equipped to evaluate the situation in a convenience store robbery than a Columbus cop on the beat for the past 10 years.
• Me?

  

  I figured it went without saying that when I said "most private citizens" I was only referring to those who are gun owners...I guess that was too hard to gather without it being specifically laid out.
• Me?

  

  gut;1540591 wrote:So it's a safe bet that an ordinary citizen in that town isn't going to find themselves in a situation where they have to fire a round? I don't hear about many cops hitting innocent bystanders, and I'm not that worried about a cop with a full clip failing to effectively intervene.
  
  Even most military training is very different. You'll not convince me a vet who left the military 10 years ago is better equipped to evaluate the situation in a convenience store robbery than a Columbus cop on the beat for the past 10 years.

  What does someone finding themselves in that situation in my town have to do with the conversation in general? If you pay attention, you'll actually find A LOT of cops hitting and killing innocent bystanders. What you don't hear is an incredible number of stories of concealed carry people shooting innocent people--and you WOULD hear all about that, no better evidence than how huge the George Zimmerman trial got. The truth is, it doesn't happen very often and not anywhere near as often as the police shooting innocent people.
• gut

  Me?;1540593 wrote:What does someone finding themselves in that situation in my town have to do with the conversation in general? If you pay attention, you'll actually find A LOT of cops hitting and killing innocent bystanders. What you don't hear is an incredible number of stories of concealed carry people shooting innocent people--and you WOULD hear all about that, no better evidence than how huge the George Zimmerman trial got. The truth is, it doesn't happen very often and not anywhere near as often as the police shooting innocent people.

  Apples to oranges. CCW holders aren't placing themselves into the same scenarios, which is precisely why cops are better equipped thru training & experience to evaluate a situation. And it's precisely why we shouldn't pass laws that have the potential to place CCW holders in more of those scenarios.
  
  But it all goes back to where is the demonstrable need for SYG laws for bystanders? I don't see one.
• Me?

  

  Because getting shot in the back while you're participating in your duty to retreat is not a viable self defense option. The duty to retreat insinuates that you don't have the right to be somewhere that you are just because some asshole is trying to start shit. And saying someone's life wasn't in immediate danger because they didn't have a gun pointed at them is asinine. Any of us could kill someone with our bare hands.
• queencitybuckeye

  Me?;1540615 wrote:Because getting shot in the back while you're participating in your duty to retreat is not a viable self defense option. The duty to retreat insinuates that you don't have the right to be somewhere that you are just because some asshole is trying to start shit. And saying someone's life wasn't in immediate danger because they didn't have a gun pointed at them is asinine. Any of us could kill someone with our bare hands.

  The duty to retreat does not require doing so if it actually contributes to putting yourself in danger, but keep making up facts to fit your argument.
• gut

  Me?;1540615 wrote:Because getting shot in the back while you're participating in your duty to retreat is not a viable self defense option.

  "bystander" would refer to someone not in harms way.
• Me?

  

  The hypothetical situations drawn up here have nothing to do with the reasons for having Stand Your Ground laws, which I thought is where this conversation went...