DEB wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 15, 2018 9:21 pm
I agree with E. Marquez, but also with all of these recent mass shootings, it seems almost criminal to not step forward, especially in a Church service. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ. Does one wait until the agitated man pulls a knife or gun? Or, what if he grabbed a child and swung the child forcefully into a pew? The question is, when does one respond? Also, how does one respond? Its tough and I sure don't know the answer, but maybe if someone would have responded in the Synagogue in Pittsburg earlier, like if the individual first came in and started yelling, prior to shooting, who knows? I am not saying that is what occurred, but often folks start acting all agitated before getting fully aggressive. Because sure as all get out, if you wait until that knife or gun is pulled out, or you get sucker punched and he takes your firearm, it is going to get a whole lot worse.
We have two very separate and decidedly different discussions running;
1) The actions of a man with a CHL badge and a firearm inside a church in PA.
2) When a firearm should/may be introduced into a conflict.
Regarding number 1, based on available reports, the fellow causing the disturbance in the church should (as noted) have been approached by members of the church staff/"approved" members of the congregation, and asked to leave, simultaneously with someone calling 911. Escalate application of force as necessary, but, most importantly, have a plan to do so.
Number 2 is very straightforward. If the situation does not start with the threat/apparent threat of death or grievous bodily injury to the person with the firearm, or those for whom they have reasonable legal or social responsibility, pulling a gun is not the answer. Being prepared to do so, and most importantly, being able to perform on demand
, is justified. Flashing a pseudo-authoritative, semi-legal, talisman while offering deadly force to a loudmouth was judged to be criminal.
IMHO, the ONLY time a CHL/LTC "badge" is either "useful" or "practical" is if you are intentionally using it to create the impression that you have legitimate authority greater than the normal civilian or CHL/LTC holder. Patently illegal and very risky.
Edit to add: DEB, this is why the ability to verbalize one's reasoning in escalation of force is critical. In legal terms, pretty much across all states, one has to be in, "reasonable and imminent fear of death or grievous bodily injury," as noted previously. Experience and training go a loooong way to giving credibility to this, or training that allows one to verbally orient one's actions, in line and in context, so that it is in agreement with those having greater experience (e.g., arriving/reporting LEOs and the DA's investigators). If you can't say why you did something at a particular time, you're betting on luck, even if your actions are correct.