TexasCHLforum.com

I simply cannot believe you posted this.

I agree that an evaluation of the incident should occur, and steps taken to prevent like incidents from happening in the future, and justice should be served if needed, however, there is nothing that can be done now to bring that man back to life.

...and stated, "I am disarming", following their instructions.

I have three big issues with this tragic incident.

First, the CHL holder opted to stay in the store after being notified about store "policy" by an employee. This does not make sense to me, as it creates a problem that can be easily eliminated by simply leaving the store, and coming back at a later time. It is not clear whether or not he spoke directly with the store manager to clarify the policy, and it would appear to be the case that he did not. Here in Texas, we have the 30.06, and even if a store is not posted, or posted properly, I don't believe that arguing the point on the premises is the best course of action to take for the CHL holder. I believe the argument is best made through legal channels with the appropriate legal representation from both parties. It is quite possible that an issue could be easily resolved through simple written correspondence with management.

Second, the CHL holder by all accounts, motioned toward his firearm with his hand. I would not feel comfortable taking this action with 3 LEO's drawn down on me as I believe the potential to misinterpret movement would be too great a risk. I believe it would be much safer for all involved to simply maintain hands high, and slowly lower to ones knee's and prone out as there would be absolutely no chance of confusing this movement as "reaching for the gun". Even with witnesses around claiming that I "slowly reached to turn his gun over to the cops", in the end, it is still, "reaching for the gun". While some feel that being disarmed is dangerous, I believe the chances of my "safed" firearm discharging while being removed by an LEO are far less likely than being inadvertently shot by an amped up LEO who sees me "reaching for my gun" no matter how slowly I move.

The last big issue I have with this incident involves the tactics employed by the LEO's on the scene. Either the on scene LEO's failed to execute policy pertaining to apprehension, or they executed poor policy imo. Without the video, we will truly never really know. If the CHL holder was indeed calm, cooperative, and did not have a firearm in his hands, than I don't see how he could not have been physically controlled and cuffed by the 3 LEO's at the scene, with 1 to cover and 2 to control. Going "hands on" is part of the job, and a very effective way to swiftly gain control and secure an individual. We did it it in Afghanistan and Iraq, in full kit including armor and rifles, LEO's should be able to do the same with the minimal kit they have. Where were the TASER's? Does the LVMPD not use them? The use of a TASER in this incident could have very well saved this mans' life.

Bottom line: Poor decisions were made on both sides and a man is dead as a result of those poor decisions.

It no longer matters who was right or wrong. No lawsuit or policy change will bring that man back to life. He is gone.

Decision making and course of action development is a crucial skill in life, and as CHL holders, ones decisions may lead to unintended consequences that could prove fatal in the end, right or wrong. Choose wisely, and always go with the course of action that has the lowest chance of resulting in conflict and a potentially deadly encounter. I don't believe the individual in this case did that, and while I sympathize with his family, I believe this man would be alive today if he had simply walked away after the first encounter with the store employee.

Be careful out there...