TexasCHLforum.com

I do not want to start useless speculation on who was right or wrong here, and I really hope that I do not, given the inconsistency of the facts alleged and the fact that an investigation has just begun. I do think this story is food for thought should one of us some day find himself in the situation of either the LEO or the person shot.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... e-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Edit: In an effort to avoid distracting confusion, I will note that the article claims 1.1 seconds between the LEO's order and the shooting, while the above link says 11 seconds.

A police officer really should not see you with your weapon in your hand. You know your the GG, they don't.

This was a tragic situation with both sides making critical mistakes. I can understand the homeowner seeing deputies arriving and thinking everything was okay. He quite possibly didn't even realize he had a gun in his hand as hand because higher order thinking is suppressed during flight-or-fight situations. Even if he did, under this high stress situation, he would be less likely to appreciate the fact that the arriving deputies would not immediately know he was the homeowner as opposed to the burglar he had reported was trying to enter the home.

The officer saying "show me your hands" is not at all surprising. This is a phrase that is drilled into every cadet in the police academy. Under stress, it easy to revert back to training even when issuing verbal commands. I won't mention the agency but a cadet doing computerized shoot-no-shoot drills that were video recorded faced a scenario with a man holding a baby and a knife while threatening to kill the baby. The cadet held his gun on the man and repeated screamed "drop the baby, drop the baby." When the scenario was over, he wouldn't believe he said that until he watched the video.

Higher order thinking along with fine motor skills melt away when the physiological responses of "fight-or-flight" take over. These facts are stressed in tactical training and it's something every gun owner needs to understand, study and train.

This was a tragedy for all concerned.

Chas.

I thought one quote in the article was interesting (see the bold part):

"Police officers are supposed to be trained to handle these situations," Scott said. "Homeowners are not trained to handle a home invasion. ... (Heyward) probably showed him his hands, and he got shot for it."

I disagree. If we're going to take on that responsibility, we should treat it as a responsibility, and work towards training ourselves. I can't say 100% sure that I would have dropped the gun any quicker (or even before opening the door), but I know I'm going to be thinking about this incident, and using it as part of my "homeowner's training".

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ...higher order thinking along with fine motor skills melt away when the physiological responses of "fight-or-flight" take over. These facts are stressed in tactical training and it's something every gun owner needs to understand, study and train.

This was a tragedy for all concerned.

Chas.

Couldn't be more true.

Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...
The officer saying "show me your hands" is not at all surprising. This is a phrase that is drilled into every cadet in the police academy. Under stress, it easy to revert back to training even when issuing verbal commands. I won't mention the agency but a cadet doing computerized shoot-no-shoot drills that were video recorded faced a scenario with a man holding a baby and a knife while threatening to kill the baby. The cadet held his gun on the man and repeated screamed "drop the baby, drop the baby." When the scenario was over, he wouldn't believe he said that until he watched the video.

Higher order thinking along with fine motor skills melt away when the physiological responses of "fight-or-flight" take over. These facts are stressed in tactical training and it's something every gun owner needs to understand, study and train.


Chas.

Twenty years ago, I took my first concealed carry class and later Defensive Pistol from Urban Firearms Institute in Mesa, AZ. Shoot/No Shoot on a simulator was part of both classes. It was very eye opening the responses.

Bad deal. Certainly a mistake. People make them.

I just saw something that was interesting - it suggested that during a "home invasion" that you actually ask for the fire department due to an "emergency":
1) Usually their response time is faster.
2) They're not going to accidentally kill you.
3) The lights / sirens have the desirable effect of announcing rapidly approaching authority - IE, likely to dissuade attackers.

I'm not advocating calling the incorrect support for the situation, but I know that I'd be much more comfortable dealing with the fire department than I would dealing with PD that is responding to an in-progress armed event.. Sure seems like other people are thinking through these events.

cb1000rider wrote:Bad deal. Certainly a mistake. People make them.

I just saw something that was interesting - it suggested that during a "home invasion" that you actually ask for the fire department due to an "emergency":
1) Usually their response time is faster.
2) They're not going to accidentally kill you.
3) The lights / sirens have the desirable effect of announcing rapidly approaching authority - IE, likely to dissuade attackers.

I'm not advocating calling the incorrect support for the situation, but I know that I'd be much more comfortable dealing with the fire department than I would dealing with PD that is responding to an in-progress armed event.. Sure seems like other people are thinking through these events.

Where did you see that about requesting the FD? I can't imagine doing that. I can't imagine a 911 operator even dispatching a FD for a home invasion call. And what would the FD do if they arrived for a generic "emergency" call and walked in on a home invasion. I can imagine some real trouble for whoever called 911.

In general, I can't figure out who is more responsible for this really really really unfortunate event. Probably the homeowner, though, since he knew he was walking out to greet the officer and took the handgun with him in the first place. But, that's not to say the officer didn't make any mistakes. 1.1 seconds and no indication that any motion was made by the homeowner that could have been interpreted as a threat.

I don't know what else they will be able to determine from the video since it doesn't show anything. I hope the homeowner recovers. I also hope this event doesn't destroy the officer and he learns from it.

I think it is tragic for all involved and there are lessons for cops and non-cops. Situatiins like this end up as part training sessions.

To me it just says: don't call the police until it's over and you can put you gun away. I don't want my dogs getting shot either. OTOH, it doesn't matter much in my case since by the time any police showed up out in the country where I live it would be over, long over. A 20 minute response would be about the best I could ever expect, and it's more likely to be over 30 minutes before anyone could show up.

b322da wrote:I do not want to start useless speculation on who was right or wrong here, and I really hope that I do not, given the inconsistency of the facts alleged and the fact that an investigation has just begun. I do think this story is food for thought should one of us some day find himself in the situation of either the LEO or the person shot.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... e-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Edit: In an effort to avoid distracting confusion, I will note that the article claims 1.1 seconds between the LEO's order and the shooting, while the above link says 11 seconds.

I'm guessing the link says 11 seconds because a period would probably mess up the URL. On the video you hear the shot just about coincident with the last word of the officer's command.

VMI77 wrote:

b322da wrote:I do not want to start useless speculation on who was right or wrong here, and I really hope that I do not, given the inconsistency of the facts alleged and the fact that an investigation has just begun. I do think this story is food for thought should one of us some day find himself in the situation of either the LEO or the person shot.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... e-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Edit: In an effort to avoid distracting confusion, I will note that the article claims 1.1 seconds between the LEO's order and the shooting, while the above link says 11 seconds.

I'm guessing the link says 11 seconds because a period would probably mess up the URL. On the video you hear the shot just about coincident with the last word of the officer's command.

Probably on the link. I only heard one shot. The article says two, but I only heard one. Were they just that fast?

C-dub wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

b322da wrote:I do not want to start useless speculation on who was right or wrong here, and I really hope that I do not, given the inconsistency of the facts alleged and the fact that an investigation has just begun. I do think this story is food for thought should one of us some day find himself in the situation of either the LEO or the person shot.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... e-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Edit: In an effort to avoid distracting confusion, I will note that the article claims 1.1 seconds between the LEO's order and the shooting, while the above link says 11 seconds.

I'm guessing the link says 11 seconds because a period would probably mess up the URL. On the video you hear the shot just about coincident with the last word of the officer's command.

Probably on the link. I only heard one shot. The article says two, but I only heard one. Were they just that fast?

I only heard one shot but maybe I didn't pay close enough attention.