• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

You don't have to shoot first; but you better do something ~ FSNews

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
Quote Force Science news:
Our research tells us a standing suspect can draw a pistol from their waistband, point, and shoot in an average of .25 seconds.2 Our research also tells us that after the first trigger pull, each subsequent trigger pull will average another .25 seconds.3

But officers aren’t trained to “just pull the trigger.” Instead, they are trained to conduct threat assessments while maintaining their gun in various “ready positions.” These positions allow officers to focus their attention on the suspect (and the environment); while significantly reducing the time it takes to respond with aimed fire.

When we studied the speed in which officers could respond from various ready positions, we found that the bootleg position (pistol held behind the leg) was the slowest; taking an average of 1.3 seconds to raise the weapon, acquire a sight picture, and fire one round. The high ready position (pistol held extended just below the officer’s line of sight) resulted in the fastest average response time at .83 seconds.

Police, more than any other profession, appreciate the immense difficulty of identifying and responding to real-world assaults. To avoid split-second decisions, they have learned to recognize and value threat cues and suspicious patterns of conduct (schemas). Knowing the speed of assaults is why they give orders and prioritize tactics that reduce a suspect’s ability, opportunity, and willingness to assault them.

In the real world, officers do not have the luxury of standing perfectly still and intently focusing on possible weapons. They are scanning for available cover, improving their position, watching for crossfire, considering backdrops, attempting de-escalation, communicating with responding units, and coordinating with back officers.

This divided attention can significantly increase the time it takes for an officer to accurately perceive and consciously verify that a suspect has pulled a gun. But multitasking isn’t the only factor that affects perception and threat recognition.

In the real world, an officer’s physical capacity to see can affect perception, identification, and response time. As can environmental conditions like distance, light, shadows, wind, rain, and other physical obstructions.

We know that divided attention, physical limitations, and the environment can slow perception and response time; the question is, by how much? The answer is, we don’t know.

In complex, real-world use-of-force encounters, response time simply has too many variables to guess.

That said, we don’t need the exact numbers to make our point. UNQUOTE


that last sentence in their article says it all!
QI notwithstanding...when LE's are barking out commands, STOP or PUT DOWN... or YOU MUST LEAVE or or

are these statutory, per se., and just what are the legal ramifications of failing to abide by their mass issued commands to citizens?

Where does this sovereign immediate obey stance come from?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,248
Location
Kentucky
First I want to meet the thug that has .25 second draw and fire.

And I want to see the cop that has .83 second fire and hit from ANY position

And until I see it I'm calling BS on the whole " officer safety" article.

The whole article is hogwash.
 

Burt57

New member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
4
Great read and it makes at lot of sense for every gun owner to go through such seminar on assessing the situations before pulling the trigger.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
Great read and it makes at lot of sense for every gun owner to go through such seminar on assessing the situations before pulling the trigger.
remember, the commentary in the article is aimed at the privileged citizens [LEs] who have judicial QI not john q citizens who must unequivocally prove they feared for their lives or their loved one's lives before engaging in using a firearm for their self defence activities.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,198
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The United States Supreme Court case of Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562, 15 S. Ct. 962, 966, 39 L. Ed. 1086 (1895) said:
The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.
(my emphasis)
Did you catch that?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
Cops and citizens enjoy the same...however, a citizen in many cases needs to convince a judge of this. In many other cases, cops can see the clear facts of a justified SD and prosecutors extend the privilege (QI like) to the citizen of not going before a judge to make an affirmative defense...this is prosecutorial discretion...not QI!

...IOW...a prosecutor is not going to bring a case before a judge that he has good reason to believe a judge will toss out in a New York minute...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,198
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Perhaps in some states...in Missouri, a citizen must raise the defense of justification.
......... Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this section is offered, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification.
3. The defense of justification under this section is an affirmative defense.
WOW, an affirmative defense that the jury does NOT get to decide.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
WOW, an affirmative defense that the jury does NOT get to decide.
Not neccessarily...sometimes a prosecutor takes a obviously justified SD to the court and then a judge must decide, based on the specific facts, whether or not the case should move forward to a jury trial...if so, then the jury must decide based on the merits of the defense's case. Most justified SDs in MO never get past the prosecutor (circuit attorney)....though, some anti-individual liberty (aka anti-2A liberal prosecutor) moves the case to a judge...and then it is the rare case that a (anti-2A liberal) judge moves to a jury trial.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
OC, i'm more concerned by your statement, "most justified SDs" in that the discretion of "justified" is so arbitrary and based on quality of the investigation of the events and as you pointed out previously, whether or not the case can be successfully brought before the court and won!
 
Top