Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hypothetical Scenario - Need opinions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by darkenna View Post
    You're thinking like a public officer, not a private citizen. The bar owner cares. Therefore his employees also need to care. It becomes a part of their worries.
    Point taken.
    I believe I speak for everyone here sir, when I say, to Hell with our orders.
    -Lieutenant Commander Data
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #32
      I think this is a good discussion, which clearly illustrates the differences between police and security training.

      Now although I am a police officer, 95% of my current assignment is security related (I won't post what I do or where I work on the open forum, but if anyone is curious, I would be happy to talk about it via PM). This case is clearly a deadly force situation. My training tells me to meet Deadly Force with Deadly Force ... the liability involved doesn't matter.

      Several security officers have mentioned the liability implications of shooting the subject and the fact that they "believe" that they could disarm the subject by striking him with a baton.

      Well what if you don't? What if you loose? That is a possibility you know. You also talk about using the baton as a defensive tool. My training tells me to never use my ASP defensively, but to use it offensively when practical and escalate to deadly force when that is precluded.

      Anyway, like I was saying, I think these responses clearly illustrate the differences between police and security training even when we are doing the same job. So although I am working in a security role, I will still react based upon my police training.

      Also I don't think my comment about shooting the "MoFo" is immature. It's true. My duty is to first protect my life, because if I am not standing at the end of the fight, then I am of no help to the very people I showed up to help.

      NEVER BRING A BOTTLE TO A GUNFIGHT.

      I carry a weapon as the ultimate means of control over my environment and that can mean using lethal force to control my environment, do my job and go home at the end of my tour.
      Last edited by mjw064; 03-18-2008, 07:48 PM.
      Washington DC

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by darkenna View Post
        Dougo, calm down. You're not helping your position. Mjw064... same goes for you. If the two of you can't talk nice, I'm gonna have to ask you to step to opposite ends of the bar.

        (Incidently... that is similar to the line/idea most uttered by bouncers.)

        Now, to business.

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by mjw064
        in any case, i'm shooting the MoFo.
        i'm going home at the end of my tour.
        never bring a bottle to a gunfight.


        If this is truly how you feel, I am sorry to tell you that you will never (and probably should never) be employed in a bar.

        A bouncer has 3 jobs: (1) make sure all state liquor control requirements are met; (2) protect the patrons, employees, and assets of the bar from receiving harm, if possible; and (3) protect the reputation of the bar.

        That last one's important. If a bar has a bad rep, its patrons will disappear. No patrons, no income. No income... no bar. (And nothing can damage a bar's rep more than "Don't go there... the bouncer shot a guy inside.")

        99% of bouncers are not LEOs. (In at least one state, they can't be.) Most don't want to be. Most like guns, but would never dream of using one inside the bar. Why not? 2 reasons: in case something goes awry, they're not covered by any specific legal protections; and the risks of collateral damage, and liability to the bar owners, employees, and the bouncer, are way too high. The bouncer isn't there to stop crime. The bouncer isn't there to make arrests. The bouncer isn't there to be a hero. The bouncer is there to try to keep the peace, in a peaceful manner. The Roadhouse style bouncer of the past is becoming a very rare thing.
        A bouncer not being a LEO means nothing in this state. Dougo is in Texas, just like I am. My entire career (public and private) has been here, and my alarm at what Dougo has posted is high. An edged weapon doesn't care if you are sworn or not.
        .
        Authorization and need to use deadly force is no different for anyone in Texas, and the common sense rules for what to do are no different either. No matter what state you're in it's point blank foolish to get within arms reach of someone with an edged weapon

        Before I became any kind of LEO I was a Security Officer, my 2nd job was as an unarmed club security officer (bouncer).

        Back then, I thought the same way and took the ridicules chances Dougo admits to have taken. I didn't know any better.

        Now I do, and it's painful to watch Dougo disagree with people who have way more experience than he does. If he keeps thinking the way he does, he's going to get himself hurt or killed, or worse, get some innocent person hurt or killed.

        The purpose of this forum is exchange of ideas and education. If people aren't willing to listen, then whats the point?
        ~Black Caesar~
        Corbier's Commandos

        " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by darkenna View Post
          It's only a deadly force situation if you are person authorized to use deadly force in your state, like a LEO.
          LOL, you've never been to Texas have you. There is ZERO difference between when a private citizen can use force and when a LEO can, as I said in my last post. This is Texas.

          Bar security are almost always NOT LEOs. And most of the time, they don't have the option of "retreat"... they're job is to get involved, even if it puts them at risk. There does come a point of "overwhelming force" where you back off... and call the police.
          No private citizen in Texas EVER has a duty to act in the situation you are talking about, has no affirmative duty to get themselves hurt. Period. A contract that requires such is an illegal contract. A private S/Os decision to use Deadly Force (or any force, or to retreat) has to do with their circumstances, not with any kind of coercion by an employer.

          Frankly, if I'd simply shot everyone who came at me in a bar using "deadly force" levels of violence/weapons... there'd be a trail of probably 200 bodies behind me over the last 10 years, along with 30 or 40 innocents. Just because some drunk comes at me with a bottle/Swiss army knife/pool cue/bar stool doesn't mean I'm going to shoot him. There are better ways for me to handle it. And anyone who has the training of a LEO has better tools in their repertoire to handle it as well. Yeah, I've been beat up a couple of times. I've had more than a few stitches. And you know what? I've gone home at the end of every shift.

          And just because I think this doesn't mean I'm an idiot, either. The bar's local PD is on speeddial on my phone; very useful when an idiot brings a gun into the situation. I've never seen so many pulled and pointed weapons in my life... and no one got shot. (This was 4 weeks ago.) I call that a success. No one has ever died in any bar I was working in. If I have my way, no one will.
          I hope that it never happens anywhere. That's not the point.

          The point is that what Dougo is espousing is reckless, unnecessary and to be blunt demonstrates the same lack of training that was prevalent in the Private bar/club security scene that existed 13 years ago when I did it full time (Ive done it part time since, as a private S/O and as a LEO).

          Can't say it enough. When unarmed and confronted with a deadly weapon RETREAT. Simple as that.
          ~Black Caesar~
          Corbier's Commandos

          " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mjw064 View Post
            I think this is a good discussion, which clearly illustrates the differences between police and security training.

            Now although I am a police officer, 95% of my current assignment is security related (I won't post what I do or where I work on the open forum, but if anyone is curious, I would be happy to talk about it via PM). This case is clearly a deadly force situation. My training tells me to meet Deadly Force with Deadly Force ... the liability involved doesn't matter.

            Several security officers have mentioned the liability implications of shooting the subject and the fact that they "believe" that they could disarm the subject by striking him with a baton.

            Well what if you don't? What if you loose? That is a possibility you know. You also talk about using the baton as a defensive tool. My training tells me to never use my ASP defensively, but to use it offensively when practical and escalate to deadly force when that is precluded.

            Anyway, like I was saying, I think these responses clearly illustrate the differences between police and security training even when we are doing the same job. So although I am working in a security role, I will still react based upon my police training.

            Also I don't think my comment about shooting the "MoFo" is immature. It's true. My duty is to first protect my life, because if I am not standing at the end of the fight, then I am of no help to the very people I showed up to help.

            NEVER BRING A BOTTLE TO A GUNFIGHT.

            I carry a weapon as the ultimate means of control over my environment and that can mean using lethal force to control my environment, do my job and go home at the end of my tour.
            Well put, as a Campus Police Officer Im in the exact same boat, "law enforcement" activities and responsibilities exist, but most of my job is protection (security). Thing is, like you I wasn't always a cop of any kind.

            It's not the difference between police training and security training. It's the difference between proper defensive tactics training and what most unarmed private Texas security officers get, which is next to no training at all.

            When I worked for cheap fly by night security companies (like at my 1st bar), all they give is what the state mandates. Hell, unarmed texas S/Os never have to step foot in any class room, the "training" is ONLINE. not an OUNCE of DT training. It wasn't till I got to Wackenhut that I got any DT training at all. And my experience was typical.

            It's almost criminal IMO the way businesses are allowed to put people in harms way with little or no formal training.
            Last edited by Black Caesar; 03-18-2008, 08:50 PM.
            ~Black Caesar~
            Corbier's Commandos

            " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
              It's not the difference between police training and security training. It's the difference between proper defensive tactics training and what most unarmed private Texas security officers get, which is next to no training at all.
              Don't forget, BC, that this is true across the country, not only in Texas.

              Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
              It's almost criminal IMO the way businesses are allowed to put people in harms way with little or no formal training.
              I agree 100%.

              I'm in a very similar boat myself. While I haven't made the leap to full-fledged LEO yet, I've been through many of the same training classes over the years. (Sometimes it helps to know the right people.. lol) When I first started in my security career, I was a bouncer at a bar. Fortunately, I never received the half-a$$ed training that some have, because the other bouncer who was working there at the time was a former LEO who made sure I knew what I was doing. We did not work armed, but IF we had I have no doubts he would agree with my assessment here that this is a lethal force scenario. Regardless of the bar owner's concerns or any property damage, HUMAN LIFE COMES FIRST.

              Keep in mind here we're talking about a guy who is intoxicated. That means that his motor skills are severely hampered. If he tries to attack me with that EDGED WEAPON he just fashioned, there's a very good chance he could hit someone else with it along his path! Not to mention start attacking other patrons if he manages to get to me before I can take him down. Then what do we have? An officer laying bleeding on the floor, and a mad drunk rampaging on the other patrons with a blade!

              Sorry guys, you can think it's immature if you want, or disagree all you want, but in my mind, if this guy comes at me with that broken bottle he's getting 2 in the chest. Period.
              Corbier's Commandos - "Stickin it to the ninjas!"
              Originally posted by ValleyOne
              BANG, next thing you know Bob's your Uncle and this Sgt is seemingly out on his a$$.
              Shoulda called in sick.
              Be safe!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by darkenna View Post
                It's only a deadly force situation if you are person authorized to use deadly force in your state, like a LEO.
                On a side note:

                I don't know what state you're from, but last I checked ANY citizen has the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from imminent use of lethal force. Not just LEOs. I suppose there may be a bass-ackwards state out there somewhere that doesn't agree though...
                Corbier's Commandos - "Stickin it to the ninjas!"
                Originally posted by ValleyOne
                BANG, next thing you know Bob's your Uncle and this Sgt is seemingly out on his a$$.
                Shoulda called in sick.
                Be safe!

                Comment


                • #38
                  An interesting discussion.

                  It amazes me that anyone would be allowed to go armed in a bar at all considering the implications.

                  And having only ever worked in the "bouncer/crowd control" side of security many years back, it is my belief that guns, batons and sprays are not carried in any bars here in OZ. (Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while)

                  So with that in mind what would your suggestions then be given the original scenario, how would you approach this unarmed?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I agree with Aussie-SO...

                    What are you doing armed in a bar in the first place??? It is clearly a close quarter situation and a gun is not practical in this case. I can entertain the issue of having maybe a 16" baton that would collapse to fit in my back pocket and not be seen. But that would mean you would have to be about a foot away from the assailant to effectively use that baton...and that sort of defeats the purpose of having it. When you have anytyhing exposed on your belt, it becomes an issue of weapons retention, whether it be a sidearm, baton, or OC spray.

                    When it comes to security in a bar...you had better know your hand-to-hand because thats about all you got goin' for ya!
                    "Be courteous. Be polite. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet!" --U.S. Marines

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Aussie-SO View Post
                      So with that in mind what would your suggestions then be given the original scenario, how would you approach this unarmed?
                      Honestly? If I were unarmed and this guy has a broken bottle, I'm probably going to do 2 things:

                      1. Yell at the bartender/manager/other bouncer/etc to call 911 PRONTO, while I retreat outside.
                      2. (This will probably seem odd) While retreating, I would probably be taunting the guy to get him to follow me. At least if he follows me outside then I know he's not attacking/harming other patrons, and I've probably got a LOT more room to work with outside than I do inside the bar.

                      Sounds odd, I'm sure. But if I'm unarmed, going against a guy with an edged weapon, I want as much room as I can possibly have so that I can at least TRY to defend myself.
                      Corbier's Commandos - "Stickin it to the ninjas!"
                      Originally posted by ValleyOne
                      BANG, next thing you know Bob's your Uncle and this Sgt is seemingly out on his a$$.
                      Shoulda called in sick.
                      Be safe!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think this is a good discussion, which clearly illustrates the differences between police and security training.
                        This is most certainly true. Most S/O's have to give a crap about their client's things, LEO's, from what I have seen and gathered, really do not as much. If we empty a mag in a bar, we have alot of people to answer to, including the owner of everything hit by a missed round. I don't care who it is or what training they have, everyone misses sometimes, more often in high stress situations.

                        Now although I am a police officer, 95% of my current assignment is security related (I won't post what I do or where I work on the open forum, but if anyone is curious, I would be happy to talk about it via PM). This case is clearly a deadly force situation. My training tells me to meet Deadly Force with Deadly Force ... the liability involved doesn't matter.
                        That frightens me, liability involved doesn't matter? If this was the case with all LE Depts, the PIT would be done for every chase. Or you would have LEO's blazing out their cruiser windows during traffic pursuits. Since this generally doesn't happen, except on COPS, liability must matter to someone in the LEO world. Also, if liability doesn't matter, I surely stand by the statement that I hope you are off-duty when I come to DC. I don't want to get shot while you are trying to handle something else. If this is how y'all are trained, I may avoid DC altogether.

                        Several security officers have mentioned the liability implications of shooting the subject and the fact that they "believe" that they could disarm the subject by striking him with a baton.
                        I do not know about the ability to do it with the baton. I have done it with my hands and seen it done with a chair. Hell, it could probably be done with anything. All I am saying is the environment is not conducive to safe firearm discharge, well, as safe as it can get I guess.

                        Well what if you don't? What if you loose? That is a possibility you know. You also talk about using the baton as a defensive tool. My training tells me to never use my ASP defensively, but to use it offensively when practical and escalate to deadly force when that is precluded.
                        What if? What if? What if? What if you miss with your firearm? There are so many possibilities than you could not possibly account for, it wouldn't matter who trained you. Also, in security, nothing we use is an offensive tool per se, at least in TX. We are not endowed like LEO's with the ability and legal coverage to shoot first and ask questions later. Since this is a security forum, that is quite important. We do not have that luxury. Most of us can be held liable for our actions, even if justified in criminal court.

                        Anyway, like I was saying, I think these responses clearly illustrate the differences between police and security training even when we are doing the same job.
                        This is very true. We have to be more defensive and careful in our use of deadly force. For example, we cannot draw our weapon until we feel the need to use deadly force. "Stop or I'll shoot!!" doesn't fly in the security world.

                        So although I am working in a security role, I will still react based upon my police training.
                        See, in TX you run the risk of getting in trouble here. When in security uniform, you are an S/O, LEO training means squat. You cannot use it and you must adhere to security law. This is why most LEO's have to recieve S/O certs to work with us.

                        Also I don't think my comment about shooting the "MoFo" is immature.
                        I think it was an immature choice of words. Even us lowly rent-a-cops would say 'perp,' 'subject,' 'assailant,' or anything but 'mofo.' Also, it shows a cavalier and dangerous mindset IMO.

                        It's true. My duty is to first protect my life,
                        Is that what 'protect and serve' really means? If so, I want a refund on all my tax dollars.

                        because if I am not standing at the end of the fight, then I am of no help to the very people I showed up to help.
                        Again, if you shoot civvies, you aren't helping anyone either.


                        NEVER BRING A BOTTLE TO A GUNFIGHT.
                        Never butcher a quote from a great movie...

                        I carry a weapon as the ultimate means of control over my environment and that can mean using lethal force to control my environment, do my job and go home at the end of my tour.
                        This is true, I also carry other options to avoid taking a life when other means could have been exhausted. Agree with it or not, I will not pull my gun in a bar unless it is damn near empty.

                        Note: All the information I have regarding legality is based on TXDPS laws, they may not be the same for all...

                        P.S. I am sure you may be a great cop, but some of the things you have said truly frighten me as far as your willingness to resort to deadly force.

                        P.P.S. I am mostly stating the opinion, I am not sure if I mentioned it earlier, that we should use caution as there are so many different ways that this OP could play out. So many factors cannot be adequately discussed in FOF training, much less on a forum. I point out what many new S/O's need to realize. I am trying to provide an alternative to shooting a subject as a newb may take that and do it and get in a whole lot of mess later on...

                        Have a great day...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Charger View Post
                          Honestly? If I were unarmed and this guy has a broken bottle, I'm probably going to do 2 things:

                          1. Yell at the bartender/manager/other bouncer/etc to call 911 PRONTO, while I retreat outside.
                          2. (This will probably seem odd) While retreating, I would probably be taunting the guy to get him to follow me. At least if he follows me outside then I know he's not attacking/harming other patrons, and I've probably got a LOT more room to work with outside than I do inside the bar.

                          Sounds odd, I'm sure. But if I'm unarmed, going against a guy with an edged weapon, I want as much room as I can possibly have so that I can at least TRY to defend myself.
                          This is insane, but quite frankly useful. It is part of the protective mission, to protect the patrons and employees of the bar by becoming the primary focus of the aggressor.

                          As far as this odd, "You shouldn't have a gun in a bar," I have no problem with armed police or security in a bar.

                          You should, if you are carrying a pistol, have the sense to be trained in weapon retention and be carrying a holster conducive to that training.
                          Some Kind of Commando Leader

                          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Charger
                            On a side note:

                            I don't know what state you're from, but last I checked ANY citizen has the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from imminent use of lethal force. Not just LEOs. I suppose there may be a bass-ackwards state out there somewhere that doesn't agree though...
                            NH TITLE LXII
                            CRIMINAL CODE
                            CHAPTER 627: JUSTIFICATION


                            Section 627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
                            III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
                            (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
                            (b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
                            (c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
                            (d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.


                            Massachusetts has a similar law, only more restrictive; however, I cannot remember offhand exactly where it is, and I'm not going sifting through the M.G.L. to find it at midnight. You may feel free to if you'd like. Good luck; Massachusetts General Laws are byzantine by any standards (except NY's and CA's... I have no idea how those states manage to get anything done at all. Have you perused their laws? NY doesn't even have a way of repealing or removing an old or obsolete statute... so every statute ever passed is technically still on the books, even if it was overridden by a later statute. Makes the head spin. )

                            Anyways, if I can withdraw, and I know the third party can withdraw, and I'm not an authorized peace officer, I can't use deadly force. Even if the other guy clearly doesn't want to withdraw. Which, if I am there to keep the peace, puts me in a bit of a quandary, doesn't it.

                            Originally posted by Charger
                            Honestly? If I were unarmed and this guy has a broken bottle, I'm probably going to do 2 things:

                            1. Yell at the bartender/manager/other bouncer/etc to call 911 PRONTO, while I retreat outside.
                            2. (This will probably seem odd) While retreating, I would probably be taunting the guy to get him to follow me. At least if he follows me outside then I know he's not attacking/harming other patrons, and I've probably got a LOT more room to work with outside than I do inside the bar.

                            Sounds odd, I'm sure. But if I'm unarmed, going against a guy with an edged weapon, I want as much room as I can possibly have so that I can at least TRY to defend myself.
                            It does indeed sound odd. It's also very smart; it keeps the guy coming after you and not harming anyone else, and it also draws him into an area where he can be dealt with without most of those liability concerns. I've done this repeatedly. It's very effective; remember, drunks love a challenge.

                            Originally posted by navyleo
                            I agree with Aussie-SO...

                            What are you doing armed in a bar in the first place??? It is clearly a close quarter situation and a gun is not practical in this case. I can entertain the issue of having maybe a 16" baton that would collapse to fit in my back pocket and not be seen. But that would mean you would have to be about a foot away from the assailant to effectively use that baton...and that sort of defeats the purpose of having it. When you have anytyhing exposed on your belt, it becomes an issue of weapons retention, whether it be a sidearm, baton, or OC spray.

                            When it comes to security in a bar...you had better know your hand-to-hand because thats about all you got goin' for ya!
                            Agreed. Also the point I was trying to make earlier, tho I don't think I expressed it well.
                            Last edited by darkenna; 03-19-2008, 01:27 AM.
                            "I don't do judgment. Just retrieval."

                            "The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by dougo83 View Post
                              That frightens me, liability involved doesn't matter? If this was the case with all LE Depts, the PIT would be done for every chase. Or you would have LEO's blazing out their cruiser windows during traffic pursuits. Since this generally doesn't happen, except on COPS, liability must matter to someone in the LEO world. Also, if liability doesn't matter, I surely stand by the statement that I hope you are off-duty when I come to DC. I don't want to get shot while you are trying to handle something else. If this is how y'all are trained, I may avoid DC altogether.
                              Then you need to avoid Texas as well, because MJW is right, public peace officer of private security officer, liabilty doesn't mean SQUAT if your are dead. All of my training (including level IV PPO and a police academy) agrees with MJW.

                              Which begs the question. What formal training do you have Dougo?

                              The events you mention (chases) are not deadly force situtions per se. What MJW said was:
                              My training tells me to meet Deadly Force with Deadly Force ... the liability involved doesn't matter
                              if you're worried about getting sued or losing your job when someone is trying to kill you then you are, point blank, in the wrong line of work.


                              What if? What if? What if? What if you miss with your firearm? There are so many possibilities than you could not possibly account for, it wouldn't matter who trained you. Also, in security, nothing we use is an offensive tool per se, at least in TX. [b]We are not endowed like LEO's with the ability and legal coverage to shoot first and ask questions later.
                              Since this is a security forum, that is quite important. We do not have that luxury. Most of us can be held liable for our actions, even if justified in criminal court.

                              What the hell state are you talking about, because it ain't Texas. I have, time and again, posted links to articles of Texas SOs and other private citizens using deadly force (in situations that leave non-Texas SOs scratching their heads lol) with no ill consequences.

                              And Texas LEOs "shooting 1st and asking questions later". Excuse me?


                              I think it was an immature choice of words. Even us lowly rent-a-cops would say 'perp,' 'subject,' 'assailant,' or anything but 'mofo.' Also, it shows a cavalier and dangerous mindset IMO.
                              This part is just silly. "Perp"? This isn't NYPD Blue....


                              Is that what 'protect and serve' really means? If so, I want a refund on all my tax dollars.
                              You insist on digging yourself deeper huh. Well, I'm sorry, but you infinite lack of training is showing, either that, or the people who trained you didn't know what they were talking about.



                              P.P.S. I am mostly stating the opinion, I am not sure if I mentioned it earlier, that we should use caution as there are so many different ways that this OP could play out. So many factors cannot be adequately discussed in FOF training, much less on a forum. I point out what many new S/O's need to realize. I am trying to provide an alternative to shooting a subject as a newb may take that and do it and get in a whole lot of mess later on...
                              i'm sorry to have to say this, Dougo, but the newb is you. You simply need more or better training, and I'm not trying to be mean here. What you've said here is some of the most freightening crap I've read in a long time, more so because you're in Texas, and your obvious misconceptions could lead you down a seriously disaterous path.

                              I wish you were in Dallas, because then I could introduce you to the fine people at DFW Gun Club (where I recieved my PPO training, and where I always went for my S/O continuing education). They aren't all about guns, but offer several Security officer street survival type course. A couple instructors are ex-military guys I worked with a Wackenhut and Barton (before it was Allied Barton). Truthfully, they would cry if they read some of the things you've said on here.

                              I serious as a heart attack, get better training.
                              ~Black Caesar~
                              Corbier's Commandos

                              " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Ok this has to be a scenario by scenario assessment as what may be seen as simple would actually be very different in say a redneck bar, to a work drinkers bar to a karaoke suit bar to a normal bar where people can have a feed with their family out the back.

                                I am going to take a summary of what has been posted (fastest response to go 5 pages in a few hours) and look at it this way.

                                Ok so we have a bar (we will assume it's a bit crowded) with people having fun, bit of dancing, drinking talking and groups having a good time. A clown smashes a bottle and APPEARS to prepare to come at you - I take that as a serious threat to my person and to those around him. Now we have 3 options - Baton, OC and Firearm.

                                Regardless of experience, you have to make a split decision. Assuming it is reasonably crowded let's consider each one:

                                1. Baton - you need to be able to get this opened under a stressful situation. How many hours are spent in assumed stressful situations training courses together with strike zones ? Bugger All !!!

                                2. OC - not used here by anyone but police though I have trained with it in the 90's. Yes it does spread a bit and yes it does often not always get the target directly or stop them. How good a shot are you then ??

                                3. Firearm - shooting at targets or silouettes are fun and we enjoy the drills but under a stressful situation rounds go everywhere but not as intended. It takes a strictly trained person like Anti-Crime, Special Weapons, etc who can drill and repeat these stressful situations. What are the mandatory re-accreds for LEO's and security ? Annuals - so it takes hours of under stress training to even deal with the scenario.

                                So what is best ? Every situation is defined with good and bad points. Escalation of force needs to be taken into consideration and this BS of saying I would shoot them in the hand or hips or whatever is too much Hollywood for me to deal with. Ever shot a silouette had winged the target during training ? It happens sometimes and under stress sometimes a round misses the target from 6 feet away. So where did it go then ? Was it in the wall, the bar or an innocent person behind the aggressor ?

                                To basically say "this is what I would do and dispel any other input is stupidity at it's finest". Yes we are to protect ourselves, our colleges, other people and lastly the agressor with our actions but what may work in 1 situation will not work in 1. Now Dougo explained his situation about a drunk he had to deal with and came home at the end of the shift. It worked fine in that situation and may work again 2,000 times, but this was in his environment where he works and he knows the kind of patrons.

                                But this may not work in say East LA (Scarey place) or in some other venues due to the patrons and what their friends may do if you pulled out a firearm. EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT and has to be treated that way. If it comes down to HIM OR ME it is going to be me who goes home that night but I don't care who you are - but to discount the fact that a stray round could kill an innocent or cause a spinal injury is something I could not live with.

                                I would look at all sides of the argument before you say 1 or all of the 3 responses are correct as each has their own negatives, and remember that whilst dealing with crowds, everyone is a lawyer - and sometimes those so called lawyers will jump you without warning whilst you are protecting yourself.

                                There is no perfect answer ............. as every scenario is different.
                                "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X