Shall Not Be Questioned

Miguel has a rather graphic story from Spain, where a bystander was hit by a ricochet and lost an eye when a police officer had to fire at a knife wielding suspect. The reaction is one I have experience with:

The prosecution is also demanding monetary compensation to Mr. Castro for the loss of the eye and to Manjon for being shot by Officer Sanchez. According to the prosecuting attorney, Officer Sanchez did not need to use his firearm to stop the attack because he could have used his night stick or talk the subject down or him and his fellow officers rush Manjon and subdue him.

I have had European people I know express this exact same sentiment in a similar circumstance. For me it’s very difficult to understand why you’d expect a police officer to risk life and limb to save the life of someone who’s decided his life isn’t worth spit. I’ve pondered whether police officers are just not very highly respected in European culture, or whether Europeans put a higher value on the lives of violent criminals. Either way, it’s difficult for an American to understand.

I think if people are going to open carry, it’s a wise idea to use a quality holster with some retention features. This is why I think it’s a wise idea. Retention holsters aren’t perfect, but they at least give you some time to react to a grab.

UPDATE: This post had no content earlier. One of the risks of blogging ahead, because I don’t have access at work, is that I can’t log in to fix things. I put this post up hastily over lunch, and then didn’t manage to find out about it until later.

Joe Huffman describes a scenario. Go ahead and read. I’ll wait. You’ll need to read to understand my take.

Given that you have a force disparity (two younger men against an older man), I tend to think that this is legitimate self-defense, and thus a DGU. But two likely unarmed men against an armed man, you may be facing charges, and likely find yourself having to argue disparity of force, which is always an ambiguous enough a situation to want to avoid.

Based on his description (15 to 20 yards as described), he’s out of the range of most less than lethals. But I would point out that given the threat “I guess I’m going to have to fuck up your camera,” would completely warrant the immediate and un-threatened use of chemical defenses, regardless of how the situation progressed from there.

Given the situation, I think this person acted prudently. But the real question, if it came down to that, is how a jury would see it. That’s the ultimate question, and the only one that matters in the end, really. That’s why I advocate carrying defense that runs the whole spectrum of force. You’re generally going to be far better off defending the use of less than lethal force than you are defending the threat of deadly force. The important thing is to have options.