Following a controversial shooting in Sacramento, California, legislation has been introduced to change the legal standard for law enforcement in California from using “objectively reasonable force” to “necessary force.” Under this new standard, police officers would be legally allowed to use deadly force only if “there were no other reasonable alternatives to prevent serious injury or death,” according to a spokesperson for the ACLU. (see FSN #363). Also, it should be noted that the push for this type of legislative change is not limited to California. Also, I raise the concern as to future potential application of these proposals to the general citizenry. Is the fundamental right of self defense itself at risk? [read more here]
The call to repeal the second Amendment is a prelude to war. Such seeks to void the foundational contract between We the People and the government formed to serve. The ultimate power of the People to resist tyranny and oppression by force of arms, as a last resort, is not subject to repeal. Whether this effort be founded on ignorance or malice, is not relevant.
Any attempt to confiscate the weapons of the American people will be an act of war. So it was on April 19, 1775, and so it will be again.
We can either learn from history, or repeat it.
Historical Reading :
Principles of Our Republic: 6150-PrinciplesOfOurRepublic.pdf
As a CCW carrier, you most likely won’t be in a position of arresting someone. You are not a police officer. But, you may find yourself in the position of having to hold a person at gun point. In that context, the facts and circumstances and your METHOD OF DISPLAY are going to be used by the legal system to determine if you used “excessive force” or “reasonable force”. READ THE ARTICLE HERE (PDF)
Specifically, what is the policy of your County Sheriff’s Office and/ or other law enforcement (e.g., CHP) concerning a lone officer responding to the scene of an active murderer shooting children on school grounds?
Concerning the School shooting in Parkland, Fla., a retired officer from the Los Angeles Police Department had this to say:
“…the deputy assigned to the school remained outside the building as the shooting continued inside, and … three other deputies may have done so as well. …But there are questions to be asked about Deputy Peterson’s conduct that day, the most important of which is this: What is the policy of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office regarding a lone officer responding to the scene of an active shooter?
Prior to [his] retirement from the Los Angeles Police Department, [he]was a member of a squad that was specially trained and equipped to respond to active shooters. … when [he] last went through this training, the policy was for officers not to enter a building alone, but to assemble and engage a shooter in groups of four or five, … based on the assumption that a lone officer would merely become another casualty among those already wounded. This policy was adopted by police departments all over the country, perhaps even by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.” See full story at this link: https://pjmedia.com/trending/dimwit-florida-sheriff-israel-proud-member-team-obama/?utm_source=PJMCoffeeBreak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=February2018
So what is the policy of your local Law Enforcement agencies?
- Will a lone officer enter your local school where an active murderer is shooting children?
- Does the policy require law enforcement to group up (2, 3, 4 or 5 officer team) before entry?
- If you are in a remote area, far away from law enforcement, what happens?
- In California the government has outlawed a CCW holder from carrying on school grounds. In light of this, does your local law enforcement consider CCW holders (possibly provided additional training at their own cost) a resource that they are prepared to utilize? If so, how would they legally use them?
- What is the actual plan?
- What procedures would be put in place to avoid mistaken identity shootings?
We need to find out the answers to these questions before “Parkland” comes to your town.
“Get on the Ground, arms out, palms up, chin in the carpet, spread your legs, don’t move”
Imagine you were subject to a home invasion. You ordered the suspect to drop the knife. He complies. You have him move away from the knife and order him to “get on the ground, spread your arms out – palms up, chin in the carpet, spread your legs, don’t move.”
You are holding a home invader at gun point and have ordered him to the ground. He is proned out.
You do a scan (360 degrees). Your back is facing a wall. No more threats visible. You dial 911. Police are on the way. You breathe a sigh of relief.
Home Invader on ground in Prone Position – Reactionary Gap
BUT, is the threat really over? Is it time to feel secure? Are you actually in control? How much reactionary time do you actually have?
Force Science Institute ltd., has issued its report #357 (dated February 20, 2018), which found that a suspect can scramble up from a proned-out position to a flight-or-fight stance in under 1 second. This information is attributable to Force Science Institute, ltd., Report #357 www.forcescience.org . Reproduced with permission.
Prone positions used for this testing were as follows:
1) flat on their belly, hands tucked under their chest (a position that offenders may assume in direct defiance of officers’ positioning orders);
2) arms out to the side in a T position, palms up.
3) arms out and legs crossed at the ankles;
4) arms out, ankles crossed, legs bent so the feet were angled back toward the butt.
As the report states: “From all four positions flat on the ground,”… “the subjects rose up to standing in one second or less. They got up in different ways, but in no more than a second—faster than we expected—they were up with their hands off the ground and their body weight fully supported by their feet in kind of a crouch from which they could launch an aggressive move or start to escape.”
TAKE-AWAY. “Our conclusion is that prone positioning, even with supposed hindrances like crossing the legs, is not as safe or as inhibiting to suspects as many officers believe,” O’Neill says. “A proned-out suspect still presents significant potential danger and officers should remain vigilant.”
Shasta Defense comment: Although the report addresses the concerns of Law Enforcement Officers with suspects in the prone position, the same significant potential danger exists for you, even in your own home.
Gun Free Zones and their related “active shooter response plans” are a fraud, as with the politicians pushing them.
“Gun free” zones are a guarantee that an attacker will not be stopped before he / she kills or injures innocent persons. Evil and bad people killing innocent people and children are a fact of life. Just like the evil politicians that facilitate them.
Gun Free Zones and Government Active shooter response “plans” advise that the immediate deployment of law enforcement is required to stop the shooting and mitigate harm to victims. Yet, these taxpayer funded projects are fraudulent. The police are called because they arrive with guns that they will use to stop the deadly attack (that includes, shooting the deadly threat). Factually, the police will NOT arrive in time (e.g., February, 2018 Parkland, Florida School Shooting). All of the political prostitution and posturing for “gun free zones” will only guarantee more children will be next. The only real question is – will yours be next?
“Lock down drills” and other types of feel good arrangements when constrained by Gun Free Zones are plans guaranteed to fail. They are in reality a taxpayer sponsored “Fill the Body Bag Program”.
It is time to start holding public officials (including: legislators, school boards, etc…)_ accountable. They are guilty of conspiring and depriving Americans of their God given right of self defense. They are facilitating the murder of innocent life by conspiring to deny the God Given right of self defense. They should be held individually and criminally accountable along with those who commit the murders. They should stand trial with their co-conspirators and cohorts in crime.
Teachers and Staff must be armed and trained to provide meaningful defense to self and students, when it matters.
I have written a new publication on When to Draw a Firearm vs. When to Shoot. Please read it, download it, and pass it along. If you have any thoughts, please let me know.
Download PDF HERE
A short video of LAPD police chase and shootout.
Some observations and lessons:
- Notice that the bad guys are exiting their vehicle and start shooting within approximately .70 seconds after their vehicle crashes into a fence (after driving backwards following a police a pit maneuver and high speed pursuit).
- Thereafter, the police start returning fire within approximately .69 seconds after bad buys had started shooting (first officer’s shot appears to left and misses).
- Police vehicle front windshield is shot multiple times.
- The bad buys start moving backwards while still firing as the police now aggressively move into the threat with now well aimed gun fire and stop the threat. What would you have done?
- When out in public, you don’t know who is in the other car.
- If you get into a road rage incident, this could be who you are up against.
- Be alert, be courteous, and if someone “pisses you off”, let it go.
- The gun fight took place with homes located at both ends of the fields of fire. Thus, if you are at home and hear nearby gun fire, part of your defensive plan should include seeking cover. Stray bullets will go through walls and windows.
- Also notice the foreign invasion flag in the background.
Link to video is here: