View Single Post
  #18  
Old 11-11-2019, 9:59 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,342
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creampuff View Post
While I haven't taken a CCW class, I think the point is if you aren't in danger don't get into danger. Sometimes talking makes things worse.

If you are "de escalting until it is life threatening" then you aren't de escalating.
Creampuff,

In any engagement between two or more persons, "De-escalation" requires the joint effort of the parties. It is impossible for one party alone to "De-escalate." That's an important point to make.

The poster that you responded to didn't claim that he would be "De-escalating" by his actions. The claim was that the he would "try" to de-escalate." There's a big difference between an action and the attempt to take the action. One party, acting alone, can make the effort. The efforts of both parties are needed for the effort to succeed.

A commander in my former agency, and an often quoted tactical expert, was fond of observing "a credible threat of lethal force is a non-lethal alternative."

You legal standing to employ deadly force is determined by the circumstances immediately before you pull the trigger, not at the point where you draw the weapon. That fact alone (and I can think of a lot of others) makes it very unwise to hold the position that one should fire if the weapon is drawn.

I can't tell you how many SWAT callouts (or cell extractions) have ended when the suspect decided to surrender just as the deputies were about to execute on their engagement plan. The commander was right, there's something about the immediacy of an unpleasant outcome that forces some to surrender.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 11-11-2019 at 10:09 AM..
Reply With Quote