Bad Law Enforcement Advice of the Day: Colorado Springs Edition

You hear it so often it must be printed in police department handbooks. “Just give the robber what he wants. It’s not worth getting hurt over a few dollars.” Would the same cops who counsel appeasing armed robbers tell a potential rape victim to lie back and make the best of it? They may if you live in Colorado Springs…

From gazette.com comes a story of a soldier and his wife who were held up by two masked men last night. One was armed with, at minimum, a machete. Thankfully, the soldier was carrying and fired a round at the ground, sending the muggers scattering into the night.

The soldier “turned the tables” on the robbers when he pulled out his gun, sending the men fleeing, (Sgt. Dave) Gilman said.

The soldier told police he held off firing his gun until one of the men appeared to turn around and reach for his waistband, Gilman said.

Though it worked for the soldier Tuesday evening, police do not encourage people to fight would-be robbers.

“Your best bet is just to comply, because it’s not worth getting hurt or killed over a wallet or something like that,” Gilman said.

Thanks for that unsolicited tidbit, Sgt. Gilman. You’re probably right. Better to hand over your cash, then pray the two aren’t so strung out on meth that they decide to go medieval on you and the missus like Hutus on a couple of Tutsis.

In the mean time, I’ll continue to carry my protection with me, if you don’t mind. Or even if you do. I’m pretty sure the newly arrived unnamed soldier will, too.

 

comments

  1. avatar Just Another Matt says:

    Ever notice that all the people giving the advice to give criminals what they want are always carrying?Of course police say that…….if more people carried then crime would decrease to the point some of them will be looking for new jobs.

    1. avatar Jesse N. says:

      Well of course the police have to say. But I don’t believe that’s because they want to maintain some sort of monopoly on enforcement duty. Look at it from a liability situation. If a police spokesperson came out and told the citizenry to defend themselves they would be landed upon from space from a half dozen different angles. Lawyers, politicians, activist organizations. The list could go on.

      1. avatar Jack says:

        That’s a whole headache there too, you can now get sued these days by the very person you defended yourself from, for defending yourself.

    2. avatar Chas says:

      There have been numerous LEO’s, usually county sheriffs, who have publicly come down on the side of law-abiding citizens who carry.

      1. avatar Rob J says:

        If the chief or sheriff is dependent on state grant money, and the state is liberal, they are usually against citizens who carry.

      2. avatar NeonCat says:

        Sheriffs are usually elected; if we posit that rural folks may be more generally pro-gun (and using it) than city folk, it would make sense to agree with your constituency.

        1. avatar R Wyman says:

          Years later I see your comment and must say “Well, duh” Elected person agreed to act on behalf of constituents! What a novel idea genius.

      3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        You have to differentiate between elected officials (ie, the sheriff in SC who said to pack) who can speak to what their constituency (voters) wants and appointed officials (ie, police chief) who has to tow the line and fetch the water for the mayor or other city officials. I got into a debate with a co-worker about this. She said if carrying is so great, how come (insert name of our big city police chief) doesn’t endorse it? Once I pointed out he was (a) appointed by a (b) member of MAIG who (c) pandered to certain liberals like here who think all guns go boom if you touch them, well, (d)ammit the light went off for her. Now she wants to get a gun and have me take her to the range.

        One person at a time . . . .

  2. avatar David says:

    I drive through that part of town on a regular basis, and it’s not exactly surprising someone tried to relieve them of their belongings… not where I would take the wife for a stroll.

    At least Colorado Springs is fairly accepting of ccw, although I’m not sure how I feel about him firing into the ground. With a recent reminder of the perils of a warning shot…

  3. avatar The Cabinet Man says:

    Ah, the CSPD. We love’em, bless their hearts! Fortunately, they’re mostly harmless to us common folk. Mostly.

    Ex #1: A house up the street from ours suffered a daylight B&E, only to have one of the responding officers tell the middle-aged lady-of-the-house to buy a Taurus Judge to defend herself. We advised her otherwise. (Glock…)

    Ex #2: Then there was The Great Buffalo Hunt of 2005. Lots of rounds went astray on that one. They shoulda’ stuck with their first hunch to use slugs.

    Generally, the CSPD does a decent job of keeping the peace, a few parts of town excepted. Still . . . . . give’em what they want? That’s not good one-size-fits-all advice.

    TCM

  4. avatar Montesa_VR says:

    I’ve never seen a thorough study or convincing argument to demonstrate why it would be safer to comply with criminals than to resist. It seems to me that anybody willing to risk armed robbery must be desperate, chemically addled, or have nothing to lose. Why would they not also be willing to commit assault, rape, and murder?

    Maybe in “most” cases complying would be safer. Fine, you tell me how to decide. Meanwhile, I’ll just plan to kill them all.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    Your best bet is just to comply, because it’s not worth getting hurt or killed over a wallet or something like that.

    That’s advice that every bad guy should remember when his “victim” turns out to be armed and prepared for self-defense.

  6. avatar Slappy says:

    I live in the loony tunes, gun-grabbing state of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, if a properly licensed gun owner reacted in a similar manner the police would most likely arrest him/her for illegally discharging a firearm in public, within 500 feet of a buidling/residence……

    One thing that really goes up my ass sideways is how the overtly biased, anit-gun media never makes the distinction that virtually every “alleged” perp who commits a crime using a firearm is not licensed to possess and/or carry said firearm!!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      As a fellow Mass-sufferer, I’ll note that the 500 foot rule by statute does not apply in a DGU. Of course, the Boston PD might not recognize the shooting as a DGU, but in most other towns self defense remains legal and has the support of the chief and the LEOs. Choose your town well, my friend.

  7. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    I’m pretty sure that you can’t shoot someone in MA in order to save any of your property. Now in Florida you can shoot them just for scaring you, which isn’t such a good idea either.

  8. avatar Ed Med says:

    This issue surfaces enough material for a book. Law Enforcement politics, appointed COP Vs. elected sheriff, varying police department culture, political trends, individual officer intelligence, personality and beliefs, varying capability of citizens wishing to defend themselves. Bottom line: In our country you have rights but you do risk in asserting them. Anytime you use power to defend yourself you are stealing thunder from Law Enforcement in one way or another. Some minions take it better than others. If you’re wronged in the exchange it will most likely take competent resources to resolve. This causes some to shy away from the whole equation. And, yes, bad guys and AH’s love hesitation in the opposition. Good forum !

  9. avatar paul r says:

    Agree with David; whats up with the warning shot?? I wasn’t there of course so I don’t know, I’m just saying…

    1. avatar Blake says:

      Criminal: “Gives us your money or we’re gonna cut you up real bad.”
      Soldier: “My (insert gun of choice here) says otherwise.”
      Criminal (after seeing gun) “That’s not real.”
      Soldier: “BANG!”

      Criminals flee.

      1. avatar HAVE GUN says:

        “Criminals flee.”

        Or lay flat with a hole in their midsection.

  10. Firing a warning shot is always a bad idea. That bullet has to go somewhere. Even if fired into the ground, it might hit a rock and ricochet. If firing is justified, fire at the perp. And get enough range time to make sure you hit ONLY the perp.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      A true warning shot is one that strikes the BG center mass, as opposed to one in the T-box.

  11. avatar Yakov Smirnoff says:

    In Russia warning shot they shoot you, that is warning for next guy.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email