“You always have to be worried if there is more than one person with a weapon. Everyone with a firearm is considered a threat until determined otherwise. It is imperative through concealed carry that the license holder needs to put the weapon down and comply. That’s what’s going to help keep them safe and diffuse the situation.” –Â TEEX Public Safety and Security Division Director Elizabeth Morris in Police preparing for expected approval of guns being allowed on college campuses [at theeagle.com]
COMPLY.
So… does this apply to cops also? If it doesn’t – then it’s a double standard.
By the time the campus cadets arrive, the concealed carrier will likely be killed or will have killed the shooter.
although it is nice to be able to fight back against an active shooter,
“NICE” to be able to fight back… As if it is a luxury and not a necessity or even the inalienable right and duty of the individual!
It would be nice to live.
It certainly applies to cops from my point of view.
Those guys are sketchy as hell.
Too many cops seem to have about a 101 IQ these days are are gym rats who think they’re all “operators”.
Ray: So these cops to which you are referring have (very) slightly above average IQ? By definition 100 is the average IQ score…
She needs to study up on diffuse vs defuse and get back to us.
I bet she’s one of those types who think that knowledge of a citizen’s rights is indicative of potential terrorists, too…
That’s the first thought that occurred to me. The every way they chose to word the statement seems to at least suggest that she’s opposed to anyone but a LEO carrying a weapon.
Maybe I’m projecting a little. But I think not.
Why would you need to know your rights if you aren’t planning to break the law civilian?
Because the old Saying applies:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse…. meaning, You better know the law, or you die in a hail of bullets because you guessed wrong…
Remember, you wake up every morning,go about your day.. and unknowingly break the law…
While those writing the laws don’t even know or understand them. They have personal armies to prevent them from dying in a hail of bullets.
“Because the old Saying applies:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse….”
Unless you are a cop, then it’s OK.
” UT chancellor Admiral William McRaven (Ret.) told lawmakers he opposed campus carry, citing concerns of accidental shootings and self-inflicted wounds, especially at university system hospitals.”
So the shit kickers at A&M can be trusted with da gunz, but the sniffy, erudite liberals in the UT medical program can’t? Like you would go in for a knee replacement and end up with a glock in your butt? How does that work?
Tea-sips vs. Aggies–pretty much explains it.
Well, when police show up to a shooting.. what else would a CCW holder do? At this point it is in the hands of the police, and you better put the gun down and comply.
Do you expect to just join the ranks and commence operating with the operators in the operations? No, let them do their jobs at this point.
No, you put the weapon back in it’s holster and explain the situation, not down. The police have equal, if not more, responsibility to “think first”. They aren’t supposed to just show up ready to blow away anyone who has a gun.
If you have a gun in your hand when the cops show up to the scene of a shooting, you are a “bad guy” in their eyes. If the movements you make are not opening your fingers and dropping the gun, you are liable to get shot.
Good luck with that.
In most shooting situations, if there is an armed citizen there, it’s over one way or another long before the cops finally show up. If you are the armed citizen, holster your weapon and wait calmly for them.
You are utterly unfit to serve in any capacity of armed authority over law-abiding citizens. Turn in your badge and your service pistol, and go find a line of work more suitable to your hoplophobic paranoia of law-abiding people.
What’s worse is that those whom you wrongfully accuse of being guilty until proven innocent – law-abiding, non-badge-wearing civilians, lawfully exercising their natural, constitutionally protected right to bear arms – are, by an order of magnitude, less likely to commit a crime than you and your fellow, badge-wearing civilians. Statistically speaking, it is we who should view you as more likely to be a threat until proven otherwise.
If you choose to remain in your capacity as a police officer, then it is imperative that you inform yourself regarding natural, constitutionally protected rights, and the courts’ stance on the lawful exercise of those rights.
For example, US v Black: “Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default
status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.“
+1
I think that statement was made specifically in the context of an active shooter, not just armed membere of society in general.
Yes, I would agree with him. If I’m a cop responding to a 911 call reporting an active shooter and upon I arrival I see you with a firearm in your hand, yes, I’m going to regard you as a potential threat.
That doesn’t mean I’m automatically going to empty a Pmag on you, but neither does it mean I’m going to know immediately that you’re a good guy. I’d shout a disarm command to you and see what happens. Most good guys are going to comply, while continuing to take cover from the shooter. Some may inadvertently turn their firearm in the direction of the officer. Not smart.
Identifying bad guys, good guys and bystanders is part of the job. Really, my only objection to the original statement is that he didn’t include everyone on scene, not just those obviously armed, as being potential threats.
We hope that we would all comply when the police, positively identified of course, ask us to put down our weapon in a stressful situation. However, as evidenced by that woman who was shot about a month or so ago after protecting herself from her murderous ex-husband, it’s not always so simple.
Diffuse the situation? You want to spread a problem more widely? Sheesh.
You beat me to it.
Me too. For cryin’ out loud. Standard English is fast becoming a dead language.
Yes, it is. My first reflexive, response was, “Yup”.
Thank you.
Yeah. No.
Wise words from an administrator
Words from the authority figures……we will let you have some rights as long as you immediately comply with our wishes. Failure to do so will result is the fault of subsequent actions being on your head.
Continue goose stepping.
I am all for campus carry (I wish we had it here in GA). I think you have taken the quote completely out of context. The quote seems to say that campus security has every right to ask a CC holder to drop his weapon anytime they meet. Reading the entire article, she is specifically talking about only an active shooter scenario in which campus police are one the scene trying to figure out who is the shooter and who is the CC holder responding.
In my opinion, what she is stated is absolutely correct.
Don’t be selective is quoting someone unless you put what they are stating in perspective, which was not done here.
You’ve got a point there. It’s not an entirely uncommon problem with “Quote of the Day” features.
I wouldn’t call “everyone with a CCW is considered a threat until determined otherwise” to be in anyway out of context.
Considering you have to pass a background check to obtain one, it would be no different than saying that anyone who owned a gun period is a threat unless they say otherwise or saying that every man is a rapist until determined otherwise.
I respectfully disagree. In an active shooter situation in which the police just get on scene in which there is a CCW holder and the shooter, the police have no idea who is good or not therefore they have no idea if you are a CCW holder or another shooter teaming with the bad guy.
We are only talking about active shooter scenario’s.
Except that’s not the quote. Never mind context, you’re just misquoting.
They’re talking about everyone with a firearm in an active shooter scenario being a potential threat until determined not to be. You actually disagree with that? Someone’s shooting up a campus, you come across someone wielding a firearm, and what? Automatically assume he’s the good guy, based exclusive on that evidence? Please. You’d keep your distance, take cover, and probably draw on him, reserving firing until you were more sure who’s doing what.
They didn’t say everyone with a CCW, just lazily walking across the quad minding their own business, is a threat until determined otherwise.
COMPLY OR DIE…..
Resistance is futile.
“You will be assimilated.”
From all available evidence (the rape propaganda, the “micro-aggression” accusations and “trigger warnings,”) I think that all people working on a collage campus should have their rights to vote, smoke, drink and drive removed. They’re clearly children, with a child’s lack of ability to deal with the real world.
With that done, we the public can tell them what to do, how to do is, and when asked “why?” in that small, plaintive voice that children use, we can respond with “Because we told you so.”
Yep. I can see it now. Armed male students are going to be seen as committing microaggression by simply walking around campus and sitting in classes. Just by being there they will be so emotionally threatening to the delicate flowers in the “diversity” and various “studies” programs (and let’s include Education in the mix, too) psychological counseling kiosks will have to be positioned around the campuses in order to cope with the emotional trauma. Oh, the horrors.
THIS! So f-in true.
What a crappy and deliberately misleading TTAG post. I’d even call it a lie.
The quote is from a section of the article where the safety officer is talking about a campus situation with an active shooter and a concealed carrier in a shootout. Seems to me like pretty much the only sane policy when you are law enforcement and you can’t always tell who the good guy is.
The quote is NOT about “Police preparing for expected approval of guns being allowed on college campuses” except in the most general way.
This post is designed to inflame people and unless you read the article you won’t see the deception.
I think her next quote should especially apply to law enforcement:
“The big thing is that the most important weapon is your mind,” Morris said. “If you’re not thinking clearly or using your brain and thinking that firearm is going to fix everything, you’re going to get hurt.”
new name we have never seen before troll.
To those who wholeheartedly support the way of thinking behind this quote:
Yes, it is wise for a concealed carrier to disarm and comply with orders of police if/when police arrive on the scene in an active shooter scenario, however it is ALSO important that both the police and the concealed carrier understand that positive identification needs to occur before any shooting occurs (know your target) AND before the concealed carrier will/should comply with orders (perhaps the active shooter has cleverly chosen to emulate police in order to defeat resistance).
I think the most important part of all of this is that the concealed carrier should take the utmost care to avoid pointing their weapon at anyone they don’t know for a fact to be an active threat. They should be certain to identify them BEFORE pointing the weapon. If they have the appearance of legitimate police (uniformed, more than 1, etc), then comply as quickly as possible. For police: don’t show up in SWAT gear (which looks a lot like something an active shooter would wear); wear uniforms; move in groups (at least pairs); identify a target BEFORE pointing your weapons at them. I know that much of this is already doctrine, but it doesn’t hurt to be reminded.
Yet another article that spins innocuous information into red meat tossed to feed the paranoia of the Nutty Buckeye and other LE hating TTAG regulars with their insatiable appetite for conspiratorial hyperbole. Even by TTAG standards, the distortion of the truth to twist and take out of context the subject Morris actually addressed is shameful.
The overwhelming majority of LE officers in Texas support concealed carry on campus, but once campus carry becomes law, responsible CHL holders must acknowledge the common sense reality that anyone not immediately identifiable as law enforcement with a gun in their hands will be at great risk once officers responding to an active shooter incident arrive on scene. It’s no different than when an off duty officer is involved in the use of deadly force with a firearm at any location, they know damn well the chance of getting their @$$ shot is much more likely if they’re displaying a firearm once responding officers who don’t recognize the guy with a gun as police arrive on scene.
TEEX provides active shooter training to law enforcement that ranks among the best such training nationwide, so anticipating and preparing to evolve the training to adapt with any new campus carry law is exactly what anyone familiar with the history of law enforcement training through Texas A&M would expect. Ignoring or failing to prepare for any potential conflict brought on by the change would be derelict on the part of TEEX.
The TEEX trainers are among the best of the best in LE firearms training and like most Texas Peace Officers hold staunchly pro-gun views, most are NRA members, and many are competitive shooters in IDPA, USPSA, SASS, etc. Most TEEX trainers also have non-law enforcement immediate family members that CHL holders whom they want to keep safe after campus carry becomes law.
To insinuate that law enforcement in Texas is anti gun, anti concealed carry, or anti campus carry is complete bull$#it. Austin Chief of Police Art Acevedo is an anomaly enabled by the lone liberal stronghold that is the City of Austin. To suggest that there is some menacing anti 2nd amendment conspiracy by TEEX or the LE community in Texas is an outright lie.
I agree with what you are saying in the first paragraph but Acevedo and Austin are far from anomalies in Texas. There are several small towns that you do not want to be pulled over while being a CHL holder and carrying unless you like to hear GUN! screamed and followed by being yanked from your car at gunpoint and hauled off to jail. The lovely town of Cleburne comes to mind. Oh and you might find it quite difficult to get your legally carried firearm back without spending more than it is worth.
With all due respect J. Zoss, I think you’re full of $#it. First of all since I know and work with Cleburne PD Officers from time to time, and have co-workers from my agency that live in Cleburne, I know that’s a lie. Second of all, it is legal in Texas to carry a concealed handgun in a vehicle without a CHL, so there’s no violation of the law for a person simply carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle whether they’re licensed to carry or not. The only lawful reason Cleburne PD would have to arrest a person for carrying a handgun found during a traffic stop is if the person is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, such as a prior felony or family violence conviction, or if they were committing another crime other than a Class C misdemeanor traffic offense. If you know someone that Cleburne PD arrested for lawfully carrying a concealed handgun in their vehicle, tell them that any lawyer will jump at the chance for such an easy lay down civil lawsuit settlement, but since it seems obvious that you probably made that $#it up, I doubt you know such a person. Care to share with us the real reason you hate Cleburne PD?
@ted unlis
regular troll.
It would appear that a lot of people commenting are so in a tizzy that someone is telling them to be a responsible gun owner and exercise judgement regarding the use of their weapon instead of being the hero and that police need to react quickly in chaotic situations that they have no idea that they are asking to get shredded by bullets by saying cops need to stand around and figure out that you aren’t the guy with a gun that they are responding to on their own without without the license holder complying. You don’t have a Good Guy With A Gun Badge and you aren’t wearing a Sheepdog uniform so don’t presume that everyone is going to immediately know you aren’t the threat. If you want to be a real operator, learn about public security planning and the process of threat response. Actually read the quote you’re getting offended about before you get offended.
“Everyone with a firearm is considered a threat until determined otherwise.”
Well, since police officers are members of the set that is everyone…
hmmmmm…
Quota babe patrolling a college is campus security not a cop. IE outdoors mall cop. They are armed??? Laughable.
Comments are closed.