RE: OPINION LETTER RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT

I. PURPOSE

The following opinion answers questions related to questions raised by the WASPC as to whether a municipal law enforcement agency exposes itself to additional liability by certifying retired law enforcement officers as having met Criminal Justice Training Commission standards for firearms qualification. The purpose of the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B and 926C) is to supplement active law enforcement personnel in order to deter crime and prevent terrorist activity. The federal law accomplishes this by anticipating that additional armed law enforcement personnel that have already been trained will be present within each jurisdiction as officers travel from one jurisdiction to another while on business, vacationing or for any other reason.

The Act authorizes retired officers and active police officers from outside of each jurisdiction to carry a concealed firearm within each and every jurisdiction of the United States; thus, increasing the likelihood that an armed officer will be present if deadly force is presented on the roads or in any other location where the traveling officer from outside a given jurisdiction may be. The retired officer must qualify annually per the standards that officers are required to meet for firearms proficiency within the agency from which he or she retired. For a retired officer to carry a weapon in all fifty states, the federal statute requires:

“… a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.”

Emphasis added.

The LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 is an aid to law enforcement and the public that costs the state or the federal government very little because the training has already been provided at the state level and each retired officer essentially becomes a volunteer who must pay the cost of maintaining his/her qualifications at the state and/or local level.

RCW 36.28A.090 reads in part:

Firearms certificates for qualified retired law enforcement officers.

(1) The purpose of this section is to establish a process for issuing firearms certificates to residents of Washington who are qualified retired law enforcement officers for the purpose of satisfying the certification requirements contained in the federal law enforcement officers safety act of 2004 (118 Stat. 865; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B and 926C).

(2) The Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs shall develop a firearms certificate form to be used by local law enforcement agencies when issuing firearms certificates to retired law enforcement officers under this section.

(3) A retired law enforcement officer who is a resident of Washington may apply for a firearms certificate with a local law enforcement agency. The local law enforcement agency may issue the firearms certificate to a retired law enforcement officer if the officer:

(a) Has been qualified or otherwise found to meet the standards established by the criminal justice training commission for firearms qualifications for active law enforcement officers in the state; and…

II. ISSUES

A. Does the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 (hereinafter the Act) provide an opportunity for citizens and law enforcement agencies across the United States to acquire additional security at little or no additional cost to state, local and federal governments in taxpayer funds and potential liability?

B. Does qualifying and certification of a retired officer incur more potential liability than qualifying active police officers?

C. Is there a reasonable basis not to implement the provisions of state and federal law outlined above based on potential liability or any other issues?

III. ANALYSIS

A well known police organization has actively advocated that police agencies in Washington State not certify retired officers under RCW 36.28A.090 because of alleged liability issues. As a general rule licensing and permitting does not incur liability absent exceptional circumstances or a so-called “special relationship” with a person or group who is adversely impacted by improper certification at a level below that of the policy-making decision to develop such a process. Washington courts apply the “public duty doctrine” in order to determine whether a decision is at a policy-making level and therefore immune from liability claims.

Even at the “mechanical” level where a police firearms instructor determines whether official standards have been met, there needs to be a specific individual or group relying on the testing officials determination (as opposed to the public at-large in order to create a potential for liability. Since no such relationship exists when an officer or retired officer qualifies, the alleged potential for liability does not exist. Those advocating against certification of retired officers need to answer two questions:

1. Is the basis of the alleged potential for liability based on ageism?

2. Where is the evidence of any liability against local law enforcement agencies based on certification that an officer has qualified under state standards for firearms proficiency?

Most jurisdictions, including Washington State, already provide for retired officers to qualify and continue carrying within the state. This would be similar to issuing a concealed carry permit. Thus, the question can be formulated- Where again is the evidence of any agency incurring liability by issuing concealed carry permits or by any qualifying retired officers to carry a weapon within the State of Washington and why should carrying outside the state increase the potential for such alleged liability?

The answer to all of the questions raised above is that the potential for increased liability is virtually non-existent. The true rationale behind the position that some groups are taking is a political agenda that seeks to maintain the myth that armed private individuals cannot deter crime or protect themselves or the public; i.e., an anti-gun agenda.

Where there is no “special relationship” creating a duty to a class of people that have relied on a permit, potential liability does not exist. The courts in Washington look to the manner and extent of contact between the government official and the member of the public in order to decide whether such a special relationship exists. The courts also look to how explicit any assurance is made to the specific class of persons that may rely on a permit, license or certification. J& B DEV. CO. V. KING COUNTY, 100 WN.2D 299, 669 P.2D 468 (1983).

In J & B Development, the court held that a breach of a governmental duty owed only to the public as a whole cannot be the basis for a cause of action. See also RCW 4.96.010. Prior to J & B DEVELOPMENT, the Washington legislature had abolished most governmental immunity. In J & B Development, a building inspector was held to have a duty to the builder based on the special relationship created by issuance of a negligent building permit. The governmental entity breached a duty owed to the plaintiff as an individual rather than to the public at large.

The Public Duty Doctrine provides an exception to the general rule in Washington. The general rule is that the state and its subdivisions can be sued on any basis for which a private citizen may be sued. See RCW 4.96.010. Despite the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in RCW 4.96.010, the Public Duty Doctrine requires that a claimant suing a governmental agency or municipality must establish the breach of a duty owed by a governmental entity specifically to an individual or group making a claim. See WASHINGTON STATE’S 45-YEAR EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY, by Michael Tardif & Rob McKenna. Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 29, Fall 2005.

The act of testing and issuing a certificate is in the nature of a “ministerial” or “operational” function. Nevertheless, the fact that the Washington State Legislature has provided that “…The qualification required under [subsection] (3)(a) of this section may be performed by the local law enforcement agency or by an individual or entity certified to provide firearms training” creates a discretionary, policy-making characteristic to an agency’s certification under state law. See RCW 36.28A.090. Thus, the discretion involved in creating a local certification process decision brings the decision under the immunity provided by the Public Duty Doctrine.

The fact that 18 USC 926(c) and the above referenced state law are promulgated for broad public safety purposes and not for the purpose of creating a duty to specific class eliminates liability for the decision. Therefore there is no valid argument that potential liability exists by certifying that retired officers have met the standards of the Criminal Justice training Commission. On the other hand, the benefit to the national public may be immense. The benefit to the people of Washington State accrues as armed police officers from other states travel in Washington; i.e., the benefit is derived from reciprocation as sister states implement the Act.

It is a well recognized principle of tort law that a fundamental element of actionable negligence is the existence of a duty owed by the person charged with negligence to the one injured. E. McQuillin, SUPRA. To be actionable, the duty owed must focus on the one injured, not on the public at large. To sustain an action against an individual, it is necessary to determine whether one is under a duty to a claimant as opposed to the general public. Similarly, to sustain an action against a municipality it is necessary to decide whether a municipality is under a general duty to a nebulous public or whether that duty has focused on the claimant.

J & B Development, supra.
The rationale of the “public duty doctrine” has historically been (1) prevention of excessive governmental liability and (2) the need to avoid hindering the governing process. Nevertheless, in J & B Development, the court stated:

“…the “public duty doctrine” has a third logical application in tort litigation. A duty to the public in general is usually considered a duty to no one in particular (I.E., the “public duty doctrine"). When considered in combination with the “special relationship” rule, however, it becomes a mechanism for focusing upon whether a duty is actually owed an individual claimant rather than the public at large. The “special relationship” rule is in fact the focusing tool. Assum(ing) a county voting registrar has a duty to refrain from registering nonresidents… it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual citizen to recover in tort against the County for the negligent violation of that duty.”

No liability is presented where the act, omission, or decision to certify involves a basic governmental policy, program, or objective. The act of a county or municipality exercising discretion explicitly provided by state law requires the exercise of a basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the agency. Said discretion is essential to the realization of federal and Washington state policy; and is within the proper authority and duty of law enforcement agencies.

The act of an agent of a governmental entity shown to have been done in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or decided upon without considering the facts involved, may not be classified as a discretionary function and is not entitled to exemption from liability.
The fact that the state legislature has provided authority via RCW 36.28A.090 for local municipalities to implement federal law for the benefit of the public at-large raises an issue as to whether liability can exist where a certificate is issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner and foreseeable harm results. In the unlikely event that a court identifies a duty predicated on the requisite special relationship, any potential liability would be no greater than that which presently exists by certifying active police officers for duty.

“The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation.” See EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH V. STATE, 67 Wn.2d 246, 253, 407 P.2d 440 (1965) (it is necessary to determine where, in the governmental process orthodox tort liability stops and the act of governing begins).

According to EVANGELICAL CHURCH, at page 254:

“Liability cannot be imposed when condemnation of the acts or omissions relied upon necessarily brings into question the propriety of governmental objectives or programs or the decision of one who, with the authority to do so, determined that the acts or omissions involved should occur or that the risk which eventuated should be encountered for the advancement of governmental objectives.”

EVANGELICAL CHURCH at page 255 states four preliminary questions that are relevant to determining whether an act was a discretionary governmental process:

(1)“Does the challenged act, omission, or decision necessarily involve a basic governmental policy, program, or objective?

(2) Is the questioned act, omission, or decision essential to the realization or accomplishment of that policy, program, or objective as opposed to one which would not change the course or direction of the policy, program, or objective?

(3) Does the act, omission, or decision require the exercise of basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the governmental agency involved? (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the requisite constitutional, statutory, or lawful authority and duty to do or make the challenged act, omission, or decision?”

IV. CONCLUSION

Therefore, in view of the federal and state mandates that confer discretionary governmental authority to implement certification, municipal law enforcement agencies are immune from liability. The arguments that are advanced related to potential liability are either disguised prejudice against retired officers (based on age) or are based on biases against private citizens being armed. After all, the rationale of the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 is that armed citizens can make a difference, a rationale that runs directly contrary to the “consensus” that citizens with weapons are more of a danger to themselves or others than to the bad guys.

To be entitled to immunity, the state must make a showing that such a policy decision, consciously balancing risks and advantages, took place. The author’s opinion herein can be particularly relied on by Washington State municipalities and law enforcement agencies due to the fact that the Legislature clearly made the decision to implement the certification process a local determination within the discretion of municipal governments.

It goes without saying that refusal to clearly look at the benefits set forth herein may frustrate an inexpensive public safety initiative with the potential for resulting loss of life. Such irresponsible public administration would raise the specter of real political liability in light of the potential for mass shootings and future terrorist acts that predictably may involve small arms.

See also a MESSAGE from Durango, Colorado’s Police Chaplain.

Have you ever noticed how everybody claims to honor our veterans? Even the anti-war activists that despised President Bush proclaim that they “support the troops”. Such “support” is often expressed as concern about the levels of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome experienced by returning veterans.

Veterans often deal with high levels of stress due to a number of factors. The public’s perception, fostered by the New York Times, that veterans may harm themselves and others can contribute to stress. A spokesperson for a local mental health provider that works with the VA and veterans recently told me that veteran’s gun rights are nothing compared to the need to ensure that vets do not blow their brains out. Why should a veteran trust such professionals who regard Constitutional rights with such a cavalier attitude?

Returning veterans are justifiably upset. Legislation has already been proposed at the federal level to deprive those with PTSD of their gun rights based only upon the assessment of a doctor. At present, the only procedure for depriving an individual with mental health issues of the right to possess firearms is a finding of mental illness by a judge. There are many anti-gun zealots (many in government) that believe the road to hell is paved with such safeguards!

Veterans considering counseling for mental health issues are asking whether medical providers may be required to disclose mental health records to government bureaucrats at some point in time. Aren’t disgruntled veterans with guns the people that Homeland Security told us fit the profile for lone-wolf terrorists? The healthcare system, including the private sector, is on its way to a brave new world of uniform record-keeping that will interface electronically with the federal healthcare system.

Many doctors (especially within the public health sector) are already asking patients questions dealing with whether the patient has guns in the home, how guns are stored and whether trigger locks are utilized. Once the federal government gets involved with the allocation of medical resources, all kinds of safety issues suddenly become relevant because of the economic interest that the government has in allocating scarce hospital beds.

Although there are HIPAA laws that keep such records confidential, the federal government has passed many laws that are buried in thousands of pages of legislation already passed so quickly that even the sponsors of such laws have not had a chance to read them. I advise veterans and others not to seek counseling from mental health professionals where the federal government can gain access to any records- now or in the future.

Studies indicate that returning veterans experience stress at least partly due to reactions from family and friends that imagine a propensity for violence on the part of a veteran; i.e., the perceptions of others toward the vet. Ironically, our modern repugnance to any armed force is at least partly due to complacency bred by peace and freedom for which our warriors fought, killed and died. One antidote to PTSD is deep religious faith that recognizes and honors the values demonstrated by warriors on the battlefield.

Click on the link above and you can see the site from which we obtain all the great posters. There is much more. The Second Amendment is the original Pro-Life Amendment and expresses a fundamental human right that is bestowed by God (thus, it is inalienable, according to the Founding Fathers). Armed self-defense has proven much more effective than the United Nations in preventing genocide. Just read Samantha Power’s article on the UN’s record in Rwanda for fighting genocide. It could be argued that the UN enabled those that would engage in ethnic cleansing. And there seems to be a pattern where the United Nations is concerned.

Modern times have created a venue in which the age-old contest between pantheistic human values (i.e., groveling in the face of governmental brutality) diametrically oppose theistic values (the dignity of human life founded in our Creator.

Some will try to mix the pagan ethos of social unity with vague notions of “spirituality” while embracing whatever current lie is propagated to extend big government control into more areas of American life.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Before long the thugs will be at your door. The time to say enough is enough is now! If you compromise, your children and grandchildren will live under new forms of oppression to which the ancient tyrants never had access. Until now, the technology did not exist to pervade every aspect of our economic and private lives. In the last four decades governmental power and principalities have moved from abortion on demand toward eugenics, a perennial quest of people like Margaret Sanger, a racist and founder of Planned Parenthood, and Adolph Hitler, a progressive socialist who touted many of the same national policies that have now returned to popularity in Washington, DC.

Constitutional lawyers know that many state legislatures enacted laws requiring forced sterilization for people that were disabled and/or on welfare. In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

“Though primarily associated with Nazi Germany, North Korea, and other oppressive regimes, U.S. forced sterilization laws fit in perfectly with the eugenic culture of early 20th-century Americana.”

In 1936 the National German Worker’s Party cited U.S. laws and Sanger’s eugenic movement to justify proposed policies for racial purification in Germany. After World War II, the atrocities committed by the Nazi government changed U.S. attitudes toward such technocratic innovation.

In Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an Oklahoma law targeting some felons for sterilization violated equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

In 1970, the Nixon administration dramatically increased Medicaid-funded sterilization of low-income Americans, primarily Americans of color. While these sterilizations were theoretically voluntary, evidence later suggested that patients were often misinformed, or left uninformed, regarding the nature of the procedures to which they had “agreed".

We encourage reading all the Massad Ayoob articles. Go to the links herein and click on one of articles; there is a list of links to Ayoob’s articles about dealing with threatening situations at:

XML:

Ayoob is an eminent firearms author and lecturer trained in law and police work. Mr. Ayoob trains law enforcement, military and civilians in combat shooting skills and teaches at the Firearms Academy of Seattle (in Onalaska, Washington) every year.

If you think that small arms are not likely to be deployed as deadly instrumentalities of terror by jihadist or other terrorist teams read the following:

Armed Intrusions and Building Occupations

“Attackers using small arms are a growing threat. Even “routine” workplace shootings can prove disastrous for business continuity. A single disgruntled employee with no training, no accomplices, no support, and with little reconnaissance and preparation has been able in the past to penetrate a variety of workplaces, systematically murder workers, and wreak havoc on businesses.”

One such case occurred in a mall in Omaha and another earlier in the year in Salt Lake City, killing eight and five, respectively. Most of these tragedies occur in so- called “gun-free zones". Imagine what multiple coordinated, trained and well-equipped terrorist teams might be able to accomplish with detailed support and advance planning if they hit at the same time in several strategic locations.

“The prospect of a business office or campus takeover, a media spectacle hostage crisis, or instances of mass murder cannot be ruled out in the coming years.” (From Anticipating Terror Threats by Robert C. Chandler, Ph.D.)

XML:

The above-referenced Disaster Resource website is designed for business managers and disaster planning professionals. It contains many excellent articles for busibess management. The Chandler article makes an excellent point relating to how carefully the potential for attacks against business operations has been quantified by insurance actuaries since 911.

Those that are in denial about the potential for further attacks like the WTC attacks are already paying for potential damage in the cost of insurance premiums, directly or passed on via the price of goods and services. The economics of the insurance industry are far less susceptible to political manipulation than Fox News audiences, CNN viewers or, for that matter, MoveOn.Org enthusiasts.

Another good link is to the Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. which now offers a UTAH concealed firearm permit that is good in 27 states- and it only costs $85.00 to take the class which does not include the permit fee of $65.25.

http://www.firearmsacademy.com/utpermit.htm

FAS offers classes at almost every level of shooting from basic safety to advanced tactical and combat shooting with most types of firearms. Massad Ayoob is a regular lecturer at the Academy which includes legal professionals among its instructors. The law of armed defense is one of the primary components of the FAS course work.

I recently attended the Lethal Force Institute for four days and will discuss the details of the training at this site in the near future. Two days of classroom lecture pertaining to the legal elements of armed defense were followed by two days of hands-on firearms training with Ayoob and several other instructors providing excellent guidance.

We started in the classroom with detailed discussion as to when a reasonable person is justified in using deadly force. The equal force that is reasonable for a civilian is quite different than the necessary force deployed by a police officer. Carrying in public is a privilege so it is necessary for armed citizens to understand the legal and physical limitations presented in real life situations.

We are not forces of good battling forces of evil but men and women that are imperfect. It is important that as an armed citizen you are not provoking a disturbance in any way. The person that may end up confronting you in a parking lot or other public place has a family and wants to live as much as you do. The best way to confront an angry person is with calm well-measured words but if that other person is presenting deadly force and demonstrating to you that you are in jeopardy, you should not hesitate to stop that individual from taking the opportunity to separate you from your family and those that you love.

The circumstances that justify presenting deadly force are immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent person(s). Any consent to enter into mutual combat negates innocence on your part and makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution to the threat of criminal violence. Your words should be chosen carefully, for example, if another driver confronts you in a road rage incident.

If an unarmed attacker assaults you, lethal force is not justified without disparity of force. In other words, you cannot present your weapon if another man attcks with his bare hands- even if he is bigger than you! The bottom line is that you still have to know how to fight. If someone tries to take your weapon from its holster, the equation changes considerably.

There was recently a case in Sturgis, South Dakota where a Hell’s Angel (or several Hell’s Angel’s) had a police officer on the floor and may have been trying to take his weapon when he shot one of his attackers. The fact that the Seattle Police Officer (who was in Sturgis for some extra-curricular motorcycle activity) was on the floor where a boot can deliver a crushing blow, in and of itself put him in jeopardy of death or grave bodily harm.

When you add the fact that there were probably three attackers and they were allegedly attempting to remove his weapon, it is not hard to anticipate that he will probably not be charged with any crimes related to discharging his weapon. A Hell’s Angel went to the hospital and it remains to be seen whether there will be more to the story.

In the legal world every rule has its exceptions. The discussion herein is not intended to impart the details of when to use lethal force. Our only goal is to encourage taking a class because no amount of reading is going to prepare you to fight for your life on the street or in the legal aftermath of a firefight. One thing is certain, at some point you will have to articulate your decisions after the fact and your decisions and statements pertaining to why you decided as you did will have consequences that will determine a great deal about your future. Although most attorneys (including this one) will advise you to remain silent, it is important to identify yourself as the victim of an assault and make sure the officers know who the witnesses are and that you feared for your life. It may also be important to identify potential evidence (e.g., weapons and/or spent casings).

Officers understand the importance of not talking unnecessarily right after undergoing so much stress. Police officers are taught to wait until they can speak with their attorneys after a shooting incident and they will respect your decision to wait until your attorney can be present.

The criteria in determining whether to use lethal force is to look at the assailant’s ability to produce death or grave bodily harm based on what you know at the time that you are forced to make the decision. In other words, even if an attacker is coming at you with no weapon in his hands, you may have a medical condition or know of some previous history on the part of the assailant that puts you in reasonable fear that he will injure you to the point of producing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., he is known to you to be prone to weapons produced from concealment and he kills or maims his victims). On the other hand, if there is any way to avoid taking a life, take the option that spares a life even if that means letting an assailant or intruder in your home run away.

Women are usually considered to lack the upper body strength to defend against a male attacker and so use of deadly force may be justified for a female under circumstances where a smaller, weaker man would be expected to defend without use of a weapon.

Opportunity must also be present. A man with a baseball bat that is 100 yards away from you does not have the opportunity to hurt you no matter how much he verbally threatens to hurt you. On the other hand, an athletic individual with a knife or other contact weapon can run twenty feet and cut you before you can react.

We ran drills in the Lethal Force class and it only takes slightly over a second for a determined assailant to reach you. Unless you are exceptionally well-trained and have quick reflexes, your reaction time (ability to make the decision to draw and shoot) is probably over two seconds. You may hit center of body mass with one or more rounds and be killed by the momentum of a knife-wielding assailant’s body charging at you.

See Jihad.

Ability, opportunity and jeopardy are the criteria. Three men with sheath knives on their belts walking past you on the street have the ability and opportunity to produce death but the mere fact that they are approaching you on the sidewalk does not indicate jeopardy without more. On the other hand, if one of them takes out a knife and demands your wallet… well, it is just possible that you are in jeopardy!

Normally the police will apprehend burglars soon enough and you and I do not have the training to deal with holding an intruder for the police. The “experts” that claim that most burglars are not armed are wrong and when the perpetrators are in the penitentiary they have all day long to practice furtively producing weapons and disarming people like you and I that have some training but not enough.

If you think you are dealing with someone that is determined to come back and harm you and your family and feel that you have to hold them at gunpoint you should not appoach them and you should stay behind cover. Have someone else call, the police and provide your description to the 911 operator along with the fact that you are holding the intruder at gunpoint.

If at all possible, stay in a safe room in the event that a home invasion is occurring and call the police rather than exposing yourself to an intruder that has the tactical advantage (and maybe several friends to back him up). We cannot go beyond the information already provided herein because much of the training information could be used against honest people.

Remember that if you ever have to make such a decision, you are making a split-second decision that you will have to live with the rest of your life. If you hesitate or make the wrong decision, your life may end right at that critical place and time. If you panic and draw your gun where no jeopardy exists, the mere fact that three men on the street had the opportunity and ability to hurt you will not get you out of charges of displaying a weapon with the intent to intimidate or even more serious charges.

So spend the time and money to get trained now. You cannot gain the training you need to exercise your privilege to carry a weapon in public just from a website or a book. The fact that people like you and I are willing to learn from professionals is evidence that we take our responsibilities as armed citizens very seriously and that we are facing the risks honestly.

Please forward our site to friends. Family and friends serving overseas and at home in the armed forces need to know that we appreciate their role in keeping the rest of us safe. Please keep us informed.

In closing, we also need to let members of the armed forces know that we agree with their mission and appreciate their ongoing fight for our freedom. Without our police and armed forces, we could not debate the issues and say almost anything we damned-well please without getting our heads sawed off with a blunt scimitar. The people of Iraq and other countries are also starting to experience peace and freedom from terrorism due to the efforts of our fighting men and women.

Bear in mind that the watchman watches in vain unless God guards the city.

Federal Way recently had an unfortunate incident where a law enforcement officer (LEO) shot at a man that was threatening the officer with a gun that looked like a real gun; shooting the subject would have been justified. But why did the officer shoot twice and miss?

Officers are trained not to shoot unless an opponent presents deadly force. An officer is trained to aim for center of body mass. The primary objective is to stop an opponent from inflicting death or grave bodily harm. If the LEO hesitates or misses, the risk is that the officer or bystanders will become victims. The fact that the Federal Way incident occurred at a strip mall raises the issue of bystanders being hit by the LEO’s shots. The officer missed his shots. This raises the issue of whether the officer would be alive had the subject been carrying a real gun.

LEOs justifiably hold Monday morning quarterbacks, including many lawyers, in disdain. Every time an LEO shoots at an assailant, no matter how justified, lawyers reconstruct every moment before, during and after the shooting. A few thoughts on training are in order, nevertheless.

LEO firearms training starts with the LEO’s desire to return alive to loved ones at the end of the shift! Although officers must meet basic proficiency standards, many of them have never fired a shot in self-defense. Many competent “civilians” can and do take the time to become trained and acquire gun handling skill that equals or exceeds the average LEO’s skill.

Consider the effect on motor skills as adrenaline starts pumping along with the heavy first trigger-pull that commonly causes LEOs to jerk the first shot with some semi-automatics under stress. Studies have proven that officers and civilians that participate in exercises simulating real-life scenarios have a much better chance of surviving a gun fight. Competitions that combine speed, movement, shooting from cover and multiple targets create the stress necessary to increase LEO and civilian survivability.

Studies show that mistaken shootings are more likely to happen in low light. Shooting an innocent subject as he presents his identification may be blamed on racism when lack of low-light training is to blame. How many departments have a house where officers can shoot at targets in a darkened environment? It is unlikely such opportunities are available unless the LEO pays for private training.

FWPD trains its LEOs beyond the minimal levels required by law enforcement; neverthless, a defensive handgun class like the one at the Firearms Academy of Seattle teaches civilians and LEOS how to survive without incurring legal liability and the experience will enhance your appreciation for LEOs protecting us on the street. Marty Hayes told me that it is not uncommon for LEOs to attend FAS as a unit at their own expense. Whether or not you are an LEO, you owe it to your family to remain alive. If you are a civilian with a CPL and exercise your right to bear arms, you are responsible to know the laws, be safe and be proficient.