No, you must retreat to your designated free speech zone.

What does that mean?

He thinks he can outdraw the cops.

Most people competent with a gun can. The requirements for firearms practice (and especially draw-and-fire drills) for cops are pretty minimal across the board. Your average 3-gun or USPSA competitors (who admittedly train much more than a bench shooter probably does) likely spend 30x more hours per year training than a cop does.

Here's a per-state breakdown of police training requirements. https://www.apexofficer.com/police-training-requirements

Most of them require 20 hours or less PER YEAR, and that is not just firearms training, but total training across e.g. deescalation, driving, EMT, less-than-lethal force, crowd control, etc. Several of them specify that the firearms training is only 2 hours. Most hobby shooters can knock out 12 hours of dedicated firearms training in a month or 2 of weekend range days, so 6x what a cop might have to do in 12 months.

Outdrawing the cops isn't the issue, outnumbering them is. Unless you've also got 300+ buddies you can call for support, you're going to lose in the end.

><Outdrawing the cops isn't the issue, outnumbering them is.

The old saying when running from the cops goes

> "You can beat Mopar, but you can't beat Motorola"

Here's a breakdown of the civilian training requirements:

--- end requirements. It's not exactly relevant that some people spend personal time shooting as a hobby, if you're not willing to admit that some of those people are cops.

> a breakdown of the civilian training requirements

Which is why I specified:

> most people competent with a gun

Most civilians are not people competent with a gun.

It is very relevant that hobby shooters can easily far outpace police in their weapon competency with just a casual amount of shooting practice (hell, most ranges give you a 2-hour block of time, so even one range day a YEAR could put you even with some of these departments). Whether some cops are also hobby shooters is irrelevant to the complete lack of reasonable training requirements at a policy level before we turn cops loose on the streets with firearms.

Using deadly force against police officers in the middle of doing their duty is a recipe for being beaten and then murdered, even if you were technically within your legal rights to do so.

I thought you can only use deadly force if you fear for your life. A cop approaching you, or even physically grabbing you and moving you to a new location won't kill you.

I don't know what you consider to be a credible threat to your life but those two examples make the top five for me. There is no one I will ever interact with that has a greater chance of ending my life than an on duty police officer. Not the least of which because a random civilian that kills me will for sure go to jail which can't be said for the cop.

If a guy with the closest thing the real world has to a license to kill, who is doing something bad enough to warrant being recorded for later evidence, turns their attention to intimidate you or physically force you to stop — this is a person you believe yourself to be safe around?

> There is no one I will ever interact with that has a greater chance of ending my life than an on duty police officer.

So why in the world would you "stand your ground" in this scenario?? Perhaps you posted in the wrong comment thread?

Trying to apply "stand your ground" in such a situation almost certainly increases the odds that you will die.

Look, I'm not condoning police violence or immunity. I'm just saying that, as a purely practical matter, if you fear for your life when you interact with police, trying to "stand your ground" does not make you safer. Quite the opposite.

As Breonna Taylor's boyfriend Kenneth Walker can tell you, it is not wise to do so.