Sheriff Milt Warrell's Active Shooter Response Class

Hey,

Just wanted to give you my opinion of this class. I attended it tonight at the Falls Township building. First I want to give credit to Sheriff Warrell for providing this class. He doesn't have to and I think his heart is in the right place for wanting to help people be prepared. If you were not sure about going because its not a gun class, I would still recommend you go. I have taken various firearms classes including active shooter response and I still think the class is worth going to. Its basic stuff but at the very least, it will refresh your memory on some things that you might have learned at a gun class. The first half of the class you will learn history of active shootings and some lesson learned from them. Perps are generally not mentioned as they should remain anonymous in the depths of hell (my opinion not his). The second half of the class is basic info on unarmed response; e.g. run hide fight. This is a good intro class for people that are not comfortable with firearms but want to learn something to start.


I went into this class expecting it to be full on anti gun propaganda. It wasn't. He said a few things that corrected the typical media lies about ARs and magazine capacity though he did make a comment that raised my eyebrows because it implied some level of support for gun control. I recognize he is an elected official so he has to play the middle game. Though I still have not forgiven him for supporting Scott Wallace. I also recognize that Brian Fitzpatrick is a the biggest RINO in the country so that election was a wash. Anyway, I digress.

Now there was one thing discussed as a result of a question, that disturbed me. The question was about how LTCF holders that have engaged an active shooter (not trying to be a hero but reacting because they are immediately in the line of fire) should act after shooting the attacker and how not to get shot by responding police while holding a gun. If someone is shooting at me or my family, I'm defending myself immediately. I have taken various classes and they have generally assumed that after a LTCF holder has engaged the attacker, there will be time to decide if its safe to reholster and call the police. In an active shooter situation, responding police might arrive before you reholster or call 911.

So there were a few plainclother officers from other departments in the room and they unapologetically said they would shoot the LTCF holder immediately because they were holding a gun when the officer responded to calls of an active shooter. I understand that this is a risk that everyone takes when carrying including plainclothes officers. What disturbed me was the officers were unapolgetics about it like we shouldn't be holding a gun to begin with. This attitude was less from the Sheriff though he said that we should run if there is an active shooter. I'm a LTCF holder and if I mistakenly shoot and kill another LTCF holder (not the active shooter) during an active shooting because they are holding a gun, I would probably charged with manslaughter and I would also feel terrible about it. I wouldn't be like Oh Well you were holding a gun. I took a class where the instructor said he encountered this attitude before where police automatically assume anyone holding a gun is hostile and will shoot them immediately. In my opinion, this is the wrong attitude and way to train officers. If this is the feeling of the local PD I hope they will change this thinking. Non uniformed citizens have a constitutional right to defend themselves from attackers and police should adjust their attitudes and training to account for this fact. I don't ever want to have to shoot anyone. However, when facing lethal force, I have the right to defend myself especially from someone shooting at me. If I shoot someone by mistake even if they are holding a gun (and not the active shooter), I'll be held accountable by the law. Why are police officers different?

Anyway, if you legally carry, definitely take as much training as time and money allows, practice regularly, and learn how to stop bleeeding. God forbid you are in a situation when you have to use your gun, consider reholstering as safely and as fast as possible so you don't get shot by responding police. Listen to all instructions from them when they get there. Rant over.

This is an important topic. We cover this is plainclothes training. What a plainclothes officer holding someone at gun point should do and also the responding uniforms.

It is poor tactics for those officers to just shoot. I worry about that and other legally armed folks also.

Part of my tactics include trying to utilize or maintain cover or concealment after having to engage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carson

This is an important topic. We cover this is plainclothes training. What a plainclothes officer holding someone at gun point should do and also the responding uniforms.

It is poor tactics for those officers to just shoot. I worry about that and other legally armed folks also.

Part of my tactics include trying to utilize or maintain cover or concealment after having to engage.

---

Thanks for the input Carson. Its good to know that this was probably the officer's own feelings and probably not something taught to everyone. Just to be clear and fair to the officer. I described the officer as plainclothes but I probably should have said he was in plainclothes last night. I don't think a plainclothes detail is/was his regular job. I believe he was a SWAT officer (not Bucks County Sheriff's Office) which might explain where his mindset was.

In my constable basic firearms class, the instructor (a deputy sheriff) did share his personal advice on what to do in case of being involved in a shooting situation when you were in plain clothes. His suggestion was to have your badge on a chain under your shirt and if you have to draw to pull it outside the shirt so it hangs at center mass. The theory being that a responding office will see it when getting a sight picture and possibly pause long enough to tag you as a friendly.

I realize this doesn't help a LTCF holder, but may explain why the officers didn't seem to care, as they would expect this behavior from a plainclothes officer.

The fact that Sheriff Warrell is a democrat worries me, where will he stand and who will he stand with when things go sideways. I'm hoping with gun owners and the Constitution, both state and federal, but who really knows

Warrell is taking the job very seriously. He tried to get the county commissioners (maybe the state?) to grant him more money so he can budget paying for investigations of LTCF applicants as he feels his job is supposed to do. I can see how he would believe that. Years ago police departments would investigate an applicant, approve or disapprove, and forward the report or recommendation to the sheriff. That is not happening anymore, hasn't for many years (speaking for my township, anyway).

That leaves the sheriff flying a bit blind. PICS and NICS is no magic. A thief, for example, who has never been arrested will pass them. Background investigation can unveil things that would say not a good idea to approve, or indicate the applicant is highly recommendable.

Not saying I agree with all this interference with the 2nd amendment and commonwealth constitution, just saying the procedures exist and as such, need to be done well if they must be done.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see if violations while licensed have come to be due to lack of background investigation. I'd suspect it is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bang

Warrell is taking the job very seriously. He tried to get the county commissioners (maybe the state?) to grant him more money so he can budget paying for investigations of LTCF applicants as he feels his job is supposed to do. I can see how he would believe that. Years ago police departments would investigate an applicant, approve or disapprove, and forward the report or recommendation to the sheriff. That is not happening anymore, hasn't for many years (speaking for my township, anyway).

That leaves the sheriff flying a bit blind. PICS and NICS is no magic. A thief, for example, who has never been arrested will pass them. Background investigation can unveil things that would say not a good idea to approve, or indicate the applicant is highly recommendable.

Not saying I agree with all this interference with the 2nd amendment and commonwealth constitution, just saying the procedures exist and as such, need to be done well if they must be done.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see if violations while licensed have come to be due to lack of background investigation. I'd suspect it is not the case.

---

If someone is a thief and has never been arrested, how would Sheriff Warrell know that person was a thief? I feel we need a new Sheriff for Bucks County. Sheriff Warrell supported (in uniform) the candidacy of Scott Wallace who was vehemently anti 2nd amendment. If someone is not a prohibited person after a PICs check, what legal reason could Sheriff Warrell deny someone a LTCF which is an enumerated fundamental constitutional right? He should not have that discretion. That's is called "may issue" and would turn PA into NY and NJ which is exactly what the progressives transplants want to do. Sorry, Sheriff Warrell needs to go. I'll change my mind if he voices support for Bucks County to be a sanctuary county against gun control but I won't hold my breath.