This is what an active shooter response looks like. THink about how quickly this went down as you contemplate being on scene with a visible firearm.
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
Howland937
Member
I think the point is that your rights and their duties will only be significant when your family sues after you're dead.
Adding additional stressors to an already stressful situation isn't how you get people to make the best decisions, especially when those decisions have to be made near instantly. LE agencies could begin actively and aggressively training to respond to active shooter situations with an added focus on avoiding interactions with armed bystanders.
We do have the right to be armed bystanders, after all. In some cases we may have the right to try to solve the problems ourselves, and the expectation is that LE should should know and recognize that's what's going on and thank us.
Problem is, I didn't choose to carry because I trust other humans to make the best decisions all the time. The more information we expect people to process in a short amount of time, the higher the likelihood of error.
Bill_in_TR
Member
I don't pretend to have the legal expertise that several folks here seem to feel they have. But from the viewpoint of an outside observer of such a situation I feel that I can fully understand how such an active shooter situation can go very wrong or very right. In spite of whatever training I may have had as either a LEO or an armed bystander who chooses to try and solve an active shooter situation I can certainly wonder about how easy it might be for either to make a wrong decision. The stress of such a situation has to be difficult for anyone involved. Mistakes are just waiting to happen. I only hope that if I ever find myself in such a situation that I somehow manage to get out of it unscathed. Anyone who thinks they know exactly how they will act might be fooling themselves but they aren't fooling me. Even if you've trained and studied profusely on the matter when the SHTF anything can happen. But I will certainly try and keep the notion of being visibly armed in front of first responders somewhere near the front of my mind.
That is tue for police offices and for private citizens.
So too is one other thing: the defender is expected to exercise due caurion in his justified use of force.
Excellent put.
luzyfuerza
Member
The manifest intent of the defenders seem to be key in many of these events.
In most events, police will not arrive in time to personally witness the actions of a defender whose clear intent was to respond to an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm.
Police have to make quick judgement calls about the intent of everyone around them based primarily on what they see after they arrive, often many minutes after the real event.
Defenders give police flashing neon signals about their intent by 1) moving to a safe, defensible place and staying there (but not running so far away as to appear to be evading capture), 2) securing any defensive tools, and 3) winning the race to 911. They typically have plenty of time to do this before police arrive.
On the other hand, a defender who appears to be 1) pursuing or hunting another person or 2) handling a weapon when police arrive sends signals about intent that can be easily misinterpreted. And that put her at extreme risk of being injured by responding police.
I think that these signals apply both to run-of-the mill criminal events and to mass murder events.
Would it be too much to say that an armed self defender has to be prepared to defend herself against three problems:
1) an imminent threat of deadly criminal violence,
2) mistakes that could be made by responding police, and lastly
3) threats posed by the legal system?
Edited to clarify the last paragraph.
In most events, police will not arrive in time to personally witness the actions of a defender whose clear intent was to respond to an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm.
Police have to make quick judgement calls about the intent of everyone around them based primarily on what they see after they arrive, often many minutes after the real event.
Defenders give police flashing neon signals about their intent by 1) moving to a safe, defensible place and staying there (but not running so far away as to appear to be evading capture), 2) securing any defensive tools, and 3) winning the race to 911. They typically have plenty of time to do this before police arrive.
On the other hand, a defender who appears to be 1) pursuing or hunting another person or 2) handling a weapon when police arrive sends signals about intent that can be easily misinterpreted. And that put her at extreme risk of being injured by responding police.
I think that these signals apply both to run-of-the mill criminal events and to mass murder events.
Would it be too much to say that an armed self defender has to be prepared to defend herself against three problems:
1) an imminent threat of deadly criminal violence,
2) mistakes that could be made by responding police, and lastly
3) threats posed by the legal system?
Edited to clarify the last paragraph.
Last edited:
Space Ghost
Member
As with any profession, Law Enforcement is staffed with a variety of personnel.
Some, will be highly trained, experienced, and have a good moral compass. Those with a calling.
Some (probably most) will be less so, more "middle of the pack" so to speak. The "it's just a job" crowd.
Some, (unfortunately) will be on the job for their own power trip gratification, or just straight up in the "rock with lips" category.
You never know what one will show up first so if you're an "open Carry" type, I'd suggest quickly untucking that shirt and covering that holster.
Also, there is no need to have your weapon out just because a shooter is somewhere in the vicinity. If you aren't ready to engage, keep your mitts empty.
This time, I'd say the officer had a clean shoot. Probably why they released the footage.
Some, will be highly trained, experienced, and have a good moral compass. Those with a calling.
Some (probably most) will be less so, more "middle of the pack" so to speak. The "it's just a job" crowd.
Some, (unfortunately) will be on the job for their own power trip gratification, or just straight up in the "rock with lips" category.
You never know what one will show up first so if you're an "open Carry" type, I'd suggest quickly untucking that shirt and covering that holster.
Also, there is no need to have your weapon out just because a shooter is somewhere in the vicinity. If you aren't ready to engage, keep your mitts empty.
This time, I'd say the officer had a clean shoot. Probably why they released the footage.
luzyfuerza
Member
Some tactical observations:
In the few seconds of this event, the experienced responding officer was burdened with:
1) giving instructions to his officer-in-training companion,
2) deciding to use his rifle, and actually getting it out of the back of his vehicle,
3) chambering a round,
4) turning on his RDS (or adjusting the dot intensity),
5) monitoring the position of the hostage,
6) closely observing the position of the offender's gun,
7) watching for other responding officers,
8) watching for anyone who might appear in front of or beyond the offender,
9) watching for signs that the offender was giving up, and
10) making multiple shoot/no-shoot decisions, and then putting shots on target with a hostage nearby through barriers and while moving.
That's a long list. And there were probably lots of other things going through his mind that I haven't noted.
If a defender wants to avoid being shot by responding police, it's probably a good idea to make as many of those tasks as easy as possible, right?
In the few seconds of this event, the experienced responding officer was burdened with:
1) giving instructions to his officer-in-training companion,
2) deciding to use his rifle, and actually getting it out of the back of his vehicle,
3) chambering a round,
4) turning on his RDS (or adjusting the dot intensity),
5) monitoring the position of the hostage,
6) closely observing the position of the offender's gun,
7) watching for other responding officers,
8) watching for anyone who might appear in front of or beyond the offender,
9) watching for signs that the offender was giving up, and
10) making multiple shoot/no-shoot decisions, and then putting shots on target with a hostage nearby through barriers and while moving.
That's a long list. And there were probably lots of other things going through his mind that I haven't noted.
If a defender wants to avoid being shot by responding police, it's probably a good idea to make as many of those tasks as easy as possible, right?
Last edited:
lemaymiami
Member
Made a point of viewing the video first - then skimmed through the various responses to it from folks on this site.... Before I say anything else - I'm a long retired cop who did, years ago, have to shoot someone down - and I'll live with that until the end of my days...
This is an outstanding video in my opinion, very well produced - and something just not possible in my era ( 1973 - 1995). I'm guessing that the rise in "active shooter" incidents in our country in the years since I retired has made this sort of video a very good idea - if the agency has the resources and is really squared away...
I believe this encounter would have gone down quite differently if the offender had not been exiting the facility as the officers arrived - but that's just my take on it...
For those who've never been in a shooting incident (as a citizen or an officer, or a soldier...) you simply cannot imagine the stress involved for the shooting officer - before, during, and after the incident occurred - or what amount of time might be needed to come back to an even keel if you had problems with what occurred. I'll stop here with the final comment that, based solely on the video - that's one very squared away department. Any young candidate would be fortunate to have applied to be considered by them.
This is an outstanding video in my opinion, very well produced - and something just not possible in my era ( 1973 - 1995). I'm guessing that the rise in "active shooter" incidents in our country in the years since I retired has made this sort of video a very good idea - if the agency has the resources and is really squared away...
I believe this encounter would have gone down quite differently if the offender had not been exiting the facility as the officers arrived - but that's just my take on it...
For those who've never been in a shooting incident (as a citizen or an officer, or a soldier...) you simply cannot imagine the stress involved for the shooting officer - before, during, and after the incident occurred - or what amount of time might be needed to come back to an even keel if you had problems with what occurred. I'll stop here with the final comment that, based solely on the video - that's one very squared away department. Any young candidate would be fortunate to have applied to be considered by them.
This is exactly the lesson here. The responding officers are reacting to a person with a gun and a hostage. Whether the hostage is being rescued or being held is something they can't know. They "know" there's a hostage and someone with a gun holding the hostage. They see a person with a gun and a hostage and they react on the information they have identifying the person with the gun as hostile.
If you're the good Samaritan rescuing the hostage how do the responding officers know this? Understand that communications are essential and that they're faulty and you may become a victim of "friendly fire" due to mistaken identity.
.455_Hunter
Member
Two comments...
First- Unfortunate events have proven that hasty deployment / hasty re-concealment is the best practices "order of the day" in an active shooter defensive scenario. Minimize the time your weapon is visible, and do not fiddle with any perp weapons beyond perhaps kicking them away from the suspect if absolutely necessary. Johnny Hurley learned this the hard way.
Second- I would hope that current LE training is beginning to acknowledge the potential presence of armed citizens at public shooting locations, and developing how better process such information in real time substantive threat assessment. When the situational report is a guy in black shooting up the mall with a long gun, the man with a sweater and slacks cowering beyond a concrete planter with his family is probably NOT your target. He is still NOT your target even though he happens to have an exposed 642 in his hand, and the mall is supposedly a "gun free zone".
First- Unfortunate events have proven that hasty deployment / hasty re-concealment is the best practices "order of the day" in an active shooter defensive scenario. Minimize the time your weapon is visible, and do not fiddle with any perp weapons beyond perhaps kicking them away from the suspect if absolutely necessary. Johnny Hurley learned this the hard way.
Second- I would hope that current LE training is beginning to acknowledge the potential presence of armed citizens at public shooting locations, and developing how better process such information in real time substantive threat assessment. When the situational report is a guy in black shooting up the mall with a long gun, the man with a sweater and slacks cowering beyond a concrete planter with his family is probably NOT your target. He is still NOT your target even though he happens to have an exposed 642 in his hand, and the mall is supposedly a "gun free zone".
The only problem with this is that there will be multiple reports and other citizens will see someone armed and call 911 and report another shooter. If you look at active shooter incidents you will find that initial reports are almost always multiple shooters. Often the search for other shooters isn’t called off until well after the incident is over and interviews with those involved give a clear picture of what actually happened. Virtually everyone carries a cell phone these days and 911 lines are often overwhelmed. The tele-communicators don’t have time to sort through all of these reports and pass them on to the responding officers. Add in the fact that every officer has a lot of experience responding to a call for service where the actual situation is nothing like it was dispatched.
.455_Hunter
Member
Yes, it requires individual responding LE to make good judgements about what they are seeing in real time, and conduct active threat assessment in real time. I understand it's not going to be a perfect science, but I would like to them to professionally acknowledge that armed citizens will likely be present in these scenarios, and that they are accounting for that in their training in some manner. I do not have answer for exactly what that training should entail, but it definitely needs to be part of the regimen.
Someone needs to explain to me why so many armed citizens think that it is a violation of their rights to keep their firearm out of sight unless they are actually engaging the threat. As I said earlier in the thread, I would bet that many more police officers have been shot by other officers than armed citizens. There have been plenty of instances where uniformed officers have been mistakenly shot in the dark by other responding officers.
There is a danger of a blue on blue incident anytime multiple armed people or groups interact in a high stress situation. The simplest solution is to keep your weapon out of sight unless you are actually engaging the threat. Earlier in the thread I related how I made certain I didn’t have a weapon in my hand when the on duty deputy arrived when I was holding the people who were stripping my neighbor’s truck. I knew that whoever responded would know me by sight. We had worked together and socialized together. Dispatch had told them who I was and that I was holding them at gunpoint. Still it was dark, the deputy already knew there was at least one weapon present (mine). There is always a chance that a mistake could cost someone’s life. Why take that chance? I was behind cover, the suspects were proned out facing away and 35 feet from me. I was confident I could draw had they decided to rush me during the seconds it took the deputy to come down my driveway.
If you don’t look like a hostile the chances of being mistaken for one and shot by responding officers go down considerably.
By the way, the same advice I give here is what was taught in every active shooter course I took if you were unfortunate enough to be off duty and present when an active shooter incident happened.
There is a danger of a blue on blue incident anytime multiple armed people or groups interact in a high stress situation. The simplest solution is to keep your weapon out of sight unless you are actually engaging the threat. Earlier in the thread I related how I made certain I didn’t have a weapon in my hand when the on duty deputy arrived when I was holding the people who were stripping my neighbor’s truck. I knew that whoever responded would know me by sight. We had worked together and socialized together. Dispatch had told them who I was and that I was holding them at gunpoint. Still it was dark, the deputy already knew there was at least one weapon present (mine). There is always a chance that a mistake could cost someone’s life. Why take that chance? I was behind cover, the suspects were proned out facing away and 35 feet from me. I was confident I could draw had they decided to rush me during the seconds it took the deputy to come down my driveway.
If you don’t look like a hostile the chances of being mistaken for one and shot by responding officers go down considerably.
By the way, the same advice I give here is what was taught in every active shooter course I took if you were unfortunate enough to be off duty and present when an active shooter incident happened.
In these types of situations any information is unreliable because dispatch will be receiving many conflicting reports about the shooters description, precise location, and even the number of shooters.
Current doctrine places a strong emphasis on responding officers neutralizing the threat as fast as possible to save lives. Officers are also taught to rush in and not wait for backup which although is a good response it's not without issue. A single officer is going to be much more jumpy than two or three going together.
No one is teaching to shoot first and ask questions later, but there is a strong emphasis on taking out the shooter asap. I would count on responding officers to engage anyone holding a gun. You may get a warning to drop the weapon, you might not. That's going to depend on the situation and the individual officers.
Contrary to what many believe good guys and bad guys don't have a particular "look". People who look like dirt bags or "crazies" are often the salt of the earth and the one who looks like the clean cut upstanding citizen may be suffering from severe mental health issues. There's no way to know. When gunfire goes off in a public place the person holding the gun is going to be seen as the bad guy.
Also consider that most officers receive almost no actual training on this topic and those who have training it's usually once every few years and and the quality varies greatly.
In any event the public needs to start demanding much more training for their first responders.
Last edited:
I can’t imagine an officer working now who has no experience dealing with legally armed private citizens. Nearly half of the country is constitutional carry and every other state issues permits.
The problem is with active shooter response. This goes straight to current doctrine. It seems there is a choice between the way it used to be done, which was slow and deliberate but greatly reduced the danger of an innocent person being mistakenly shot and gave the actual shooter more time to kill before he was confronted. Or we can do it the way we do it now, charge in and stop the shooting. The only thing that’s going to fix this is to once again change how we respond to active shooters. Response will have to be slowed down and officers will have to stop and deal with an armed person the way they would on the street. Prone them out, secure them and leave them for follow up officers to deal with. With all of the adrenaline and confusion the off duty/plainclothes officer/armed citizen is still at greater risk of being shot if they make what could be perceived as a threatening move then someone who wasn’t visibly armed when they encountered the responding officers.
I’m sure that there are members here who will complain that is against their constitutional rights.
More training is good but I don’t see anyway to teach someone how to reliably tell the difference between an off duty/plainclothes officer/armed citizen and a bad guy. In that situation you have to assume that anyone armed not immediately identifiable as another responding officer as a threat. The dilemma is do you stop and take the time to disarm and secure that person and allow the real shooter to continue the killing spree or do you possibly shoot an innocent person and move on? It’s not a good choice that anyone wants to make.
It seems to me that the best solution is to not be visibly armed when the first responders arrive. I really don’t understand what about that is so hard for some people to accept.
The problem is with active shooter response. This goes straight to current doctrine. It seems there is a choice between the way it used to be done, which was slow and deliberate but greatly reduced the danger of an innocent person being mistakenly shot and gave the actual shooter more time to kill before he was confronted. Or we can do it the way we do it now, charge in and stop the shooting. The only thing that’s going to fix this is to once again change how we respond to active shooters. Response will have to be slowed down and officers will have to stop and deal with an armed person the way they would on the street. Prone them out, secure them and leave them for follow up officers to deal with. With all of the adrenaline and confusion the off duty/plainclothes officer/armed citizen is still at greater risk of being shot if they make what could be perceived as a threatening move then someone who wasn’t visibly armed when they encountered the responding officers.
I’m sure that there are members here who will complain that is against their constitutional rights.
More training is good but I don’t see anyway to teach someone how to reliably tell the difference between an off duty/plainclothes officer/armed citizen and a bad guy. In that situation you have to assume that anyone armed not immediately identifiable as another responding officer as a threat. The dilemma is do you stop and take the time to disarm and secure that person and allow the real shooter to continue the killing spree or do you possibly shoot an innocent person and move on? It’s not a good choice that anyone wants to make.
It seems to me that the best solution is to not be visibly armed when the first responders arrive. I really don’t understand what about that is so hard for some people to accept.
lemaymiami
Member
That's always been the trouble for law enforcers since your bad actor rarely wears a black hat or operates under a black flag... and you simply can't tell the players without a scorecard... The only way you can decide, in that fraction of a second, is by what they do as you encounter them. If someone's foolish enough to point a firearm at you (or fire a shot in your direction...) the matter is resolved. So often though, nothing is certain - not the initial reporting of a hot call - or when the situation is so fluid, that you can't be certain who the offender is... when there's lots of people in front of you...
Certainly our world has changed dramatically since I was able to retire... Back then there were no "armed citizens" to speak of, period - and you rarely ever encountered anyone with a license to carry that wasn't a cop or other law enforcer.... The tactics we employed back then, fixing a perimeter, then developing a very safe plan of action - simply are not possible today - Columbine was the first real red flag about what happens when active shooters are allowed to continue to murder a captive population... while officers respond in a very controlled and careful manner...
Glad I'm long out of that world but I do expect that policing will evolve as we move forward since good outfits will always critique their actions after the fact and move towards better ways of doing things. The video we've seen here is part of that process...
Certainly our world has changed dramatically since I was able to retire... Back then there were no "armed citizens" to speak of, period - and you rarely ever encountered anyone with a license to carry that wasn't a cop or other law enforcer.... The tactics we employed back then, fixing a perimeter, then developing a very safe plan of action - simply are not possible today - Columbine was the first real red flag about what happens when active shooters are allowed to continue to murder a captive population... while officers respond in a very controlled and careful manner...
Glad I'm long out of that world but I do expect that policing will evolve as we move forward since good outfits will always critique their actions after the fact and move towards better ways of doing things. The video we've seen here is part of that process...
luzyfuerza
Member
In this event, the trainee officer escorted the hostage away from the downed offender.
Nearby citizens have no protection beyond empty, visible hands when responding units arrive.
The only things protecting the trainee from a blue-on-blue mistake by a second responding unit would be a uniform and empty hands.
Nearby citizens have no protection beyond empty, visible hands when responding units arrive.
Scrapiron45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
- Messages
- 165
USCCA has a few videos that show how important it is to secure or lay down your firearm and raise your hands as law enforcement arrives. This should be a part of any basic defensive pistol class.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
This advice sort of assumes the threat is no longer a threat, which wasn't the case with the police arrival in the OP.
There is a very good chance that if you are in a gun battle, you may not know law enforcement has arrived. You have a lot of biological and psychological reasons why you may not register new players on scene as you are engaged in defending yourself. Or, let's say you do know that they have arrived, but you are currently trying to defend your own life. You gonna lay down your gun and raise your hands in the middle of a gun battle? I know that sounds silly to suggest, but so too is all inclusive advice that doesn't work inclusively for the myriad of scenarios that may be going on when the cops arrive. Put another way, things often aren't that simple.
And based on recent shootings, something of a reasonable chance STILL that just because law enforcement arrives, doesn't mean they are going to do anything. Three cases coming to mind off hand are King Soupers, Las Vegas, Parkland, and Uvalde. Las Vegas was a newer find for me. An officer and trainee staged up on the floor below the shooter (with hotel security), waiting instead of going after the shooter. The lead officer admits to being terrified with fear and so they protected a floor where there was no threat. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-shooting-video-cordell-hendrex-mandalay-bay-hotel-attack/
The issue is that armed citizens are not nearly as common as gun owners. America is jam packed with guns but not all that many people carry and of those that do, they aren't typically doing so in places where active shootings occur.
.455_Hunter
Member
So what are you trying to say? Just ignore the possiblity of armed citizens? What are the protocols for encountering off-duty or other uninformed personnel, like armed three letter guys, especially when those individuals may be in the middle of a tunnel vision/audio episode?
This is not an ethereal discussion for me. The local King Soopers wasn't out primary grocery store, but a secondary one, and where my wife filled her monthly prescriptions. When we lived in Arvada, I was a frequent patron of the military surplus store that Johnny Hurley departed to engage the deranged cop killer across the street.
Last edited:
It's an issue, but as shafter points out, it's not a common one. It seems that not a lot of people carry, and even when they do, it appears that they have a tendency to not respond to mass shootings.
I did a pretty careful analysis of the El Paso WalMart shooting some time ago and the statistics show that there were more than 20 permit holders in the store (99% confidence level) and that it's reasonably likely that there were more like 40-50. If you assume that about 10% of people who have permits carry, then there were 2-5 people carrying in the store and yet nobody confronted the guy. He basically shot people for as long as he wanted and left the scene.
So a store where carry is allowed, in a gun-friendly state, with 2-4 dozen permit holders present, and several people likely carrying. And yet no armed response from civilians. The only logical conclusion is that people tend to not carry, even when they can and/or they tend to not respond to mass shooters even if they are carrying. That is, no doubt, a major factor in why we don't see innocent armed civilians getting shot by cops in the middle of active/mass shooter events. They don't get involved and so they aren't perceived as a threat.
That doesn't solve the problem of what to do if you do get involved. If you do carry and are open to the possibility of responding to an active shooter if you happen to be on the scene, then you certainly need to be aware of the issue.
If you want to not get shot when the cops show up to the scene of a shooting you have two main options:
1. Don't be there.
2. Don't be openly armed.
That's the protocol.
It's not a great one--as DNS points out, if you get involved, you may not be able to disengage at will to disarm and/or you may not realize that LE has entered the scene. In that case, you're at significant risk of being shot by responding LE and there's no foolproof way to get everyone on the same page before something bad happens.
I did a pretty careful analysis of the El Paso WalMart shooting some time ago and the statistics show that there were more than 20 permit holders in the store (99% confidence level) and that it's reasonably likely that there were more like 40-50. If you assume that about 10% of people who have permits carry, then there were 2-5 people carrying in the store and yet nobody confronted the guy. He basically shot people for as long as he wanted and left the scene.
So a store where carry is allowed, in a gun-friendly state, with 2-4 dozen permit holders present, and several people likely carrying. And yet no armed response from civilians. The only logical conclusion is that people tend to not carry, even when they can and/or they tend to not respond to mass shooters even if they are carrying. That is, no doubt, a major factor in why we don't see innocent armed civilians getting shot by cops in the middle of active/mass shooter events. They don't get involved and so they aren't perceived as a threat.
That doesn't solve the problem of what to do if you do get involved. If you do carry and are open to the possibility of responding to an active shooter if you happen to be on the scene, then you certainly need to be aware of the issue.
If there were good protocols, then officers would never shoot other officers thinking they were criminals. The whole reason it's important for people to understand this is precisely because there is no good way for two armed people who don't know each other and who meet during or in the wake of a shooting to instantly verify to each other that they are "good guys" and not deadly threats.
If you want to not get shot when the cops show up to the scene of a shooting you have two main options:
1. Don't be there.
2. Don't be openly armed.
That's the protocol.
It's not a great one--as DNS points out, if you get involved, you may not be able to disengage at will to disarm and/or you may not realize that LE has entered the scene. In that case, you're at significant risk of being shot by responding LE and there's no foolproof way to get everyone on the same page before something bad happens.
dranrab
Member
In this case the officer wasn't criminally culpable. https://apnews.com/article/colorado...t-settlement-0f784cf0d5d4bac475a462141971b194
If I understood the OP correctly, that case makes his point for him.
There aren't any protocols other than don't shoot people unless there is a reasonable believe they present an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death to either the officer or others.
If a cop is responding to a shooting call and he shows up and sees someone armed with a gun in their hand they most likely have a reasonable belief that person is the shooter. Good guys don't have halos above their heads. If you look like the threat you'll be treated like a threat and as much as law enforcement has been in the dog house lately an active shooter situation is one area where the public expects a swift and decisive end to the threat. If an armed citizen gets shot because he has a gun in his hands I think the attitude from the general public will be "oh well."
Even if your presence and description as an armed citizen is relayed to dispatch there is no guarantee they'll be able to get it out to the officers and even if they do those responding officers may not process it in the radio traffic confusion and other priorities of navigating to the threat.
Bottom linis it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong if you end up dead so keep the gun out of sight until the last moment and get it back out of sight immediately after. That's really all one can do to mitigate the risk.