I attended the 16 March seminar presented by Officers Choate & Hileman of the Jaffrey, NH police department entitled “Citizen Use of Force, NH Firearms Laws and Developing a Practical Defensive Mindset”.
Quick Summary: This seminar was a presentation with audience interaction but no physical component. I would not recommend this seminar to NH gun owners due to the lack of two critical elements: 1) What to say/not say to 911 and/or responding police, 2) When and how to engage a lawyer, how to judge their competence, and the prosecutorial and judicial process in self defense cases. While members of the audience brought these points up, the officers appeared unwilling (or unable) to discuss these matters. Without addressing these two topics in depth, any course with more than passing reference to self defense law fails to provide gun owners with necessary information to defend themselves from BOTH criminal and government intrusion on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Detailed Review:
The presenters, Officers Choate and Hilemen are experienced law enforcement officers in the Jaffrey NH police department and regional SWAT teams with training duties for LE but no prior experience in presenting the course material to the non-LE public. They indicated that they were not sure on timing for their intended seminar content, and did not finish in the intended 4 hour time period. Attendees were given the option to attend a second seminar to be held soon and were told they would be sent PowerPoint slides by email.
The audience of about 30 appeared exclusively Caucasian, and included more men than women, with ages ranging from young to old. Held in a Nashua Baptist church, there was one attendee that seemed to be used to following sermons with a frequently shouted “Amen” or “Halleluiah , as he vocalized throughout the seminar.
Both officers were clear and capable presenters, with Choate the senior, more reserved presenter and Hileman the junior and more expressive presenter. Both were enthusiastic, committed and likable guys. I have no doubt that they are excellent at what they do in LE. No handouts were given, and no course outline was presented, so it was not clear what the content was beyond the webpage summary. Their presentation of such a course by LE officers without legal credentials they justified by their more extensive and practical familiarity with the Force Continuum, which they characterized as largely the same for LE and non-LE from the legal perspective (even suggesting that non-LE may be held to stricter application). The presenters were clearly unfamiliar with the special understanding that lawyers who lecture on self defense law have of the topic, and assumed that an average lawyer, or even a prosecuter, might not teach a seminar on the topic as well as they – which is likely true. Having attended self defense and firearms law seminars from GOAL (various lawyers), SIGArms (Lawyer Andrew Branca) and MA’s Chief Glidden, I would assess their competence on the relevant laws to be better than the man on the street, but less than others who lecture on the topic. Simply reading books from A. Branca (The Law of Self-Defense: A Guide for the Armed Citizen), R. Glidden (Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law) and EF Nappen (New Hampshire Gun, Knife, and Weapon Law) might prepare gun owners better than this seminar, as in them laws are interpreted with case law discussed. Book-learning does, however, lack that critical interactive feature that is very helpful, even essential, in such seminars and there is, at present, no other alternative seminar offered on NH Self Defense Law (that I know of). So, by default, they have the best seminar in town.
I would characterize the whole seminar as very “cop-centric” with numerous stories of perils encountered on duty. These stories occupied more time than they were worth as far as teaching examples, and were less relevant to the non-LE audience. While I might indeed buy $25 in drinks to hear officers tell their tales outside of their close-knit LE community, the seminar time would be better spent otherwise. That said, Officer Hileman said “My examples are from law enforcement, because that’s all I know.” In a job such as LE, where first-hand experience matters, first-hand stories count more too. What they might consider is that in teaching laws of self defense, you can take cases and make examples from anywhere – you will not have any credibility issues with the non-LEO audience. Others who teach such courses teach only partly from experience, and more from the experience gained from others.
After decades in LE, it would indeed be hard not to become jaded from the bad they see every day, and this perspective nuanced the seminar. The opening slides proposed that violence is on the increase, and more random, with most crime drug related, and SoNH/NoMA characterized as one of the worst part of the country for drug-related crime. This view contrasts with the relatively low crime ranking of NH, and declining crime rates throughout the USA, although MA crime has increased markedly in recent years. When you are the hammer, most of what you get to pound are nails. So their perspective isn’t unexpected. Personally, I prefer it to the Zippity Doh-Dah folks that carry cell phones as amulets to ward off bad guys, thinking guns are the cause of all evils. Somewhere in-between is a sweet spot, I think. As to what could be done about crime, the proposed conclusion the officers presented in print was: nothing. With policing policy credited as the primary crime deterrent, this is an unfortunate viewpoint to have as a LEO, but it is understandable given their perspective. And I couldn’t prove it was wrong…
As an aside, I personally believe this view, that nothing can be done about crime, leads to a belief on the part of LE that an “above the law” attitude and practice is both necessary and desirable if police might be expected to do their jobs. The good cops rationalize this as they bend the rules strictly on the “bad guys”, the tired or overwhelmed cops let things slip more often and the bad cops abuse authority as a way of life. I don’t say they are all wrong – and I’ll later say they are partly right.
This “cop-centric” perspective was apparent in reference to their frequent reference to what appears to be the cops’ prime directive – come home alive at the end of the shift. But the same perspective wasn’t clearly stated for the non-LE. There were many references to Ward Bird and the people that supported him as “people just looking for a fight” – that is, people that will use a gun when legally permissible when other means might be at hand (lesser force, retreat, letting the criminal take property/money and depart, etc.) While the officers professed and clearly displayed support for RKBA, they appeared opposed to “Stand Your Ground” and “defensive brandishing” laws as promoting abuse of responsible gun ownership and self defense. This is a battle hardly won in NH and it’s not surprising to find less support from LE, so I wouldn’t single out Officers Choate and Hileman on the topic. That said, with regard to the “no firearms” policy listed in the seminar announcement, no mention was made of the matter other than a joking comment that “nobody here has a gun on them, right?” The restriction appeared to be not of their choosing or concern.
Again, as a personal aside, I think the “nothing can be done about crime” attitude is an outcome the “responsible gun owner” notion – I think there is, in fact, too much prior restraint on use of force in defense of self and property. I say, let’s split the difference – good cops want some flexibility in dealing with bad guys. Fine. Give us the same flexibility, and more, as WE are the victims. There needs to be a greater risk to life and limb to someone who enters my home uninvited, door locked or not, looks to steal my car off the street, or tries to rob or assault me. Or we become, as Jeffry Snider said, “A Nation of Cowards” (
A Nation of Cowards ) forced to accept that the wolves will cull the weak, sick, young and elderly from our flock. If we cannot make criminals fear the police and their intended victims even MORE, we will continue to drift toward the UK system, where ‘Criminal’ is an occupation with rights and protections not accorded the honest man.
Observing the cop perspective on several matters was actually quite interesting. While I had resolved not to challenge the presenters on anything other than a pure factual error (and I heard none), and to follow up with them later with feedback (I will send them this review), I did ask a question about calling 911. We often hear the advice that it is better to call 911 after you had to use defensive force and be the complainant rather than have your attacker or a bystander call 911. Officer Hileman said it all depends on the responding officer as to whether you will be asked to surrender your weapon and come into custody calmly, or whether you will be drawn on, dropped spread-eagle on your face, cuffed and stuffed. He did say you can expect to have your firearm taken and to be arrested, in most cases. What wasn’t discussed was the aftermath, and how what you say on the 911 call and at the scene can help or hurt you. But he did say that only saying to the responding police “I’m saying nothing and I want a lawyer” is no big advantage, perhaps leading most of us to recall prior comments from an audience member that you might at least say you were attacked, feared for your life and defended yourself. I can see where a LEO, at a seminar not vetted/approved by their agency, might hesitate to advise on how to avoid legal tactics police and prosecutors use to get you to say things that “can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Lawyers fill their self defense laws with caveats and inferences to let you make your own conclusions, so the same CYA is not unexpected from LEOs. It’s just a bigger omission in this particular case.
The topic of guns and traffic stops came up. They advised disclosing to the officer that you have a permit/license and are carrying. And that while they, and most, wouldn’t do or say other than ask you to leave the gun where it is, some officers might want to examine the gun and call it in to see if it is stolen. An audience member asked exactly what the law was, and they did say there was no requirement or law pertaining – that it was only their advice on how to make everyone calm, recounting guns falling out of glove boxes, and other unpleasant surprises. We’re heard all about the stupid stuff, they live it daily, so you can acknowledge their perspective even if you don’t agree with it. When asked what would happen if you didn’t want your legally-held gun inspected, Officer Hileman noted the challenge might be met with a delay while drug-sniffing dogs were dispatched, or your car might be seized while a search warrant is obtained, etc. Yet the inference was that even a harsh cop would only hassle a truly suspicious driver – again, the good cop stretching it on bad guys thing. [Right, wrong? My personal thought is that if you constrain police without un-constraining the honest citizen, that the net balance shifts in favor of the criminal. Do the latter first and you reduce the need for the former. That is, better allow us to protect ourselves and police have less cause, valid or not, to stretch the rules to catch bad guys.]
I’ll end on some up-sides in their seminar.
1. In training LEOs, they advise to “Treat everyone like gold, but have multiple ways to kill them.” Good for everyone!
2. They have little respect for BATF. You can have a beer with ANYONE sharing that opinion, right?
3. Good people recognize good people, even if they happen to be police, so Officers Choate and Hileman will have a receptive audience. They can make a positive contribution.
Can this seminar be revised and improved to provide a NH gun owner necessary information? That’s up to them. Their police bias is not necessarily a show-stopper, if they can get past how to deal with what to do between the time you have to use force in self defense and when you and your lawyer are at your arraignment hearing or Grand Jury. If they cannot advise on what to say/not say, when to shut up and when to lawyer up, the non-LEO remains unacceptably exposed. They can read up on other resources addressing self defense law, gather examples and reference others’ interpretations, so as to not go out on the IANAL limb. With a little introspection, they are smart enough to see their own cop-centric bias, and might at least acknowledge the perspectives of those one might associate with Libertarians, Free-Stater, and shall-not-be-infringed’ers. Neither will be going away soon.
Will NES ever “endorse” the seminar? No – by virtue of their LE status and chosen views, they can’t come that far in our direction - and neither can we move that far in their direction (or we wouldn’t be “we” anymore).
Would I send people to their seminar? Depends on what they change - gotta have those essential missing pieces. Then, maybe – but I’d send only those I knew that I could talk to before and after to give them alternative views.
Does NH need such a seminar? Probably not – but the times are a-changing. People who never bought a gun before own one now, and some are looking for training in shooting skills and the law. Joe Biden will happily teach you how, when and why to discharge your double barrel duck gun out the bedroom window – what more do you need to know?
