If they pull a gun off of you and you continue to be non-compliant it is not unreasonable for them to assume you could have another weapon
Why is that not unreasonable? I mean, by that logic why bother with step one? Why not just assume anyone who is resisting has a weapon and murder them?
Officers always assume that a suspect could be carrying a deadly weapon especially if they are non-compliant. This is why concealed carry classes focus on that interaction with such detail. As a carrier of a concealed weapon you have to use judgment first of all to avoid conflict and subsequently to reassure the officer that you are not a threat. This is how you facilitate a peaceful disarming and ensure you are not killed.
Why is that not unreasonable? I mean, by that logic why bother with step one? Why not just assume anyone who is resisting has a weapon and murder them?
Officers always assume that a suspect could be carrying a deadly weapon especially if they are non-compliant. This is why concealed carry classes focus on that interaction with such detail. As a carrier of a concealed weapon you have to use judgment first of all to avoid conflict and subsequently to reassure the officer that you are not a threat. This is how you facilitate a peaceful disarming and ensure you are not killed.