[quote]Ranzo wrote:
Thanks for the advice on shooting. I have worked on several of those issue. Early on I did squeeze a little hard with the trigger hand and it moves my shot low and left but this weapon tends to do it more than others. I made some sight adjustments and I seem to be good.
Once I shot my gun and my friends Kimber back to back and I was right on center with the Kimber first time. Also as a note on holsters I am using a Blackhawk retention holster made for a Springfield, works like a charm.[/quote]
1911 Triggers are very forgiving. They are short, and run straight to the rear instead of hinging. I very much like the idea of a trigger that covers for my mistakes.
'Course I carry soulless plastic instead of JMB’s timeless design.
Glock 19, because I like my guns like my women.
Cheap
Imported
50% plastic
And not picky about lubrication
In another thread idaho was talking about police use of force and wrote the following
[quote]idaho wrote:
The spector of always being second guessed by Internal Affairs or a civilian review board, creates an atmosphere of “hesitancy” that will lead to an officers death…Deadly force situations are a no-brainer, its the other 99% of arrests that leads to these conversations.
[/quote]
I have exactly zero relevant experience as an LEO. I am somewhat familiar with the idea of making decisions that have to stand up to scrutiny years after the fact. So, the process of “crisis” decision making is especially interesting to me.
In my experience, and it seems to also hold with the experiences of those I know, being able to assess the situation accurately is a huge aid in making decisions quickly enough. Is the reason true deadly force situations are “no brainers” mostly due to the obviousness of the threat level and response? I’ll quote FireFly and invoke “Someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.”
If that is a big part of it; would creating people demonstrably better at reading the situation, and explaining exactly what it is, also be creating people who would act more decisively?
If I read your question(s) correctly, I think I can see what you are driving at.
If we propose that a true deadly force encounter is a “no-brainer” …and I’m inclined to agree on that for the most part, then making that decision is not terribly difficult…unless one has moral convictions about it or there are civilians in the field of fire.
Where the questions really start to add up for most officers, and where I think most officers get “stuck on stupid”, is when a subject is NOT presenting a deadly force scenario. Then it becomes an issue of:
how much force am I being presented with
how much force can I respond with
which one of those options do I have available right now
which one can I get to right now
am I going to get in trouble if I use this one
politics, paperwork, etc
Ideally, the training an officer receives will help him or her to shorten that thought cycle and choose the correct option. The problem I have seen is that of course, one can’t be presented with EVERY conceivable scenario. Some people just can’t seem to think abstractly enough to get outside the box of what they have been shown. I think most of the current training certainly tries to make people better at reading situations, so that they know when to react, and how to react, but as with most things in life, it’s hard to replicate reality.
Additionally, most of us are carrying so many force options on our belts these days, it’s become almost a joke. OC spray, batons, Tasers…it’s easy to see how a young officer may have no idea which one to go with. Thankfully, most departments are moving away from the Threat Continuum (envision a “ladder” here), which developed a thought process of going up through each level of force from lowest to highest. Many now promote more of a “wheel” type concept, where the officer is the center spoke, and the options are laid out around him to choose from as he needs.
It also doesn’t help to have “old heads” walking around, telling younger officers about how they used to just do it with their hands and a flashlight, and that the stuff they teach at the academy doesn’t work. Then you end up with rookies who don’t trust the unarmed skills they have been taught…which leads to another problem we see these days…Taser dependence. In my opinion, Tasers are overused, because they are a simple answer to having to put your hands on someone. The younger generation of officers seems LESS inclined to go hands-on, and more inclined to just Taser everything that looks at them cross-eyed. But, with Tasers leading to death occasionally, they aren’t always the right option to go with.
The more realistic training you can give an officer, the better. It will certainly make them better at reading situations and choosing the right force option. However, when they hit the street, there still seems to be a learning curve that most of them have to go through. There is a bit of experimentation that each individual has to employ to see what works best for him or her.
Hope that answered some or part of what you were asking.
I’d like to get some opinions from the people here are on the Oregon Trooper shooting. I brought that scenario up at work and until the guy pulled out a gun and opened fire on the officer, everyone I asked had a different approach on dealing with the situation. Some said they would have gone to an intermediate weapon, while others stated they would have eventually drawn their pistol and ordered him to the ground.
The question that proved most difficult to answer was what if he continued to walk toward you with his hands behind his back? You don’t want to let the guy get into a good position to decide when to start the gun-fight, but you don’t want to shoot the guy before you know he intends to kill you. Either way, you’re in a jackpot. I read the thread on this incident, but I would like to hear some different views on this hypothetical scenario.
If it’s the one I’m thinking of, I would say if he continued to approach and kept his hands behind his back, then move to a position where the patrol car is between the two of you. It gives the best combination of angled movement with available cover for the scenario. Not a great situation to be in, but not the worst, either.
In this day and age, anybody who comes walking back to your car with that kind of speed and attitude doesn’t have good things in mind for you. If nothing else, moving back and to the side, placing the rear of the cruiser between you, is going to protect you for a little longer if it’s an edged weapon .
Just my $.02. Your mileage may vary. And I thought the trooper did a great job, by the way.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
If it’s the one I’m thinking of, I would say if he continued to approach and kept his hands behind his back, then move to a position where the patrol car is between the two of you. It gives the best combination of angled movement with available cover for the scenario. Not a great situation to be in, but not the worst, either.
In this day and age, anybody who comes walking back to your car with that kind of speed and attitude doesn’t have good things in mind for you. If nothing else, moving back and to the side, placing the rear of the cruiser between you, is going to protect you for a little longer if it’s an edged weapon .
Just my $.02. Your mileage may vary. And I thought the trooper did a great job, by the way.[/quote]
Yea, using the car to and waiting for backup was considered the best option.
I thought he did a great job too, but I was just curious to see what people here thought about the hypothetical scenario.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
If it’s the one I’m thinking of, I would say if he continued to approach and kept his hands behind his back, then move to a position where the patrol car is between the two of you. It gives the best combination of angled movement with available cover for the scenario. Not a great situation to be in, but not the worst, either.
In this day and age, anybody who comes walking back to your car with that kind of speed and attitude doesn’t have good things in mind for you. If nothing else, moving back and to the side, placing the rear of the cruiser between you, is going to protect you for a little longer if it’s an edged weapon .
Just my $.02. Your mileage may vary. And I thought the trooper did a great job, by the way.[/quote]
Yea, using the car to and waiting for backup was considered the best option.
I thought he did a great job too, but I was just curious to see what people here thought about the hypothetical scenario.
[/quote]
Will207,
IF the Oregon shooting is the one I am thinking of, idaho posted the video and there was a brief discussion a while back.
Here is the thread link:
I am also going to bump it to the front/top for ease/more views.
If I read your question(s) correctly, I think I can see what you are driving at.
If we propose that a true deadly force encounter is a “no-brainer” …and I’m inclined to agree on that for the most part, then making that decision is not terribly difficult…unless one has moral convictions about it or there are civilians in the field of fire.
Where the questions really start to add up for most officers, and where I think most officers get “stuck on stupid”, is when a subject is NOT presenting a deadly force scenario. Then it becomes an issue of:
how much force am I being presented with
how much force can I respond with
which one of those options do I have available right now
which one can I get to right now
am I going to get in trouble if I use this one
politics, paperwork, etc
Ideally, the training an officer receives will help him or her to shorten that thought cycle and choose the correct option. The problem I have seen is that of course, one can’t be presented with EVERY conceivable scenario. Some people just can’t seem to think abstractly enough to get outside the box of what they have been shown. I think most of the current training certainly tries to make people better at reading situations, so that they know when to react, and how to react, but as with most things in life, it’s hard to replicate reality.
Additionally, most of us are carrying so many force options on our belts these days, it’s become almost a joke. OC spray, batons, Tasers…it’s easy to see how a young officer may have no idea which one to go with. Thankfully, most departments are moving away from the Threat Continuum (envision a “ladder” here), which developed a thought process of going up through each level of force from lowest to highest. Many now promote more of a “wheel” type concept, where the officer is the center spoke, and the options are laid out around him to choose from as he needs.
It also doesn’t help to have “old heads” walking around, telling younger officers about how they used to just do it with their hands and a flashlight, and that the stuff they teach at the academy doesn’t work. Then you end up with rookies who don’t trust the unarmed skills they have been taught…which leads to another problem we see these days…Taser dependence. In my opinion, Tasers are overused, because they are a simple answer to having to put your hands on someone. The younger generation of officers seems LESS inclined to go hands-on, and more inclined to just Taser everything that looks at them cross-eyed. But, with Tasers leading to death occasionally, they aren’t always the right option to go with.
The more realistic training you can give an officer, the better. It will certainly make them better at reading situations and choosing the right force option. However, when they hit the street, there still seems to be a learning curve that most of them have to go through. There is a bit of experimentation that each individual has to employ to see what works best for him or her.
Hope that answered some or part of what you were asking.[/quote]
Mapwrap,
Great post. Really hits all the important issues, especially about the Taser dependence. Tasers were really just hitting their stride, when I made the jump to the Feds, even then, I could see that officers who carried them were a little quick on the trigger, and really placed too much faith in them as a end all stun ray. It is a useful tool, but, tools malfunction, especially electronic devices. I would hate to have that as my main backup, fail, and it would just piss somebody off. What are you going to do then?
Really good point about the learning curve and I think the officers policing environment shapes that education. Working a high crime area,such as USG housing projects or transient, low income apartment complexes, will certainly mold that officer quicker than someone assigned to crime prevention or the DARE program. LEO’S with experience in High Threat Patrol, SWAT, Narcotics, Fugitive, High Crime Street Suppression Units, will react quicker and more decisively to the presented threat.
And that can also be double edged sword: I know that based on my environment for the past several years, my first reaction to any perceived threat would be the use of deadly force, something I have to be really cognizant of when I travel back to the states. I also saw this happen with officers who had worked high threat units, get promoted, transfered back into general patrol, and, have a hard time adjusting to “Yes, Sir, No, Sir” situations.
My statement about deadly force being a “no-brainer” was not very articulate, but, someone shooting at you, trying to stab you, or bash out you brains with a sledgehammer, shouldnt require a genius IQ to figure out your response. In essence, the decision has been made for you. I hope I cleared that up a little. I think the ability to make critical decisions accurately comes from your experiences,thats my take on the learning curve.
I sorry, I am not trying to come off like a arrogant prick, but, if the officer has a moral conviction about shooting and killing a predator, then they are in the wrong line of work. Dont carry a gun and then not be willing to use it.
You want to serve the public? work at McDonald’s, they serve the public everyday.
Robert,
You quoted “FireFly”. You referencing the ScFi series?
Thank you for that. Your answers were very helpful.
I have a lot for this thread but first.
RE: Use of Force Continuum
As I understand it, the issue with the ladder was that too many officers were “learning” it as a checklist they had to work through sequentially. I have seen several of the “wheel” style depictions, but without the relevant training they seem really busy to me.
Also, I really wanted to post the image for April 1st.
RE: “Old Heads”
Do you mean from those halcyon days where the police weren’t militarized and it was all “officer friendly” I keep hearing protesters talk about? The ones where “dance with the flashlight octopus” was a tactic? How could that be a problem? After all, I am assured things were better back then by the people decrying the officers of today.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Where the questions really start to add up for most officers, and where I think most officers get “stuck on stupid”, is when a subject is NOT presenting a deadly force scenario. Then it becomes an issue of:
how much force am I being presented with
how much force can I respond with
which one of those options do I have available right now
which one can I get to right now
am I going to get in trouble if I use this one
politics, paperwork, etc
Ideally, the training an officer receives will help him or her to shorten that thought cycle and choose the correct option. The problem I have seen is that of course, one can’t be presented with EVERY conceivable scenario. Some people just can’t seem to think abstractly enough to get outside the box of what they have been shown. I think most of the current training certainly tries to make people better at reading situations, so that they know when to react, and how to react, but as with most things in life, it’s hard to replicate reality.
[/quote]
I know that I have found great benefit in being talked/guided through the process of “clinical decision making” more than simply learning/working with “protocol to treat X”. A lot of clinicians will say the hard part is diagnosis, the treatment is comparatively easy
The language I am comfortable with is “consistent with” and “inconsistent with” when doing diagnosis, i.e. figuring out what the hell I am looking at. So, teaching from a stand point of thought process and how to problem solve vs simply learning solutions.
I can get into this more fully if you, or anyone, thinks it might be helpful.
That sounds like a real problem, without an easy solution. Getting proficient enough, and confident enough that you are, to actually try to apply a new skill when it matters is always a thing.
I think there is a saying about just having a hammer…
[quote]idaho wrote:
My statement about deadly force being a “no-brainer” was not very articulate, but, someone shooting at you, trying to stab you, or bash out you brains with a sledgehammer, shouldnt require a genius IQ to figure out your response. In essence, the decision has been made for you. I hope I cleared that up a little. I think the ability to make critical decisions accurately comes from your experiences,thats my take on the learning curve.
[/quote]
I actually thought it was fantastic. Folks seem to know when someone is no bullshit trying to kill them. So the “assessment” part of it simpler. That is what I took your statement to mean. Certainly figuring it out soon enough and having an ability to change things takes some doing, but “run what you brung” is a much simpler order than “Control the situation, but not in too rough a manor.”
Granted, I have actually said I wish there were more shootings in the USA. Explanation being I look at DOJ tabulations of rape, aggravated assault, homicide, or kidnapping I see situations where a spirited game of “catch the Gold Dot” might have led to happier conclusions. I most definitely include assaults on officers in with those stats.
I kind of disagree with this, because I feel it is a bit too gentle. McDonald’s is only an option if they are truly trying to be pacifists, no violence of word, action, etc. Otherwise, they need to get their minds right.
I fervently believe in self ownership. A violent predator is completely in the wrong. If they are preying on the property of others, they are stealing the “past” that person or persons spent to acquire it. If they are forcing their victims to do something, “rape”, “coercion”, or otherwise interfering with their liberty they are stealing their victim’s present. If they are damaging, maiming, or killing they are stealing their victim’s future. As such, the use of force to defend one’s self, or to defend another from this predation is completely justified.
People, or a society of people, also have every right to ask for help in defending themselves from such predation. In our society the police are part of that “help”, so the officer is not the “bad” actor. (Might want to point out the Graham v. Connor guidelines about how all force is “seizure” and how “seizure” of the predator’s liberty is completely fair game. Applying the actual standards would be useful, and getting out the Wheel Oh’ Whoop Ass for explanation of tools. Also could mention Tenessee v. Garner to outline when using force to “seize” the ever living shit out of a fleeing predator is both legally and morally justified, hint-You do it when it protects the past, present, and future of everyone else.)
That covers the “why” it is ok to use force/violence if necessary to effect a righteous arrest. If the issue is lethal force in defense of one’s self, then they are going to need to get their head in the game regardless of seeking other employment. They own their future. Said predator has no, absolutely NO, right to take that. They have every right to defend it, and wearing a badge cannot void self ownership. If that officer still can’t get their head in the game to defend themselves, they need to ask themselves if anyone cares about them, and how much do they love them back. Do they have children, siblings, parents, ect? The person who would kill them would also be inflicting suffering and hurt on those that will grieve for them. Will they fight to save their loved ones from crying over a casket, draped in a flag or otherwise?
I can’t make the choices for this theoretical officer. Even if I could, to do so would be eval(denying them their liberty). If they are unwilling to fight for themselves, for others, or for those they love, I want them to understand the gravity of that choice and to make it with a full heart, even if they screw up my order.
I am pretty much ok with being a prick. In fact, I sort of embrace it. Ok, that may have been worded poorly…
Correct. Malcolm Reynolds to “YoSaffBridge”. I am always at risk of tipping into critical nerd. For example, every time I see your screen name I think of Herbert’s Ginaz Swordmaster.
[quote]idaho wrote:
My statement about deadly force being a “no-brainer” was not very articulate, but, someone shooting at you, trying to stab you, or bash out you brains with a sledgehammer, shouldnt require a genius IQ to figure out your response. In essence, the decision has been made for you. I hope I cleared that up a little. I think the ability to make critical decisions accurately comes from your experiences,thats my take on the learning curve.
[/quote]
I actually thought it was fantastic. Folks seem to know when someone is no bullshit trying to kill them. So the “assessment” part of it simpler. That is what I took your statement to mean. Certainly figuring it out soon enough and having an ability to change things takes some doing, but “run what you brung” is a much simpler order than “Control the situation, but not in too rough a manor.”
Granted, I have actually said I wish there were more shootings in the USA. Explanation being I look at DOJ tabulations of rape, aggravated assault, homicide, or kidnapping I see situations where a spirited game of “catch the Gold Dot” might have led to happier conclusions. I most definitely include assaults on officers in with those stats.
I kind of disagree with this, because I feel it is a bit too gentle. McDonald’s is only an option if they are truly trying to be pacifists, no violence of word, action, etc. Otherwise, they need to get their minds right.
I fervently believe in self ownership. A violent predator is completely in the wrong. If they are preying on the property of others, they are stealing the “past” that person or persons spent to acquire it. If they are forcing their victims to do something, “rape”, “coercion”, or otherwise interfering with their liberty they are stealing their victim’s present. If they are damaging, maiming, or killing they are stealing their victim’s future. As such, the use of force to defend one’s self, or to defend another from this predation is completely justified.
People, or a society of people, also have every right to ask for help in defending themselves from such predation. In our society the police are part of that “help”, so the officer is not the “bad” actor. (Might want to point out the Graham v. Connor guidelines about how all force is “seizure” and how “seizure” of the predator’s liberty is completely fair game. Applying the actual standards would be useful, and getting out the Wheel Oh’ Whoop Ass for explanation of tools. Also could mention Tenessee v. Garner to outline when using force to “seize” the ever living shit out of a fleeing predator is both legally and morally justified, hint-You do it when it protects the past, present, and future of everyone else.)
That covers the “why” it is ok to use force/violence if necessary to effect a righteous arrest. If the issue is lethal force in defense of one’s self, then they are going to need to get their head in the game regardless of seeking other employment. They own their future. Said predator has no, absolutely NO, right to take that. They have every right to defend it, and wearing a badge cannot void self ownership. If that officer still can’t get their head in the game to defend themselves, they need to ask themselves if anyone cares about them, and how much do they love them back. Do they have children, siblings, parents, ect? The person who would kill them would also be inflicting suffering and hurt on those that will grieve for them. Will they fight to save their loved ones from crying over a casket, draped in a flag or otherwise?
I can’t make the choices for this theoretical officer. Even if I could, to do so would be eval(denying them their liberty). If they are unwilling to fight for themselves, for others, or for those they love, I want them to understand the gravity of that choice and to make it with a full heart, even if they screw up my order.
I am pretty much ok with being a prick. In fact, I sort of embrace it. Ok, that may have been worded poorly…
Correct. Malcolm Reynolds to “YoSaffBridge”. I am always at risk of tipping into critical nerd. For example, every time I see your screen name I think of Herbert’s Ginaz Swordmaster.
I try to keep the references to a minimum.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Robert,
Great post as always. I totally agree with your views on the use of deadly force, everyone has the right to defend themselves againist a violent attack. Citizens often feel protected by the presence of a police force, but, they fail to take into account, the police are a reactive force, not a magic umbrella of protection. The murders, rapes, robberies, assaults or whatever, are usually over by the time you get there. Its up to the individual to provide their own defense. I place a lot of blame for this nonsense on the US civil legal system, which will prey on your right of self defense and has turned our society into a nation of victims (rant)
Its ironic, but, I have a lot of experience with third world police units. I was embedded with a unit that handled major felonies. We were on the scene of a shooting, where a badguy walks into a Hajji shop, took out a knife and demanded money. The shopkeeper pulled out his trusty AK and shot him four times in the chest. The Colonel I was with, listened to his story, had about 3 cups of tea, talked to his daughter, then ordered his Sergeant to replace the elderly gentleman’s expended ammo. No investigation, no arrest, no trial. When I asked him why he didnt at least take him in for a statement, he just looked at me like I was crazy and said, " what did he do wrong?" Can you imagine that in the States? It seems that justice isnt a money making scheme in some places.
Well, LOL…idaho is short for “Duncan Idaho” my boyhood hero. Yes, I confess, I am a closet ScFi junkie…“FireFly”, whomever cancelled that show needs to be banished to the gates of hell and since I am ranting, the ending to Battlestar Galatia sucked…keep throwing in the references.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
The question that proved most difficult to answer was what if he continued to walk toward you with his hands behind his back? You don’t want to let the guy get into a good position to decide when to start the gun-fight, but you don’t want to shoot the guy before you know he intends to kill you. Either way, you’re in a jackpot. I read the thread on this incident(emphasis is mine-Robert A), but I would like to hear some different views on this hypothetical scenario. [/quote]
Will207,
I apologize. I was tired/doing a poor job of reading comprehension last night and did not realize you had already been through the short thread we had on it. I apologize, you were clear, and I wasn’t helpful.
I am not in LE and as such am not the best one to offer guidance for police use of force. The below is going to be coming from more of a “clinical” decision making standpoint. It may help, or it may be useless to you. Feel free to dismiss it if it doesn’t suit your purposes. I do not want to come off like I am trying to do your job, or even could. I am just goint to try to walk through the process of recognizing things, and getting comfortable with making a decision in real time.
Fundamental Assumptions
These might seem esoteric, but I think we should state them at the outset. IF you don’t agree with these, then nothing after them will be of value.
1.) We assume causality: Things happen for a reason. The physical world we observe has cause and effect relationships, and not everything is simply chronology giving an appearance of cause and effect. The reasons are there, and we can know them.
1-A) No supernatural causes: This is not an argument against faith, religion, or god. It is a statement that when we are trying to figure out WTF we are looking at, we will assume the explanation to be in the physical universe, and hence discoverable by us. Also, if what we do isn’t working, we can examine and do something else. God will not be willing us to hit/miss/get it wrong.
2.) Observing Reality: We trust that what we see is actually happening. Philosophically, this might be related to one, but I want to stress it. WE will be trusting our own eyes, ears, etc. We are making the fundamental assumption that we can accurately observe the physical world, and that the world is real and has causality. In other words, this isn’t the Matrix.(Nerd/Sci-Fi note: Watch Equilibrium if you haven’t. Liked it better than the Matrix).
General Process
1.)Observe/Gather Data/Assess
2.)Hypothesize/Figure Shit Out
3.)Test Hypothesis/Act
4.)Observe results/make sure things shake out as expected
Basically, we need to figure out what the hell is going on. Determine what the hell we should do about it. Figure out IF we can get that done, and the best way to do it. Actually DO the damn thing. And keep checking to make sure we get those results, and that everything confirms our initial determinations. We are always gathering info/assessing. We are always trying to confirm or, especially, disprove what we thought was going on.
We can do this because what we see, IS. And what is happens because: reasons.
The important take home is that we will be coming up with a “story”/picture/diagnosis of what the hell is going on and then constantly checking it with new info and results. The natural progress is from differential diagnosis( could be x, y, or z), to working diagnosis(treat it as y until proven otherwise or y is confirmed, to diagnosis (I am pretty damn sure it is y).
Checking the diagnosis is a matter of correlating what we see/find out with what would be expected if the diagnosis were true. The big determination is “consistent with” or “inconsistent with” If treatment was started we put “response to treatment” as one of the new things to correlate. This doesn’t just happen on the “bad guy” vs “good guy” vs “civilian” level. Earlier idaho was talking about utilizing pelvic girdle shots against suicide bombers wearing body armor. That is also a process of dx, tx, check response to tx and modify if needed.
Example: A clear threat(determined earlier) is running towards you and yours. You put the dot of your aimpoint over his chest/upper torso and fire, and you repeat this several times. He keeps trucking(consistent with not being hit, or not being injured). Fuck, not the result you wanted from that “treatment”. Did you miss all those times? No, dot was steady enough(inconsistent with you pulling your shots). He could be armored, or he could be wounded, but mobile. Fuck. Can you make a headshot? Probably not, he is moving and is still too far away. Triple fuck. Aim lower and start putting rounds through his lower abdomen, pelvis, and hips. If he drops, good. If he stops; can you make a head shot now? If yes take it. IF no, continue with tx. He just keeps coming, is he close enough to take a headshot now? Do you need to move? The answer to, “was he armored” can be determined later. The answer to “is he strapped with explosives” is something we WANT to be answered later. However, both get treated in the now.
I am interpreting your issue as when to trust your suspicion that it is time to “get it on”. So, I am just going to work through this a bit, and ask what the would be killer’s actions are consistent or inconsistent with. I make no claims that my decision making is better than the officer’s, yours, or anyone in this thread. In fact, it fucking better be substandard compared to those of you who do this for a living.
I am going to use the time of the above youtube vid. I am going to call the shooter the “subject”.
0:00 Starts with pulling the subject over, we will assume a justified stop, but not for anything really important.
0:03 Subject pulls over, but not very far. Consistent with: Being a dumbass who doesn’t get that is a dick move, being a dick bag who thinks that the officer want’s to play in traffic, trying to thwart any attempts at tactical positioning on the officer’s part, and probably more. Not much to go on here.
0:06 Subject opens the drivers side door and exits the vehicle. He does this before the officer even comes to a complete stop.
Consistent with: May be an old person who doesn’t realize this isn’t SOP. A self important prick who want to argue. A prick who has rank to pull. Someone looking to start shit. Someone who wants to exit the vehicle and start a gun fight. Someone not thinking/acting clearly(impaired by drugs, alc., medical crisis, ect.)
Inconsistent with: Routine, no problem stops.
Six seconds in and I think we can make a case for treating things as high risk from now on. It isn’t time to shoot, but getting ready to wouldn’t be a huge mistake.
0:07-11Subject exits vehicle. He is in military uniform. He has his right arm behind his right hip. Some might talk about “aggressive” stance or demeanor.
Consistent with: Uni could be a point to prick who thinks he has rank to pull, hand could be reaching for ID/Wallet. Also consistent with count 1 on a pistol draw.
Inconsistent with: Standard Stop, or person who is in a panic and wants help. This is not someone charging your cruiser because “My son stopped breathing, thank god you are hear!”
0:11-20Verbal exchange. Hand stays put. Subject asks questions and responds to officers commands, but does not comply with clear orders to get back in car.
Consistent with: Trouble. I cannot think of an innocent explanation. Let’s talk about what this isn’t.
Inconsistent with: Subj is alert and oriented. This is not a diabetic or confused person.
He is not acting consistent with someone who doesn’t understand the orders being given, not deaf/foreign language speaker/ect.
He isn’t acting like that is ID in his hand. Wallets get pulled smooth and immediately.
He isn’t acting scared/frozen so his stance and hand placement is inconsistent with someone who just realized they are wearing a “Needs to be Shot Costume” in front of an officer with a gun.
I am not claiming that this is the time to start shooting, but an argument could be made. I think there is definite supportable evidence to be ready to fire IMMEDIATELY here, and still being holstered would be a huge mistake. Response to “Sir, step back in the car”, Draw Down “Back in the care” or “Show me your hands” etc. would be very helpful diagnostic info.
0:22Subject closes his car door with his elbow
Consistent with: Can’t let go/won’t let go of something in his right hand, that is consistent with count 1 of a draw.
Inconsistent with: Anything good, or ok.
I realize that shooting him because he closed his car door is not going to be great testimony, but I swear this is where I was yelling “shoot him” in my head.
At this point his actions are wholly consistent with someone who has bad things on their mind, and a tool to accomplish them behind his right hip. A primary goal would seem to make sure that hand doesn’t come out holding whatever it has, because it probably isn’t going to be happy.
I am going to point out mapwhap’s comments on responses being somewhat determined by range. If this was conversational distance, and the officer was still holstered, striking or going “hands on” might be the best option because of speed. At this range, there is no way you can spring there fast enough to foul the subjects draw/aiming so firearms are good. I suspect you were already thinking shoot by now, but may not have been ok with articulating why. That is settled by this process.
0:23-27 More verbal exchange. More non compliance. No new information.
I am not sure I would be letting the subject back in the car at this point. I am thinking prone, cuffed, and searched is the minimum of “testing” I would want done before he gets access to fucking anything. There have been 10 plus seconds to come to grips with this.
:28-30Subject starts walking forward.
Consistent with: Trouble that has started.
Inconsistent with: Trouble that is still thinking about starting.
Are you ok with air holing this guy yet? If not what am I missing? What is the alternate explanation? At this point I think, if not before, the questions are going to be about bringing the most damage to bear, the quickest. We have had 20 seconds to come to grips with this.
:31Draw, muzzle flash
Confirmation of the things suspected above.
At the academy, we were taught we can use deadly force if ability, intent, and means (AIM) are present. The first two don’t bother me, but I probably would be fried if I shot someone without the means of grievous bodily harm or death being presented to me. Facing legal action is better than death, but it’s something you have to consider. In my head I would be thinking “I know I’m going to have to shoot this guy, I want to do it now because I know where this is going, but I have to see the weapon first”.
At the academy, we were taught we can use deadly force if ability, intent, and means (AIM) are present. The first two don’t bother me, but I probably would be fried if I shot someone without the means of grievous bodily harm or death being presented to me. Facing legal action is better than death, but it’s something you have to consider. In my head I would be thinking “I know I’m going to have to shoot this guy, I want to do it now because I know where this is going, but I have to see the weapon first”.
Quite a pickle.
[/quote]
Glad to help. Just trying to earn my keep.
Since the question is now about confirming, or disproving, “means” then can we look for ways to get that specific information while minimizing risk?
I suggest that a combination of range/cover and issuing commands, “show me your hands”, or maneuvering aggressively to get a better view are both potential ways to minimize your chances of being hit by incoming fire and neutralize contact weapons(might have been a knife or club instead of a gun).
Aggressive maneuver past either the subject’s 3 or 9 O’clock may expose what is behind him. It also forces him to re-orient on you, and may prompt him to make a non-effective action. Unfortunately, those angles don’t work in the video because of terrain on the right and traffic on the left (similar to a hallway).
DO NOT let him close on you. Even if he is empty handed, you have a gun(hopefully in your hands, not holster) and if he gets close enough you will be fighting over the Means to put holes in things. If he has a contact weapon he needs to get close, you can work from range. In the Oregon scenario moving to the rear of the car(both you and mapwhap covered this) may be a good option to keep range while looking for confirmation (if you keep a long gun up front you may not want to “abandon” an open cruiser though). If you cannot maintain range I am going to state that at some point before contact you can stop worrying about confirming/ID’ing his weapon choice and start defending his “gun grab” attempt, and that you adopt a casual attitude towards the subjects continued well being while you do so.
All easier said than done, but hopefully “simple, but difficult” is more manageable than “poorly defined”.
I am sure idaho and mapwhap would be better people to source for solutions on this than me. If you get a chance to pick DevilDogJim’s mind about it I would put him in the subject matter expert category as well.
Train hard. Stay safe.
Regards,
Robert A
EDTA: IF your agency is requiring that officers put themselves in a position to take incomming fire, at close range, despite overwhelming prior evidence of a threat than you have my sympathy. Never lose sight of the fact that is wrong, and an unreasonable request.
Robert,
Excellent analysis on the Oregon shooting and should be required reading for anyone faced with making the shoot/dont shoot equation. Your minute by minute breakdown was like reading a report by the investigative shooting team. Thank you.
Not to derail any discussion on the Oregon shooting or any other deadly force shootings,for, I would like to to read other responses, but, I was able to play with a FN Herstal yesterday and thought I would give a quick review for our continuning “Bad Ideas”.
A chance encounter with a couple of Danish security guys yesterday and they were kind enough to let me play with the FN Pistol, cal. 5.7 x 28mm. I have seen them before as, it seems, the Nordic’s like to carry them. I know the Norwegian Ambassador’s PSD team carries them ( well, last year).
My observations:
1.This is a BIG pistol and much too big for my medium to small hands. I had to to shift the pistol about a quarter of an inch in my hand to change mags.
The weight has to be experienced to be believed, extremely light, I am talking water pistol weight, in fact, without the ammo it would probably float like a balloon.
Accuracy is outstanding because recoil is non existent, but, what do you expect from a .22 Magnum/.17 Remington on steroids?
Muzzle flash has to be experienced, even in daylight. I got used to it after the first mag, but, think about firing a .357 mag 2 inch revolver at
night for a visualization.
The safety is ABOVE the trigger guard. I t would take me about 3 months of constant training before I would ever feel comfortable in carrying that in a serious situation. The Danes didnt seem to have a problem with it, I guess because they haven’t grew up with US handguns.
The 5.7 is a joy to shoot and based on the 40 grain armor piercing ammo we were shooting, able to zip through some levels of old Kevlar.(according to google, around 1600 FPS) However, I have my doubts about the structural integrity of the hollow-point variety holding up under real conditions.
Overall, from just a little over two hours, I won’t be carrying one on the job , without being ordered too.It is too big for my hands, the safety is certainly in the wrong place for me, night firing would leave you blind without some type of muzzle break, and I need to see some reports of the bullet actually stopping a predator.
Would I buy one? no, its too expensive, but, I would like to have one to play with,provided someone else bought the ammo, which is around $30USD a box :))
Good or Bad idea? Anyone own one or carrying one on duty? Please chime in.
The following is based on my limited reading on the subject. I would love some first hand reports.
“Good or Bad Idea?”
The cartridge, the P90, or the FN Five Seven pistol?
The Round
Well, the 5.7 X 28mm round was FN’s bid to get into the PDW(personal defense weapon) money, for NATO, in the 90’s. It uses .224(same as .223 or 5.56mm) diameter bullets, so it is basically “5.56NATO really short”. The idea was take the small diameter bullet, compared to 9mm, drive it fast, by pistol standards, and have it poke through CRISAT, wiki says 20 layers of kevlar and a titanium plate to simulate Warsaw Pact armor, armor. I guess they did that. So go them.
Of course the end result is basically a .22 magnum in terms of ballistics. Which is not really known as a man stopper. The 5.7mm rounds will yaw/tumble in gel so they do a little better than just poking holes in things. At best though ballistics are going to be similar to a 5.56mm going the same speed, which generally happens at ranges people say you shouldn’t be using 5.56mm. The 40 grain V-max is considered light for 60-70 pound coyotes. IF I would be under loaded for song dogs, convincing me that the same round is just fucking peachy to against people who want to make me dead and/or pregnant is going to be a hard sell. Not saying there isn’t a reason I don’t know. Just that it is going to take some explanation.
Also, fast 9mm (the Win 127gr +P+) or .357 magnum will also penetrate soft armor. Hell, 7.62 tokarov will as well and no one seems to be stumping to make that the next HSLD round.
The P90
Shoots the above, full auto. I guess that makes since for “then”, because I am under the impression that sub machine guns and full auto were the preferred choices for CQB in the past, but that SBR’s tend to be preferred now. I wonder if it was doctrine, or how much improvements in suppressor tech have made the idea of SBR’s more attractive?
Anyway, it is a buzz gun shooting a tiny caliber. The PDW concept was supposed to give non front line personnel a more combat effective weapon than a pistol, but without the bulk of a rifle. Wiki says the P90 weighs in at 5.7 pounds so there is that going for it. Of course, I don’t know if “full auto” translates into “more effective” when dealing with non-combat arms troops. I know the US Secret Service supposedly use it, but I don’t know how often they actually shoot people (If I had to pick Federal 3 letter agencies to base my firearms selections off of I think I would pick US Marshal’s Service or Border Patrol since I seem to notice they feature in news stories involving effective gun fire).
I suppose making a bunch of hits in auto would lesson any terminal performance issues, but then again if a double or tripple tap with your M-6 would settle things quicker…
I am sure there are door kickers for whom this kind of gear makes sense. I don’t think the PDW concept does as whole though. Lesser trained troops, but give them full auto. Designed for “Last Resort” situations, but a cartridge with lesser terminal performance than a carbine. Issue it to non-front line troops, and hope the guys who would leave a rifle/carbine in armory lug this around instead of a pistol.
Seems like a lot of money was spent making a NATO approved PPSh.
The Pistol
Nothing about the 5.7 round says it will do well at lower velocities. Low recoil is great, but if the overall length makes the firearm unweildly for smaller framed individuals some of that benefit goes away. IF we accept the idea that anything past 15 yards is a “long shot” with a pistol, and I do, than why then this cartridge in a pistol really doesn’t make much sense to me. In the P90 you can firehouse someone and place 6-10 rounds in them. Doing that with a pistol takes time/ammo. In that same time you could probably land 2-3 hits with a service caliber, or start a failure drill.
Again, may be it makes sense. For all I know the ability to penetrate soft armor is a huge deal for some applications(oh, and in those apps fast 9mm or surplus Tokarovs don’t exist). I am just so far removed from any of that I can’t really see it.
On the plus side, the P90 looks like a space gun and was used in the Stargate TV series. The Five Seven was the standard side arm for the troops of the 12 Colonies. So if I have to frak up some toasters, or just frack the hell out of “Athena” or Caprica 6 it is the obvious choice. Who am I kidding. It would be Starbuck, because crazy, daddy issues, unstable, women are into me. And my type is women who like me. At least “It turns out I have to disappear because I am an angel or some shit” would be a new reason to break up. Yeah, you are right. To hell with that ending.
Robert,
Excellent information on the weapons and ammo. I actually qualified to carry a P90 on a PSD assignment, but, I could never see any real advantages over a MP-5 or MP-3. I always wanted a cut down, customized M1A1, with a 3 shot selector and 30 round mags, pure hell there.
aaaaaahhhhh…Starbuck…if only our paths would ever cross…I watched the new version of Riddick two times, just to catch a 5 second glance of your left breast.
