Shoot to wound? Very few people have the skills of Delta snipers. I think it’s safe to assume cops don’t either. They were probably trained to aim center mass and double tap. Some people call it a controlled pair. They probably got nervous and fired more than 2 rounds, which is understandable.
As far as less than lethal force goes, Israeli Special Forces commandos are the only people I am aware of who would have even considered fighting that guy without firing something at him. And, yes, if one Israeli Special Forces soldier confronted the man with the bar or ax, I’d put my money on the Israeli winning without having to fire his weapon.
Did anyone mention the 21ft rule yet? That guy was way to close with that demo hammer. This looks like it was a good shooting. And if they emptied their mags into the guy, so what? You keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.
I don’t like “law enforcement” but I really don’t like violent criminals.
I was only addressing a logical false assertion that it is impossible to incapacitate someone with a firearm. I didn’t mention anything about how easy it would be.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
It is impossible to know what will incapacitate someone. The guy may be on drugs and not feeling pain. Should they have tried to shoot him in the knee cap? In all seriousness, have you ever shot a gun? Could you hit a moving 3" circle while you yourself are moving, in the fraction of a second it takes to finish that axe swing? If you could, can you guarantee that the dude wouldn’t be able to still finish that swing and kill your partner? This guy was still moving after one shot to the chest. Still moving after two. It took 5 to get him down, and I’m supposed to believe that some trick shot should be standard operating procedure?
If someone wants a long life, don’t swing deadly objects at police officers.[/quote]
This only explains the some of the difficult of incapacitation, but doesn’t make it impossible. Not feeling pain doesn’t override anatomical failure. If police wanted to make non-lethality THE goal, they could, but it would take more training. Wouldn’t it be better if someone wasn’t dead?
Of course he was moving after one shot to the “chest”, why would that stop anyone in the fraction of a second between shots?[/quote]
Non-lethality was the goal. That’s why they tasered him first, and then pepper sprayed him. At either point, that idiot could have thought “These guys are serious and I don’t want this to escalate” instead he thought “Imma swing this here axe at a man pointing a gun at me!” He had every chance to live and would have lived but for his own actions.
It is just flat out irresponsible and childish to think that bullets should be used for anything other than killing.
Please answer though, have you ever fired a gun, and if so what kind and how much? I guess more than firing a gun, I should ask if you’ve ever trained with a firearm to have the best form possible.
I am actually in college right now in the criminal justice major. I just had a seminar about use of force continuum, and a good shoot versus a bad shoot. They also touched on how they are trained to shoot.
This is definitely a good shoot. He moved aggressively at the police with a weapon they reacted. Secondly, shooting to incapacitate is ridiculous and only people who have not shot hand guns in any capacity would think you could just hamstring the guy and stop him. The stress of the situation, mixed with the adrenaline, plus the split second response time, it just ain’t possible or only happens accidently. They are also trained to shoot until he is down and the weapon is dropped, like others have said you don’t know you hit him till he is down and the threat is gone.
Fun fact we learned at the seminar tonight. If a suspect spins around and shoots at an officer it takes 1/4th of a second to analyze the situation and decide to shoot, it then takes another 1/4th of a second to pull the trigger. So if you do not react instantly with instant force you are dead. Another thing he taught us was that a cop with a holstered gun needs to have 28 feet of space between himself and an assailant with a knife, to be able to pull his gun and shoot before he gets stabbed to death. He said it used to be 21 feet but they found out they needd to add a few more feet.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
I was only addressing a logical false assertion that it is impossible to incapacitate someone with a firearm. I didn’t mention anything about how easy it would be.[/quote]
If a man is charging you with intent to kill you, and you want to try to incapacitate him, more power to you. You will fail. You will die.
Why don’t we take this specific video as an example, and you explain how the officer should have incapacitated the criminal with his firearm.
Also the trainer who helped develop the Ohio use of force continuum said that a 98% shooter at the range is a 15% shooter in this type of situation.
[quote]WW3General wrote:
I am actually in college right now in the criminal justice major. I just had a seminar about use of force continuum, and a good shoot versus a bad shoot. They also touched on how they are trained to shoot.
This is definitely a good shoot. He moved aggressively at the police with a weapon they reacted. Secondly, shooting to incapacitate is ridiculous and only people who have not shot hand guns in any capacity would think you could just hamstring the guy and stop him. The stress of the situation, mixed with the adrenaline, plus the split second response time, it just ain’t possible or only happens accidently. They are also trained to shoot until he is down and the weapon is dropped, like others have said you don’t know you hit him till he is down and the threat is gone.
Fun fact we learned at the seminar tonight. If a suspect spins around and shoots at an officer it takes 1/4th of a second to analyze the situation and decide to shoot, it then takes another 1/4th of a second to pull the trigger. So if you do not react instantly with instant force you are dead. Another thing he taught us was that a cop with a holstered gun needs to have 28 feet of space between himself and an assailant with a knife, to be able to pull his gun and shoot before he gets stabbed to death. He said it used to be 21 feet but they found out they needd to add a few more feet.[/quote]
Video support, skip to 1:22 for the 21ft rule stuff.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Please answer though, have you ever fired a gun, and if so what kind and how much? I guess more than firing a gun, I should ask if you’ve ever trained with a firearm to have the best form possible.[/quote]
I have been shooting for 15 years. I went a range last Saturday and punched holes in a target with my HK45. What does trained mean? I have trained myself with as pistol in the same way I’ve trained myself olympic lifts; that is to the point where a coach did not find much fault with my form. Can I point shoot, no.
These questions are irrelevant to the point I made.
[quote]grettiron wrote:
[quote]WW3General wrote:
I am actually in college right now in the criminal justice major. I just had a seminar about use of force continuum, and a good shoot versus a bad shoot. They also touched on how they are trained to shoot.
This is definitely a good shoot. He moved aggressively at the police with a weapon they reacted. Secondly, shooting to incapacitate is ridiculous and only people who have not shot hand guns in any capacity would think you could just hamstring the guy and stop him. The stress of the situation, mixed with the adrenaline, plus the split second response time, it just ain’t possible or only happens accidently. They are also trained to shoot until he is down and the weapon is dropped, like others have said you don’t know you hit him till he is down and the threat is gone.
Fun fact we learned at the seminar tonight. If a suspect spins around and shoots at an officer it takes 1/4th of a second to analyze the situation and decide to shoot, it then takes another 1/4th of a second to pull the trigger. So if you do not react instantly with instant force you are dead. Another thing he taught us was that a cop with a holstered gun needs to have 28 feet of space between himself and an assailant with a knife, to be able to pull his gun and shoot before he gets stabbed to death. He said it used to be 21 feet but they found out they needd to add a few more feet.[/quote]
Video support, skip to 1:22 for the 21ft rule stuff.
[/quote]
Grettiron this trainer said the knife fighters have evolved to the police tactics. He said now they will have at least 3 knives they will start running at you and the first two knives will be thrown making the officer have to dodge the objects, this slows his unholstering, hence the 28 feet range now. This is obviously against the true honest to goodness knife fighters who are trained, not just some guy who thinks he is a knife fighter.
He actually referenced training with philipino blade masters, which I believe is the most deadly knife martial art out there.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
Please answer though, have you ever fired a gun, and if so what kind and how much? I guess more than firing a gun, I should ask if you’ve ever trained with a firearm to have the best form possible.[/quote]
I have been shooting for 15 years. I went a range last Saturday and punched holes in a target with my HK45. What does trained mean? I have trained myself with as pistol in the same way I’ve trained myself olympic lifts; that is to the point where a coach did not find much fault with my form. Can I point shoot, no.
These questions are irrelevant to the point I made.[/quote]
They certainly aren’t irrelevant. Trained means you have gone beyond pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, and have learned how to actually use a gun in a tactical situation. If you have trained, and not just plinked, then you should know better than this crap you’re talking. Trained means you know that you’d be lucky to put both rounds of a double-tap within a 4" group consistently - on a non-moving target without being under stress.
[quote]WW3General wrote:
I am actually in college right now in the criminal justice major. I just had a seminar about use of force continuum, and a good shoot versus a bad shoot. They also touched on how they are trained to shoot.
This is definitely a good shoot. He moved aggressively at the police with a weapon they reacted. Secondly, shooting to incapacitate is ridiculous and only people who have not shot hand guns in any capacity would think you could just hamstring the guy and stop him. The stress of the situation, mixed with the adrenaline, plus the split second response time, it just ain’t possible or only happens accidently. They are also trained to shoot until he is down and the weapon is dropped, like others have said you don’t know you hit him till he is down and the threat is gone.
Fun fact we learned at the seminar tonight. If a suspect spins around and shoots at an officer it takes 1/4th of a second to analyze the situation and decide to shoot, it then takes another 1/4th of a second to pull the trigger. So if you do not react instantly with instant force you are dead. Another thing he taught us was that a cop with a holstered gun needs to have 28 feet of space between himself and an assailant with a knife, to be able to pull his gun and shoot before he gets stabbed to death. He said it used to be 21 feet but they found out they needd to add a few more feet.[/quote]
Makes sense. As I stated before, the mistakes the cops made were getting way too close to that guy and the cop who took his eyes off the objective. He’s lucky he didn’t get his face permanently rearranged. After those mistakes were made, they got low on options in a hurry.
This issue has spread around the internet, this may be the best post I’ve seen on the issue anywhere so I’m going to paste it here:
[quote]I very rarely post in these types of threads. Emotions usually run high and opinions are always fickle beasts. That being said, since this is actually an area in which I am very familiar I will try to shed some light on the situation for those saying this is an unjustified shoot.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a “Body Alarm Response,” your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don’t even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he’s still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you’re safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
I personally teach every student I’ve ever trained that his main priority is to make it home safe. Your wife/kids/husband/partner are expecting you & counting on you. If someone is coming at you/friend/family, you drop them absolutely. You never shoot to kill but you always shoot to stop the threat, in most cases this will kill the individual but that is never our intention. Hindsight and outside perspective is extremely skewed in these types of situations.
As far as being able to justify a shooting you have to be able to say to yourself, DAM! DAM is Desire, Ability and Means. This suspect displayed desire, he was well within range/had the capability to end that officers life and he definitely had the means.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.[/quote]
The shoot to incapacitate garbage is just that. In a scenario where shoot to incapacitate is a true option(so there are no immediate reasons why your accuracy is seriously threatened, or a missed shot has no immediate consequences such as collateral damage or no allowance of attack from target) there is no need to take such a shot. An officer will only pull his weapon when deadly force is acceptable, at which point while his objective is not to kill, diverting to shots that are not guaranteed to hit have other consequences that are not worth it(thus why he has pulled his weapon).
[quote]borrek wrote:
They certainly aren’t irrelevant. Trained means you have gone beyond pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, and have learned how to actually use a gun in a tactical situation. If you have trained, and not just plinked, then you should know better than this crap you’re talking. Trained means you know that you’d be lucky to put both rounds of a double-tap within a 4" group consistently - on a non-moving target without being under stress.
[/quote]
It is completely irrelevant because it doesn’t affect my point. I’m not talking about your training, my lack of training, police training, protocols, whatever. All I did was point out something that you said, in general, without context, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to incapacitate. No comment on the specific situation, no extrapolation of some hidden meaning or any implications. And this is something that happens whenever I comment on someone’s logic and nothing else. They just don’t see that its the ONLY thing that I’m talking about.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
They certainly aren’t irrelevant. Trained means you have gone beyond pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, and have learned how to actually use a gun in a tactical situation. If you have trained, and not just plinked, then you should know better than this crap you’re talking. Trained means you know that you’d be lucky to put both rounds of a double-tap within a 4" group consistently - on a non-moving target without being under stress.
[/quote]
It is completely irrelevant because it doesn’t affect my point. I’m not talking about your training, my lack of training, police training, protocols, whatever. All I did was point out something that you said, in general, without context, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to incapacitate. No comment on the specific situation, no extrapolation of some hidden meaning or any implications. And this is something that happens whenever I comment on someone’s logic and nothing else. They just don’t see that its the ONLY thing that I’m talking about.[/quote]
The only thing you’re talking is bullshit. It is POSSIBLE for that cop to shoot the hammer out of the criminals hand with a single bullet while surfing on his k9’s back.
You’re pretending I’m saying it is impossible to incapacitate someone with a gun. You know damn good and well that what I’m saying is that it is stupid and irresponsible think that is a realistic tactic.
“There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.”
Thanks for the predictable response.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
They certainly aren’t irrelevant. Trained means you have gone beyond pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, and have learned how to actually use a gun in a tactical situation. If you have trained, and not just plinked, then you should know better than this crap you’re talking. Trained means you know that you’d be lucky to put both rounds of a double-tap within a 4" group consistently - on a non-moving target without being under stress.
[/quote]
It is completely irrelevant because it doesn’t affect my point. I’m not talking about your training, my lack of training, police training, protocols, whatever. All I did was point out something that you said, in general, without context, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to incapacitate. No comment on the specific situation, no extrapolation of some hidden meaning or any implications. And this is something that happens whenever I comment on someone’s logic and nothing else. They just don’t see that its the ONLY thing that I’m talking about.[/quote]
What are you even trying to prove? It’s like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.
Dijon you are splitting hairs and just generally being a dick. You know exactly the type of situation we are talking about, so do not act like there is not a situation up for reference.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
“There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.”
Thanks for the predictable response.[/quote]
I don’t believe that you read what I wrote and got a sudden hard-on to argue semantics. You’re simply prevaricating now.
You made a stupid comment and got informed, but you’re choosing to remain ignorant. If you really think that I meant “impossible in the realm of physics for a human to be incapacitated by a gun” then you are quite the mental midget. It is “impossible to implement as a realistic solution while safeguarding the lives of officers and innocent civilians who are nearby”
You still never answered about how the officer should have incapacitated that criminal.