PDA

View Full Version : New (to me) Shooting Technique - Comments?


gvf
July 6, 2008, 01:51 AM
At range tonight, being the only one there, the range officer who is also SD instructor (very good) gave me a free hour's instruction. We were doing Point-Shooting, and related stuff. On the way out, he gave me verbal instructions in another technique, which I'd never come across. Maybe you know it. Any comments would be nice:

When a threat is attacking, the period between you reaching your gun, unholstering, raising it to aim-point, aiming and firing can be a few seconds, during which the attack can continue, the perp closer, the knife now all set to go etc. , and you may well be so rattled by this as to shoot rushed and inaccurate.

The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center. The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker. In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway. Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause. (Not the point of the technique to monitor this, but who knows.)

In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak.

If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person. (A revolver might be more problematic this way.)

The only real down-side i see is not being able to practice but by dry-fire, due to potential ricochet of first shot off floor into the range ceiling, or outside off a rock skywards (or worse). So, seems like it should be used live only in life & death scenario.

Seemed interesting though.

Reactions?

dogmush
July 6, 2008, 03:47 AM
I've heard of this in the past, and seen it practiced on an outdoor range. I don't like it for a couple of resons.

1. You're counting on a reaction from a bad guy that you might not get.

2. (the biggie for me) You are intentionally letting off shots that you don't think will hit him. The potential for collateral damage here is (to me) unaccaptable. It goes against the whole "Be sure of your target" rule, and is effectivly laying down suppressive fire. Short of full scale war, there is not a good reason to use suppressive fire.

xrocket
July 6, 2008, 07:15 AM
In a true life threating attack on your person it can be a valid life saver.

Trained professionals fail to put the majority of shots on target most of the time. There are too many variables to account for in a gun fight to say any one technique is right or wrong. Any advantage you can initiate is to your good. Training, mind set and determination to live will be your best friend.

Others have employed the string technique and I have practiced it myself with a modification. Using a silhouette target I commence firing from the low ready position at the groin and work up to the head with rapid fire. I don't wait till I'm sighted on COM ... That could be too late. Of course, shooting at someones feet :D could get them to dancing in the other direction. :rolleyes:

Real world ... with a large capacity pistol stringing your shots might just save your life.

Not to be adversarial, but it is suppressive fire. That's right ... Your goal is to suppress the attacker before he suppresses you!

Keltyke
July 6, 2008, 09:22 AM
STOOPID!!! Your instructor is an idiot, and I don't mind saying so. I believe I'd take the rest of my training elsewhere. That sounds like a Grade B movie trick. There are more holes in that method than in Swiss cheese.

1. You're wasting rounds you might need.
2. Your firing without aiming, indiscriminately, and there's no telling where the round will go, especially if you fire into a hard surface like concrete.
3. There's a good chance you'll shoot your own foot off.
4. You're expecting a reaction from the attacker you might not get.

Never forget the first two rules of shooting.

1. Never point your gun at anything you're not justified in shooting.
2. Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

Threefeathers
July 6, 2008, 09:23 AM
I really like this, thank you.

Playboypenguin
July 6, 2008, 09:29 AM
I have seen this and I do not like it. I think pulling the trigger without knowing where the bullet is going is a very poor habit to get into indeed.

Plus, the recoil from that first wasted shot is actually more likely to make it take longer to get off a second good shot than it would have taken to get off a proper first shot. In a situation where a knife is coming at you, that could get you killed.

This is, IMHO, some Rambo crap by someone who has spent way to much time over thinking a bad situation to the point where they are showing no common sense.

gvf
July 6, 2008, 09:38 AM
STOOPID!!! Your instructor is an idiot, and I don't mind saying so. I believe I'd take the rest of my training elsewhere. That sounds like a Grade B movie trick. There are more holes in that method than in Swiss cheese.

I do mind your arrogance in denigrating someone I know well and who you've never met + the implication of my idiocy for even asking for comments.

The technique may not be a good one, but that's what the question was about - the technique. But someone who tells me of a technique and my posting for further information about it should not to be denigrated like this - especially when it is people you don't know or ever have set eyes on.

Stumper
July 6, 2008, 09:56 AM
I think that the instructor's 'logical' plan is poorly concieved. In reality the time lag between hip shooting and a flash aimed shot is extremely small. Many years ago I had to learn that the secret to breaking pigeons in skeet was to slow down. Amazingly that 90mph pigeon moves very little distance between a wild 'pull the trigger as fast as you can, miss" and a smooth mount, swingthrough and trigger the first shot, hit. On the other hand-recovery time from the first wasted shot to a second "attempt to aim" shot is considerable longer than the micro delay to set up the shot the first time.

Heepstress
July 6, 2008, 10:26 AM
My first reaction is to agree with most of the "that's not a good idea" reactions, for basic handgun safety rules, if nothing else.

However, it brings up a very good point for me: I practice as much as I can at a range, but I haven't had any SD instruction, other than in the CWP class. And like many have said many times, I doubt a BG is gonna stand there and wait for me to aim. I think it's time for me to call up my CWP instructor again! :D

Playboypenguin
July 6, 2008, 10:30 AM
I doubt a BG is gonna stand there and wait for me to aim.
You would be much better served by practicing fixed position, from the hip shooting than an on-the-fly type of shot as this. I myself practice close range, from the hip shooting quite often. It can be very practical at very close range.

Heepstress
July 6, 2008, 10:44 AM
I plan to carry my KT P-32 (I know, small caliber, but it's one I'm very comfortable with), when I FINALLY get my CCP. At the range, I practice point-and-shoot by picking my pistol up from the lane shelf and firing at the sillhouette target without sighting. That also helps with the comfort factor, knowing where my bullet is gonna hit when I point my gun. Hadn't thought of fixed, from the hip practice. Thanks!

Playboypenguin
July 6, 2008, 10:47 AM
You're welcome. A lot of people will disagree with me but I think fixed position, from the hip practice gives you a good feel for your gun and really improves muscle memory.

gvf
July 6, 2008, 10:53 AM
You would be much better served by practicing fixed position, from the hip shooting

Yes, we were working with this during the actual training session. The other he mentioned as we were leaving, offering it as an added tool for an incident where you were so pressed by someone rushing at you so fast that it might save your life by allowing one moment respite to set yourself. He was not suggesting this be S.O.P. for all encounters. It was a "card to have in the deck".

Sigma 40 Blaster
July 6, 2008, 11:47 AM
I think that's a bad idea, period.

I will try it with a shot timer to see how long it takes to go from holster with the two extra shots to finally getting a chest shot. Those first two shots really don't count for much unless you break the BG's feet/legs/ankles/kneecap...even then his hands and fingers still work fine.

I'm not the most well-trained but I can draw and get a nice chest shot in 1.5-1.75 seconds. I can get a random chest/body shot a little faster. Both times are at seven yards.

I don't see that technique getting me to a quality defensive shot any faster and save me a quarter to half a second on my time to first shot while I'm giving up a solid foundation of TWO handed shooting and accuracy...not to mention you're shooting at least 2 rounds that will not do you much good unless you expect the pucker factor of the BG to save your life or luck intervenes.

For up close work (0-3 yards) firing from retention or from the hip, depending on your drawstroke, is a way better option. I was taught to come straight up out of the holster until the thumb is at my pec. During the transition from holster to pec the barrel is brought up to be parallel to the ground. When my thumb hits my pec I know where it is pointed and my support hand is inches away.

I can effectively shoot once or twice and get center of chest shots, worst case I'll hit low and hit the stomach/hip area. I can repeat this drill with my eyes closed using a random shot timer. That is not to brag and say it's easy, it's all about muscle memory and an indexing point on your body that you know will place shots where you are pointed. I don't know how any of that will be affected by adrenaline and the pucker factor...that's why we do training drills and hope it'll be second nature when that skill is called for.

If I go out to five yards I'm not as accurate but still hit the target and get at least one shot in the vital zone out of three, at seven yards I tend to miss the vital zone and the target more but I don't do that drill at that distance much...I think it's a bit far for point shooting.

The only difference between this and hip shooting is that I'm shooting from the chest at a straight angle vs. PBP's suggestion of hip shooting where you're having to point up a bit.

The point of getting the first solid shot as fast as you can was drilled into me. The importance of being ready to fire another shot immediately was also drilled into me. I have found another method of shooting for close quarters that works better for me yet, not saying this method or another might not be better for you...just sharing my limited experience.

Also another strategy for an attacker who is up close or charging is to side step while drawing. It sounds simple and silly but it costs you zero time and forces the BG to change his angle of attack and find you. The step should begin when you get a grip on your weapon and by the time your feet plant the weapon should be up and at least READY to shoot if not already firing.

Gadget
July 6, 2008, 12:02 PM
I took my SD training from an old-timer in the 1960s. He taught me a hip shooting method he called the "zipper". As the sidearm is deployed, when the barrel is aligned with the pelvis, start shooting and keep it up till you see the BG's head. I've practiced this over the years and am comfortable with it. So for me, COM starts at the crotch.

Frank Ettin
July 6, 2008, 12:53 PM
What a stunningly bad idea. Intentioally sending rounds indiscriminately down range is just plain reckless. It's a waste of ammunition, and it's intentionally putting non-combatants at risk. An honest miss can be bad enough, but to willfully and with advance planning simply spew bullets in the general direction of the threat strikes me as egregious.

JollyRoger
July 6, 2008, 01:32 PM
the period between you reaching your gun, unholstering, raising it to aim-point, aiming and firing can be a few seconds, during which the attack can continue,

One of the problems with this instructor's approach is this presumption. While you can fumble the draw as far as getting the gun out of a thumbreak, etc., the actual time after getting free of the holster until coming to a general point of aim is on the order of less than a second. Ignoring the unsafe nature of blasting away as you come to bear, it would slow you down in getting a shot on target. Borrow a PACT timer and try it.

This is not to disparage point shooting in any way, as I am a firm believer in point shooting at close range, and specifically the speed rock/hip shot at extremely close distance, but nothing is gained if these techniques are performed incorrectly, and blasting the ground a couple times on the way to the target is definitely incorrect. Under stress, it would not surprise me in the least if a shooter blew a hole in his leg doing it that way.

gvf
July 6, 2008, 02:19 PM
blasting the ground

The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition.


From all the posts, doesn't seem like it's liked at all - and I can see some good reasons for that. So, maybe my question was answered. Thanks.

EastSideRich
July 6, 2008, 03:06 PM
I wonder if the point of this technique is not to shoot low (low point of aim - or nonaim), but to shoot with the gun low (by your hip) but still pointing at your target where you will be aiming once your arm is extended. You shouldn't have to actually have your shots going into the ground or the perp's feet or legs.

I think this is probably what your instructor was saying to try:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG7UdhTJ9RM

Watch what this guy does at about the one minute mark.

threegun
July 6, 2008, 04:11 PM
When you are under attack and late in reacting (Sweat N Bullets term for this is being behind in the reactionary curve) and the distance is close to contact, with no chance of moving to elude/buy time............I would fire from the hip (if gun is holstered) the instant the muzzle cleared the holster and was pointing at the BG. My weak hand would be used to defend with while my strong hand blasted away.

Jolly hit the nail on the head. It don't take seconds to draw and fire. You would gain more time by simply shooting from the hip plus your body is shielding the gun from a grab and your weak hand is free to protect your upper body.

BTW don't worry about folks busting your hangy down things. Always seek to get better no matter how crazy or silly it sounds. This forum is a great place to get tons of opinions both good and bad. I love posts like this as they make me think and thats good.

Frank Ettin
July 6, 2008, 04:35 PM
Point shooting is a useful and important skill. If practiced one can reliably put shots with the gun in a retention position on a close in target very quickly. If the target is further away and still a legitimate threat, you need to hit the target and not just spray lead around the environment. Only hits count. A hundred misses is not firepower; one hit is firepower.

rampage841512
July 6, 2008, 04:51 PM
Sounds like spray and pray to me.

The Canuck
July 6, 2008, 05:33 PM
During the entire time that I have recieved instruction in fighting with firearms I have only ever heard of anything vaguely similar in my preperation to serve in war zones while I was in the Army (suppression, fire for effect and kill-zones). Any training I have recieved for personal defense has always been very careful to reinforce that we only discharge rounds into the threat, never around him/her. Maybe he misinterpreted firing from retention?

There are too many variables to risk putting rounds out there without a great deal of confidence that they will hit the bad-guy in my opinion. You may be tossing rounds away, sure. You may be trying to scare the guy away and forcing him out of his OODA loop, okay. But EVERY BULLET HAS A LAWYER ATTACHED TO IT.

You may stop the scumbag, but can you say with great certainty that your first two rounds, which you may have just launched between his legs, will not maim or kill an innocent bystander? Sorry, I'm not gonna take that chance. At best, I'll go for a Pelvic girdle shot on the way up, if-I-even-think-about-anything-besides-how-big-the-knife-is-and-how-much-trouble-I'm-in-at-that-instant-as-I-pray-I-can-stop-him-from-hurting-me-as-my-muscle-memory-kicks-in-and-I'm-yelling-and-frothing-like-a-rabid-idiot.

So, I bet you can guess that I'm not gonna use this technique.

Keltyke
July 6, 2008, 06:58 PM
You are certainly wise to ask about this, and nothing in my post said otherwise. Your instructor may be a great guy, but the idea itself is very flawed, as many have said in this thread.

A far better technique would be to take several steps backwards while drawing and aiming. I've read and been told that you should be able to get your first shot off in 2 seconds, not several. Of course, the element of surprise, your position, and your method of carry will largely determine this, as well as your level of practice. Practice is everything, no matter what the technique or weapon. Standing still and firing low doesn't generate time and it wastes ammo you might need. It also endangers innocents. If you back up, you increase the distance the attacker has to cross to get to you, and that buys time. THAT'S what you're looking for here.

I watched my CWP instructor demonstrate this. He simultaneously drew, aimed, and shouted, "Stop or I'll shoot!" while taking several steps backward. As he moved, his gun remained locked on the torso of the imaginary attacker. If legalities are mentioned, this also backs up your defense, "I gave him every chance to cease and desist." Moving also messes up the attacker's path of advancement. He's now reacting to your movements, you're not reacting to his. You are in control. You can even turn sideways so the backstop behind him is clear of bystanders. Much preferable.

Didn't mean to step on your toes, but you asked for opinions, and I gave mine.

Frank Ettin
July 6, 2008, 07:48 PM
...I've read and been told that you should be able to get your first shot off in 2 seconds, not several. ...
In my training, we were expected to draw and place two rounds COM in 1.5 seconds at 7 yards, and we all did. And we used our sights.

Archie
July 6, 2008, 09:27 PM
But it isn't new. I've heard this described and discussed in the early 1980s.

The downside is very obvious: Uncontrolled rounds downrange.

gvf. if this man is a friend of yours and you respect him, I understand. However, this technique - at least as much as been discussed here in context - is a very poor idea and at best will cause you grief.

Sweatnbullets
July 6, 2008, 10:09 PM
It is a combat proven tactic that the old timers used with very good effect......period.

While I teach point shooting, I do not teach this due to todays liability concerns. I do let my students know about it's combat proven record, but leave it up to them on whether they want to incorporte it outside of my class

Once again.....I do not teach it......but that does not take away from it being a combat proven tactic. I teach that the first shot is taken as soon as the gun clears the holster and it is parallel to the ground.

Many of my students get quality combat hits, from the hip, around five yards, from concealment, in around .9 of a second after a couple of hours of training in EU/ED

Elbow up/elbow down....enough said.

The law of physics and economy of motion is irrefutable.

BikerRN
July 7, 2008, 01:10 AM
2. (the biggie for me) You are intentionally letting off shots that you don't think will hit him. The potential for collateral damage here is (to me) unaccaptable. It goes against the whole "Be sure of your target" rule, and is effectivly laying down suppressive fire. Short of full scale war, there is not a good reason to use suppressive fire.

Well said. :)

I am an advocate of using the sights when you can, that's why they put the bloody things on the gun in the first place.

With that said, there are times when you may not fire from a "normal" position, making the traditional use of the sights pointless. Even when firing from a retention position though I do have a form of aiming. I am indexing my body on the target, and the target is close. Remember, the closer the target the easier it is to hit without using the traditional sight picture.

I would strive to use the sights all the time for another reason though. When you are involved in a shooting you may or may not recall seeing your Front Sight, but if you have practiced enough your sights will be online with your target and it becomes a subconcious reaction. In short, you are using your sights without even realizing it.

One way you can practice this is to not look at your sights and "point" the gun at a target, keeping your focus on the target. Then look at the Front Sight. You should be on target even without seeing your sights. BTW, use an unloaded gun that you've triple checked if not doing this at a Range.

I think your Instructor's method is a load of bovine fecal matter and will create more problems than it solves and encourages a "spray and pray" mentality. Wyatt Earp said it best year's ago, "Accuracy is final."

Biker

xrocket
July 7, 2008, 07:52 AM
"I am an advocate of using the sights when you can, that's why they put the bloody things on the gun in the first place." ...BikerRN


Actually the gun manufactures put sights on for those who can't shoot without them. :D Just fun'n :)

I've followed this thread with mild interest in how it would play out. I'm actually surprised that so many have vehemently picked up on a few ill chosen words and went ballistic. Myself, I tend toward a more pragmatic approach to internet speak and less of a literal OMG, He Said That! After all, the concept as relayed by the OP was presented for discussion. I guess I took it to be a subject for theory and not as an all encompassing foundation of conflict resolution.

Anyway ... carry on.

bds32
July 7, 2008, 08:39 AM
The technique you described has been around for awhile. The famed lawman and pistoleer Bill Jordan dismissed this same theory in his book No Second Place Winner. He wrote,

"The idea of this being that even if those first shots only plow up the dirt between yourself and your opponent they will disconcert him and cause him to miss. In my opinion this theory defeats the whole idea of fast draw marksmanship, which, when reduced to its essentials, is simply to place your shot in a vital spot before you are hit by your opponent. Surely nothing could be more disconcerting to the accuracy of your adversary than a .357 Magnum slug applied judiciously in the region of the belt buckle. No man can afford to spot an opponent the two or three, or even one wasted shots advocated by the exponents of this hair brained theory." Page 57

Of course Bill, one of the fastest men ever, advocated hip shooting from 0 to 3 yards. As soon as the barrel cleared leather, it was leveled toward the target and fired. The barrel would be pointed at the suspect's torso. He could do this in around a quarter to a half a second.

Sweatnbullets
July 7, 2008, 08:49 AM
Short of full scale war, there is not a good reason to use suppressive fire.

Really!

How about where a brick wall is the back stop or you are out in the middle of nowhere and you are so far behind in the reactionary curve you are already taking incoming.

Resetting the adversaries OODA loop with shots as quickly as humanly possible is a combat proven tactic. It has a very good track record.

This stuff is not new......it has been around for a very long time. The old timers knew more about gunfights than most of the modern guys.....and that wealth of information is making a huge come back now that the training is combat focus and not just competitioned focused.

Everything has it's place inside of the fight continuum. Precision shooting or suppressive fire.....and everything in between. You just have to open your mind and see that the situation is the dictating factor......not the technique.

Rifleman 173
July 7, 2008, 09:17 AM
Bad idea BUT he may have been talking about the very old way to richocet birdshot or buckshot, not handgun ammo, off of cement or blacktop. That was actually, in the early 1970s, that this technique was tried and used for some riot conditions. If he was talking about richoceting shotgun ammo he may have left the wrong impression with you which has you believing it was done with pistol ammo. One state police group I know of tells its troopers that every time that they fire their gun off of a range, that's a million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen. A shooting technique like the one he describes is not a good idea because it actually lacks good shot placement to let the bullet work. Remember, you really do want "the bad guy backstop" to catch your fired rounds.

stephen426
July 7, 2008, 09:34 AM
1. You're wasting rounds you might need.
2. Your firing without aiming, indiscriminately, and there's no telling where the round will go, especially if you fire into a hard surface like concrete.
3. There's a good chance you'll shoot your own foot off.
4. You're expecting a reaction from the attacker you might not get.

Never forget the first two rules of shooting.

1. Never point your gun at anything you're not justified in shooting.
2. Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

1. If the bad guy is already on top of you and has a contact weapon, you won't need any rounds because you will either be severely injured or dead.

2. I don't believe that the original poster called for firing indiscriminately at all. He mentioned letting off shots while the gun is on the way up (30 and 60 degrees). Assuming that this really is a life and death situation and the bad guy is practically on top of you, the 60 degree shot just might hit the attacker.

3. You will only shoot your own foot off if you shoot straight down (duh). If you practice shooting at 30 degrees and 60 degrees, you have little to no chance of shooting yourself.

4. There is NO expectation here. The idea is to get shots off before you even have time to get the gun level. If you hit the attacker on the way up, it will certainly slow him down or at least diminish his ability to attack.

As the original poster said, this is life and death and reacting from behind the curve. My initial reaction was also to question firing off shots that may not hit your attacker. I'm pretty sure what was described was the zipper technique.

You guys also mention that you can draw and fire in 1.5 - 2 seconds. Have someone time you with a stop watch and see how much ground you can cover taking off from stand still and how much gound you can cover if you are already at a run. If I recall, that is called the Tueller drill. It was explained in my concealed carry calss that 21 feet is an acceptable distance for a self defense shoot against an attacker with a contact weapon due to his ability to close that distance so quickly. In fact, some say that a holstered gun at 21 feet is useless since the attacker can be on top of you before you can draw and shoot. Could the zippering technique allow you to get shots off before the attacker makes contact? I think so. It is not exactly unaimed shots, but low shots made on the way up.

The other comment about backing up is wrong in my opinion. Unless you have eyes on the back of your head, backing up could cause you to trip and fall. How many feet can you move backwards compared to someone moving towards you quickly (forwards obviously)? I doubt it is significant and as I mentioned, could cause you to trip.

If you guys take the technique as what it was probably intended for, it is not so bad once the initial shock wears off. It may not have been described perfectly and many of you have read into things and added things that were not said. In a dire situation where the attacker is practically on top of you and you are ate to react, I think this is a valid technique.

obxned
July 7, 2008, 10:33 AM
I really doubt that the few thousandths of a second between when your first shot would be in the dirt and when your first shot would be COM will make any difference in the outcome. I am also not comfortable with bullets bouncing around the scene.

A far, far better plan: Practice your draw and shoot at 3, 5 or 7 yards.

ronc0011
July 7, 2008, 01:17 PM
Many years ago when I was about 22 years old I was working at a car lot. All of the dealers had multiple hand guns on or about their person and the property. One night me and the lot manager and one of the dealers sons were sitting around shooting the breez and the discussion turned to how fast the youngster could bring a gun to bare. To prove the point I bet him I could take the gun away from him before he could get it pointed at me. He had a 1911 and we were both sitting in swivel type desk chairs. I was sitting basically in front of him and he already had the pistol in his hand ( it was unloaded and had been checked as such by everyone individually twice). Joe, the manager says go and I very easily took the gun away from the kid (18 year old).


I think it is a common mistake to believe you can get a gun up and leveled faster than you really can. Plus the added effect of watching your time run out as your attacker closes the distance. Most if not all people seriously under estimate how badly this ruins your ability to get a gun into the game.

threegun
July 7, 2008, 02:38 PM
The other comment about backing up is wrong in my opinion. Unless you have eyes on the back of your head, backing up could cause you to trip and fall. How many feet can you move backward compared to someone moving toward you quickly (forward obviously)? I doubt it is significant and as I mentioned, could cause you to trip.


If you move backward properly tripping is minimized. Also, one of my practiced options against a charging BG is to fall backward and fire while using my legs to fend off the attack.

While it is true that a person can move forward faster than backward, moving backward can buy you extra precious tenths of a second. In the tueller drill you will never reach me before I draw and fire several shots if I can move backward. Even if I muff the draw I could still recover and fire before contact. We used to practice this at work (just for kicks) to pass the time. I never lost while able to move backward. My partner who was way slower on the draw never lost while moving backward. So there is much to be gained by even the slightest of movement IMO.

c4v3man
July 7, 2008, 02:59 PM
I see several problems with this option.
1. Bullets may hit innocent civilians, in which if you killed one, would ruin your life.
2. The time difference between shooting at the ground 3' in front of you and firing properly from retention is minimal.
3. Firing at such a strange angle with an unconventional grip may invite 'limp wristing' or other problems to occur, possibly jamming the pistol in the process. I'd rather make the best of my 1 chambered shot, as there are no guarantees that you will get another (no matter how flawless your pistol is. I've never had a problem with thousands of rounds through my USP Expert, but you never know if you'll get a bad round, or a weak magazine spring, or any other "impossible" problems).

Practice firing from retention, perhaps throw your offhand onto your shoulder to shield your head with your arm from the attacker, and hope it's enough.

gvf
July 7, 2008, 03:14 PM
One-handed, perhaps pellet gun, but a visual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcc8DVRO_TU

M1911
July 7, 2008, 03:17 PM
gvf: You are responsible for the final resting place of each and every round you ever fire. Purposefully firing the gun when you do not know where it is pointed seems to me to be grossly negligent. And as others have pointed out, you are throwing away a round that you may need.

I don't have a problem with point shooting. I don't have a problem with John Farnam's "zipper" technique (John Farnam's "zipper" technique does NOT include shooting the ground and hoping it ricochets into the perp). I don't have a problem shooting from the retention position.

I do have a problem shooting when your muzzle is not pointed at the target.

Frank Ettin
July 7, 2008, 06:02 PM
[1] Yes, suppressive fire has it's place. Yes, throwing lead around may be okay/useful/ desirable in unique circumstances. These techniques are for use in special circumstance. If one wants to promote or encourage their use, he should be clear about when and where they should and should not be used.

[2] Yes, an attacker can cover 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds. That's why the next phase of training might includes moving back, diagonally or to the side as the gun is presented. And yes, you can trip, but practice and training help minimize that risk.

[3] If the BG is close, various point shooting techniques, including shooting within the gun in a closely held "retention" positions may well be in order. These techniques should be learned and practiced. But you are still intending to hit the target.

[4] So I still think it's recless to suggest that one routinely and as a general practice begin firing as soon as the gun clears the holster and without any real intention or expectation of necessarily hitting the target with the initial rounds fired.

Sweatnbullets
July 7, 2008, 11:26 PM
One-handed, perhaps pellet gun, but a visual:

Yeah, that's me with my G19 airsoft. It works the exact same way with live fire.

People do not understand that the fundamentals of combat shooting have nothing to do with the fundamentals of marksmanship. Therefore, training in combat shooting with your airsoft is just as valuable as training with live fire.

"Grip it and rip it!"

But I make the first shot of my zipper count. Parallel to the ground gives me hits right in the gut. One of the "oldtimers" favorite target.

gvf
July 8, 2008, 01:45 AM
[4] So I still think it's recless to suggest that one routinely and as a general practice begin firing as soon as the gun clears the holster and without any real intention or expectation of necessarily hitting the target with the initial rounds fired.

This must be the 20th poster who didn't read what I actually said, especially a clarification several posts past the original. Fine if you don't want to read every post, but then don't restate text of the posts. What I said can be found. I'm not re-posting it.

exprt9
July 8, 2008, 12:35 PM
quote:
I teach that the first shot is taken as soon as the gun clears the holster and it is parallel to the ground.

+1

follow up shots while bringing the gun up to eye level. Of course, this depends on how far the attacker is and what's beyond. If pressed for time shoot as soon as gun clears and is parallel to the ground and pointed to the attacker. If not pressed for time, aim the shots! Just my .02 cents!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ :)

Erik
July 8, 2008, 01:50 PM
Another critic.

And to be clear, it isn't a criticism of point shooting or suppressive fire. We're talking the about the willful firing of rounds without the reasonable expectation of hitting an assailant which won't have the effect of keeping him behind cover or with his head down, after all.

The advise given to the OP, specifically the part between the draw and the third (or forth? or fifth?) intended shot, is very bad advise, beginning with the dogmatic acceptance that the two opening shots may miss, that by missing you will ulimately be faster when your rounds eventually make it on target, and that all rounds including the missed ones will have any sort of measurable, telling effect.

ronc0011
July 8, 2008, 02:41 PM
and that all rounds including the missed ones will have any sort of measurable, telling effect.



Well I think anyone would have to agree that as soon as shots are fired everyone in the immediate vicinity is going to show some sort of effect. That is the sort of thing that will get your attention in a hurry.

As to whether the effects will be to your advantage or not is another question.

gvf
July 8, 2008, 03:21 PM
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
------------


Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
------------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."
-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

-------------
Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

Erik
July 8, 2008, 04:56 PM
You're right:

"The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center. The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker. In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway. Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause. (Not the point of the technique to monitor this, but who knows.)

In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak.

If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person. (A revolver might be more problematic this way.)"

---

"...the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body..."
Might as in might not. Perhaps as in perhaps not.

"...second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit..."
Possibly as in possibly not.

"...the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center."
Might well as in might not.

You're right. I don't know where we're getting the idea that the intent and advice is to accept missing. If the instructor in question, or you've, poorly described zippering, so be it. I have no problem with zippering, be it with sights or not. But it seems he's described and you have stated what he meant, which can't really be dismissed much better than Jordan did decades ago. (See above.)

And, I fail to see how shooting twice anywhere before the third shot is faster than just shooting that third shot as your first. Same start position, same draw, same arc of movement... But with the dynamics of shooting added. It isn't faster. It cannot be. As fast? Maybe; unlikely, but possible.

"The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker."
The hope seems to be justifying a plan to miss with wishful thinking at best. What about the not so insignificant number of times where there physical and psychological reactions are absent? Then what?

"In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway."
What pause. Oh, the assumed one. What about when there isn't one? What then?

"Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause."
There's that perhaps again... Again, what about when the assailant deviats from the script? Then what?

"In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak."
Who was it that said you cannot miss fast enough to win a gun fight?

"If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person."
If it doesn't work you've wasted time and ammunition, perhaps (Doh! There it is again! Lots of mights, maybes, perhapses and ifs... Too many to be taken seriously.) shot and killed others besides your intended target, and might not be in a position to use whatever rounds you have left in a more traditional manner.

But they, thanks for bringing it to the attention of folks who might not have heard of it before. It is always nice to see and/or talk about what is going on the community at large.

Erik
July 8, 2008, 07:24 PM
Still reading:

"Here is what I said that few bother to read:

"
The suggestion was not to blast the ground but to shoot starting low, (and in the event it was way too low that a ricochet might have an effect anyway). It also wasn't suggested to shoot indiscriminately, but to shoot twice - point shooting - on the way up, in an arc, at the perp - and a quick follow-up at center - at the perp. It's rapid point-shooting along a "string" - as the term was used here - moving up the target to gain a pause in the attack hopefully, so as to recover control of aim when one is about to be literally "over-run".

That's not to say this makes it a good technique, but that it is the technique described to me. If something other than that came through in my description -- my error in composition."

---

Shooting low and indescriminantly appears to be exactly what has been advocated, hence the need for all of the "if you miss at least something positive will come of it" justifications. If your instructor friend said them, then it is what it is. If you added them... well, did he or you? I ask because it sounds like you did a good job describing something many happen to disagree with, as oppossed to the other way around.

M1911
July 8, 2008, 08:08 PM
Let's turn on the way back machine, shall we?

The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center.

We all carefully read what you wrote, gvf. Perhaps you should go back and read it for yourself.

If you are shooting with the gun barrel pointed at an angle of 30 degrees from the ground, you are pointing at the ground, not at the perp. Deliberately firing a round while your gun is pointed at the ground instead of the perp is not only bad tactics but negligent as well. There is a lawyer attached to every round you fire.

I don't have a problem firing from retention, point shooting, or firing during the extension of your arms. I don't have a problem with John Farnam's zipper technique. I don't know John Farnam. He's not a friend of mine. But this sure ain't his zipper technique.

I do have a problem when you suggest firing while your gun is pointed at the ground.

You can't miss fast enough to make up for not hitting the target.

gvf
July 9, 2008, 04:06 AM
We all carefully read what you wrote, gvf. Perhaps you should go back and read it for yourself.

Perhaps you should read this then as well: do not make little digs, like the last phrase - to me. It is insulting. I don't care how you think about this, just do not do it.

(No you didn't read what I posted, likely 5 times, plus the first time, a clarification of what the man had said.)
---------
Erik :
Shooting low and indescriminantly appears to be exactly what has been advocated, hence the need for all of the "if you miss at least something positive will come of it" justifications. If your instructor friend said them, then it is what it is. If you added them... well, did he or you?

Yes, then that first low shot is not a good idea. Though, he meant to try and hit the target low. I don't think you care though. You are in a court, and taking down an opponent, so you will pick apart the words, so you can win the argument.

No one needs this, to read much that has been written about yourself or another man that is laced with hostility, for an innocent question/comment about a passing suggestion new to me. And yes it has often been filling in my words with suppositions, - as was commented on by another poster - and worse has been done print-wise to the other man who none were with or know besides me. There is no call to treat people like this, (though this is but some of the posters).
Especially so when it is from behind the comfortable and seemingly anonymous distance of cyberspace.

The question I asked has been answered to my satisfaction.

threegun
July 9, 2008, 07:53 AM
gvf, Thanks for making everyone think. Anytime we think about our self defense its good. Your post educated many. As a bonus you got Sweat n Bullets to chime in and he is a load of knowledge.

gvf
July 9, 2008, 09:17 AM
Thanks to you

Take Care,
gvf

Erik
July 9, 2008, 07:23 PM
"I don't think you care though. You are in a court, and taking down an opponent, so you will pick apart the words, so you can win the argument."

Who, literally, invited criticism? And by extention, criticism of redresses to the criticism?

Oh wait. In reading back I see that it was you. Good advise, that "just go back and read" bit. Apparently though, what I and some others are reading and what you're meaning are different. Hey, that happens. You seem a bit defensive about it, though. Perhaps you are reading something different than what the critics mean? At least, maybe that's possible.

Either way, no biggie. I'm comfy with my position on a largely discredited technique.

To all: Apparently GVF feels my criticism is somehow personal in nature. This is not the case, nor my intent. I wish him well and apologize for any mis-understandings.

Keltyke
July 9, 2008, 08:28 PM
I hope I'm not in the same parking lot when you guys try this silliness. :eek:

A big thanks to those of you who tried to add a little common sense to this thread.

I'm outta this one.

Maximus856
July 10, 2008, 08:44 PM
As always situation dictates.

If the BG is a few yards away you can probably snap your weapon up and aquire a decent site picture. If he is a few feet away and moving fast you should draw, snap your weapon IMMEDIATELY parallel to the deck and fire as you bring it up. This isn't something you should just mentally know, its something you must practice. Its muscle memory. Its not something you want to use when the BG is a decent ways away or when you have 0 training with it..IMO its not something that should be used in the civilian world either unless it really is life or death. But like I said above and others have said situation dictates.

-Max

dedyamisha
July 10, 2008, 09:09 PM
Seems to me that if you have time to recognize a threat exists, you have time to react in the way that you trained in, i.e., controlled aim and fire. There is less chance of collateral damage and mis-placed shots. Plus, it can save shots for a possible unforseen second assailant.
Above all, protect yourself and protect innocent bystanders.

HoraceHogsnort
July 10, 2008, 09:18 PM
The first rule of a gunfight is to SURVIVE!! If that means shooting at his feet, then his leg, then his groin, then his COM, then that's what it takes. Otherwise the inscription on your tombstone may read, "He died, but he played by the rules"!!!

clt46910
July 10, 2008, 09:38 PM
I was taught this technic many years ago. Particular if the BG is right on top of you. It is proven and works. In a fight for your life, you want to live. Not die because you second thought what the lawyers might think. There are no rules when it is life and death.

Striker071
July 10, 2008, 10:46 PM
OK I think the person who was teaching this practice went alittle overboard. But if you look at it this way if you have to start at his groin and finish at his chest or head then it is a good practice period. I dont agree with firing anything at anyones feet. But hitting him in the groin or lower stomach is more than a viable option. start at the lower extremities and work your way up through center mass. I have been taught this technique as well as other reactionary techniques. It is just another tool in your toolbox. At the point where you are doing this you are already at a disadvantage. Dont get me wrong it doesnt replace good sight aligment and trigger pull but it may again be a another tool for your toolbox and may save your life or the life of others. NO SPRAY and PRAY is not an option. Point shooting you still have to be in control and you have to practice it... over and over and over. Shooting at the ground or someones feet is not an option but dont discount point shooting because someone has their facts wrong

Sweatnbullets
July 11, 2008, 12:13 AM
Being a slave to a specific technique fails miserably inside of Force on Force (FOF.)

For those that are technique focused, you really need to take those techniques into properly structured FOF. You will immediately see the problem with being technique focused. I have never met one person that went into properly structured FOF and did not see the absolute need to add point shooting and movement to their tool box.

Train in concepts.....not techniques.

Always using the sights at full extention is like only knowing how to throw a left jab. You have no right hand....you have no hooks or uppercuts.....you have no kicks.....you have no ground game......you are a slave to a single technique.

Here is a concept for you "Just shoot the dirtbag!"

Who cares how you do it. Just get it done!

xrocket
July 11, 2008, 07:08 AM
Here is a concept for you "Just shoot the dirt bag!"



Well stated and directly to the point.






.

bds32
July 12, 2008, 07:34 AM
I have never met one person that went into properly structured FOF and did not see the absolute need to add point shooting and movement to their tool box.

This statement is absolutely true. All of the perfect stances and sight pictures go out the window. After numerous FOF scenarios, I don't ever remember seeing sights at close quarter distances.

gvf
July 12, 2008, 08:30 AM
From celebrated Police action in my hometown. The male officer's instincts told him he's never draw in time, and was perhaps too close to even clear the gun, so he grabbed the BG and hugged, taking all the remaining rounds himself to the point where he heard only the trigger clicking on empty - but saving his partners life. He came up in the heat of the moment with the only weapon available to him: his body:

Wounded officer may be paralyzed

SPINE SEVERED FROM SHOT FIRED BY TEEN
Injured partner who tackled suspect is in fair condition

By MAKI BECKER, VAN and ESSA THOMAS JAY REY
News Staff Reporters Buffalo News
12/7/2006

Officer Patricia A. Parete, clinging to life Wednesday night after her spine was severed by a bullet, is described by fellow cops as vibrant and "not one to walk away from a police call.

Varner Harris Jr. was meeting the requirements of his probation following his conviction last year.

Officer Patricia A. Parete, clinging to life Wednesday night after her spine was severed by a bullet, is described by fellow cops as vibrant and "not one to walk away from a police call."

Patricia A. Parete - one of two Buffalo police officers shot Tuesday night - was fighting for her life late Wednesday, her spine severed by a bullet fired by a teenager who was on probation.

If Parete survives, she likely will be paralyzed from the neck down.

"If she lives, she's probably going to be a quadriplegic," said a fellow officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I'm just so angry right now. It's horrible."

Sources also told The Buffalo News that police believe Varner Harris Jr., 18, who police say confessed to the shootings, opened fire on Parete and her partner, Officer Carl E. Andolina, because he feared being sent to prison now that he is of legal age and no longer eligible for youthful offender status.

Parete, the first female Buffalo police officer shot in the line of duty, was listed in serious condition late Wednesday night, while Andolina was in fair condition. Both are in Erie County Medical Center.

Tuesday night, Parete and Andolina were riding together on a special detail downtown investigating a rash of car break-ins. At 9:01 p.m., they were dispatched to a Valero gas station on the corner of Chippewa Street and South Elmwood Avenue, where a fight had been reported.

The officers spotted Harris running from the scene and chased him in their cruiser.

They got out of their patrol car and ordered Harris to turn around and take his hands out of his pockets.

They didn't know until too late that Harris was carrying a gun.
Harris "knew once the gun was found that he would go back to jail and finish his time and he wouldn't be a young offender anymore," a police source said. "He'd be going to the men's jail."

Harris began shooting at the two officers, nearly emptying the gun, as Andolina tackled him to the ground.

Neither officer discharged a weapon.

Parete was hit twice. Her bulletproof vest blocked a round aimed at her chest, but a second bullet pierced her face and ripped apart her spine.

As Andolina tackled Harris, he was hit three times - in the neck, arm and chest, protected by his vest.

"Andolina charged at him and took him to the ground," Police Commissioner H. McCarthy Gipson said at a morning news conference at ECMC. "He physically charged at an individual who was firing at him at point-blank range. He charged at a blazing gun."

stephen426
July 12, 2008, 09:43 AM
From celebrated Police action in my hometown. The male officer's instincts told him he's never draw in time, and was perhaps too close to even clear the gun, so he grabbed the BG and hugged, taking all the remaining rounds himself to the point where he heard only the trigger clicking on empty - but saving his partners life. He came up in the heat of the moment with the only weapon available to him: his body:

Sorry to disagree, but there is a big difference between bravery and stupitidy. Charging at someone who is shooting at you rather than returning fire is insane at best. The closer you get, the less likely the shooter is to miss. If both officers were critically wounded, they could not help each other out. Maybe both would have been killed and the bad guy would have gotten away. I can understand risking your life for your partner, but it is senseless to risk both lives by taking inappropriate action.

gvf
July 12, 2008, 10:14 AM
Charging at someone who is shooting at you rather than returning fire is insane at best. The closer you get, the less likely the shooter is to miss. If both officers were critically wounded, they could not help each other out. Maybe both would have been killed and the bad guy would have gotten away. I can understand risking your life for your partner, but it is senseless to risk both lives by taking inappropriate action.

This action was investigated by all concerned, and there was no hint that any other way would have been more appropriate - or POSSIBLE - to save his partner.

This transpired before you could count to 2 - when he made the leap - while his partner was being continuously shot - and this happened more than a year ago.
Now, far removed by time and space, you are sitting comfortably behind a computer- and YOU are so sure he did the wrong and crazy thing, when no other hint of that ever appeared subsequently?

This is the hubris of intellectualizing, of theory over reality.



Here is more, from America's Most Wanted where the officer on the Award for 2007:

In December 2006, Officer Carl Andolina, responding to a fight in progress at a convenience store, faced the ultimate nightmare scenario for a law enforcement officer. The veteran officer and his partner Officer Patricia Parete, approached a suspect pointed out by the store clerk. Little did they know that this individual was a violent convicted felon who was on parole. The two officers approached the suspect who waited until they were literally inches away before he began firing his weapon. Two rounds struck Officer Parete - - shattering her jaw bone and lodging in her spine. Officer Andolina acted quickly - - he grabbed the suspect's gun and was shot. Without regard for his personal safety and with a bullet in his neck, Andolina wrestled the shooter to the ground, subduing him until help arrived. Andolina is recovering from his injuries while his partner was not so fortunate. Today, Officer Parete remains on a respirator undergoing a slow recovery. Andolina's selfless actions are still evident as he assists in raising money and providing support for Parete's family. Buffalo Police Lieutenant, Danny Williams, commented "both officers were two young good cops. Carl's first response was 'how is my partner."


Puleeeze: I didn't post this so there would be a general field-day on this LEO but to make a point already raised: reality dictates the action. He won a ton of heroism citations and awards. Why not just accept what those there and those investigating found -- and that he wasn't a fool. Or move on to something else which is another option. Lordy........

stephen426
July 12, 2008, 11:24 AM
This action was investigated by all concerned, and there was no hint that any other way would have been more appropriate - or POSSIBLE - to save his partner.

This transpired before you could count to 2 - when he made the leap - while his partner was being continuously shot - and this happened more than a year ago.
Now, far removed by time and space, you are sitting comfortably behind a computer- and YOU are so sure he did the wrong and crazy thing, when no other hint of that ever appeared subsequently?

This is the hubris of intellectualizing, of theory over reality.

Puleeeze: I didn't post this so there would be a general field-day on this LEO but to make a point already raised: reality dictates the action. He won a ton of heroism citations and awards. Why not just accept what those there and those investigating found -- and that he wasn't a fool. Or move on to something else. Lordy........

Am I glad that he alive? Certainly. Am I glad that he was able to save his partner? Certainly. Was there a more effective solution other than the one he took? Possibly. The outcome does not justify the technique. What if they had both been killed and the shooter got away? Would you still call it a good technique? When the poop hits the fan, I can understand instinctive responses. Proper training increases the likelihood that the instinctive response would be the appropriate one.

When they stoped the suspect, they should have had their hands on their weapons with any retention devices off. If they suspected he had a weapon, they should have had their guns drawn and at low ready. They were caught off guard and received multiple gun shot wounds as a result. Is it bravery because they were caught off guard but survived? I respect his bravery for willing to sacrifice himself for his partner, but truth is they could have both been killed that night. Had he had his gun out, do you think he would have shot the suspect or charged him? Monday night quarterbacking done.

gvf
July 12, 2008, 11:28 AM
I respect his bravery for willing to sacrifice himself for his partner, but truth is they could have both been killed that night. Had he had his gun out, do you think he would have shot the suspect or charged him? Monday night quarterbacking done.

That the way you did it when you saved your partners life?


(Sorry when I wrote that this was investigated by all concerned without a hint of an error made. I forgot you knew better. Really sorry.... as the officer will be when he finally learns he was wrong all this time...you alone got it)

stephen426
July 12, 2008, 11:46 AM
That the way you did it when you saved your partners life?

I have nothing personal to gain from this arguement so you can take it as personally as you like. Failure to learn from past events lead to the same results. Other lives might be saved as a result. Had they followed proper procedures, it is even possible that Officer Parete would not be a quadrapalegic now. One officer should have been holding the suspect at gun point while the other should have restrained him. For both officers to have been within inches does not seem like proper procedure.

In the attachment you posted, the lieutenant said that they were "two young good cops". Could that mean inexperienced?

I was not there. I have not saved anyone's life. I can analyze a situation and learn from their mistakes though. Maybe you feel that Officer Andolina's response was the right one. Feel free to charge someone shooting at you. I personally, would rather return fire.

By the way, do you really think that it would be politically correct to say the officer screwed up after he tried to save his partner and was shot several times as well? Try asking, objectively, if any of their actions led up to that situation. Frankly, I have no idea why you are taking this so personally. Whatever.

gvf
July 12, 2008, 12:17 PM
By the way, do you really think that it would be politically correct to say the officer screwed up after he tried to save his partner and was shot several times as well? Try asking, objectively, if any of their actions led up to that situation. Frankly, I have no idea why you are taking this so personally. Whatever

What's the matter with you? I live here and I know police officer's and I know that this incident was investigated and no error was found on the part of either officer, - I've said it twice - but the opposite: the male officer was cited for heroism by the police agency - subsequently there were hundreds of opportunities to find errors from scores of other agencies, organizations nationally. Not a hint of anything but bravery

And you somehow deny this is true and insist such errors were made that the officer is, in fact, responsible for the life-long paralysis of his partner.

Do as you like, but don't wonder about the reaction to it.

stephen426
July 12, 2008, 01:08 PM
By the way, do you really think that it would be politically correct to say the officer screwed up after he tried to save his partner and was shot several times as well? Try asking, objectively, if any of their actions led up to that situation. Frankly, I have no idea why you are taking this so personally. Whatever

What's the matter with you? I live here and I know police officer's and I know that this incident was investigated and no error was found on the part of either officer, - I've said it twice - but the opposite: the male officer was cited for heroism by the police agency - subsequently there were hundreds of opportunities to find errors from scores of other agencies, organizations nationally. Not a hint of anything but bravery

And you somehow deny this is true and insist such errors were made that the officer is, in fact, responsible for the life-long paralysis of his partner.

Do as you like, but don't wonder about the reaction to it.

On a personal note, I am sorry to hear about the officers being injured, especially since you know them personally. This is not an attack on them or their person, but a review of what could have been done better. Do pro athletes only watch the ESPN highlights showing their best moves, or do they review the games they got spanked on to see how they could have improved? I hope other officers learned from the situation and I hope they approach suspects more carefully. By the way, I said that it is possible that the outcome could have been different, rather than saying Officer Andolina is responsible for Officer Parete's injuries.

By the way, I am not questioning Officer Andolina's response once he was in that situation. I am saying maybe it was possible to avoid being in that situation by being better prepared for it.

I think we are thread jacking this so you can start a new thread if you like. Heck, you could probably even start a poll to see if anyone could find fault with the officers' actions. I seriously doubt that I am the only one who believes that they could have done things differently and that the outcome could be different. If you do decide to start a thread, we can continue this there. Like I said, I have nothing to gain from "being right" so lets call this thread jack over.

matthew temkin
July 13, 2008, 06:20 AM
The old time gunfighters--Applegate, Fairbairn, and some of the old time cops who trained me in the early 1980's--advised getting off the first shot ASAP.
As it was explained to me, even a close range miss will very likely get a reaction from the BG, enough to give you up to a two seconds advantage.
Personally I prefer the elbow up/elbow down draw stroke, which is very fast indeed and gives a very good chance of your first shots hitting the BG in the belly area.
Naturally this would be followed with movement while bringing the gun up higher up in the cone of vision--a/k/a the zipper.
So--I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves if this is still a valid concept.

Erik
July 13, 2008, 07:06 PM
I'm not sure what the "SPINE SEVERED FROM SHOT FIRED BY TEEN" article brings to this particular thread.

The article gives little detail about the mechanics of the shooting. Was the shooter reported to have used the technique you are asking about? It does not appear so.

Regardless:

I'm of the opinion that Officer Andolina desreved his commendation, regardless of whether tacticians might approve or disapprove of the course of action he decided on. Brave is brave, and brave he was when it mattered.

GVF,
You seem to take perceived disagreement and/or things that you perceive as challenges rather personally. There are two examples in this thread alone: First, over responses to a critique you asked for, and now in response to comments to a seemingly unrelated-to-the-thread article that you posted. You are coming across as a bit more worked-up than called for. Which in turn detracts from points you seem passionate about conveying.
Erik

stephen426
July 13, 2008, 08:19 PM
Erik,

I think the point that gvf was trying to make was that sometimes the best weapon to use is your body rather than trying to draw and fire. I actually agree with this and believe that some unarmed combat skills should be part of everyone's arsenal.

Frankly, I never said that officer Andolina didn't deserve his commendations. His willingness to risk his life for his partner's is certainly selfless and heroic. My point is that charging a loaded weapon is rarely the best defensive maneuver.

I think gvf took it personally when I mentioned that certain things could have been done differently that could have resulted in a different outcome. For one, they should have had they hands on their weapons or even their guns drawn before approaching a suspect who had his hands in his pockets. One officer should have held the suspect at gun point while the other officer secured him. I believe this is all standard procedure. Having both officers walk right up to the suspect with out their weapons drawn is what they did wrong (in my humble opinion). I'm willing to bet that had Officer Andolina been able to do it all over again, he would have done something like that. I'm sure he would also risk his life for his partner's if he had to do it all over again.

While some Monday night quarterbacking, I call it analyzing a situation to see what could have been done to prevent future incidents. Failure to learn from tragic events simply leads to them happening again. Again, I have nothing personal to gain from this. Heck if it saves an officer's life because they stop a suspect in a safer way, then it is well worth the critique.

gvf
July 14, 2008, 12:56 AM
First, over responses to a critique you asked for, and now in response to comments to a seemingly unrelated-to-the-thread article that you posted.

The first is an opinion. Which of course is fine. But it is an opinion or interpretation, not a statement of fact.

As to your mention of the cop-story, if you read where this was placed, it followed several posts that pointed to flexibility in response to what is actually happening in a critical emergency, and reality determining what SD actions to take: so, the story of the officer was mentioned as an example of this - so extreme that the one action available to the officer to save a life (his partner's) was to use his body as the weapon, a shield, not his gun. (Which is what the facts were and the finding of the subsequent investigation; a poster here began the ensuing discussion).

gvf
July 14, 2008, 03:48 AM
GVF,
You seem to take perceived disagreement and/or things that you perceive as challenges rather personally. There are two examples in this thread alone: First, over responses to a critique you asked for, and now in response to comments to a seemingly unrelated-to-the-thread article that you posted. You are coming across as a bit more worked-up than called for. Which in turn detracts from points you seem passionate about conveying.

You mean, for example, could I misinterpret this personal note to me on a Gun Forum critically evaluating my psychic workings - as personal.

Or your off-hand judgment of my article being unrelated to the thread, which you made in a note unrelated-to-the-thread...... would I mis-perceive it as personal.


----------------------------
Your remarks on my posts are opinions, not facts. Which is fine. But opinions, interpretations, are not statements of fact.

Re the story of the officer: if you read where it was placed, it followed several posts that stressed flexibility and letting the needs of the reality of an SD emergency determine appropriate SD actions, as opposed to theory doing so. As an example supporting this view, I posted the story of the officer -- so extreme a situation that it's reality called for the one weapon available to save his partners life: his body, not his gun - (which were the facts of this case and finding of the subsequent investigation) - another poster then joined on that story and the discussion ensued.

RDak
July 14, 2008, 06:12 AM
Interesting thread. I've heard of that technique before but the 30 degree shot just seems too dangerous to me.

I guess I could maybe learn the "halfway" point (i.e., 60 degree shot).

I just don't know if I'd have the calm mindset to really know when I was at the 60 degree point though!? :o