PDA

View Full Version : Knife-wielding suspect vs. 5 armed officers


Bartholomew Roberts
May 10, 2011, 09:34 AM
Came across this video on another gun forum, I thought it was worth sharing because it illustrates how deadly a knife can be, how fast these situations can develop, and why you cannot treat a firearm as a magic talisman that will ward off evil.

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DeexGDSsJn9c

In this video, a man is being confronted by Nicaraguan police officers. There are approximately 5 officers, including one armed with an AK47 and the remainder armed with pistols. Using both poor tactics and judgment, the officers attempt to surround the man and he stabs several of them - killing two officers before anyone even attempts to stop him with lethal force and stabbing several others after being shot repeatedly. Naturally, the video is very graphic.

Because there were so many mistakes in this video, I think it provides a good discussion of how this might have been handled better. In addition, I also think the video does an excellent job of why a person with a knife is a very serious lethal threat that you cannot simply dismiss because you've got a gun.

EDITED TO ADD: The relevant fight scene takes place around the 7:00 minute mark if you just want to skip the news report.

nathaniel
May 10, 2011, 09:48 AM
I have absolutly no training whatsoever but do people normally turn their backs and run away when the perp has a knife? To me it looked like they all panicked instead of taking control of the situation. Maybe they have no training either its hard to say, but it could have been handled very differently.

Id like to pose a question for anyone to answer. Do you think a Tazer would have made a difference in this encounter?

PanBaccha
May 10, 2011, 09:57 AM
Here is a clear case of a woman not wanting anything more to do with her ex. And so goes to the nearest police station for safety. But for the first several minutes this reporter constantly asks her the same question over and over, (Why don't you want anything more to do with him?) Geez! What an instigator! The armed police are clearly inept and way too comfortable with situation, and so suffers the consequences. Way too much emotion exhibited, and a third-world tactical approach.

MLeake
May 10, 2011, 10:03 AM
A Tazer should only be used against a knife if you don't have something more effective on hand.

Police aren't expected to match force with the bad guy. Continuum of force is intended to have the police use the least force necessary, but that always assumes the least force is one step above what the BG is using.

If the BG is using a deadly weapon, the police (and for that matter the rest of us) should be using deadly weapons, not LTL.

Tazers and mace, etc are intended for belligerent BG's who are NOT using deadly weapons.

At least when I went through use-of-force training, the continuum was:
1) Verbal commands
2) Cuffs
3) Hands-on
4) Chemical (security department at that base didn't have Tazers at that time)
5) PR-24 (tonfa stick) which was considered lethal force, but still at a lower level than a firearm
6) Firearm

If the BG went to hands-on, the patrolmen were expected to elevate to chemical.

If the BG produced a non-lethal weapon, or was just too tough for the patrolman to take with chemicals and bare hands, the patrolman was expected to go to the stick.

If the BG produced any weapon, the patrolman was expected to use his issue sidearm.

2damnold4this
May 10, 2011, 10:31 AM
It looked like they picked sticks up off the ground to try and take on the fellow with the knife. I wonder if that's standard practice for them or if they were trying to avoid shooting him because of the camera.

MLeake
May 10, 2011, 10:39 AM
I've trained at weapon takeaways for many years in aikido, jujitsu, and arnis.

That said, if somebody pulls a knife on me, I will most likely just shoot them (assuming they don't immediately cease and desist when the gun is drawn). I may be better than the average civilian at taking away a blade, but there is still a high percentage likelihood of getting cut in the process.

An untrained person attempting to do it is very likely to get badly hurt, or worse.

Somebody who did it once at a class at the academy, and hasn't practiced with any regularity, is for all intents and purposes untrained. (Note: some of my instructors have been LEO's, and they train a lot, but the vast majority of their training is on their own time and their own dime.)

Bartholomew Roberts
May 10, 2011, 10:51 AM
It is also worth noting that even as he is being shot, the suspect covers a LOT of ground and stabs several officers. A handgun is not a death ray and may not stop someone instantly. If you don't have space, a determined attacker can inflict serious injuries even from what appears to be a great distance.

Another thing the video illustrates well is mindset. I imagine there are many teaching points just on that issue alone.

MLeake
May 10, 2011, 10:55 AM
Speaking of the BG continuing, and the gun not being a death ray... For those who have the mobility and health to do it, a bit of MA training is a good thing. If only to learn how to get out of the way, and possibly deflect the knife while you shoot and while the BG bleeds out.

If you never get hit, kicked, stabbed, sliced, or shot, you don't lose the fight. You may not "win" but you won't lose.

old bear
May 10, 2011, 11:11 AM
At least when I went through use-of-force training, the continuum was:
1) Verbal commands
2) Cuffs
3) Hands-on
4) Chemical (security department at that base didn't have Tazers at that time)
5) PR-24 (tonfa stick) which was considered lethal force, but still at a lower level than a firearm
6) Firearm

How times have changed, in 1974, our force of training was "suspect attempts to fist fight, use stick and break hand or arm. Suspect had weapon of any kind, step out of range and shoot them." The good old days, were not always the best days.

MLeake
May 10, 2011, 11:19 AM
old bear, in 1991, our guys were taught to avoid hitting hands with the stick, as multiple small bones were much more likely to sustain permanent injury. The stick was intended for use against long bones (femur, humerus) if possible. It was not supposed to be used against hands, wrists, ankles, heads, collar-bones; I wonder if the people who came up with those rules ever tried to surgically strike an aggressive, moving target...

aarondhgraham
May 10, 2011, 11:28 AM
I wonder if the people who came up with those rules ever tried to surgically strike an aggressive, moving target...

The people who come up with rules of engagement rarely ever have tried to implement them.

A close friend of mine was a new park ranger in Sacramento in the early 90's,,,
She shot and killed a Homeless man who was advancing on her with a kitchen knife,,,
A newly minted assistant DA who was looking for a name making case wanted to charge my friend with manslaughter.

They arranged for her to go to the academy where they ran the Tueller (sp?) drill against her,,,
She backed off the case very quietly.

This is one of the downsides of civilians making up the rules for LE and Military,,,
Not that I would want it the other way but the civilians should be required to try out their own ideas.

Kinda reminds one of Viet Nam doesn't it.

Aarond

I hope McNamara is burning in hell,,,

MLeake
May 10, 2011, 12:34 PM
Well, at least the DA in your friend's case was willing to learn from the academy, instead of taking her beating in court, after putting your friend through a full trial. That puts her above some others, out there.

Still, it would have been better if she'd done that bit of research prior to filing charges in the first place...

aarondhgraham
May 10, 2011, 12:38 PM
I think I wasn't perfectly clear,,,

They arranged for her to go to the academy where they ran the Tueller (sp?) drill against her,,,

The "her" in this case was the assistant DA,,,
She was the one with a starter pistol having the "bad guy" close on her.

According to my friend the DA got stabbed repeatedly in the drill.

My friend was also a she,,,
That's where I wasn't clear in my writing.

Sorry for the confusion.

Aarond

But Wait,,,
There's something in the water at OSU today,,,
You had it correct al along AND I'M THE ONE HAVING A BRAIN FADE.

~smacking self on forehead~

.

gearhounds
May 10, 2011, 12:38 PM
It seems that whenever I see video's of knife wielding suspects in foriegn countries, the police/military always seem to treat the situation as if it is way less dangerous than it really is. I would never close distance with any kind of weapon, and a knife wielding suspect gets gun faced immediately. Surrounding him is a very bad idea for a number of reasons. Unless you incapacitate with a CNS shot, you are in extreme danger from a motivated subject. A taser could have worked early on before it hit the fan, but is an inappropriate use of force once the guy went on the offensive

2damnold4this
May 10, 2011, 12:59 PM
I wonder what ammunition the officers used. 9mm ball perhaps? All the more reason not to get close to the knife wielder.

threegun
May 10, 2011, 01:37 PM
That said, if somebody pulls a knife on me, I will most likely just shoot them (assuming they don't immediately cease and desist when the gun is drawn). I may be better than the average civilian at taking away a blade, but there is still a high percentage likelihood of getting cut in the process.



Most practitioners won't admit this. Thank you for telling it like it is.

Eagle0711
May 10, 2011, 01:54 PM
I was unable to view the utube vidio. But was in a system of Kenpo Karate and heard of a 5th degree black belt in Hawaii who had a high enough rank to start his own system. He got into a bar fight, and turned to run, and while doing so, he was stabbed in ths kidney, and died the next day.

Good lesson here. No matter how skilled you are, knives are deadly.

MLeake
May 10, 2011, 01:56 PM
Aaron, I understood you, and was referring to the DA learning from the academy's Tueller drill, and then withdrawing the charges instead of proceeding. I may not have been clear.

Threegun, if I weren't carrying, I might consider a disarm. But I have been trained by instructors who all have carry permits, too. If the BG has a weapon, we should not use bare hands if other options exist.

sirsloop
May 10, 2011, 02:13 PM
Looks like the officers took the guy for granted and got owned big time. A determined man with a knife is no joke. The pile of bodies and pools of blood agrees :rolleyes:

Jim March
May 10, 2011, 04:36 PM
Just before the attack the cops look extremely casual. "Hey, toss me that stick", etc. Sigh.

A much less important factor: cops outside the US (esp. 3rd world countries) usually use hardball pistol ammo instead of JHPs. That could have contributed to the failure-to-stop issues.

threegun
May 10, 2011, 05:11 PM
If the BG has a weapon, we should not use bare hands if other options exist.


Plus if the bad guy is trained in how to properly use a knife, particularly offensive use, many of the disarm and defense techniques wouldn't be as easy as in the dojo. A miss would indeed be problematic. A couple misses and it could be over.

In theory each cut should disable an appendage.

shootniron
May 10, 2011, 05:29 PM
a person with a knife is a very serious lethal threat that you cannot simply dismiss because you've got a gun.

I really do not know anyone that would not treat a threat from a knife the same as they would a threat from a gun.

I may not be able to dismiss him, but I would sure dispatch him unless good sense overcame him.

I have no more to fear from a knife than I do a gun.

old bear
May 10, 2011, 07:12 PM
The people who come up with rules of engagement rarely ever have tried to implement them.

If they ever did they quickly forgot how KEYED up EVERYONE is when something like this happens. Every time it got to the point of having to use a weapon to subdue a fighter, I was always scared to death, as I really did not want to hurt anyone NOR was I going to let someone hurt me or my partner.

I remember seeing a video, years ago, of the White House police deal with a man with a knife who had gotten on the grounds. There were 6 - 7 of them they surrounded the guy, each one of them had what looked like a baton that was 4 - 5 feet long, every time he moved one of them hit or poked the poor guy with their stick. It only took about 30 seconds for him to give it up. That was a very professional response to a dangerous situation.

gearhounds
May 10, 2011, 08:14 PM
"That was a very professional response to a dangerous situation."

You can bet that someone was pointing something else at him, in the event he was able to break the cordon and endanger one of the officer's. I would add that in that situation, if he needed to be shot, it should also be thought of as a professional response. Looking back at the video, it amazes me that it took this guy repeatedly stabbing multiple victims before someone started shooting. The guy with the AK should have hosed him and ended it before he ever got started.

mnero
May 10, 2011, 08:17 PM
This video illustrates the need for distancing yourself from a threat. If you are armed with a missile weapon and confronted by a determined assailant, who is only armed with a hand held weapon, then by all means make distance your ally and do what you have to do. The officers here were either absolutely unprepared for their duty assignment or they simply did not take this threat seriously. When I was in San Diego I got drunk and passed out in a gutter:owhen base security were called about it(it was directly across the street from the base) I got a bit surly with them so they put me down with their sticks. The moral of the story is: you use sticks against a dumbass drunken sailor who is UNARMED not against an angry man with a knife! Mleake ain't kidding about the hand, mine never did heal after the last time I broke it and it was well tended to.

cracked91
May 10, 2011, 08:31 PM
Whew. Thats the kinda video that makes the .380 you CCW feel a bit like a BB gun. Regardless, the tactics and attitude with which the police approached were undoubtedly why this situation became as lethal as it did.

I don't speak Spanish, but based on tone of voice I can tell that no strong verbal commands were given, and no active plan or tactic was in progress.

Instead of isolating the suspect so that he could be fired upon without risk to others (which they could have done easily by the look of it) if need be, they did the opposite, and put people on the side of him that did not have any before. When he initially went for the officer with the AK, no shots could be safely fired because of the people already lined up at the fence. By the look of it, as he ran between officers, no officer could take a shot without a substantial risk of hitting one of the other officers they had scattered all over the place.

All IMHO, I also feel that this is one of the best videos/scenarios I have seen here to date. A real eye-opener and mental conditioner.

Shooter4Life
May 10, 2011, 08:53 PM
By watching the video, its hard to believe that those men are trained law enforcement. I am a very lightly 'trained' civilian and I can see they did nothing correctly. What a waste of human life.

I was confronted by a man with a knife some time ago, armed with a 9mm (JHP) and made similar mistakes. I didn't react soon enough and the result, 7 stab wounds to the chest and back. I am very fortunate to have been able to learn from this experience and carry on. Watching this video was a very good reminder of what happened and how to properly handle the situation. I am willing to bet, much like myself, the surviving officers wont make the same mistakes again.

mellow_c
May 10, 2011, 10:58 PM
First off... my heart goes out to the officers and their families who were hurt during the attack.
I can imagine how they must have felt after realizing how they allowed themselves to be hurt so bad, or possibly killed by simply giving the man with the knife the benefit of the doubt.
The attacker only took one swipe at the officer with the AK and it seams like that one swipe may have been enough to kill that man. This is a prime example of the extreme danger of knifes.
People are used to feeling a situation out, and you would like to think you could have a close personal conversation with someone and talk them into surrendering. But taking a gamble like that is obviously not worth the risk. I'm not saying you have to be cold and inhumane and only go off training and logic, but only after following sound tactics and not allowing yourself or anyone else to be a target can you begin to reason with someone who may potentially kill you. If they have any possible way to hurt you, you need to focus on one thing, and thats changing the situation so that they can NOT hurt you.

Again, I feel really bad for these folks. The whole situation went down the wrong way, from the reporter continuously pushing the soon to be suspect despite his efforts to be left alone, to the police surrounding the suspect like a gang would someone they were going to beat up, to the officer holding the AK in one hand and a baton in the other, to people not taking available shots, and so on and so on.

This reminds me of when I was younger when I would have confrontations from bullies, they would try to start a fight with me and get in my face, and I would stand my ground and let them say all they wanted and even push me, but I'd just stand tall and wait for them to finish. But then on a few occasions when the same sort of thing happened, the guys would actually get upset that I would not fight and then actually punch me in the face. I wasnt ready for it, and didnt expect it, nor did I actually think they would really do it. Just like I'm sure the officers didnt really think the guy would ACTUALLY start stabbing them.

Just goes to show, you can never be too careful when involved in any sort of confrontation.

Again, I feel really bad for those guys. Thats a really hard way to learn a lesson, and I wouldnt wish that upon anyone.

Davey
May 11, 2011, 12:15 AM
iPad friendly link skipping age verification. Wouldn't work on my iPad 2 for some reason.

www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DeexGDSsJn9c

bigbaby
May 11, 2011, 12:32 AM
Surprising what one determined dude can do with a knife; especially when the cops are so stupid. You can't just put on the uniform, you have to train some too. I can't think of anywhere I have ever been in America where that guy wouldn't have been taken down by the cops, quickly. I would; I guess. I mean, I am a real non-violent dude, but when your life is threatened, what can you do? That's why I try to stay out of trouble.

MLeake
May 11, 2011, 06:56 AM
Bear in mind that training may be minimal, if there is training at all, in third world countries. They have minimal budgets, and often as not no traditions to uphold.

sirsloop
May 11, 2011, 08:40 AM
Lots of training or not, it still is surprising how nonchalant the officers were around this guy. It shouldn't take training to understand that a determined BG with a blade is extremely dangerous.

MLeake
May 11, 2011, 08:46 AM
I'll give you that point, SirSloop, but I was referring less to non-chalance, and more to poor tactics and readiness.

That said, a friend of mine was a corrections officer in the Florida panhandle. He wasn't remotely non-chalant, yet he froze like the proverbial deer in the headlights when an inmate came at him with a shiv. Took a downward stab in the shoulder as a result. Other CO's restrained the guy.

Met that CO in the dojo, a few months after the incident. He never wanted to freeze up like that again.

Next time he got attacked, it was by a trustee on a road crew, who was wielding a bush axe. My friend took the axe and knocked out the trustee with one entering disarm. Training made a big difference, there.

Had another acquaintance, a Marine, who was moon-lighting as a reserve cop in Riverside, CA. Went to assist a team that was taking down a gang's house. My acquaintance was ready to deal with big, bad gang-bangers, but wasn't prepared to shoot a 13 year old; the kid pulled a cheap .22 or .25, and shot the Gunny in the gut. Luckily, the vest worked. After that, the Gunny was much more mentally prepared to shoot a kid, if necessary.

Sometimes, people just don't know how to react. Training can make a world of difference. Where training fails, experience will take over, assuming one survives the experience.

Brian Pfleuger
May 11, 2011, 08:49 AM
Lots of training or not, it still is surprising how nonchalant the officers were around this guy. It shouldn't take training to understand that a determined BG with a blade is extremely dangerous.

I'm sure the operative word there is "determined". It's easy for even well-trained officers to get lax because "nothing ever happens"... Until that one time it does.

Without training, and when "nothing ever happens" and when this guy was "normal" just moments before, it's easy to see how the deadly encounter could BEGIN but how they don't even seem to be particularly ready to use deadly force even AFTER he goes nuts is a real mystery.

threegun
May 11, 2011, 04:02 PM
I think some fault lies in the "nothing ever happens" excuse but I also believe that many officers are good people who hold back from using deadly force to long out of kindness.

Good tactics like "maintaining separation" would buy considerable time and allow for much more lead to be administered. In the fluid situational response system we would simply run away while delivering accurate continuous fire. This of course assumes that we have identified the threat, pulled on it prior to them committing to the attack, and have the necessary room to run.

ZeSpectre
May 11, 2011, 04:12 PM
To quote myself from a while back....
The more I read/see the more firmly it becomes entrenched in my mind that if someone approaches me in an aggressive manner and they have a knife then they are going to get shot. No dithering, no wondering about "unequal force" or any other nonsense, they are either going to back off or they are going to get shot and I'll deal with the fallout later.

Don Glock
May 11, 2011, 05:03 PM
what's the debate about? those policia screwed up

Bubba in c.a.
May 11, 2011, 09:09 PM
Haven't been able to get thru to Utube, so I`ll try again tommorrow.
This seems like a rerun of an incedent 2 0r 3 years ago in Managua when several police tried to talk a guy down and got stabbed for their efforts.
Anyway, Nicaraguan police tend to be fairly well trained in general (although I think the Tuefler drill hasn`t made it here yet!) but grossly under-equiped. Most police carry AKs not because of a need for the fire power, but as a budget issue. they have so many left over from the civil war they can`t justify buying expensive 9 mm to replace them. Bank guards here tend to have folding stock mossberg pumps--cheaper and more effective than pistols.
Also keep in mind that many uniformed police here are volunteers, whose training and experience are probably zip. Weapons training is scant for cost reasons unless it involves ammo left over from the war, which excludes most modern pistol ammo.
I witnessed an incident a couple uears ago in which a man was in front of his house swinging a butcher kife and yelling something about Jesus Christ and drugs. Across the street was a large group of spectators and at least 4 cops standing by patiently. I walked the 2 blocks to the house to get my point and shoot camera and by the time I got back it was all over and everybody was gone. Seems like the police just waited for him to run out of steam and then took him downtown for a chat, which would undoubtably include a visit to the shrink.
Incidently, compared to other 3rd world places (Mexico, for one) Nicaraguan cops tend to be polite and soft spoken and bend over backwards to avoid violence. Obviously in this case they goofed-- I`ll try to see the tape tomorrow and see if I can add anything.

JohnKSa
May 11, 2011, 10:29 PM
Training failure. Poor/absent tactics. No plan.

1. The first officer down was using his rifle primarily as a badge of office. If he ever pointed the rifle at the knife-wielder, it wasn't for very long and I missed it. Mr. Roberts' comment about using a firearm as a magic talisman is right on target.

2. If you aren't going to use a firearm, or aren't going to take your responsibility to use it seriously, you're better off giving it to someone else responsible who will use it, or putting it somewhere no bad guys can gain access to it. The officer with the rifle should have hung back to provide cover for the other officers. That would have prevented the rifle from being taken out of the fight and being essentially useless to the remaining officers. When the man made his initial rush he could have been immediately dropped or at least shot very early in the attack. The other officers are VERY fortunate that the knife-wielder didn't pick up the rifle after downing the first officer and use it against them.

3. If you aren't sure you can get away from someone then don't try to run--especially if the terrain is rough. In this case the officers tried to run over rough terrain while keeping track of their assailant which inevitably resulting in their falling down and being caught and stabbed. It seems likely that they would have been better off facing him and possibly taking some defensive wounds rather than running, falling and ending up at the attacker's mercy.

4. Have a plan. When the first officer went down, the remaining officers seemed to have no idea what to do. They didn't know whether to run, fight, assist fallen officers, try to overwhelm the man, etc. So some did one thing while others did another. After the first officer was stabbed, approximately 15 seconds elapsed before a shot was fired by the other officers, even though during that interval at least 2 other officers were attacked and stabbed. There was little or no cooperative action taken by the remaining officers to resolve the situation. In fact, nearly 4 minutes after the first officer was stabbed, the attacker was still unrestrained. Admittedly he was apparently badly wounded and on the ground but it speaks to the fact that there very little evidence of any sort of organized activity on the part of the officers. Contrast that with the attacker's actions. His plan was simple and he implemented it with conviction and persistance until he was injured badly enough to put him on the ground.

5. Don't render yourself essentially unarmed by trying to do too many things at once. If you're in a standoff only a few feet away from a man armed with a knife, keep your gun at the ready. Holding a stick in one hand and your rifle by the forearm with the other hand makes you ill-equipped to bring either one into play effectively.

6. Don't get confused about what the problem is and don't downplay a threat. If you're being attacked by a determined attacker and you can't effectively get away then your goal is to disable him as rapidly as possible. The fact that he is armed with a contact weapon and you have a gun doesn't make him any less a threat unless you can't guarantee that you are able to keep out of his reach.

output
May 12, 2011, 08:40 AM
Bear in mind that training may be minimal, if there is training at all, in third world countries. They have minimal budgets, and often as not no traditions to uphold.

MLeak is exactly right. With a quick search on the internet you can find videos like this all day long. The officers in this video never had a chance.

When they tried to disarm the man with the knife the officer with the rifle would have been better served with just a stick and a free hand since he already made the decision that he wasn’t going to use the rifle (at least in my mind) as opposed to keeping the AK in his left hand. It left him completely open to the knife attack and unable to use either weapon effectively.
As a civilian, the biggest lessons that I learned from this video (which were touched on by JohnKSa):

1) Don’t bring a firearm into play unless you are prepared to use it without a doubt.
2) Keep as much distance between yourself and the threat as possible at all times.
3) If under direct attack by a determined threat, retreat only when it is safe to do so.
A. Be aware of your surroundings.
B. Don’t give the threat your back or better positioning.
C. Simply turning and running away from a threat with a weapon might not always be your best option.

MLeake
May 12, 2011, 08:53 AM
Another point that should be made here is that I've seen a rash of TFL posters talking about an "acceptable self defense range of 7 yards."

This video should discount that notion pretty clearly.

7 yards is the distance an attacker WITH A CONTACT WEAPON can close by the time most shooters can draw and fire one round.

It's not some magical "ok to shoot" range.

gearhounds
May 12, 2011, 07:59 PM
Yes, and even if you can loose a number of rounds and make hits within that range, a determined attacker can still do great harm before they expire from blood loss. Training to move off line while shooting makes a lot of sense over standing static. And shooting until the threat is neutralized.

sirsloop
May 12, 2011, 09:09 PM
That's why a lot of people are advocates of aiming low... if you hit in the pelvis there is a higher likelihood to instantly immobilizes a BG. While it may not be lethal, if their hips are shattered they cannot physically stand and pursue you.

ehh... if only the dude with the AK47 was not being a tool and playing around with a stick. If he actually used the gun as intended this would have never happened. Have gun, do use. Would have saved two good lives in this case....

MP9
May 12, 2011, 10:28 PM
as I read in other forum and it is obvious , they have a lack of training.. and mindset...

But in the other hand, I am no sure about the law in Nicaragua.. for example I think there is other country where if a BG have a knife you can not shoot at him .. you need to use the same "force".. it is stupid.. at least for civilian, no sure about LE...and in other countries you should shoot at the air to scary the person first...

but anyways they need more training and mindset.. sad for them..

cracked91
May 13, 2011, 01:18 AM
7 yards is the distance an attacker WITH A CONTACT WEAPON can close by the time most shooters can draw and fire one round.

During LE training at a vocational school I attended in high school. We would actually run that drill at 21 yards using airsoft guns, cheesy double-retention holsters, and giving the "knife" to the fastest sprinter in the class. Granted it was teenagers, and earlier on in the year that I remember doing this, but not 1 person out of 60 was able to draw their weapon and put a hole in the 18" x 18" piece of cardboard strapped to his chest before he reached them.

I will add though that we had several LE officers that came in routinely to help teach us some specific subject areas. We ran a sergeant through the same drill, using his own holster, and if I remember correctly he got the shot off with about 6 yards to spare.

I will also add that in single retention mode (1 strap), or unstrapped completely, there was a much higher success rate, though I still think less than half of the class was able to accomplish this in single retention mode.

gearhounds
May 13, 2011, 05:54 AM
"We would actually run that drill at 21 yards"

I'm pretty sure you mean 21 feet?

Bartholomew Roberts
May 13, 2011, 08:00 AM
That's why a lot of people are advocates of aiming low... if you hit in the pelvis there is a higher likelihood to instantly immobilizes a BG

Not true. If you hit the pelvis there is a lower likelihood of stopping the fight than a hit to the thoracic cavity or the head. There are fewer major blood vessels there and it would be difficult to render someone structurally immobile with gunfire, particularly with handgun caliber bullets. The pelvis is usually touted as an alternative target to the chest because it is easier to hit than the head and often unarmored; but it isn't more likely to immobilize.

See these previous threads for more details:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=441459
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416452
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235485

sirsloop
May 13, 2011, 09:35 AM
Lol... here we go... venturing a little off topic. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems logical that someone with a shattered pelvis cannot run you down and stab you. Someone with a bullet in the chest could still be physically capable of running you down, especially if they are high on drugs. If you think you can land a headshot or heart shot on a BG while they are charging you with a big blade, go for it.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 13, 2011, 10:41 AM
Lol... here we go... venturing a little off topic. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems logical that someone with a shattered pelvis cannot run you down and stab you.

I suspect the reason why we disagree here is that you assign a much higher probability of shattering the pelvis with a firearm than I do. Did you give the links above a read?

It isn't enough to hit the pelvis. In order to severely effect movement, you must break the pelvic circle in two places or hit the neck or upper shaft of the femur (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=20649). In addition, people can and do continue to fight after having their pelvis shattered. Read this soldier's description of having his pelvis shattered by a rifle bullet (http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/news/Soldier-fights-pelvis-shattered/article-494107-detail/article.html):

""When I was hit I thought it was just a rock or something kicked up by an RPG. I cracked on, but the pain didn't go away. It was like the worst dead leg you've ever had."

Someone with a bullet in the chest could still be physically capable of running you down, especially if they are high on drugs. If you think you can land a headshot or heart shot on a BG while they are charging you with a big blade, go for it.

It is all about probability. The head and the chest have more vital structures in them than the pelvis does and it is easier to disrupt those structures. If I shoot in the pelvis, I must break the pelvic girdle in two places or hit the shaft of the femur. Both of those targets are way more challenging than a shot to the head or chest. However, if I am a little off in the chest area, there are still major blood vessels, blood bearing organs, lungs, etc.

Either way, I run the risk I will not stop the threat immediately; but the chest gives me better odds. This is why even the places that do teach a pelvic shot teach it only as an alternative target when chest shots are not having a desired effect (possibly due to body armor).

cracked91
May 13, 2011, 01:00 PM
I'm pretty sure you mean 21 feet?

Wow, feel a little dumb.

But yeah. Whew. Been a while.

Nordeste
May 14, 2011, 06:51 PM
I would watch the video, but it requires a Youtube account that I don't have. Tried registering but I found out (and actually pis*ed me off) that Youtube wanted to know my phone number and I don't wanna give that information to them. Enough that they would have my e-mail. Since I'm a native spanish speaker, guess I could give a hand with the dialogues.

Although our training standards are (I bet) quite higher in my country that in central america, I remember my instructors at the Academy telling us about the "seven meters (21 ft) rule", knifes and firears. And that no matters whether you are Steven Seagal or not, a blade moves quickly and if you fail at grabbing and inmovilizing the hand that holds it (assuming you wear proper anti-cut gloves) or you will surely get cut and/or stabbed.

Sad thing is that, for us over here, you may get a bad guy as close as one meter to you, you may be lying on the floor as a result of having slipped and fallen down during the chase, you produce two 9mm shots and hit the chest of the BG, who succumbs to the wounds. My friend still had to prove his innocence in Court, since those shots had not been aimed to "non vital parts of the body" as our regulations state.

That's why, yes, how happy I would be having those prosecutors and judges sent to our academy, or to the worst neighbourhoods in Sevilla and Madrid, and let them taste the tension of facing a knife and the dilemma of choosing between your life, and your career, job, and freedom

An old spanish cops' saying states something like "Better have your family bringing you cigarettes to prison, rather than flowers to your grave".

2damnold4this
May 14, 2011, 08:13 PM
My friend still had to prove his innocence in Court, since those shots had not been aimed to "non vital parts of the body" as our regulations state.

What?! Do your regulations expect you to target an assailant's arms when faced with a lethal threat?

DRBoyle
May 14, 2011, 09:51 PM
This video seemed all too familiar to another. Might have been the same country, but the perp was slender and wearing a white shirt. In that debacle,
he managed to strike an officer once. Every stab was a fatality. With all the officers his physical build gave him that advantage (god didn't create all men equal, browning did?) with the knife up close. You also hear the gun fire when the police realize all too late what they should do.

Of all the things in world police are criticized over, shooting knife wielding men that demonstrate they will attack, is something you have to give police the benefit of the doubt for doing. If only the powers that be would extend the same to civilians.

Kodyo
May 15, 2011, 02:21 AM
I would watch the video, but it requires a Youtube account that I don't have.
NON YOUTUBE LINK:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=271_1291673920

I know a few can't get it running due to youtube, here is a copy of the video on another site.

Nordeste
May 15, 2011, 01:36 PM
Thanks, Kodyo. The sound is poor. At the beginning looks like he's asking for his wife and the journalist tells him something like "she says you wanna kill her". Then one of the cops says "you're not going to solve anything like this (with this attitude)" and it's when he stabs the first officer. The way the subject is approached is wrong, I agree, but I dare to say that the way they approach the subject has to do with the fact that it looks like it's someone known to the officers. They treat familiarly.

Personally, I wouldn't have ever approached someone armed with a knife without having drawn my gun firstly, regardless of any kind of familiarity.


@2damnold4this: Yes, it's that bad. We are expected to shoot to non-vital parts of the body, and actually get in trouble when an offender dies in a shoot-out. Usually, the case is looked upon with a huge magnifiying glass in Court. In most cases, even if the offender uses adeadly weapon like a firearm, knife, katana or similar, officers are released from charges, but you still have to prove in court that you couldn't have acted in a different manner.

The concept of "use of lethal force" is not contemplated. It's contemplated the "use of firearms", but as the biggest oxymoron possible on earth, officers are expected to be able to shoot, under tension and in a life-threatening situation, to the BG's ankles and still, stop them with a 9mm. "Protection of life" seems to be the reason, but under this <cursed> regulations, an Officer's life appears to be less valuable than an offender's one.

Explanations to this?. The need to "democratize" a police force that was a repression instrument during Franco's dictatorship, and with the advent of democracy during late 70's-early 80's. Shame is that no politician appears to realize how different the police forces are nowadays from those of the old days, and how different a kind of criminality we have in the present day.

We'll regret from this. We are already doing but there's the worst to follow with the ex-East block mafias. I honestly envy your regulations. They protect the innocent and bring adequate support to law enforcers. I say this because I've done my bit of peacekeeping and have worked with americans officers too.

Bubba in c.a.
May 20, 2011, 08:15 PM
I too couldn't get thru Utube's stupidity.
I had my step daughter watch it with me to pick up on the Spanish better. She's said the reporter asked what he was up to and he said he wanted to kill his wife. she also said this is an old tape as she saw it on the news a couple years ago. It took place in Juigalpa, capitol of Chontales, a region know for cattle raising. If you ever get the chance, they have a great little archeological museum and a so-so zoo, and one of the nicest public parks in the country (Parque Palo Solo).
No going to restate all the above good posts, but it seems that the police are under extreme pressure not to kill anyone. It also dawned on me that the police weapons may not have been loaded. Not exactly the type thing I'm going to ask a cop on the street, but someday at a social event I'll ask these type of questions after I have been properly introduced. (If you think people don't go around with unloaded weapons, you have never been in the US Army!).
Nicaragua does not have the death penalty, largely as a knee-jerk reaction to the murders committed by the old Somoza dictatorship 30 years ago. This is not likely to change in the near future because there is also a major distrust of the court system.
Broadcast said 1 officer killed, and 2 wounded. It didn't say anything about the perp, so he probably survived his wounds.

dabo
May 28, 2011, 02:33 AM
I think as soon as he took a step towards an officer, they should have opened fire on him big time. JMHO...