The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 7, 2016, 06:37 PM   #26
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
May as well go ahead and hit what a "threat" is.

State laws vary.....

Throughout the United States the right to use deadly force for self defense to prevent death os serious injury is recognized universally with different limitations placed upon it depending upon what state and possibly municipality you are actually located in. Sexual assault is normally considered a serious injury.

The normal standard is reasonableness. What a reasonable person would believe in the same set of circumstances. This has been the standard for generations in the US.

Some of the protest groups such as BLM are attempting to assail this standard and have it altered in some way. Where they are going with it is not exactly clear.

A threat has three basic components:
- Intent
- Means
- Opportunity

You may not have the time to determine fully if the threat is a valid one. You may one day have to make a far reaching decision in the space of a few moments.

Intent is not always easy to determine. Someone assaulting or threatening you is most times clear. Breaking into your home is less clear but it is fairly easy to interpret as a deadly threat. Pointing a deadly weapon in your direction with gestures or verbal acknowledgment to use it is clear. Someone asking for money on the streets in an intimidating manner can be unclear. Somebody jumping into your car while you are sitting in a parking lot is unclear. Remember it is what a reasonable person would believe.

Means can vary a bit depending on who you are. If your 65 year old couch potato neighbor across the street is threatening to come to your house and beat you (the 22 year old MMA fighter) to death with his bare fists this is not reasonable to assume he has the means. A realistic toy gun may be reasonably interpreted to be deadly; if you don't know if it is real or not. A bat, knife, five pound dumbbell, car and banjo have all been used to murder people under the proper circumstances. Circumstances have to do with opportunity.

Opportunity means that the guy holding the uzi threatening to kill you in postings on your social media page is not a deadly threat at the moment. You can't run him down with car the next time you see him on the street. The guy standing 20 feet away with a 9" butcher knife is a deadly threat. He could easily kill you before you had your weapon out of the IWB holster and up and trained on him.

Once we have means, intent, and opportunity lined up then we may have a threat. Those circumstances are fluid however. Once one of the variables changes (say your attacker surrenders, loses his weapon or drives away for example) then a reassessment needs to be made. If the threat has ended then cease the use of deadly force. If the threat continues take whatever life saving measures you deem appropriate.
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old August 7, 2016, 10:06 PM   #27
NorthernBlue
Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2016
Location: Alaska
Posts: 56
QUOTE from "Ton"
Maybe I'm off base here but. . .

Deadly force is deadly force. If the situation has not escalated to the point where deadly force is immediately necessary, don't shoot.

If it has, in the legal realm, the amount of times you fire your weapon in the time span that deadly force is immediately necessary theoretically should not be a major component. I'm not aware of any legal definition for "Really, REALLY deadly force". Obviously, it can be brought up or challenged in court, just like anything. But unless you continued shooting after the threat had clearly stopped (ie attacker falls to the ground, weapon tumbles away, etc) I don't think that will be anything other than a fact that the uneducated and inexperienced will try to exploit.

"Shooting the exact number of rounds it takes to stop the threat" is alot easier said than done. As is "shot placement" when you have never been in a gunfight before.

Train and train hard, but unless you are very familiar with the physiological effects of adrenaline and extreme stress on your body, you will more than likely experience an extreme decrease in performance compared to your normal range drills. There is no way to replicate the feeling of believing you might die in the next few seconds.

You may shoot an attacker once and his brain tells him it's time to cease the attack and fall down. But unfortunately that's not something we have the luxury of knowing, and until his body can catch up to those commands, we still have to perceive him as a threat.

I would recommend to anybody interested to study the cases of real life shootings where attackers were shot multiple times and remained a threat. It will add to your training and experience, which is something that can help you justify your actions if you every found yourself in court.

This is on point.
NorthernBlue is offline  
Old August 8, 2016, 10:53 AM   #28
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL45 View Post
The instructor of the concealed carry class I took said that you only shoot at the threat until it is no longer a threat. Many of the training videos I have watched show individuals drawing their firearm as quickly as they can and then firing multiple shots as fast as they can at the target. A slick city lawyer would have a field day with someone pumping 10 rounds into someone when 1 or 2 rounds would have been sufficient. Whether on animals or humans, people always preach bullet placement as being the key. The old sheriff, Wyatt Earp, said to draw fast and aim slow (or something to that effect). I tend to agree.


Your testimony should then inform said lawyer, and the judge/jury, that you were afraid that the guy was going to keep coming at you. You have heard stories of people being shot multiple times and surviving due to drugs and adrenaline and all you had was a tiny handgun. And your educated lawyer will inform the court that there is plenty of precedent to show that every law enforcement agency trains to do the same thing: including the FBI and secret service and us marshals...shoot till the threat is gone. Especially with a handgun.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
stonewall50 is offline  
Old August 8, 2016, 03:04 PM   #29
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
The instructor of the concealed carry class I took said that you only shoot at the threat until it is no longer a threat.
That's the objective.

Quote:
Many of the training videos I have watched show individuals drawing their firearm as quickly as they can and then firing multiple shots as fast as they can at the target.
Yep.

Quote:
A slick city lawyer would have a field day with someone pumping 10 rounds into someone when 1 or 2 rounds would have been sufficient.
Have you ever heard anyone responsibly advise "pumping 10 rounds into someone"?

Quote:
Whether on animals or humans, people always preach bullet placement as being the key.
Yeah, but "placement" involves hitting small targets that will be concealed inside a moving three dimensional mass, and you won't have much time at all. It will be largely a matter of chance.

Quote:
The old sheriff, Wyatt Earp, said to draw fast and aim slow (or something to that effect). I tend to agree.
You would "aim slow" when someone is coming at you at around five meters per second at close range?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 8, 2016, 04:26 PM   #30
seeker_two
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=pxykcRjNqZ4

This video pretty much answered the question for me......
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......
seeker_two is offline  
Old August 8, 2016, 06:35 PM   #31
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
Quote:
You would "aim slow" when someone is coming at you at around five meters per second at close range?
Depends on the concept of 'slow'.

Earp said, "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything. In a gun fight... You need to take your time in a hurry."

Others have said, "Take your time, fast" or "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" (Bill Jordan.)

So it depends on what 'slow' means to a person.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old August 8, 2016, 07:44 PM   #32
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 2,074
Force should be deliberate, measured and controlled. Deliberateness of action is not rocket science but having the knowledge and experience to measure force properly while maintaining emotional control usually takes training. The whole concept of self defense is important enough to take some time and spend some money to get proper training. Get Trained
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old August 10, 2016, 09:21 AM   #33
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
I think we need to take a hard look at the reality that the majority of the shots fired will likely never hit the intended target in any encounter where multiple shots are fired. I'm sure forum members never miss, but for some reason law enforcement miss a lot.
TimSr is offline  
Old August 10, 2016, 09:35 AM   #34
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
I think we need to take a hard look at the reality that the majority of the shots fired will likely never hit the intended target in any encounter where multiple shots are fired.
The "reality"?

Basis for that assertion?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 10, 2016, 09:59 AM   #35
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,678
I would hazard a guess he is basing that statement on published hit (miss) ratios in documented shootings.

I agree the national LEO avg is abysmal. Lack of QUALITY training time, budget constraints, no interest on the part of the officer (very few LEO's are hard core shooters).

All this adds up to about a hit ratio that is not encouraging. Ive seen stats as low as 15%

There are a couple of civilian shooting schools that have had mtpl students in gunfights and keep those stats. They are reporting MUCH higher hit ratios.

It all boils down to the training the shooter has received and how often he realistically trains for this event.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old August 10, 2016, 11:17 AM   #36
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Quote:
A slick city lawyer would have a field day with someone pumping 10 rounds into someone when 1 or 2 rounds would have been sufficient.
We tend to worry more about slick lawyers than actual threats, sometimes, I think.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 11, 2016, 07:36 AM   #37
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
Regarding the difference in hit ratios between well-documented police shootings and the few documented civilian encounters, I beieve the major difference lies in the requirement for that single civilian to stop shooting when possible, and the duty of however many police officers may be involved to continue as necessary to achieve their sworn objectives.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old August 11, 2016, 09:34 AM   #38
Ton
Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2014
Posts: 85
Quote:
I would hazard a guess he is basing that statement on published hit (miss) ratios in documented shootings.

I agree the national LEO avg is abysmal. Lack of QUALITY training time, budget constraints, no interest on the part of the officer (very few LEO's are hard core shooters).

All this adds up to about a hit ratio that is not encouraging. Ive seen stats as low as 15%

There are a couple of civilian shooting schools that have had mtpl students in gunfights and keep those stats. They are reporting MUCH higher hit ratios.

It all boils down to the training the shooter has received and how often he realistically trains for this event.
What Old Marksman said about this was spot on. Comparing LEO shootings to civilian shootings is apples and oranges.

While I absolutely agree that a dedicated civilian shooter who trains and practices regularly is probably a better marksman than the average LEO, the fact is that civilians don't often get into gunfights where they are pulling over a car and the driver exits sprinting sideways while firing rounds back at them, or come under fire from the second story of an apartment building as they approach for a domestic violence call. LEOs returning fire in these situation are doomed to have a very low hit average, but the alternative is wait for a bullet to hit them.
Ton is offline  
Old August 12, 2016, 07:28 AM   #39
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
Some simple facts explain a lot:

- Police generally don't start gun fights.

- Reaction is not only slower than action but not as well organized, less directed in purpose and under greater stress. This makes fine motor skill function much more difficult.


I'd be really interested in seeing a study that accounts for the difference for when the officer is under fire returning fire or when the officer initiates the shooting. The safe money says that the hit rate improved dramatically when the officer initiates.

I'd imagine that most people don't function as well on the two way range.
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old August 13, 2016, 09:44 AM   #40
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
just a few comments...

What is a threat? A threat is anyone, anything, that cause you to fear for your life or the life or another. The incident and threat will be judged by the reasonable man standard. While self defense is not a crime, it requires an affermative defense.

Anyone who's never been shot at, or been in an exchane of gunfire has any business commenting on those who have.... They have no idea. Training can ingrane good shooting and fighting habits. Thats always a good thing. Actual shootings are not often the squair ring event that most people imagine.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old August 13, 2016, 06:57 PM   #41
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
Quote:
Anyone who's never been shot at, or been in an exchane of gunfire has any business commenting on those who have.... They have no idea. Training can ingrane good shooting and fighting habits. Thats always a good thing. Actual shootings are not often the squair ring event that most people imagine.
It would be tough to fill a jury box then.
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old August 14, 2016, 11:41 AM   #42
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
My take on it is that "stopping the threat" is only seen in hindsight. That doesn't mean that we can defend extreme use of force by saying "how could I know that he was dead after the first shot?"

I don't believe that emptying a magazine is a smart thing to do at all, but shooting at the guy until you feel that the threat is over is expected.

When should you stop shooting? When the threat seems to be over.

Is the threat lying on the ground, out cold? Did you just center mass a load of buckshot? Rifle round to the chest? ..honestly, anyone who has done any learning on this subject will know when to stop shooting, and the shooting had better stop, or its not going to be a good thing.

Whatever the situation, capping an unconscious person in the head is inappropriate. Dumping an extra five rounds in his back.

you aredefending yourself, not deer hunting. don't just follow your instincts or desires, your anger, stay in control and only do what you have to do to remain safe.

At the very least, remember that every round you fire also presents a serious threat to anyone within the range of a stray bullet. Seeing a cop download a full magazine into the guy's processor is not an example to follow. You will be accountable for whatever happens, and you won't have a badge, free lawyers, and so forth. You're just going to be the guy who shot a teenager fifteen times, with ten of those rounds in the back.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old August 14, 2016, 06:34 PM   #43
marines6433
Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2016
Location: Indiana
Posts: 57
Trying to say what you need to do, while being attacked, usually goes right out the window at the moment of contact. Training helps, no doubt, but in the heat of the moment, you never really know how exactly you will react. JMHO.
__________________
Are we there yet?
marines6433 is offline  
Old August 14, 2016, 07:28 PM   #44
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Anyone who's never been shot at, or been in an exchane of gunfire has any business commenting on those who have.... They have no idea
Under this line of reasoning no one who has not been in a position that committing a crime was a reasonable solution has a right to sit in judgement of those that have.

No one who has not had heart disease should diagnose it.

No one who has not been directly exposed to a particular psychological condition should be allowed to recommend treatment.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old August 14, 2016, 09:00 PM   #45
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
Despite hearing hundreds (thousands?) of shots in and near Saigon, the Rung Sat Special Zone SE of Saigon, and the Black Virgin mountain miles NW of Saigon, I have no idea if any of those shots were intended for me or other people near me. Nevertheless, I don't feel like I should be or am disqualified to comment on shooting incidents (although I rarely do.)
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old August 15, 2016, 02:44 AM   #46
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
No one who has not been directly exposed to a particular psychological condition should be allowed to recommend treatment.
I agree with that I think. I don't want someone with borderline personality having authority to diagnose people with it. That makes people weird.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old August 15, 2016, 02:50 AM   #47
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Despite hearing hundreds (thousands?) of shots in and near Saigon, the Rung Sat Special Zone SE of Saigon, and the Black Virgin mountain miles NW of Saigon, I have no idea if any of those shots were intended for me or other people near me.
I had a long discussion with a guy who was there. He had one combat experience, he was only a base worker, in a convoy that was attacked. He had a shotgun, but he jumped behind a truck and stayed out of sight while the fighters took on the ambushers. He felt like a coward, because he was of course, afraid of what was happening, and hid, but I don't see it that way at all. Barely trained, a noncombatant, and not needed anyway. A pump shotgun may not have made much of a difference anyway, maybe a couple thousand rounds of 223 into the bushes, what would his 150 pellets have done?

I didn't see it as cowardice, it was the decision that he made at the time, partly based that he wasn't there for fighting. He was just carrying papers.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old August 15, 2016, 12:30 PM   #48
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Racial stereotypes are inappropriate. One such deleted and the reasonable response deleted.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 18, 2016, 12:52 AM   #49
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
Briandg - He was not a coward!!! I often had a 12 ga. pump shotgun in my cute blue jeep in Saigon. If I remember correctly it was a Win 1897 with a short barrel - probably a police model. I do not remember Army combat "rules" or "procedures" (from about 50 years ago) but training beyond "basic" included many subjects/skills other than combat shooting.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07200 seconds with 10 queries