A story all CPL holders should read & why you need plenty of ammo

[azredhawk44]

Regarding 11 shots in 2 seconds...


I'm no great gunslinger by any stretch. I recently took a Brit friend out shooting as a neat American experience, and he asked me how quickly I could shoot. So, we timed it. I took 2 16rd magazines in my XD9, and holstered the gun. It took me 14 seconds to draw, fire 16 rounds, change mags and fire another 16 rounds. Target was 10 yards away, and all rounds hit the target. I pushed myself right up to my comfort envelope.

Allowing 1 second for draw/presentation and 2 seconds for mag change and target re-acquisition, that's 11 seconds for 32 rounds. 11 rounds is about 1/3 of 32, so the claim of 2 seconds for 11 rounds with no mag change and an already-presented firearm is quite feasible. According to my math, I could probably get 11 rounds off in about 3 seconds judging by my previous experience.

I'm not very fast, but every Tuesday in Mesa I see men who ARE that fast. Very common to see folks accomplish 8-10 hits along with a draw, and target shifts, in 4-5 seconds.

But...

I agree that the point of this thread is the collateral damage concerns, and the loss of innocent life from doing the "right" thing. Ammo and caliber are completely secondary to this discussion, and we all need to evaluate "just what exactly is WORTH getting into a shooting duel here?"

The McDonalds safe, that I don't own, isn't one of those things.

That's for sure.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Third, I know I'm dreaming, but I do often wonder whether the police in this country wouldn't be better off to go back to the very accurate long-barreled 38 Special revolvers they carried in the the days before semi-autos and "spray and pray" became all the rage...I imagine that the cop who confronted the BG would have been armed with a Colt or S&W revolver and would have simply put one aimed 158 grain LRN through the BG's skull as soon as he saw him, and that would have been that.

You mean the same way they did the single-bullet-through-the-head-of-the-criminal thing with Bonnie and Clyde, or Dillinger at Little Bohemia, etc.?

I think you may be looking at history through some rose-colored glasses.

Second, I don't see how you can characterize 10 hits out of 11 shots as "spray and pray"?

[bearone2]

billca:
yeah i'll watch the parking lot incident if it doesn't involve me or my family, even when i'm armed.

if i'm in a 7-11/circle-k and the armed bad guys come to rob the place, i'll take cover in the back as best i can and attempt to show ali bubba how big the .45 holes really are, should he/she come checking to see if there are any witnesses but i'm not going to wade up to the front, gun drawn.

too many unarmed folks have gotten themselves killed by being the good samaritan in phx alone.

[DG45]

Bart Roberts, I get your point but as I recall that Little Bohemia situation was fought by the FBI with mostly full autos, and it was a SWAT type operation; but was disasterously undertaken by agents who probably had little or no training in a SWAT-type encounter. It was not something that a lone off-duty police officer or CCW citizen would ever likely encounter. (If a lone officer did run up on a Dillinger type gang today that armed to the teeth with a bunch of full autos, hopefully the officer would quickly realize that discretion in that situation would be the the better part of valor, and would just try to get help, instead of playing the role of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance" kid vs. the Bolivian Army.)

I was actually thinking more of the response of heroic Capitol Police Officer Leslie Coffelt to the Puerto Rican gunman who attempted to shoot his way into the Blair House in Washington DC in 1950 to kill President Truman. The gunman in that instance had opened that gunfight by mortally wounding the unsuspecting Coffelt outside the resience with three shots from a 9mm Luger semi-auto pistol, before turning his attention to a Secret Service officer who he also shot and wounded. Leslie Coffelt was a guy we'd have all liked; he was veteran of WWII. He was also a recreational shooter and an excellent marksman with a handgun. He was dying from his wounds when he got off a single shot at the gunman from his 38 Special Colt Official Police revolver. With that one round, he blew the gunmans brains out, and ended what might have otherwise been the site of a mass murder and/or the assassination of a President.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by bearone2

yeah i'll watch the parking lot incident if it doesn't involve me or my family, even when i'm armed.

Fine. Your choice.
However, chew on this for a while. If I use your mindset and am sitting in the local McD's when your child is knifed to death right outside and video shows I watch, then get up and leave even though I'm armed, what would your reaction be? Or your Wife's? (I suspect she will have a much different opinion.)

I don't know that I could watch something like that and not take some action, even if it was merely yelling at the guy (if unarmed).

Originally Posted by DG45

Third, I know I'm dreaming, but I do often wonder whether the police in this country wouldn't be better off to go back to the very accurate long-barreled 38 Special revolvers they carried in the the days before semi-autos and "spray and pray" became all the rage...

Yes... and no...
Let's not forget that many police officers died as a result of using a revolver because they were slow to reload. Some of that was a training issue, but in the 20 post-war years many cops did die trying to engage mulitiple hostiles with a wheelgun.¹

With a wheelgun, well trained officers will fire a controlled pair and evaluate their effectiveness. The idea is to fire accurate and controlled shots to conserve your ability to engage. Unfortunately, sometimes officers would unload 4-5 shots rapidly and when needing to re-engage, fire one round and then *click*. Towards the late 70's and early 80's, speedloaders were the rage. But it wasn't unusual to see an officer's belt with a pair of speed loaders up front and a pair of Speed-Strip™ equipped dump pouches behind the holster, giving him double the firepower.

As much as I value a good revolver and appreciate its qualities, I think the days of the wheelgun for police have waned. Unless you're in a small rural town away from big cities or your rookies have to tuck a year under their belts carrying a wheelgun.


¹ See the CHP Newhall Incident in 1970

[Jim March]

As much as I value a good revolver and appreciate its qualities, I think the days of the wheelgun for police have waned. Unless you're in a small rural town away from big cities or your rookies have to tuck a year under their belts carrying a wheelgun.

Surprisingly enough, I mostly agree. The reason I think a wheelgun makes sense for ME is that I can control very edgy high-end 357Mag loads with state-of-the-art ammo. And I can deliver them accurately, if I can keep my head. Which I *think* I can. Not sure though, my next gunfight will be my first .

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The great application of the modern revolver is:

a. The pocket snubby for certain dress scenarios or BUGs.
b. The big monster animal killing hunting magnum
c. The SW Model 10 recommended for the gun newbie or nonafficiando who wants a late night vistor gun that is relatively foolproof.
c. Making money for Taurus with the Judge - OY Vey!

Dat's the way, I sees it!

[therealdeal]

BillCA,

I read the story, and it was very interesting. I had hoped it was the story I was taught of during my training. The incident took place in CA (I think), but I am sorry I don't have enough specifics at the moment.

During the follow-up forensics and/or investigations where the multiple patrol officers were killed in gun battle, it was noted that Every single deceased LEO had their spent shell casings in their pockets. During training these LEO's were taught to save their shell casings this way, so the habit transferred to real life scenarios(and possible assisted in their demise). Obviously, this training stopped after said incident. I just thought it was interesting - not sure if you guys have ever heard of the story

[BillCA]

The great application of the modern revolver is:

a. The pocket snubby for certain dress scenarios or BUGs.
b. The big monster animal killing hunting magnum
c. The SW Model 10 recommended for the gun newbie or nonafficiando who wants a late night vistor gun that is relatively foolproof.
c. Making money for Taurus with the Judge - OY Vey!

Dat's the way, I sees it!

The modern revolver is an excellent choice for most civilian encounters. It's easier for the non-enthusiast to learn (fewer levers and do-dads), accurate and usually powerful enough to deter criminals and/or take care of small to medium sized varmints. Most civilians are not likely to run into the kind of engagement a police officer will. He usually has a choice to "not go there" that police do not.

I'd be preaching to the Choir, Glenn, if I described the difference in roles between civilian CCW and police. We both know the differences. The biggest difference is that civilians aren't obligated to pursue and try to capture BG's.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by therealdeal

During the follow-up forensics and/or investigations where the multiple patrol officers were killed in gun battle, it was noted that Every single deceased LEO had their spent shell casings in their pockets. During training these LEO's were taught to save their shell casings this way, so the habit transferred to real life scenarios(and possible assisted in their demise). Obviously, this training stopped after said incident. I just thought it was interesting - not sure if you guys have ever heard of the story

My original firearms instructor was with the FBI when that happened and was part of the FBI liasion. At the CHP academy in the 60's, officers were staged on lanes, each of which had a large coffee can into which you were told to drop your empty cases. This was to keep the range clean. During practice, recruits would fire six, unload into their hand and drop the cases into the "bucket", then reload.

During the Newhall firefight, officers were found with cases still clutched in their hands and, in at least one officer's case, in his pocket. They'd been trained to unload to their hand, then dump to a bucket. In the firefight... no bucket. One of the better changes coming out of that incident was more realistic range training.

We should not necessarily fault the CHP academy rangemasters for this. During the 60's, many police ranges had similar rules to keep the range neat. Not many ranges practiced dumping to the ground and reloading.

[WANT A LCR 22LR]

The modern revolver is an excellent choice for most civilian encounters. It's easier for the non-enthusiast to learn (fewer levers and do-dads),

Yes. And in the off chance you are unable to get to your gun but a non gun friendly is, they will be able to operate it Vs. a auto that has too many levers to figure out in a split second.

[higgy1911]

Here's something I thought. two seconds can seem like an eternity but isn't all that long. we have no idea if it took ten hits to put this guy down, because unless the brain or spine is hit it could very easily take anyone 2 seconds or more to react to being hit even once. Saw a video of a cop shooting a guy 14 times, guy turned out to have a cell phone. But the guy was pretty much staggering backwards and falling after the first shot, and the cop got in the next 13 before he hit the ground.

For all we know the very first shot could have been the fatal one and it just took 2 seconds for the guy to go down. Understanding peoples reaction to being shot is not really very scientific especially without medical reports to explain exactly whats going on in their body.

Now that said, I don't think shooting until they drop is bad, you have to, you can't just shoot twice and then assess for a second because they might still be in the fight for 2 more seconds or 10 more. But I still suspect that a lot of these entire magazine shootings that occur are largely irrelevant. It seems silly to me to think its always or even most often the last round of the fight that is the fight stopper.

Here in Louisville we had a detective shoot a guy 11 times, he shot him 6 times with a glock .40 and then stopped and told the guy to stop, but the guy advanced on him further with an edged weaon and so he shot him another five. But who knows which round actually stoppd the guy. Reasonably one from the second string, but its very very likely that it would take a suspect as long to react to one lethal hit as it takes the cop to deliver five shots.

People get shot so much by cops today because cops have high capacity guns. If suspects in the 50's werent shot six times I would say it is simply because cops were more conservrative with their ammo since reloading took signifigantly more time, really took you out of the fight.

As for the cop in question, I think he did the right thing. Sucks a kid got shot, but you can't just wait for the guy to start shooting, cause then somebody dying is even more likely if the bad guy starts the ball. Guy has a gun out and is threatening, the best way to save lives is take his fast and hard. Doesn't mean it will turn out pretty but the odds are better than waitin to see if he is going to use that gun

[Webleymkv]

While interesting, this story really doesn't tell me much about why my revolver is inadequate. Here's what I got from the story:

11 rounds in 2 seconds (average of 0.18 seconds between shots) with 10 out of 11 shots hitting the BG (91%) from 20 yards away with a subcompact gun is exceptional shooting when one considers that this was not at a range or a USPSA match but rather a moving target that's shooting back at you. I will not say that such a feat is impossible because it is not, but I will say that I think the average Joe CCW would be very hard pressed to replicate such performance.

2 seconds is not much time at all, so it is doubtful that the LEO in question stopped shooting to verify that whether or not the BG had stopped. It sounds as though the LEO simply shot to slide-lock and then noticed than the BG was down after the dust cleared. Was it the first shot that actually stopped the BG? The sixth? The tenth? Would a .357 Magnum stopped him sooner? We simply don't know.

It seems as though the OP's main point is capacity. He highlights that point with this statement from the LEO:

If you are going to carry a firearm off-duty, you should carry extra ammo. Security camera video of this incident revealed that I fired all 11 rounds from my Glock 26 in about 2 seconds. My extra mag held 17 rounds. Words cannot describe the emotion I felt when I slammed that mag into my weapon and was able to still be in the fight.

So, he thinks that everyone needs extra ammo because having it at the end of a gunfight, even though he didn't need it, made him feel better. That's fine and dandy, I'd feel better going into a gunfight armed with my .44 Magnum than I would with a smaller caliber, but that doesn't mean that the .44 will always be necessary nor that it will be practical for me to carry that gun all the time. If lots of ammo or a big gun is comforting to you, by all means carry what you're comfortable with, but what is comforting to you doesn't prove anything to me.

What this story really shows me is the difference between myself and a LEO. The LEO in this story had a duty, be it legal or moral, to go forth and confront evil whenever and wherever he found it. I am not going to second-guess his actions, but I will say that as a private citizen I would have done things differently. As a private citizen, my duty is first and foremost to myself and my loved ones. Given the opportunity, I would have gotten my family and myself out of there as quickly as possible.

As far as I can tell, no ones life had been directly threatened at the time the LEO learned of the robbery. By engaging the shooter, the LEO increased the risk to himself and bystanders still in the restaraunt. As I said already, I'm not going to second-guess the LEO as he may have known something that I do not, but were I in the situation as described, I would percieve the risk of engaging the shooter to myself, my family, and innocent bystanders as greater than that of simply allowing him to escape with whatever he'd stolen. It is not my responsibility to enforce the law or prevent crime and, unless it is obvious that someone is about to be murdered, raped, or otherwise suffer severe bodily harm, I feel no duty to intervene. If I felt such a duty, I would pursue a career in law enforcement.

Finally, the LEO was in a different boat, tactically, than I am. Notice the following:

I immediately noted the large semi-automatic pistol in his hand. The distance was about 15 to 20 yards. I drew my weapon, announced myself and took a kneeling position behind the counter.

Emphasis added

Due likely to department protocol, the LEO announced his presence to the BG prior to shooting. Such an action serves two purposes that I can see: it gives the BG a chance to surrender before recieving the dire concequences of his actions and it draws fire towards the LEO and away from innocent bystanders. This is feasable for the LEO for two reasons: he has a duty to the public as great or greater than his duty to himself and he is legally justified in drawing his weapon in situations that I am not. Were I in that situation, my weapon would not be drawn unless I thought that someone was about to be shot. If the situation were dire enough to warrant drawing my gun, it would have already digressed beyond the point of surrender. In that case, there will be no warning before I shoot as the BG has, at that point, forced my hand.

[Wag]

Skipping out of the first few posts, I agree that the little girl's death is in no way the fault of the officer.

I've never been involved in a shooting but from everything I've read about people who ARE involved in such a tragedy, they nearly always second guess their responsibility for such a death. The pattern is typical and very evident in the story. He suggests many ways in which he could have acted differently to prevent the death of the little girl.

What he hasn't considered is the very distinct possibility that had he not killed the robber, that guy might have been emboldened by the success of his venture and lived only kill someone else or even several someone else's.

As I said, I haven't ever been involved in something like this, even by accident so I can't begin to face the reality of how I'd feel. I sympathize greatly with the officer and the family of the little girl. Even the other people in the restaurant who were traumatized by the gunfight. That would really mess people up mentally.

Just thinking out loud here.

--Wag--

[HotShot.444]

"Lightning-shots in under 2 seconds!" Wow, are all wheelie shooters such trolls?? And, ".... no ones life had been directly threatened at the time the LEO learned of the robbery." Hmmm," there stands the BG with a large semi-auto pistol at the manager's head." Sounds rather life-threatening to me. A guy running past me with a sack of cash gets a bye from me; a guy running at me with a large semi-auto gets Mozambique first, questions later. This thread is a textbook case for "Civilian/Bad-Guy Confrontation Behavior." I hope it stays up a long time.

[Webleymkv]

".... no ones life had been directly threatened at the time the LEO learned of the robbery." Hmmm," there stands the BG with a large gun at the manager's head." Sounds rather life-threatening to me.

Neither the suspect nor the managers was within the LEO's sight when he learned that there was a robbery in progress. Also, nowhere was it stated that the suspect made any indication that he intended to kill anyone unless provoked. Finally, it was never stated that the manager was with the suspect when he emerged and began running towards the LEO. From what we have heard of the story, the suspect made no indication that he intended to shoot anyone until he was confronted by the LEO. While everyone in the restaraunt was certainly in danger, nothing in the account suggests that confronting the suspect posed any less danger to anyone than simply allowing him to escape.

Now, perhaps there is more to the story than has been told to us. It is entirely possible that there are details which have been omitted. However, without those details, all we have to go on is what we've been told and we've been given no indication that the suspect wanted anything more that to rob the McDonalds. Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully before resorting to calling people trolls.

[yrralguthrie]

I've read these posts and there are some points both ways unless you read, understand and stick to just what the original poster said.

He should not be judged as a civilian, but as a trained officer of the law. Did he do anything according to procedure?

He acted like the stereotype that many of us have of LEO's. Not like a well trained professional.

If a person is a civilian and has a gun in his house panic might be understood in an intruder situation. But even a civilian if he/she wants to carry a gun on his person has a obligation to remain a little calmer and act with a little more restraint that that officer did. To just draw and blast away is not very responsible and you likely should not be carrying in the first place. Almost all accounts of shootings by civilians protecting themselves or their family or property are repeated over and over in the media and in magazines. I don't recall any of these where the civilian panicked and just blasted away emptying their gun.

I hear those of you that say, " they would wet or soil their pants" in that situation. I don't buy that. Virtually all the accounts I've read the civilian was well in control of the situation. And that includes some very young and very old civilians. I'll guarantee you I would not try to bluff a 75 year old women with a gun in her sewing kit.

No sir. I think if I heard or saw someone breaking into my house I would react well...afterwards is another thing. If I panic I may get killed. If I have to go to the second magazine for one bad guy, they I likely will get shot.



And that officer was out of control and very lucky.

ljg

[Powderman]

And that officer was out of control and very lucky.

Just for the sake of discussion, could you elaborate on your training and experience that drives this statement--that this officer was "out of control"?

[jfruser]

Some interesting points made...as well as a good bit of chaff.

Revo vs Semi-Auto? Immaterial
WRT the OP's comment on revo vs semi-auto, I see bupkis. I carry an auto by preference and I don't see where it would have made a difference if the officer carried a revo. The officer's gunnery was of high quality and I doubt that five or six rounds of .357mag or .38spl would have left the suspect any more or less dead.


LEO Consequences vs Non-LEO Consequences
You can bet your bippy that a non-LEO performing the same actions would not write a regretful article that included him going back to his work a sadder, wiser man. The non-LEO would pay with his hide for that little girl's death and be in prison, or at least have his life ruined as he would be too juicy a target for 90% of the DAs and any tort lawyer that sidles up to the dead child's family.

Non-LEO citizens get no sovereign immunity and have no CCL union to back us up. We will take any consequences squarely in the face.


Lead on Target, FAST: Possibly A Liability
This has been raised and applies directly to me. One reason I prefer to carry a 1911 is that I shoot it well and can dump the mag fast into a target. Some training may be called for that ups the adrenaline and requires me to exercise discipline and limit round expenditure.


Responsibility
Morally, the robber bears ALL the responsibility for everything that happened after he started to rob the company.

The off-duty LEO's actions did result in more/greater injury than one expects from most fatburger robberies. Just because one course of action is do-able, it might not be the preferred COA.


Benefit of the Doubt
Well, I give the officer the benefit fo the doubt. Meaning that quite possibly one dead child is the "best case scenario." We don;t know how many folks were still in the restaurant besides the child & his family. Maybe the LEO prevented something even worse.

Even though I would not get it from gov't, I would give the gov't agent the benefit of the doubt.


How I Would Have Played It
What Jim March wrote, were I alone.

If my family was with me, they get taken to relative safety while I play a good witness and use the pen I always carry to good use, unless the suspect forces a confrontation with me & mine.

[cracked91]

I understand constructive critisicsm, and learning from the encounter.

But I find it offensive to imply that

1. The Officer was responsible for the girls death

2. The officer Should have done anything different

Yes, the officer Could have done things differently.
And they MAY have led to a better outcome.
But the officer did not react irresponsibly or poorly. And he was not
responsible for that girls death. Things just didn't pan out. Unless you can
see the future, your never going to be ready for anything anytime.


The fatal mistake may have been announcing that he was an officer
and drawing his sidearm. But he was a seasoned police officer. Im sure
when he saw the perp running toward him gun in hand, he reacted
instinctivley. As he said in his post, he switched into cop mode
right off the bat. I would not be surprised if at that moment, he was
not even aware of the fact that he was not in uniform. He was multitasking
the the extreme.

[DocCasualty]

I honestly think this tragic story has little in the way of education for CPL holders. I will leave it to the LEOs to decide what it has for them but think there's plenty to take home from someone who was in that situation. I could not for one minute be critical of the officer and how he handled it. I laud him for his critical post-event self-analysis and mission to spread the word about what he learned from it.

The one thing I think he is trying to teach is how important having back-up ammunition is for off-duty LEOs. As I am not and have never been a LEO, I really don't know how to judge his handling of this situation. I would guess his mental preparation should have been better in contemplating the possibility of a second shooter/accomplice to the BG that confronted him, which he did not begin to contemplate until he had spent his mag + 1, however, I'm not sure the best of training prepares for all eventualities as he noted.

For those who think his "10 + 1" either signifies poor 9mm performance, poor marksmanship, a "spray and pray" philosophy or any other reason than what actually occured, I think you need to reassess the reality of this shooting and any shooting you hopefully will never be involved in. Once he decided to shoot, I think he did exactly what his training taught him: to keep firing at COM until the threat was neutralized. I don't see that whether he had a 6-shot .357 Mag or a 10mm semi-auto that his response would have likely been any different. For those who think their Mozambique drill training will result in three and only three shots being fired, I hope you never have to find out. However, I'd bet on 10 hits out of 11 shots fired COM at 15-20 yards any day.

I recently found this and thought it was very interesting and applicable here. Obviously someone has tried to take a more objective look at the core issue of number of shots fired here:



“Excessive” shots and falling assailants: A fresh look at OIS subtleties

On average, additional findings show, officers may “reasonably” fire 6 rounds or more into suspects who initially are standing and then begin falling and who, in fact, may already be mortally wounded. And that’s 6 rounds per officer involved in the confrontation.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/...is-subtleties/

[jfruser]

One other thing...

Though I give the LEO in this case the benefit of the doubt, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing his performance and/or decisions.

We do the same with non-LEOs in situations that don't end up with dead children as part of the consequences of their actions. To refrain because the good guy in this situation is a LEO is ludicrous.

LEOs are not anything special relative to other citizens(1). Both LEOs and non-LEO/non-military folks are civilians. I have had at least two jobs with higher OTJ injury & death rates and where quick decision-making under threat of death and/or injury was common, so that doesn't impress me much as an excuse. If my actions had helped get a child killed, I would not have had limited sovereign immunity and a ready-to-order fan club for my occupation to jump to my defense.

Criticize away. That is how we might learn something from the incident. Most folks can sift the unreasonable from the reasonable criticism.



(1) Sadly, our gov't has chosen to treat them differently vis a vis the law and consequences for actions while performing their duty.

[dnr1128]

What I take away from this story is simple: my first priority, as an armed citizen, is remove myself and my family from the situation. I am not responsible for stopping the crime, or even protecting anyone else. Just because I have made the conscious choice to carry a weapon for personal defense does not obligate me to protect anyone else. Having said that, if I could protect someone else without endangering my family or other innocents, I would try. But first priority is the safety of my family.

[Powderman]

Sadly, our gov't has chosen to treat them differently vis a vis the law and consequences for actions while performing their duty.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it?

The cop who posted said that the reason was to encourage carrying more ammunition.

From reading his post, I believe that it is something else. It's a thing called the "mark of Cain"--the deep, psychological reaction of someone who has had to take a human life.

This post is his way of doing penance for something that was not his doing.

And for those who say that they have a right to criticize this man for his actions--all I can say is this--only if you've been there. Those who HAVE been there will know what I'm saying. Those who have not will miss the point.

And, to the last poster--I, and ALL of the other LEO who post on this board have said time and time again that everyone needs to take a good, long look at the reality:

In days past, cops might have had a 'bye' considering the severity of the incident, their department, etc. Nowadays this is NOT the case.

Unless you have the misfortune of being in a secluded area where the ENTIRE department is corrupt (and yes, I acknowledge that this does had has happen) police officers are held to a MUCH HIGHER STANDARD concerning the use of deadly force.

While some of you criticize and second guess, remember this:

When we assume our duties as police officers, we are required to SWEAR, to take an oath and PROMISE, upon our honor, to serve and protect, to uphold the law, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This oath is not taken lightly.

Remember that you can make the decision to run AWAY from a deadly threat. When you do, please run to the side. We'll be the ones running TOWARD the threat.

And if you happen to get in a tight spot, please try to tolerate the person who steps in--sometimes on their time off--to do something that may or may not alter the rest of their lives to protect YOU.

Criticize all you want. But I'll say again--unless you have been there, you don't have the experience or the right to do it.

[larryh1108]

Second guessing is one thing. Analyzing and trying to learn how to do it better is another. I don't believe anyone here has the right to second guess because we were not there. Split second decisions made by a veteran officer did cost a life but it was not his doing as he was doing what he was trained to do.

I have no doubt that the officer involved has replayed the scenario thousands of times in his head, wondering how he should have done it differently so a little girl would not have died. I'd bet that, initially, he saw the little girl's face a thousand times a day and probably blamed himself. I cannot imagine the grief and guilt he felt and still feels because an innocent life was lost. If no one but the gunman died he may or may not have these feelings of regret but as time has moved on I'd still bet that a day does not go by where he doesn't replay the scenario and seeing that little girl. I am sure it is eating him up a little bit each and every day.

This officer was a well trained vet who had SWAT background as well as teaching credentials. If a pro reacts in this manner what would a civilian do if he jumped in to try to help?

The cop involved has beaten himself up for 15 years now. I do not feel he deserves to be beaten up by any non-LEO person for his actions. He did it the only way he knew how and was trained. We cannot ask for more from any LEO who is there defending our lives while he puts his life in front of the bad guy. Critique? I guess so. Criticize? No way.