[Limnophile]

I am not.

The Best Defense takes a realistic incident and shows, through role-playing, how the defender's actions can fail, and then shows a couple of better responses. Theey than show some training exercises appropriate to the kinds of situations at hand.

In the Pharmacy Robbery, a pharmacist drew from a stationary position and fired at an armed robber. In so doing, he got shot, shot an employee, and put a bullet though a glass window with innocents on the other side--a very bad situation.

When the scenario was replayed, just a little movement on the part of the defender caused the robber to miss, allowed the pharmacist to shoot the robber without putting his employee at risk, and put the bullets into a hard backstop.

They then went through the exercises on a range with "good guy" and "bad guy" targets set up and a "backstop" to show how one would go about it.

It was a very good portrayal, and for those who have not seen it, it is worth buying the DVD.

Different incidents. In the one I referred to the defending pharmacist was successful. I try not to be very critical of those who win self-defense encounters, but I do think something can be learned from after-action assessments, acknowledging that Monday morning quarterbacking is very easy.

I had not seen it before the one occasion in which I stumbled into an obvious robbery about to happen. The first thing I did was to think "backstop" and "clear shots" (foreground and background), and move accordingly.

Fortunately the robber aborted the attempt. Did I do the right thing? No! I should have reacted to the car situated unnaturally outside and driven away without entering the store.

I am not alone in my immediate thought process. There was a recent post here on TFL in which Pax related having gone through the same step.

Not ever having stumbled upon the scene of a crime in progress, the closest I can come to understanding what you thought and did is hunting experiences. As a starving graduate student I once passed up an easy shot at a tasty-looking doe sauntering up a hill, because not long before her appearance a party of hunters -- heard, not seen, disembarked from the FS road above me and took up positions on the other side of a stand of trees that formed the backdrop behind the deer.

As to not recognizing an oddly parked car as a threat, I can understand that. Making the connection after the fact shows how experience offers big benefits. Just as on the battlefield, experienced combat vets have a much better chance of survival than do new replacements. In lieu of actual combat -- whether military, law enforcement, or civilian self defense -- the best experience is gained through training that is as realistic as prudent safety allows.

We can discuss morality for days, and if you can successfully articulate that you did not act recklessly and that you did act only with immediate necessity, you may ultimately prevail in civil court, but you will always regret that "collateral damage".

Fortunately, WA use-of-force laws are fairly reasonable, but I agree that collateral damage would always be a burden to bear. It would be easier to bear if the damage was balanced by the successful defense of myself or others.

That's what many of us start out doing, but we learn after a little training that training for "good shooting" won't really help us much in a defensive encounter, after we have addressed the fundamentals. Practicing by squeezing off 20 moa groups just will not prepare us to put four shots into the upper chest of a moving target at three to five yards in under a second.

Good shooting is relative to the situation. A 20-moa group at the range is a great group for me. An accurate, rapid-fire, 332-moa group under the stress of an actual self-defense encounter is a great group for almost anyone, as every shot should hit the target and the FBI reports 75% of shots in a LE gunfight typically miss. If I ever get around to practicing for IDPA, in the hope of achieving 332-moa groups in an actual gunfight, I would strive for 153-moa groups (the -0 thoracic zone at 5 yd) where the only added stress is the clock.

Pincus will tell you that if you are shooting tight groups you are shooting too slowly.

With all due respect to you and Pincus, if 75% of gunfight shots are misses, folks are shooting way too fast. You agree that the goal is a physiological, not pychological, stop, and physio stops only come about with hits.

Consider this. Somewhere, and you do will know where, within that three dimensional mass moving at you are a few small internal targets that you can shoot that would help effect a reasonably quick shot. If you miss them--not good. The only way you would have any hope of hitting any of them is to put several shots into the attacker very rapidly indeed.

Striving for small groups will not help you there.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, one who is incapable of shooting tight groups under little or no pressure at the range will be unable to shoot with adequate accuracy and precision in an actual defense situation.

The definition of "small" is relative. I personally have defined "small" to be 20 moa at the range, and 332 moa in a real encounter -- at 5 yd these equate to 1.1-inch and 17-in groups, respectively. Under any training or gaming scenario I would consider 332 moa unacceptable, as any training scenario will be less stressful than an actual threat. More stress = less precision.