Three, Then Stop, Look and Listen?

Captain38 · November 29, 2006, 06:37 AM

The most recent NYPD shooting, you know, the one with a total of 50 rounds fired and the soon-to-be-bridegroom killed, has brought out some STRANGE comments like this:

"Police rules mandate that an officer pause after firing three rounds to assess the situation. If the shooters had followed procedures, they might have seen there was no threat before it was too late." - NY Times Editorial 11/28/06

It's possible that what this writer AND OTHERS are referring to are some specific DRILLS practiced on the firing range, but, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO SUCH RULE OR PROCEDURE EXISTS that apply to ACTUAL deadly force incidents ANYWHERE in American law enforcement.

Unfortunately, the media are now QUOTING THEMSELVES so often that the general public might confuse what they says as FACT!

mete · November 29, 2006, 07:55 AM

It must be true it's in the NY Times !!!! There is a great danger in doing it by the numbers . Each incident must be dealt with with it's own details...Here's a training vs reality situation that happened here some years back. The LEO had attended the FBI school where at the time they taught revolvers and the training was -draw, fire two rounds and holster. One night the LEO had to save his partner. He did exactly as he was trained , drew, fired two rounds and holstered !! Fortunately the two rounds were enough but afterwards he realized the danger of a training program that didn't vary techniques ! You have to do it fast but it's a good idea to think in a shootout !

stevelyn · November 30, 2006, 08:31 AM

Our doctrine teaches the MINIMUM response is two rounds and assess. However, if your brain is telling you that two rounds aren't getting the job done, you shoot until the threat stops.

The two shots used in the training environment is used to instill some discipline so you just don't go hosing the target area down when under threat or trying for the one-shot stop.

The NYT as usual is all wet and taking about half of what they're told and bastardizing it.

Dwight55 · November 30, 2006, 10:10 PM

Sad thing about this one, . . . it doesn't matter what evidence that is brought forward, . . . the cops are going to walk, . . . and they are burying the groom.

Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson will wring 40 or 50 thousand apiece with their appearances and blasphemous bull crap, . . .

The mayor will proclaim that they need to get a handle on what the police are doing, . . .

Sarah Brady and her group will just make another case for taking ALL the handguns away, . . .

---ranting and raving switch turned off---

May God bless,
Dwight

November 29, 2006, 06:37 AM	#1
Captain38 Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2004 Posts: 170	Three, Then Stop, Look and Listen? The most recent NYPD shooting, you know, the one with a total of 50 rounds fired and the soon-to-be-bridegroom killed, has brought out some STRANGE comments like this: "Police rules mandate that an officer pause after firing three rounds to assess the situation. If the shooters had followed procedures, they might have seen there was no threat before it was too late." - NY Times Editorial 11/28/06 It's possible that what this writer AND OTHERS are referring to are some specific DRILLS practiced on the firing range, but, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO SUCH RULE OR PROCEDURE EXISTS that apply to ACTUAL deadly force incidents ANYWHERE in American law enforcement. Unfortunately, the media are now QUOTING THEMSELVES so often that the general public might confuse what they says as FACT!

November 30, 2006, 08:31 AM	#3
stevelyn Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell Posts: 2,655	Our doctrine teaches the MINIMUM response is two rounds and assess. However, if your brain is telling you that two rounds aren't getting the job done, you shoot until the threat stops. The two shots used in the training environment is used to instill some discipline so you just don't go hosing the target area down when under threat or trying for the one-shot stop. The NYT as usual is all wet and taking about half of what they're told and bastardizing it. __________________ Stop Allowing Our Schools To Be Soft Targets! http://fastersaveslives.org/ East Moose. Wear Wolf.

November 30, 2006, 10:10 PM	#4
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	Sad thing about this one, . . . it doesn't matter what evidence that is brought forward, . . . the cops are going to walk, . . . and they are burying the groom. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson will wring 40 or 50 thousand apiece with their appearances and blasphemous bull crap, . . . The mayor will proclaim that they need to get a handle on what the police are doing, . . . Sarah Brady and her group will just make another case for taking ALL the handguns away, . . . ---ranting and raving switch turned off--- May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

November 29, 2006, 07:55 AM	#2
mete Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2004 Location: NY State Posts: 6,575	It must be true it's in the NY Times !!!! There is a great danger in doing it by the numbers . Each incident must be dealt with with it's own details...Here's a training vs reality situation that happened here some years back. The LEO had attended the FBI school where at the time they taught revolvers and the training was -draw, fire two rounds and holster. One night the LEO had to save his partner. He did exactly as he was trained , drew, fired two rounds and holstered !! Fortunately the two rounds were enough but afterwards he realized the danger of a training program that didn't vary techniques ! You have to do it fast but it's a good idea to think in a shootout !