New (to me) Shooting Technique - Comments?

[threegun]

gvf, Thanks for making everyone think. Anytime we think about our self defense its good. Your post educated many. As a bonus you got Sweat n Bullets to chime in and he is a load of knowledge.

[gvf]

Thanks to you

Take Care,
gvf

[Erik]

"I don't think you care though. You are in a court, and taking down an opponent, so you will pick apart the words, so you can win the argument."

Who, literally, invited criticism? And by extention, criticism of redresses to the criticism?

Oh wait. In reading back I see that it was you. Good advise, that "just go back and read" bit. Apparently though, what I and some others are reading and what you're meaning are different. Hey, that happens. You seem a bit defensive about it, though. Perhaps you are reading something different than what the critics mean? At least, maybe that's possible.

Either way, no biggie. I'm comfy with my position on a largely discredited technique.

To all: Apparently GVF feels my criticism is somehow personal in nature. This is not the case, nor my intent. I wish him well and apologize for any mis-understandings.

[Keltyke]

I hope I'm not in the same parking lot when you guys try this silliness.

A big thanks to those of you who tried to add a little common sense to this thread.

I'm outta this one.

[Maximus856]

As always situation dictates.

If the BG is a few yards away you can probably snap your weapon up and aquire a decent site picture. If he is a few feet away and moving fast you should draw, snap your weapon IMMEDIATELY parallel to the deck and fire as you bring it up. This isn't something you should just mentally know, its something you must practice. Its muscle memory. Its not something you want to use when the BG is a decent ways away or when you have 0 training with it..IMO its not something that should be used in the civilian world either unless it really is life or death. But like I said above and others have said situation dictates.

-Max

[dedyamisha]

Seems to me that if you have time to recognize a threat exists, you have time to react in the way that you trained in, i.e., controlled aim and fire. There is less chance of collateral damage and mis-placed shots. Plus, it can save shots for a possible unforseen second assailant.
Above all, protect yourself and protect innocent bystanders.

[HoraceHogsnort]

The first rule of a gunfight is to SURVIVE!! If that means shooting at his feet, then his leg, then his groin, then his COM, then that's what it takes. Otherwise the inscription on your tombstone may read, "He died, but he played by the rules"!!!

[clt46910]

I was taught this technic many years ago. Particular if the BG is right on top of you. It is proven and works. In a fight for your life, you want to live. Not die because you second thought what the lawyers might think. There are no rules when it is life and death.

[Striker071]

OK I think the person who was teaching this practice went alittle overboard. But if you look at it this way if you have to start at his groin and finish at his chest or head then it is a good practice period. I dont agree with firing anything at anyones feet. But hitting him in the groin or lower stomach is more than a viable option. start at the lower extremities and work your way up through center mass. I have been taught this technique as well as other reactionary techniques. It is just another tool in your toolbox. At the point where you are doing this you are already at a disadvantage. Dont get me wrong it doesnt replace good sight aligment and trigger pull but it may again be a another tool for your toolbox and may save your life or the life of others. NO SPRAY and PRAY is not an option. Point shooting you still have to be in control and you have to practice it... over and over and over. Shooting at the ground or someones feet is not an option but dont discount point shooting because someone has their facts wrong

[Sweatnbullets]

Being a slave to a specific technique fails miserably inside of Force on Force (FOF.)

For those that are technique focused, you really need to take those techniques into properly structured FOF. You will immediately see the problem with being technique focused. I have never met one person that went into properly structured FOF and did not see the absolute need to add point shooting and movement to their tool box.

Train in concepts.....not techniques.

Always using the sights at full extention is like only knowing how to throw a left jab. You have no right hand....you have no hooks or uppercuts.....you have no kicks.....you have no ground game......you are a slave to a single technique.

Here is a concept for you "Just shoot the dirtbag!"

Who cares how you do it. Just get it done!

[xrocket]

Here is a concept for you "Just shoot the dirt bag!"

Well stated and directly to the point.






.

[bds32]

I have never met one person that went into properly structured FOF and did not see the absolute need to add point shooting and movement to their tool box.

This statement is absolutely true. All of the perfect stances and sight pictures go out the window. After numerous FOF scenarios, I don't ever remember seeing sights at close quarter distances.

[gvf]

From celebrated Police action in my hometown. The male officer's instincts told him he's never draw in time, and was perhaps too close to even clear the gun, so he grabbed the BG and hugged, taking all the remaining rounds himself to the point where he heard only the trigger clicking on empty - but saving his partners life. He came up in the heat of the moment with the only weapon available to him: his body:

Wounded officer may be paralyzed

SPINE SEVERED FROM SHOT FIRED BY TEEN
Injured partner who tackled suspect is in fair condition

By MAKI BECKER, VAN and ESSA THOMAS JAY REY
News Staff Reporters Buffalo News
12/7/2006

Officer Patricia A. Parete, clinging to life Wednesday night after her spine was severed by a bullet, is described by fellow cops as vibrant and "not one to walk away from a police call.

Varner Harris Jr. was meeting the requirements of his probation following his conviction last year.

Officer Patricia A. Parete, clinging to life Wednesday night after her spine was severed by a bullet, is described by fellow cops as vibrant and "not one to walk away from a police call."

Patricia A. Parete - one of two Buffalo police officers shot Tuesday night - was fighting for her life late Wednesday, her spine severed by a bullet fired by a teenager who was on probation.

If Parete survives, she likely will be paralyzed from the neck down.

"If she lives, she's probably going to be a quadriplegic," said a fellow officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I'm just so angry right now. It's horrible."

Sources also told The Buffalo News that police believe Varner Harris Jr., 18, who police say confessed to the shootings, opened fire on Parete and her partner, Officer Carl E. Andolina, because he feared being sent to prison now that he is of legal age and no longer eligible for youthful offender status.

Parete, the first female Buffalo police officer shot in the line of duty, was listed in serious condition late Wednesday night, while Andolina was in fair condition. Both are in Erie County Medical Center.

Tuesday night, Parete and Andolina were riding together on a special detail downtown investigating a rash of car break-ins. At 9:01 p.m., they were dispatched to a Valero gas station on the corner of Chippewa Street and South Elmwood Avenue, where a fight had been reported.

The officers spotted Harris running from the scene and chased him in their cruiser.

They got out of their patrol car and ordered Harris to turn around and take his hands out of his pockets.

They didn't know until too late that Harris was carrying a gun.
Harris "knew once the gun was found that he would go back to jail and finish his time and he wouldn't be a young offender anymore," a police source said. "He'd be going to the men's jail."

Harris began shooting at the two officers, nearly emptying the gun, as Andolina tackled him to the ground.

Neither officer discharged a weapon.

Parete was hit twice. Her bulletproof vest blocked a round aimed at her chest, but a second bullet pierced her face and ripped apart her spine.

As Andolina tackled Harris, he was hit three times - in the neck, arm and chest, protected by his vest.

"Andolina charged at him and took him to the ground," Police Commissioner H. McCarthy Gipson said at a morning news conference at ECMC. "He physically charged at an individual who was firing at him at point-blank range. He charged at a blazing gun."

[stephen426]

From celebrated Police action in my hometown. The male officer's instincts told him he's never draw in time, and was perhaps too close to even clear the gun, so he grabbed the BG and hugged, taking all the remaining rounds himself to the point where he heard only the trigger clicking on empty - but saving his partners life. He came up in the heat of the moment with the only weapon available to him: his body:

Sorry to disagree, but there is a big difference between bravery and stupitidy. Charging at someone who is shooting at you rather than returning fire is insane at best. The closer you get, the less likely the shooter is to miss. If both officers were critically wounded, they could not help each other out. Maybe both would have been killed and the bad guy would have gotten away. I can understand risking your life for your partner, but it is senseless to risk both lives by taking inappropriate action.

[gvf]

Charging at someone who is shooting at you rather than returning fire is insane at best. The closer you get, the less likely the shooter is to miss. If both officers were critically wounded, they could not help each other out. Maybe both would have been killed and the bad guy would have gotten away. I can understand risking your life for your partner, but it is senseless to risk both lives by taking inappropriate action.

This action was investigated by all concerned, and there was no hint that any other way would have been more appropriate - or POSSIBLE - to save his partner.

This transpired before you could count to 2 - when he made the leap - while his partner was being continuously shot - and this happened more than a year ago.
Now, far removed by time and space, you are sitting comfortably behind a computer- and YOU are so sure he did the wrong and crazy thing, when no other hint of that ever appeared subsequently?

This is the hubris of intellectualizing, of theory over reality.



Here is more, from America's Most Wanted where the officer on the Award for 2007:

In December 2006, Officer Carl Andolina, responding to a fight in progress at a convenience store, faced the ultimate nightmare scenario for a law enforcement officer. The veteran officer and his partner Officer Patricia Parete, approached a suspect pointed out by the store clerk. Little did they know that this individual was a violent convicted felon who was on parole. The two officers approached the suspect who waited until they were literally inches away before he began firing his weapon. Two rounds struck Officer Parete - - shattering her jaw bone and lodging in her spine. Officer Andolina acted quickly - - he grabbed the suspect's gun and was shot. Without regard for his personal safety and with a bullet in his neck, Andolina wrestled the shooter to the ground, subduing him until help arrived. Andolina is recovering from his injuries while his partner was not so fortunate. Today, Officer Parete remains on a respirator undergoing a slow recovery. Andolina's selfless actions are still evident as he assists in raising money and providing support for Parete's family. Buffalo Police Lieutenant, Danny Williams, commented "both officers were two young good cops. Carl's first response was 'how is my partner."

Puleeeze: I didn't post this so there would be a general field-day on this LEO but to make a point already raised: reality dictates the action. He won a ton of heroism citations and awards. Why not just accept what those there and those investigating found -- and that he wasn't a fool. Or move on to something else which is another option. Lordy........

[stephen426]

This action was investigated by all concerned, and there was no hint that any other way would have been more appropriate - or POSSIBLE - to save his partner.

This transpired before you could count to 2 - when he made the leap - while his partner was being continuously shot - and this happened more than a year ago.
Now, far removed by time and space, you are sitting comfortably behind a computer- and YOU are so sure he did the wrong and crazy thing, when no other hint of that ever appeared subsequently?

This is the hubris of intellectualizing, of theory over reality.

Puleeeze: I didn't post this so there would be a general field-day on this LEO but to make a point already raised: reality dictates the action. He won a ton of heroism citations and awards. Why not just accept what those there and those investigating found -- and that he wasn't a fool. Or move on to something else. Lordy........

Am I glad that he alive? Certainly. Am I glad that he was able to save his partner? Certainly. Was there a more effective solution other than the one he took? Possibly. The outcome does not justify the technique. What if they had both been killed and the shooter got away? Would you still call it a good technique? When the poop hits the fan, I can understand instinctive responses. Proper training increases the likelihood that the instinctive response would be the appropriate one.

When they stoped the suspect, they should have had their hands on their weapons with any retention devices off. If they suspected he had a weapon, they should have had their guns drawn and at low ready. They were caught off guard and received multiple gun shot wounds as a result. Is it bravery because they were caught off guard but survived? I respect his bravery for willing to sacrifice himself for his partner, but truth is they could have both been killed that night. Had he had his gun out, do you think he would have shot the suspect or charged him? Monday night quarterbacking done.

[gvf]

I respect his bravery for willing to sacrifice himself for his partner, but truth is they could have both been killed that night. Had he had his gun out, do you think he would have shot the suspect or charged him? Monday night quarterbacking done.

That the way you did it when you saved your partners life?


(Sorry when I wrote that this was investigated by all concerned without a hint of an error made. I forgot you knew better. Really sorry.... as the officer will be when he finally learns he was wrong all this time...you alone got it)

[stephen426]

That the way you did it when you saved your partners life?

I have nothing personal to gain from this arguement so you can take it as personally as you like. Failure to learn from past events lead to the same results. Other lives might be saved as a result. Had they followed proper procedures, it is even possible that Officer Parete would not be a quadrapalegic now. One officer should have been holding the suspect at gun point while the other should have restrained him. For both officers to have been within inches does not seem like proper procedure.

In the attachment you posted, the lieutenant said that they were "two young good cops". Could that mean inexperienced?

I was not there. I have not saved anyone's life. I can analyze a situation and learn from their mistakes though. Maybe you feel that Officer Andolina's response was the right one. Feel free to charge someone shooting at you. I personally, would rather return fire.

By the way, do you really think that it would be politically correct to say the officer screwed up after he tried to save his partner and was shot several times as well? Try asking, objectively, if any of their actions led up to that situation. Frankly, I have no idea why you are taking this so personally. Whatever.

[gvf]

By the way, do you really think that it would be politically correct to say the officer screwed up after he tried to save his partner and was shot several times as well? Try asking, objectively, if any of their actions led up to that situation. Frankly, I have no idea why you are taking this so personally. Whatever

What's the matter with you? I live here and I know police officer's and I know that this incident was investigated and no error was found on the part of either officer, - I've said it twice - but the opposite: the male officer was cited for heroism by the police agency - subsequently there were hundreds of opportunities to find errors from scores of other agencies, organizations nationally. Not a hint of anything but bravery

And you somehow deny this is true and insist such errors were made that the officer is, in fact, responsible for the life-long paralysis of his partner.

Do as you like, but don't wonder about the reaction to it.

[stephen426]

By the way, do you really think that it would be politically correct to say the officer screwed up after he tried to save his partner and was shot several times as well? Try asking, objectively, if any of their actions led up to that situation. Frankly, I have no idea why you are taking this so personally. Whatever

What's the matter with you? I live here and I know police officer's and I know that this incident was investigated and no error was found on the part of either officer, - I've said it twice - but the opposite: the male officer was cited for heroism by the police agency - subsequently there were hundreds of opportunities to find errors from scores of other agencies, organizations nationally. Not a hint of anything but bravery

And you somehow deny this is true and insist such errors were made that the officer is, in fact, responsible for the life-long paralysis of his partner.

Do as you like, but don't wonder about the reaction to it.

On a personal note, I am sorry to hear about the officers being injured, especially since you know them personally. This is not an attack on them or their person, but a review of what could have been done better. Do pro athletes only watch the ESPN highlights showing their best moves, or do they review the games they got spanked on to see how they could have improved? I hope other officers learned from the situation and I hope they approach suspects more carefully. By the way, I said that it is possible that the outcome could have been different, rather than saying Officer Andolina is responsible for Officer Parete's injuries.

By the way, I am not questioning Officer Andolina's response once he was in that situation. I am saying maybe it was possible to avoid being in that situation by being better prepared for it.

I think we are thread jacking this so you can start a new thread if you like. Heck, you could probably even start a poll to see if anyone could find fault with the officers' actions. I seriously doubt that I am the only one who believes that they could have done things differently and that the outcome could be different. If you do decide to start a thread, we can continue this there. Like I said, I have nothing to gain from "being right" so lets call this thread jack over.

[matthew temkin]

The old time gunfighters--Applegate, Fairbairn, and some of the old time cops who trained me in the early 1980's--advised getting off the first shot ASAP.
As it was explained to me, even a close range miss will very likely get a reaction from the BG, enough to give you up to a two seconds advantage.
Personally I prefer the elbow up/elbow down draw stroke, which is very fast indeed and gives a very good chance of your first shots hitting the BG in the belly area.
Naturally this would be followed with movement while bringing the gun up higher up in the cone of vision--a/k/a the zipper.
So--I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves if this is still a valid concept.

[Erik]

I'm not sure what the "SPINE SEVERED FROM SHOT FIRED BY TEEN" article brings to this particular thread.

The article gives little detail about the mechanics of the shooting. Was the shooter reported to have used the technique you are asking about? It does not appear so.

Regardless:

I'm of the opinion that Officer Andolina desreved his commendation, regardless of whether tacticians might approve or disapprove of the course of action he decided on. Brave is brave, and brave he was when it mattered.

GVF,
You seem to take perceived disagreement and/or things that you perceive as challenges rather personally. There are two examples in this thread alone: First, over responses to a critique you asked for, and now in response to comments to a seemingly unrelated-to-the-thread article that you posted. You are coming across as a bit more worked-up than called for. Which in turn detracts from points you seem passionate about conveying.
Erik

[stephen426]

Erik,

I think the point that gvf was trying to make was that sometimes the best weapon to use is your body rather than trying to draw and fire. I actually agree with this and believe that some unarmed combat skills should be part of everyone's arsenal.

Frankly, I never said that officer Andolina didn't deserve his commendations. His willingness to risk his life for his partner's is certainly selfless and heroic. My point is that charging a loaded weapon is rarely the best defensive maneuver.

I think gvf took it personally when I mentioned that certain things could have been done differently that could have resulted in a different outcome. For one, they should have had they hands on their weapons or even their guns drawn before approaching a suspect who had his hands in his pockets. One officer should have held the suspect at gun point while the other officer secured him. I believe this is all standard procedure. Having both officers walk right up to the suspect with out their weapons drawn is what they did wrong (in my humble opinion). I'm willing to bet that had Officer Andolina been able to do it all over again, he would have done something like that. I'm sure he would also risk his life for his partner's if he had to do it all over again.

While some Monday night quarterbacking, I call it analyzing a situation to see what could have been done to prevent future incidents. Failure to learn from tragic events simply leads to them happening again. Again, I have nothing personal to gain from this. Heck if it saves an officer's life because they stop a suspect in a safer way, then it is well worth the critique.

[gvf]

First, over responses to a critique you asked for, and now in response to comments to a seemingly unrelated-to-the-thread article that you posted.

The first is an opinion. Which of course is fine. But it is an opinion or interpretation, not a statement of fact.

As to your mention of the cop-story, if you read where this was placed, it followed several posts that pointed to flexibility in response to what is actually happening in a critical emergency, and reality determining what SD actions to take: so, the story of the officer was mentioned as an example of this - so extreme that the one action available to the officer to save a life (his partner's) was to use his body as the weapon, a shield, not his gun. (Which is what the facts were and the finding of the subsequent investigation; a poster here began the ensuing discussion).

[gvf]

GVF,
You seem to take perceived disagreement and/or things that you perceive as challenges rather personally. There are two examples in this thread alone: First, over responses to a critique you asked for, and now in response to comments to a seemingly unrelated-to-the-thread article that you posted. You are coming across as a bit more worked-up than called for. Which in turn detracts from points you seem passionate about conveying.

You mean, for example, could I misinterpret this personal note to me on a Gun Forum critically evaluating my psychic workings - as personal.

Or your off-hand judgment of my article being unrelated to the thread, which you made in a note unrelated-to-the-thread...... would I mis-perceive it as personal.


----------------------------
Your remarks on my posts are opinions, not facts. Which is fine. But opinions, interpretations, are not statements of fact.

Re the story of the officer: if you read where it was placed, it followed several posts that stressed flexibility and letting the needs of the reality of an SD emergency determine appropriate SD actions, as opposed to theory doing so. As an example supporting this view, I posted the story of the officer -- so extreme a situation that it's reality called for the one weapon available to save his partners life: his body, not his gun - (which were the facts of this case and finding of the subsequent investigation) - another poster then joined on that story and the discussion ensued.