The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 10, 2017, 10:52 AM   #151
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danoobie
.....Do I need to post a link of criminals interviews stating that while they didn't fear the cops, because they kept to a set timetable, and always handled things in a predictable manner, civilians pop up out of nowhere, at any time, and not having the uniform police code to follow, could do anything?......
Yes you do. You must provide evidence to support your claims.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old May 10, 2017, 12:00 PM   #152
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Well, Old Marksman, what I'm getting at, is the armed
civilian isn't required, or likely to issue a verbal warning,
for one.
Nor is a sworn officer, anywhere, when acting in self defense.

Perhaps you are thinking about officers who are apprehending suspects, which is something that civilians cannot lawfully use deadly force to do except in a few jurisdictions and in very limited circumstances.

Quote:
They aren't restricted by police regulations.
What might those be?

Quote:
And they don't always shoot for CBM, like perhaps they should.
No one always does, and there are no relevant regulations on the subject.

Quote:
They don't always react to a situation the way police treat a crime in progress.
That's not a matter of being "required to follow police guidelines". It's more a matter of roles and responsibilities. Sworn officers are expected to intervene in a crime in progress, and citizens who are not sworn officers are expected to go elsewhere and call the police.

Quote:
For two folks with, apparently, massive amounts of training,
you and Glenn seem almost inanely and obtusely unaware of the
interviews with criminals, in which they voiced a major concern
with encountering armed civilians, at the wrong moment.
I am very much aware of that, and I am sure that Glenn is, too.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old May 10, 2017, 12:11 PM   #153
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
The criminological literature - such as the work of Foxx and the victim selection literature indicates that economical driven criminals take into account victim resistance. That's not the issue of 'guidelines' causing criminals not to worry about the police.

I guess I wasted my time at the ASC meetings all those years. Being a trained scholar, as I said - I'm waiting for an analysis based on the literature from law, criminology and law enforcement on the issues of guidelines and the laws of lethal force.

If not - then - well, you can guess what I think of the analysis.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 10, 2017, 12:32 PM   #154
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,851
Some time back there was a study based on interviews with incarcerated criminals who had shot police officers.

Some of the high points that I recall:
  • Many of them were concerned about encountering armed citizens; that is not to say that they did not "fear" police officers.
  • Many of them were well practiced in the use of firearms.
  • The usually did not use holsters, because they would have to discard those in addition to their guns.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old May 10, 2017, 01:03 PM   #155
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,204
In the Wright and Rossi study published as Armed and Considered Dangerous (Second Edition, Aldine Transaction, 2008), one of the conclusions reported (ibid, pg 158) based on the analysis discussed in the chapter, "Confronting the Armed Victim" is: "In general, encounters with armed victims seemed to be about as worrisome to these men as encounters with the police."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old May 11, 2017, 08:38 AM   #156
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,851
That's right, it was the Wright and Rossi study.

One finding was this:
"...34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”...
That's a far cry from
"...criminals interviews stating that while they didn't fear the cops, because they kept to a set timetable, and always handled things in a predictable manner, civilians pop up out of nowhere, at any time, and not having the uniform police code to follow, could do anything?......"
One might wonder why being shot by a victim might be regarded by some criminals as posing a greater risk than running into the police, but nothing was said about a "set timetable" (where did that come from?). predictability, civilians "popping out of nowhere" ((victims "popping out of nowhere"?), or a "uniform police code".

One might, however, reasonably conclude that the uniformed constable on patrol is very visible and can be avoided before a crime is initiated, and the possibly armed victim is not.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old May 11, 2017, 08:52 AM   #157
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 40,275
At one time in the 1960s or so there was a school of thought that a shot to the pelvis was the way to go for police officers, especially a shot to the hip, as it would immediately immobilize the bad guy.

At least that was the theory.

As with a lot of theories, though, when people tried to put it into practice, it simply didn't work out as the theory said it should.

Actually hitting a part of the hip that would cause structural immobilization is about as hard as putting consistent headshots into a moving target.

Hitting the femoral artery is even more luck because it's an even smaller target.

Hitting the base of the spine is, again, more luck than not as it's a narrow target. It generally will result in PARTIAL incapacitation. Legs won't work, but arms are still capable of wielding a gun.

After a couple of shootings in which police officers were killed after putting several shots into a bad guy's intestines, with no measurable effect, people rightfully woke up and decided that yeah, the people who were advocating for shooting at center of mass are actually making one hell of a lot of sense.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 11, 2017, 09:24 PM   #158
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,129
Mike, right.

I have said this before and I will say it again...few people have any real understanding of where they would need to actually shoot a person anatomically in order to hit the very small target areas needed to "break the pelvis," much less to be able to do that on a clothed person for which there are virtually no external landmarks that could be used to make such a precision shot.
__________________
"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 May 12, 2017, 03:15 PM   #159
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,851
The very persuasive posts above from Mike Irwin and Double Naught Spy can bring us to a close on a seven page thread.

Should anyone have anything substantive to add, contact one of the moderators.

For now, it's over and out.
OldMarksman is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07352 seconds with 8 queries