Are we training right?

[Jack Ryan]

Just for any Hoosiers following the thread, the crime in question is "Pointing A Firearm", per IC 35-47-4-3.

Not to point at you personally but rather to point to your linked article and offer this contrast for comparison and discussion.

http://www.infowars.com/homeland-sec...s-during-raid/

[Tamara]

Not to point at you personally but rather to point to your linked article and offer this contrast for comparison and discussion.

http://www.infowars.com/homeland-sec...s-during-raid/

Not sure what your linked piece has to do with the Indiana Criminal Code? Help me out, here.

[Lomshek]

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...inting+guns+at

Rob_s' quote from that thread sums up what I've taken from this discussion. I'm going to put some effort into training with that in mind. I'll begin training to not muzzle no-shoots so that this becomes something I am consciously aware of and avoid as a default.

If you can't even be bothered to not sweep someone in a training environment, especially when the sweep is simply because you can't be bothered to pay attention to what you are doing, then all bets are off "in the real world".

And GJM's own quote from that thread pretty much sums up the realities of when violating Rule 2 could be tolerated.

I believe the only way you should knowingly violate rule 2 is because the consequences of not violating rule 2 are greater than the consequences of violating rule 2. Now, once you have determined to knowingly violate rule 2, I am all about following rule 3.

Running around the theoretical mall willy-nilly muzzling everyone while going all terrorist-seeking-killer-missile would be unwise and not needed.

Drawing in a crowded theater as soon as you see a dude with an AK walk in even before half the folks have realized what is happening will mean you're sweeping someone to deal with the bad person asap to save lives. Adding two seconds (or one) in that scenario could mean more people dying and justifies sweeping innocents.

To summarize since I'm way out of my lane anyway - If sweeping innocents will save a second when a second may matter then I will do so (even if it is one of my own family) and rely on trigger finger discipline to not ND into them.

In such an event a miss would likely mean hitting someone so we're already making a calculated gamble based on our own skill level due to the emergency situation. Likewise if I am rushing someone to the hospital in my car in a situation where time is of the essence I will drive much faster than would be normally "safe" and as fast as my skill will allow me. Competing harms and all that.

[Jack Ryan]

Not sure what your linked piece has to do with the Indiana Criminal Code? Help me out, here.

In one case, Indiana Code makes it a felony just to point a weapon at some one.

In the other case the official government agents point their weapons at EVERY ONE and then determine if they were a threat after the fact. In a situation that THEY created and THEY escalated to a potential violent situation.

I find irony in it.

[rob_s]

To summarize since I'm way out of my lane anyway - If sweeping innocents will save a second when a second may matter then I will do so (even if it is one of my own family) and rely on trigger finger discipline to not ND into them.

In such an event a miss would likely mean hitting someone so we're already making a calculated gamble based on our own skill level due to the emergency situation. Likewise if I am rushing someone to the hospital in my car in a situation where time is of the essence I will drive much faster than would be normally "safe" and as fast as my skill will allow me. Competing harms and all that.

It would appear that you are in good stead. I agree with you. So does Todd (from your quoted link)

I agree that situational awareness ≠ safety. SA is a fun term to use as a catch-all but at a certain point, you're basically lumping all of reality into situational awareness. If don't shoot stuff you don't want to shoot was all we needed, we wouldn't have the Cardinal Rules in the first place.

As for Rule 2 vs Rule 3, we ran a stage at this month's KSTG match that required you to draw your gun with two non-threat targets immediately in front of you. Every shooter I watched did a nice muzzle sweep of at least one of the non-threats as part of his draw. Looking at the stage, there's really no intelligent way to do it otherwise. It's a good example of Rule 3 taking primacy. If someone spent the time to draw in a way that completely & safely cleared the non-threats, it would have added significant time to the exercise.

[ToddG]

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...inting+guns+at

Wow, blast from the past! I find it interesting that in a lot of ways, some of us were processing along the same lines as now: breaking the muzzle rule is bad but might happen; finger off trigger until sights aligned on threat is the key to safety.

[Tamara]

In one case, Indiana Code makes it a felony just to point a weapon at some one.

In the other case the official government agents point their weapons at EVERY ONE and then determine if they were a threat after the fact. In a situation that THEY created and THEY escalated to a potential violent situation.

I find irony in it.

Still not seeing what IC 35-47-4-3 has to do with an incident in NYC, which is far to the east of the 88th Meridian and therefore outside the writ of my state's law, and has its own laws and customs.

Further, a sketchy report from Infowars.com quoting NYC residents complaining about "snipers" pointing "flashlight-guns" at them makes it impossible for me to give any objective or, indeed, rational review of the incident in question. I'll note that if the law enforcement officers were "acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties", then the incident most emphatically would not have been a felony in Indiana, under Sec. 3(a) of the law in question.

[Jack Ryan]

I know it wouldn't be a felony for officers to do it. I know that specific incident was far away from Indiana but I KNOW Indiana police as well point their guns at citizens in the course of their work with out ever shooting them all. Some of them turn out to not be bad guys at all yet they still get guns pointed at them some times.

You don't find that to be bother some or at least interesting enough to discuss that the same act, for the same reasons, may result in YOUR being charged with a felony and your life turned upside down with out ever having harmed any one and it's specifically written in to the law that police may to the same at will with out any repercussions at all?

[Tamara]

I think entirely too much pointing of guns goes on in law enforcement these days. I think a sizable minority of LE trainers would agree with that statement. (Like, for instance, the one that started the thread.)

[Dagga Boy]

I think entirely too much pointing of guns goes on in law enforcement these days. I think a sizable minority of LE trainers would agree with that statement. (Like, for instance, the one that started the thread.)

I can think of three guys at minimum on this forum who have been on a literal crusade to get cops to quite pointing guns at everything. It is a tough road, and sadly it will come down to some righteous lawsuits to change a mindset that should be a training issue.