Closing on attacker

[BoppaBear]

Lately, I've been wondering about when/if it is appropriate to close the distance on an attacker. To disarm after they are down, etc.

I figure it is situation-dependent, dependent on cover, surroundings, etc., but would love to hear others' thoughts.

For clarification, the situation I'm imagining is you've recognized a threat, make the decision to draw, and fire. This obviously isn't a 25 yard scenario, as with that much distance, breaking away is the best option. What I'm wondering is inside of that distance...15, 10, 7 yards.

I understand that there are many factors, etc., but was thinking about some drills done in courses in the past. While many of the drills involve walking/moving backwards away from the threat, and rightfully so, some involve iterations of moving towards the threat.

[Josh Runkle]

Depends on so many factors. Are you law enforcement or civilian? Is there more than one threat? The list goes on and on.

Yes, closing the distance is appropriate...when it's appropriate. For example, they are a bad guy holding your kid...might be a time (or might not) when it is appropriate to close the distance. You should practice movement in all directions and not get tied into only retreating.

[BoppaBear]

Depends on so many factors....You should practice movement in all directions and not get tied into only retreating.

Agreed on all points, especially these.

There are scenarios, as a civilian, that I can see closing on your attacker to be appropriate. This being said, there are so many variables.

[Lon]

Lately, I've been wondering about when/if it is appropriate to close the distance on an attacker. To disarm after they are down, etc.

Regarding the approaching to disarm. I have a hard time seeing a scenario where a non-LEO approaching a downed bad guy to disarm them is a good idea. Especially if they (good guy) are alone. My opinion is that once bad guy is down, you stay back (heck, evac the area if appropriate), call 911 and wait for the PoPo to come deal with said downed bad guy.

My wife like the phrase "know your role". Usually directed at me for some reason. Anyway, I use this phrase when I teach non-LEO classes. Know your role. Your role (and mine in an off duty capacity) is to protect you and yours. That's it.

Heck, I have a hard time with a single LEO approaching a downed bad guy to disarm. If they aren't outta the fight and you get to grappling distance, things can get kittened up quick. That's why we teach the contact officer/cover officer technique. I use the know your role line for LEO classes as well. It seems like many officers feel like they have to run up to a downed bad guy (especially in AS training scenarios) and try to disarm and/or handcuff them with one hand while they have their pistol in the other. Their role (initially) is to stop bad guy. Once said bad guy is stopped, they can wait for more units to finish up.

There may be some rare scenario where it might be appropriate, but 99.9% of the time - NO.

[ST911]

It depends.

You should always consider movement. It may be to cover for protection, a position of advantage for more effective fire, a position that enables other rescuers to find and partner with you, to deceive, to escape, to aggress, to manage lighting, or to make yourself less threatening to responding officers. You may need to move multiple times as you progress through these tasks.

[BoppaBear]

Good points guys. Thanks.

[uechibear]

Lately, I've been wondering about when/if it is appropriate to close the distance on an attacker. To disarm after they are down, etc.

If I ever have to shoot someone, I want the police to find the bad guy's weapon on/near him because that would help support my claim of self-defense.

[Josh Runkle]

If I ever have to shoot someone, I want the police to find the bad guy's weapon on/near him because that would help support my claim of self-defense.

If you ever have to shoot someone, you should not be actively engaged in the mental speculations of self-defense law during a self-defense scenario. You should do WHATEVER is necessary to prevail (yes, this includes breaking the law, but it also includes living). Then, you should hire the best attorney possible (hopefully someone you have contacted ahead of time if you carry a gun for self-defense), then you should keep your mouth shut. You should leave the "claims" of self-defense to your attorney.

[psalms144.1]

I unconsciously find myself wanting to aggressively close with targets during FOF while the shooting is going on, but I can't imagine a scenario outside of a multiple-officer coordinated event where I'd ever want to close with a downed threat. Issues:

1. How do you KNOW the threat is really "stopped?" There tends to be agreement that distance favors the trained (and we're all in that category, right?), so if you approach the "stopped" threat, you're equalizing one of your advantages. I can think of ANY number of scenarios where a threat would go face down, hands obscured, weapon unseen, where closing would be a really BAD IDEA (TM). Even worse - imagine you shoot, guy falls down, you move forward, he reacts and you end up shooting again, at the guy who's already down? Do you really want to see the video of that "execution" in the court room?
2. How do you KNOW there's only one threat? Maybe your BG has a cowardly lion friend nearby, watching, who doesn't want to face the guy with a gun. Move forward and you might be setting yourself up for an attack from the flank or rear.

IMHO, God forbid you're in a gun fight, once the threat(s) appear nuetralized, you should move to the nearest "safest" place, and get on the horn to 911, then an attorney.

Regards,

Kevin

[David Armstrong]

Lately, I've been wondering about when/if it is appropriate to close the distance on an attacker. To disarm after they are down, etc.

I figure it is situation-dependent, dependent on cover, surroundings, etc., but would love to hear others' thoughts.

For clarification, the situation I'm imagining is you've recognized a threat, make the decision to draw, and fire. This obviously isn't a 25 yard scenario, as with that much distance, breaking away is the best option. What I'm wondering is inside of that distance...15, 10, 7 yards.

I understand that there are many factors, etc., but was thinking about some drills done in courses in the past. While many of the drills involve walking/moving backwards away from the threat, and rightfully so, some involve iterations of moving towards the threat.
For a non-LEO in a CCW situation, the only reason I can envison for moving closer to the threat is if that is where my only cover would be.

[David Armstrong]

If you ever have to shoot someone, you should not be actively engaged in the mental speculations of self-defense law during a self-defense scenario. You should do WHATEVER is necessary to prevail (yes, this includes breaking the law, but it also includes living). Then, you should hire the best attorney possible (hopefully someone you have contacted ahead of time if you carry a gun for self-defense), then you should keep your mouth shut. You should leave the "claims" of self-defense to your attorney.
I'm certainly going to disagree with that. One should be aware of the laws of self defense when exercising them. That is why we teach people about those laws. Failure to follow the law when involved in a DGU can lead to unneccesary problems.

[Josh Runkle]

I'm certainly going to disagree with that. One should be aware of the laws of self defense when exercising them. That is why we teach people about those laws. Failure to follow the law when involved in a DGU can lead to unneccesary problems.

I obviously agree that one should be well aware of the laws beforehand, however, the time period DURING a self-defense encounter is not the place to be considering those things. Self-defense is a last resort that implies that one had no choice but to defend themselves. If your actions are the result of a "last ditch effort" where you were left without choices, then how can you be making choices regarding self-defense DURING an encounter? It literally stands in opposition to the idea that self-defense was necessary in that situation.

If, on the other hand, you simply mean that people should be well pre-planned and well pre-educated should they find themselves in a variety of "last ditch effort" scenarios, where they simply respond based upon available data, rather than making choices, then we can easily agree upon that point. I simply mean that self-defense implies scenarios without choices but to defend yourself, otherwise, when faced with choices, and therefore options, you would try to escape or evade.

[orionz06]

Is a threat a threat if you retreat or advance? Does one position offer an advantage in safety or offer a better means to stop said threat?


Probably about as close to an answer as I can ponder that is not "it's a good idea when it's a good idea..."

[John Hearne]

I can think of few situations in which closing with a threat would be wise. Most street crimes are already taking place at fairly intimate distances to begin with. One of the few situations where closing might make sense was in a super chaotic environment with lots of no-shoots. I like to think that had I been in the theater in Aurora, CO when the shooting started that I would have closed with and engaged the bad guy.

[TAZ]

I'm certainly going to disagree with that. One should be aware of the laws of self defense when exercising them. That is why we teach people about those laws. Failure to follow the law when involved in a DGU can lead to unneccesary problems.

Knowing the law and carrying on an internal debate about its applicability to life and death situation you are engaged in is not a good idea in my non professional opinion. Know the law; understand the constraints (as best as possible) it places upon your use of force BEFORE the fecal matter hits the impeller.

As for when to close with an adversary: when it offers you an advantage. Better cover, more accurate shot placement, offers a cleaner field of fire that sort of thing. I'm no cop so I'm not concerned with cuffing a downed attacker. If the threat is stopped I'm calling the cops if my wife hasn't already done so and making sure nobody including me has extra holes where God didn't put them.

[jumpthestack]

Not necessarily endorsing this video, but for your consideration, a scenario by former Navy SEAL in which he suggests moving forward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_rjo62bC-A&feature=youtu.be

[BoppaBear]

Not necessarily endorsing this video, but for your consideration, a scenario by former Navy SEAL in which he suggests moving forward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_rjo62bC-A&feature=youtu.be

Thanks for the post. I've seen this here at P-F, and think there is a lot of fail in his suggestions, as far as shooting at the ground while advancing. That kind of kills this vid for me.

[BoppaBear]

I can think of few situations in which closing with a threat would be wise. Most street crimes are already taking place at fairly intimate distances to begin with. One of the few situations where closing might make sense was in a super chaotic environment with lots of no-shoots. I like to think that had I been in the theater in Aurora, CO when the shooting started that I would have closed with and engaged the bad guy.

First off, I've finally figured out how to multi-quote on an iPad!

Thank you John, I definitely agree with your situation. My "situation" is more of a no cover, within 21', interaction with the BG, and closing as you shoot.

While I will first and foremost want to break contact, there is somewhat of a natural reaction for some to move forward. I know there are so many variables, but am looking for exactly what you provided....your thoughts on when it MAY be appropriate.



Is a threat a threat if you retreat or advance? Does one position offer an advantage in safety or offer a better means to stop said threat?


Probably about as close to an answer as I can ponder that is not "it's a good idea when it's a good idea..."

Thanks sir. I knew when I posted this that there would be some questions, and some good ones. So many things to consider.

To answer your first question, as a NON-SME, I would say retreat or advance doesn't matter. That will be sorted out on the back-end, with the legal representation. I think, that at the end of the day, it does not (almost wrote "should not", but that's a fairy tale) matter. The basis is "do you feel threatened". After the fact, it's "can your attorney prove it".

None of this is to discount the fact that we all need to know and understand the ROE for our states.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Josh Runkle]

An additional thing: one really interesting thing I learned a few years ago from a Gabe Suarez video (yes, I'm not a fan either) was regarding change of angle for the attacker. If you are about one to five arms length from an attacker (let's say 3 to 15 feet), then think of it this way from the attacker's perspective...If you move rearward and laterally while shooting, the attacker has very little change from your first position to follow you to your second, even if the movement is large, rapid and dramatic. However, if you move forward and laterally, now from the attacker's perspective, the change of angle from where they first had you in their sights to the second location is quite significant. It could disrupt the attacker's OODA loop and give you a temporary advantage.

Obviously this is a minor tactic to be kept in the toolbox, not at all a one-size-fits-all type thing. Also, to say that I take everything that instructors says with a grain of salt would be an understatement. However, I have "blue gunned" this with a friend and I do believe it to be significantly true and valid in the rare case where one might use it.

[John Hearne]

your thoughts on when it MAY be appropriate.

Given your scenario, the other set of events that would justify closing would be to protect innocents as a last resort measure. If you were with your family or folks you are responsible for and you were convinced that the killing was about to start and that no other options existed, then moving forward is viable, especially against a singe opponent. You are basically volunteering to be bullet sponge in order to safeguard those you love. One of those situations where you are choosing the option that sucks less to the point of desperation. I would not discount the psychological impact of closing with someone while screaming and filling their face with fire.

[BoppaBear]

An additional thing: one really interesting thing I learned a few years ago from a Gabe Suarez video (yes, I'm not a fan either) was regarding change of angle for the attacker. If you are about one to five arms length from an attacker (let's say 3 to 15 feet), then think of it this way from the attacker's perspective...If you move rearward and laterally while shooting, the attacker has very little change from your first position to follow you to your second, even if the movement is large, rapid and dramatic. However, if you move forward and laterally, now from the attacker's perspective, the change of angle from where they first had you in their sights to the second location is quite significant. It could disrupt the attacker's OODA loop and give you a temporary advantage.

Obviously this is a minor tactic to be kept in the toolbox, not at all a one-size-fits-all type thing. Also, to say that I take everything that instructors says with a grain of salt would be an understatement. However, I have "blue gunned" this with a friend and I do believe it to be significantly true and valid in the rare case where one might use it.

Good point, and I'm about to sound like the most agreeable guy around....but, I agree, and also think that closing is probably the last thing an attacker would expect. After all, most attackers expect retreat and chaos, not someone drawing down on them and actually lighting them up while moving...I would think, psychologically (assuming the BG is of a state of mind to actually think) that this would be a surprise.

[BoppaBear]

Good point, and I'm about to sound like the most agreeable guy around....but, I agree, and also think that closing is probably the last thing an attacker would expect. After all, most attackers expect retreat and chaos, not someone drawing down on them and actually lighting them up while moving...I would think, psychologically (assuming the BG is of a state of mind to actually think) that this would be a surprise.


Given your scenario, the other set of events that would justify closing would be to protect innocents as a last resort measure. If you were with your family or folks you are responsible for and you were convinced that the killing was about to start and that no other options existed, then moving forward is viable, especially against a singe opponent. You are basically volunteering to be bullet sponge in order to safeguard those you love. One of those situations where you are choosing the option that sucks less to the point of desperation. I would not discount the psychological impact of closing with someone while screaming and filling their face with fire.

Absolutely. Throw innocents, especially those we are "tasked" to protect, in the mix, and that's a different story. Self-preservation, while still a variable, isn't the top priority in this scenario. Kind of like diving on a grenade, but hopefully one that has stopped cooking with no "boom" at the end.

[Alpha Sierra]

Is a threat a threat if you retreat or advance? Does one position offer an advantage in safety or offer a better means to stop said threat?

None of this can be answered other than to say "it depends"

[John Hearne]

None of this can be answered other than to say "it depends"

"It depends" is so modest. Try "dynamically situationally dependent"

[BoppaBear]

None of this can be answered other than to say "it depends"

True. The question was more to spur conversation about the "when".

[David Armstrong]

I obviously agree that one should be well aware of the laws beforehand, however, the time period DURING a self-defense encounter is not the place to be considering those things. Self-defense is a last resort that implies that one had no choice but to defend themselves. If your actions are the result of a "last ditch effort" where you were left without choices, then how can you be making choices regarding self-defense DURING an encounter? It literally stands in opposition to the idea that self-defense was necessary in that situation.
But that is the entire problem. Unless one is considering those things during the encounter one makes mistakes. A self defense encounter is not a static event, it can be quite dynamic and changing. Heck, deciding if it is a last-ditch scenario is part of that process, and if one decides that one better continue to verify that scenario as it develops.

[David Armstrong]

Knowing the law and carrying on an internal debate about its applicability to life and death situation you are engaged in is not a good idea in my non professional opinion. Know the law; understand the constraints (as best as possible) it places upon your use of force BEFORE the fecal matter hits the impeller.
Sure, but your brain shouldn't be taken out of gear just because you have started something. Understand the constraints before AND during the incident. Shouldn't take much, if any, internal debate outside of "is there a deadly threat to me now."

[TAZ]

Sure, but your brain shouldn't be taken out of gear just because you have started something. Understand the constraints before AND during the incident. Shouldn't take much, if any, internal debate outside of "is there a deadly threat to me now."

Get what you're meaning was now. I think of what you're saying part of situational awareness. For me, based on my laws, I have a threshold that when crossed I'm willing to use deadly force. If and when the attacked retreats to the other side of the threshold I need to stop. It's the don't get stuck in the this guy was a threat mode but rather understand what is happening now.

[Josh Runkle]

But that is the entire problem. Unless one is considering those things during the encounter one makes mistakes. A self defense encounter is not a static event, it can be quite dynamic and changing. Heck, deciding if it is a last-ditch scenario is part of that process, and if one decides that one better continue to verify that scenario as it develops.

If the decision making is on one side my survival, having broken all laws known to mankind, and on the other side my death or serious bodily harm, yet I have obeyed the laws, I am left without choice. If I have no choices, I have no decisions.

If you are referring to decision making like, "Don't shoot the bad guy's unarmed friend", then I would propose that the unarmed friend either is or is not a threat to my survival. If he is a threat to my survival, the law is irrelevant, if he is not, the law is relevant, but I would have broken no laws, having not shot the person, so it is still, in essence, irrelevant.

[Keltyke]

Lately, I've been wondering about when/if it is appropriate to close the distance on an attacker. To disarm after they are down, etc.

I can't imagine where it would ever be wise for a civilian in a self-defense situation to close with an attacker. Distance is your friend. Even if he seems down and out of the fight, don't get within grabbing range. If he's not moving - holster your weapon, keep your distance, observe his actions, and wait for the cops to arrive. If he's still moving, keep your weapon trained on him, especially if his weapon is within his reach. "Don't move or I will shoot again!" If he's not threatening, you can't shoot. But if he makes a move towards you or attempts to use his own weapon, well...

Never approach the attacker to render first aid! If he dies anyway, you may be accused of "moving in to finish him off". There's very little an amateur first aider with no equipment can do for a gunshot victim, anyway.

[TAZ]

Ever and never are pretty strong words. As has been stated you may need to step closer to an attacker gain better cover or concealment gain better field of fire. To retrieve a family member or even risk your self by placing your body between an attacker and a family member. Most likely not high probability events, at least id hope not, but you still need to prepare for it. Passing on hard cover because you never close on an attacker could carry a high price.

[Keltyke]

Ever and never are pretty strong words. As has been stated you may need to step closer to an attacker gain better cover or concealment gain better field of fire. To retrieve a family member or even risk your self by placing your body between an attacker and a family member. Most likely not high probability events, at least id hope not, but you still need to prepare for it. Passing on hard cover because you never close on an attacker could carry a high price.
Closing on an attacker and seeking better cover are two entirely different things and are not parallel.

[TAZ]

Closing on an attacker and seeking better cover are two entirely different things and are not parallel.

If hard cover is closer to your attacker you are closing the gap between the 2 of you; hence you're closing on him. That's how I define closing on someone. Even if you define it as closing the gap for offensive purposes, you still may close on him to gain a better field of fire.

There are instances where getting close will help you out. May be few and far between, but we should be prepared for as many contingencies as possible.