Verbal aggression at gunpoint

[SouthNarc]

One criticism I've heard during ECQC evos is that the students' behavior at gunpoint isn't realistic in that they push beyond what a person would in real life.


REALLY good piece of video here. Probably more effective to see it in real life than for me to relate my own experiences which corroborate this.

http://concealednation.org/2015/02/v...taurant-brawl/

[ssb]

The link doesn't work -- page not found.

ETA: I think this is it -- http://concealednation.org/2015/02/video-woman-pulls-out-gun-to-defend-herself-during-restaurant-brawl/

My first thought is, for a guy with a self-described open wound, he doesn't seem to be particularly bothered by the gun pointed at him. I don't know that I'd consider her as too aggressive; quite the contrary, given the guy's actions.

Southnarc, do you feel the level she went to ("take a step back, sir" repeated over and over) was appropriate? Would you have pushed further ("back the f--- up")? It's been my experience that aggressively-delivered profanity tends to have an impact, so long as you're not swearing at the person.

[DamonL]

This link might work better.

http://concealednation.org/2015/02/video-woman-pulls-out-gun-to-defend-herself-during-restaurant-brawl/

[SouthNarc]

Thanks!

[cclaxton]

Thanks!
You should hire a woman to scream at the top of her lungs while you are actively training....talk about stress!
Cody

[SouthNarc]

You should hire a woman to scream at the top of her lungs while you are actively training....talk about stress!
Cody

Tiffany actually did just that at the Tac Conference this year!

[Tom Givens]

You would be surprised at the crap some people will pull while at gunpoint, particularly if they do not believe the gun-holder will actually shoot them. Also, remember that the people you place at gunpoint are almost always A. Drunk B. Drugged C. Crazy as a shit-house rat or D. All of the above. Expecting rational behavior is a mistake. If they were rational you probably wouldn't be pointing a gun at them.

[Jay Cunningham]

It would seem that some people are simply unimpressed with guns - imagine that.

I think having role-players who are similarly unimpressed with guns is important in shaking the "static response" crowd out of the delusion that their one move will save them. Screaming the same command at increasingly higher volume and rapidity will not always get the desired results - if someone is unimpressed with your commands and/or gun... then what?

It's a topic I'm getting a lot of experience with as I participate more and more in various aspects of FoF, and I'm seeing certain patterns repeat. It's quite interesting.

[Malamute]

You would be surprised at the crap some people will pull while at gunpoint, particularly if they do not believe the gun-holder will actually shoot them. Also, remember that the people you place at gunpoint are almost always A. Drunk B. Drugged C. Crazy as a shit-house rat or D. All of the above. Expecting rational behavior is a mistake. If they were rational you probably wouldn't be pointing a gun at them.

Excellent point. Theres way too many people online rationalizing their choice of gun/tactic/other decisions based on "Well no rational so-and-so is going to stick around with a gun pointed at them/want to get shot with a 25 auto/hearing a pump shotgun cycle/etc..."

[SouthNarc]

It's quite interesting.


It fascinates me personally and I think it's the area least explored and discussed. Everyone wants problem solving to be linear and formulaic and real life rarely pans that way.

[Dagga Boy]

One of the weirdest thing I had happen to me was being in an edged weapon confrontation (with one of Tom's "all of the above" type bad guy) is watching him deal,with the blade. I was so used to guys talking all sorts of crap at the end of a gun that it was weird to see the major visceral difference of compliance when a blade was involved. It seems if they know they are going to get cut, it affects them at a different level.

[SLG]

I have seen people completely disregard guns being pointed at them several times. Once that happens, it can be difficult to regain control of the situation. This also applies at the agency level:-) I suppose I've been lucky that I haven't had it happen to me, but I think even most crazy (certainly not all) people realize when they're dealing with someone who will actually shoot them.

[SLG]

One of the weirdest thing I had happen to me was being in an edged weapon confrontation (with one of Tom's "all of the above" type bad guy) is watching him deal,with the blade. I was so used to guys talking all sorts of crap at the end of a gun that it was weird to see the major visceral difference of compliance when a blade was involved. It seems if they know they are going to get cut, it affects them at a different level.

I've seen that as well. Especially overseas, people respect blades.

[Jay Cunningham]

It fascinates me personally and I think it's the area least explored and discussed. Everyone wants problem solving to be linear and formulaic and real life rarely pans that way.

It fascinates me as well... pseudo-sociopath behavior is being taught to people as a default response to any human interaction from a not insignificant number of trainers. If one commits to emulating a sociopath, then this approach can work. Otherwise it leaves students with an extremely limited set of options for dealing with complex, fluid situations.

To clarify: well-intentioned people are defaulting to their level of training. They are being trained to disengage from everything and to consider everything a potential criminal ruse. In my opinion they are being set up for failure by the very trainers who are supposed to be experts. They're being told that acting like a sociopath is always the correct option every time.

These are good people listening to bad advice.

[SLG]

It fascinates me as well... pseudo-sociopath behavior is being taught to people as a default response to any human interaction from a not insignificant number of trainers. If one commits to emulating a sociopath, then this approach can work. Otherwise it leaves students with an extremely limited set of options for dealing with complex, fluid situations.

To clarify: well-intentioned people are defaulting to their level of training. They are being trained to disengage from everything and to consider everything a potential criminal ruse. In my opinion they are being set up for failure by the very trainers who are supposed to be experts. They're being told that acting like a sociopath is always the correct option every time.

These are good people listening to bad advice.

You lost me on that one. Can you elaborate? I've never had training that advocated acting like a sociopath.

[Jay Cunningham]

I've seen numerous examples of it. Every human interaction is met with I CAN'T HELP YOU or GET BACK, regardless of circumstances or context. I've been subjected to this kind of training as well - if you haven't, you are fortunate.

Edited to add: of course the above may be a wholly appropriate response... but if that's the only response you've got loaded in, then you rapidly cut off options. Getting back to the original topic, I've seen countless cases of DROP YOUR FUCKING WEAPON over and over and over again... but what happens if the person simply doesn't feel like dropping their weapon? Little bit of a Mexican stand-off thing usually happens.

[El Cid]

Getting back to the original topic, I've seen countless cases of DROP YOUR FUCKING WEAPON over and over and over again... but what happens if the person simply doesn't feel like dropping their weapon? Little bit of a Mexican stand-off thing usually happens.

Wasn't there a study of this technique that showed it makes the situation worse? Something to the effect of saying that command over and over shows the bad guy you're not willing to use force and gives him time to formulate a plan of attack or escape.

[Lon]

It would seem that some people are simply unimpressed with guns - imagine that.

I think having role-players who are similarly unimpressed with guns...


When I teach my CCW classes I talk about this. I relate the story of one of our locals ne'er do wells. He's 25 or so and been shot on 5 different occasions. Having a gun pointed at him does not phase him in the least.

[Aray]

Sometimes an actual tough (bad) guy believes that the person barking orders at him isn't in fact a tough (good) guy. When the bad guy is unperturbed by stern words, that can really cause an OODA problem for the good guy if he isn't prepared for that potential reaction.

[Chuck Haggard]

Sometimes they don't even care if you kill them. I had a guy we were looking for, who had down 17 armed robberies in two nights, at the end of my shotgun, his plan was to kill us or to have us kill him, going back to prison was off the table for him.

[Jay Cunningham]

I've seen "good guys" in FoF freak out and murder people because they "didn't comply"... Don't get me wrong, everyone is super amped-up and hyper vigilant when they are new to it. The debrief is usually where it gets interesting.

[SLG]

I've seen numerous examples of it. Every human interaction is met with I CAN'T HELP YOU or GET BACK, regardless of circumstances or context. I've been subjected to this kind of training as well - if you haven't, you are fortunate.

Edited to add: of course the above may be a wholly appropriate response... but if that's the only response you've got loaded in, then you rapidly cut off options. Getting back to the original topic, I've seen countless cases of DROP YOUR FUCKING WEAPON over and over and over again... but what happens if the person simply doesn't feel like dropping their weapon? Little bit of a Mexican stand-off thing usually happens.

I've seen that training as well, but I guess I don't consider it sociopathic when done correctly. Over and over is pretty much never correct, IMO.

As for the won't drop the weapon? Then it's time to shoot.

[ToddG]

This is why I like having real world penalties for committing "crimes" in FOF. I've told students they had to bring $100 in cash with them. Before we start running scenarios, we go through the Chinese menu of crimes you can commit and penalties for same. Brandishing? Costs you $5 of your money. Assault? $10. Murder? $20. And so on. Even though the actual sums tend to be small, it creates an emotional incentive against going all cowboys-and-indians.

Also sprinkle in scenarios where there is no real threat but it's easy to over react (my personal favorite was simply having a role player walk up and touch your arm trying to read your watch). As soon as a student draws his gun in reaction to, "Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?" it becomes pretty clear that there is more to the hammer class than just nails.

Do this enough and you'll literally start to drive students in the other direction -- which I think is more realistic for the average guy out in the wild -- and he'll let things escalate much too far before reacting with appropriate (deadly) force.

And at the end of the day there are just some folks who will go catatonic and some folks who will go cyclic. I had a student in a class back when I was still working at the NRA who, during a pretty simple FOF burglary scenario completely flipped out when one of the role players showed a gun. The student shot the RP with the gun, then the RP without a gun, then the guy who was videotaping the scenario (wearing a bright orange "OUT OF ROLE" vest), then tried to shoot me as the instructor also in a bright orange vest but he was out of ammo by then. Next another role player dressed as a cop with a giant (like 6") tin foil badge on his chest walked through the front door and the student spun and tried to shoot him with the empty gun, too.

[Jay Cunningham]

Wow, excellent post Todd.

[Gadfly]

Not really about force on force, but about how people react to a gun pointed at them...

Had a guy yelling "I don't care if you're a cop, I'm not scared of you. I will kick your ass."

I tell him to back up or he will get OC sprayed. He says "you're gonna spray me? I got something for your ass." He picked up a bat. He says "I'm gonna split your head open." I draw my gun and yell "drop it, get back". He looks me right in the eye and says "you'd better kill me, because I'm gonna kill you"...

My butt puckered because I have a gun, and he is supposed to give up. He did not seem to give a shit that he was out matched. I threw me off my game for a few seconds. I had pointed my gun at hundreds of folks, and this was the first guy that just seemed to totally not give a s--t. It was a rude, cold, hard awakening. Turns out the kid is bi-polar and off his meds, but I did not know that until later. Crazy folks just don't care.

I had tree that I kept between us, and I ended up emptying the OC can on him as we danced around the tree. It did the trick. He took off on foot to find a sink to stick his head into.

(More background to that story that is not relavent to this thread... Kid was charged with attempt capital murder of a peace officer, which was reduced to agg assault w deadly weapon (because I was off duty), which was plead down to "deadly conduct". Got to love our local DA...)

[jlw]

As to the reactions with blades, it is hard to get through life without getting cut on something; so, it is a real sensation and thus a fear for people. Plus, humans have been stabbing/cutting/impaling each other with sharp objects much longer than they have been shooting each other. I'm sure John probably has a PowerPoint slide on it...

People often don't actually believe they will be shot, and, I don't know a cop that doesn't have at least a peripheral story about a perp daring an officer to shoot.

Funny thing though, in my first hand experience, I have yet to see a perp that didn't believe the k9 would bite them.

[ToddG]

Gadfly -- I don't know how you guys manage such restraint. If someone picked up a baseball bat, specifically stated his intent to kill me with it, and was anywhere nearly close enough that he could accomplish it I'd just shoot him on the spot.

[Chuck Haggard]

Gadfly -- I don't know how you guys manage such restraint. If someone picked up a baseball bat, specifically stated his intent to kill me with it, and was anywhere nearly close enough that he could accomplish it I'd just shoot him on the spot.

^This^

[Gadfly]

Todd, My restraint came from the fact the turd in question is my neighbors kid (20 or 21 at the time) from a few houses down... He was having a "domestic dispute" in his front yard and it was loud enough it got my attention. The parents locked the kid out and he had the bat and was beating on the front door, and screaming he was going to break down the door. I distinctly thought, "I'm going to have to kill this kid in front of all of my neighbors who came out to gawk..."

We're i out on duty somewhere away from home, I think it would have played far differently.

I had a debrief panel, and got my ass chewed. "You were close enough to spray him? What is that, like 10 feet? Why the f--- did you let him close that distance when you had no back up? What if you tripped while back peddling? Why the hell did you use less lethal OC in a deadly force situation? ". I could only reply that have to live there, and I wanted to give this turd every chance to back down. After I sprayed I threw the can away. If it did not have an effect, the next step was Glock. His family still flip me the finger every time time I drive past. They blame me for the felony arrest record. One of my neighbors said the were out $25k in lost bail money and attorney fees. But it's not my fault you raised a crazy turd kid.

If I had stayed in my house, would he have injured or killed his parents with the bat? That was his intent at the start of the conflict...

[jlw]

Warning, this is a tough video to watch. It shows a person with lots of guns pointed at him being completely irrational, and it also shows an absolutely inept LE response.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GMCfxezdfE

[SouthNarc]

Great story Gadfly. The same uncertainty you felt is what I try and underscore my Experiential Learning Labs with. That kind of ambiguity is VERY real.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

When I teach my CCW classes I talk about this. I relate the story of one of our locals ne'er do wells. He's 25 or so and been shot on 5 different occasions. Having a gun pointed at him does not phase him in the least.

Reminds me of a former client who had been shot several times and dragged by a car...but was really upset by people who were rude to him. The whole "almost getting dead" was just his life.

[ToddG]

Gadfly -- Just to be clear, I wasn't criticizing your decision at all. And while your story specifics make it very clear why you handled it the way you did, I'm sure we both know plenty of LEOs who have been in the "could have but didn't" seat when it comes to lethal UOF. I'm sincerely amazed at the restraint they use. And of course I'm saddened on those occasions when their restraint ends badly for them. But then again, all too often their decision to use lethal force legitimately can still get them into ruinous circumstances.

It's almost as if being a LEO is a hard job. Which is weird, because it always looked like fun when I watched CHiPs and TJ Hooker growing up.

[Joe in PNG]

This thread just confirms that I really don't want to be a !SHEEPDOG!!1.

Goat, maybe...

[Totem Polar]

Indeed. Great thread though. Very compelling reading.

[TCinVA]

So here's a question I have for the people who have some level of experience with this sort of thing:

Knowing that the verbal interaction is only 1 part of a much larger picture that a bad guy assesses when sizing up what kind of threat you are, what sort of language would be sensible to use to try and convince a guy who is unimpressed by the muzzle of your gun?

As an example, I did Craig's ELL at the Conference and when interacting with the male role player I stated "If you touch that gun I will fucking kill you." as I maneuvered away from the side of his body where the gun was. The goal was to leave him with no doubt that I had every intention to shoot him in the face the instant he tried to pick up that pistol.

Craig was the outside observer so he could tell you if my recollection is accurate or not, but it seemed to me like the role player actually paused for a second and I thought my attempt at verbal intimidation was going to work. After the "pause" (and that may have just been adrenaline-induced distortion of time in my own head) he did move for the gun and I put three sims rounds in his facemask.

Was this too much, just right, or not enough? My goal was to convince this guy that screwing with me would result in certain death and so what came out of my mouth was a guarantee of certain death and it seemed for a second there that he got the point. An external observer, however, might have heard me tell a guy on his knees that I was going to fucking kill him and then shoot him in the face...which I'm guessing wouldn't give investigators a warm fuzzy.

I know of real life incidents where that sort of verbalization (at least two occasions where almost the exact same sentence I threw out there was used) did a good enough job of convincing the bad guy that death was certain for him to stop hostile actions. I also know that at least one of the people who said something along those lines got questioned about it in court and matter-of-factly explained that he had every intention of shooting the drug dealer the instant he became a threat to the officer making the statement and his teammates in the hopes that the bad guy would understand certain doom and refrain from being an idiot and getting himself killed.

Looking at the whole of the situation, what's advisable to say in that kind of moment? What's aggressive enough to make the bad guy understand his mortality without being so aggressive that you're explaining it to investigators in the aftermath?

[TCinVA]

I've seen that training as well, but I guess I don't consider it sociopathic when done correctly.

I wonder about the done correctly part.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I regularly encounter people who have been through some level of training who react as if every stranger that approaches them is doing so solely for the purposes of cutting their head off and putting it on a stick. I'm forced to wonder if bad training is turning otherwise sane people into panicky dum-dums who react wholly inappropriately to any stimulus.

Maybe that's a conversation for a different thread.

[SLG]

TC,

This may be a point of contention with some others here, but I try not to say that i will kill someone. I know they'll die. I want them to know they'll die, but my legal goal is never their death. I might rephrase what you said to: "I will shoot you in the fucking face." I think that is necessary to protect me in the aftermath (unfortunately) but also makes the consequences more clear to the BG. He's used to people threatening to kill him, but when a determined looking cop is pointing a gun at his head and specifies where he will be shot, I think it makes it a bit more real. I may be wrong. If it doesn't work, you always revert to what you did. As an aside, I usually don't swear when pointing my gun at a BG. I'm not against it, and I understand why others do it. I just don't find it best for me. So far, it's worked very well.

[SLG]

I wonder about the done correctly part.

Can you elaborate?

[TCinVA]

Can you elaborate?

As in how many instructors are out there making a deliberate effort to familiarize their students with the level of ambiguity that they are likely to encounter in real life.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I regularly encounter people who have been through some level of training who react as if every stranger that approaches them is doing so solely for the purposes of cutting their head off and putting it on a stick. I'm forced to wonder if bad training is turning otherwise sane people into panicky dum-dums who react wholly inappropriately to any stimulus.

Maybe that's a conversation for a different thread.
I think some (many) people who carry a gun don't sufficiently prepare their mindset for having to use it. I've seen the toughest guy I knew turn tail and run when he faced having to take an action that could have cost him his life if it went sideways (not gun or LE related).

Lots of folks out there carrying guns that have not made the mental decisions and defined their own "red lines", to shoot if necessary. That kind of uncertainty is what I believe drives folks to overreact to non-threats. They hung themselves out on the branch too far and they're in fear of having to take an action for which they are not sufficiently trained (MUC) or mentally prepared.

Disclaimer: I'm speaking from observation and self evaluation, not from any substantial experience.

[LittleLebowski]

Excellent thread. Any follow up on what happened in the wake of the video in the first post?

[cclaxton]

As in how many instructors are out there making a deliberate effort to familiarize their students with the level of ambiguity that they are likely to encounter in real life.
For me, working Krav Maga has been an enormous help. It has helped me to manage distance, verbalize aggressively, and adds in unpredictability (such as multiple attackers, unexpectedly strong opponents, sticks, knives, etc.). I also found Paul Sharp's Handgun Retention class very useful.

All I can ask of myself is to be minimally prepared for a variety of types of threats. Having the confidence that I CAN do what is necessary is a game-changer for me. Now I have a variety of tools.

Role playing Force on Force seems like the next logical step. Karl Rehn's and Caleb Causeys class at Rangemaster is perhaps a good example. I need to do a lot more of that kind of thing.
Cody

[Robinson]

This is a really good thread -- lots of good discussion for me to learn from.

The verbalization thing plus making good on-the-spot judgements seem like crucial elements to me. In twenty-plus years of martial arts training I've had opportunities to work those elements to a degree but introduction of weapons changes some aspects in significant ways.

[Dagga Boy]

One of the things that we can learn from all those screwed up cops is that they deal with this very regularly. I always love the OC folks with the idea that seeing them with a gun will get criminals afraid.....yeah right. I openly carried a gun, along with a badge that empowered me to not only carry the gun, but to take away a persons freedom. Crooks did not give a rat's ass.
The problem with many LE folks is that they get into a loop of doing the same thing over and over with no compliance. Yelling louder or using profanity doesn't help. It usually hurts. Same with threats you can't act on. When you tell some idiot that you are going to shoot them ( or my favorites like racking the shotgun or using a laser), and the guy looks at you and says "go ahead", you are screwed. It is what I call "Jesus syndrome". That dude feels invincible at that point and you won't or can't do it. The solutions are not easy. It is neat to type on the net about "what I would do", but a whole different animal actually doing it. Keep in mind, the bad guy often is more experienced than you in these situations.
I don't have a magic thing I can type as there is no textbook solution. Kind of an interesting observation...many of the folks I worked with who had been in successful in policy righteous shootings, tended to be in several. Once they have the experience of working through the solutions,they tended to be far less forgiving once lethal force became a legitimate option after that.

[Chuck Haggard]

Verbal Judo teaches that sometimes you have to recode and resend the message if the recipient hasn't gotten it clearly the first time.

I once had a dude who was carrying a very big pipe wrench at gunpoint just before he was going to whack one of my officers from behind. "Drop the wrench" was yelled a couple of times, then "Drop the wrench or Ii'll shoot you in the fucking head". He got the message after I recoded it.

Bad guys will almost instinctively (I hate that word in context, but you know what I mean) if you are bluffing, or not willing to follow through.





I do counsel to avoid unnecessary foul language, it can look very bad in court. Even worse are insults, or anything racial. Get that shit out of your head right now.

[cclaxton]

I once had a dude who was carrying a very big pipe wrench at gunpoint just before he was going to whack one of my officers from behind. "Drop the wrench" was yelled a couple of times, then "Drop the wrench or Ii'll shoot you in the fucking head". He got the message after I recoded it.

Bad guys will almost instinctively (I hate that word in context, but you know what I mean) if you are bluffing, or not willing to follow through.
Do armed citizens have more, the same, or less discretion to shoot the guy with the pipe wrench than a sworn police officer? If the situation was that he was moving towards a family member with a pipe wrench, let's say, does armed civilian have the same restraint obligations?
Cody

[jlw]

There is an old joke about a standoff with a bunch of officers yelling at a guy to "drop the gun" only to be ignored. Two old salts then arrived on scene. One of them said once to drop the gun, and the guy complied and surrendered.

When asked why he complied with that officer after having ignored all of the others, the bad guy said, "Because when that one guy said to drop the gun, the other guy with him stuck his fingers in his ears."

[SLG]

As in how many instructors are out there making a deliberate effort to familiarize their students with the level of ambiguity that they are likely to encounter in real life.

Gotcha. No idea. My guess though is that not many are. (Based partially on comments from you and Jay).


Though we like to make fun of institutional training, this is an area where coming from a large PD can really help, IMO. The guys who taught me may not have known much about fast draws, but they knew how to interact with skells.

[ToddG]

I once had a dude who was carrying a very big pipe wrench at gunpoint just before he was going to whack one of my officers from behind. "Drop the wrench" was yelled a couple of times, then "Drop the wrench or Ii'll shoot you in the fucking head". He got the message after I recoded it.

First time I ever did Sims was as a role player for DEA at their academy. Once the real arresting began, the contact officer did all the work and all the talking. Except the cover officer always communicated one thing, in exactly the same way so presumably it was specific training: "I can and will shoot you." Not "if you don't comply" or "if you move" or any of that. It was just a simple statement that conveyed the authority, ability, and willingness to make the Loud Noise.


If the situation was that he was moving towards a family member with a pipe wrench, let's say, does armed civilian have the same restraint obligations?

I'm unaware of any jurisdiction in the United States that would prevent either a LEO or private citizen from immediately shooting such a person (presuming there was evidence of intent on the part of the wrench-wielder that he was about to cause harm rather than fix a toilet).

While I think it would be very difficult to gather meaningful data, I wonder if the average BG would be more intimidated by a private citizen who appeared competent with a gun than a LEO. The BG knows LEOs need to follow lots of rules when it comes to UOF stuff. As a private citizen, one has far fewer layers of checklists (no department policy, probably fewer force options, and candidly far less training on when he shouldn't shoot). Sort of a "I'm not a cop, I don't have to follow all those rules" kind of thing. I'm not suggesting I know for sure one way or the other, just that it would be interesting to find out given what we know about typical BG prey selection, etc.

How a cop role player or student role player reacts to those differences isn't really meaningful because their mindset isn't the same as someone who's been held at gunpoint by cops a bunch of times but has probably never had a private citizen kill him a time or two. :cool:

[Chuck Haggard]

Some of my experience has been that bad guys often do fear regular folks, if they appear resolute, than they do cops, although they sometimes seem to fear rookie cops as well, both with the idea that the person might shoot them earlier than a seasoned cop might.

I have seen way too many bad guys challenge a cop with "You can't shoot me" given in a tone of voice like "Dude, you are off sides" or whatever.

[Chuck Haggard]

Do armed citizens have more, the same, or less discretion to shoot the guy with the pipe wrench than a sworn police officer? If the situation was that he was moving towards a family member with a pipe wrench, let's say, does armed civilian have the same restraint obligations?
Cody

Deadly force is deadly force. What Todd said basically.

[23JAZ]

So here's a question I have for the people who have some level of experience with this sort of thing:

Knowing that the verbal interaction is only 1 part of a much larger picture that a bad guy assesses when sizing up what kind of threat you are, what sort of language would be sensible to use to try and convince a guy who is unimpressed by the muzzle of your gun?

As an example, I did Craig's ELL at the Conference and when interacting with the male role player I stated "If you touch that gun I will fucking kill you." as I maneuvered away from the side of his body where the gun was. The goal was to leave him with no doubt that I had every intention to shoot him in the face the instant he tried to pick up that pistol.

Craig was the outside observer so he could tell you if my recollection is accurate or not, but it seemed to me like the role player actually paused for a second and I thought my attempt at verbal intimidation was going to work. After the "pause" (and that may have just been adrenaline-induced distortion of time in my own head) he did move for the gun and I put three sims rounds in his facemask.

Was this too much, just right, or not enough? My goal was to convince this guy that screwing with me would result in certain death and so what came out of my mouth was a guarantee of certain death and it seemed for a second there that he got the point. An external observer, however, might have heard me tell a guy on his knees that I was going to fucking kill him and then shoot him in the face...which I'm guessing wouldn't give investigators a warm fuzzy.

I know of real life incidents where that sort of verbalization (at least two occasions where almost the exact same sentence I threw out there was used) did a good enough job of convincing the bad guy that death was certain for him to stop hostile actions. I also know that at least one of the people who said something along those lines got questioned about it in court and matter-of-factly explained that he had every intention of shooting the drug dealer the instant he became a threat to the officer making the statement and his teammates in the hopes that the bad guy would understand certain doom and refrain from being an idiot and getting himself killed.

Looking at the whole of the situation, what's advisable to say in that kind of moment? What's aggressive enough to make the bad guy understand his mortality without being so aggressive that you're explaining it to investigators in the aftermath?

I'm no expert by any means but I would say that was a very appropriate response. If your at the point your gun is drawn then you've already concluded you would be legally ok to shoot. So why not error on the side of caution and shoot. I'm sure you'd always question what if I gave one more command maybe he would of listened. But maybe he would of shot? I figure if my gun is drawn I've assesed the situation to be legally justifiable to kill the person at the point if the person isn't listening to my commands he/she is getting shot dead. I've got kids and a wife to get home to.

[TR675]

If your at the point your gun is drawn then you've already concluded you would be legally ok to shoot. So why not error on the side of caution and shoot. I'm sure you'd always question what if I gave one more command maybe he would of listened. But maybe he would of shot? I figure if my gun is drawn I've assesed the situation to be legally justifiable to kill the person at the point if the person isn't listening to my commands he/she is getting shot dead. I've got kids and a wife to get home to.

Nope. This is a dangerous misconception.

[SLG]

Nope. This is a dangerous misconception.

This.

[23JAZ]

Nope. This is a dangerous misconception.

Can you elabarate please.

[wilco423]

Do armed citizens have more, the same, or less discretion to shoot the guy with the pipe wrench than a sworn police officer? If the situation was that he was moving towards a family member with a pipe wrench, let's say, does armed civilian have the same restraint obligations?
Cody

Not Chuck (obviously), but,
Tom Givens puts it very succinctly in his "immediate defense of life" criteria. For contact weapons, distance/proximity will obviously play a large part in the decision making process, as will the signs of intent displayed by the threat. When circumstances allow, giving a warning and commands prior to using force is generally a good thing, whether you're a cop or private citizen.

The short answer is that using deadly force to protect another from reasonably perceived great bodily harm or death is okay for cop and private citizen alike. It's the "reasonable" that sometimes get folks in trouble, on both sides of the badge.

Dan

Eta: sorry, slow on the keyboard.

[TR675]

Can you elabarate please.

No, I really can't (won't, whatever), other than to say there are a thousand instances a day of people pointing guns at other people without shooting them and thereby resolving their problem. I can come up with a thousand scenarios where I might pull a gun, even point it at someone, etc. without pulling the trigger. If you are of the mindset that "draw = shoot" you may find yourself in a very untenable legal pickle one of these days. I suggest seeking out some good training from a reputable trainer with law enforcement experience who can help guide your thoughts on the decision making process. I did that and I am better off for it.

Southnarc, Nyeti, Tom Givens and Claude Werner are four people right off the top of my head whose thoughts on this and other topics bear serious consideration.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One thing from the video reminded me of a John Holschen point in an Insights class. He said that in such an incident if the bad person did not comply, the supposed good person with the gun had a tendency to approach the bad person yelling the commands even louders. He pointed out that you had the gun, distance is your friend and you should increasing distance away while giving the commands, warnings or whatever. Why get closer?

The woman at times was following the guy. Why, he was retreating at times? He might have had a subconscious view of a personal space and a zone of dominance. She kept on infringing on him and challenging him. I don't know what was in back of her but moving that way might have been a better plan.

Also, I really couldn't see it. Did the officer let her retrieve her gun? That's all 2nd Amend. nice but is that such a great idea when passions are high?

PS - the FOF I've done at KRtraining and at the old NTI was quite ambiguous at times. Some were specifically designed to talk you way out of a ranting dude. Just getting into a shootout wasn't valued.

[23JAZ]

No, I really can't (won't, whatever), other than to say there are a thousand instances a day of people pointing guns at other people without shooting them and thereby resolving their problem. I can come up with a thousand scenarios where I might pull a gun, even point it at someone, etc. without pulling the trigger. If you are of the mindset that "draw = shoot" you may find yourself in a very untenable legal pickle one of these days. I suggest seeking out some good training from a reputable trainer with law enforcement experience who can help guide your thoughts on the decision making process. I did that and I am better off for it.

Southnarc, Nyeti, Tom Givens and Claude Werner are four people right off the top of my head whose thoughts on this and other topics bear serious consideration.

Thank you very much. I plan on doing just that this summer.

[LOKNLOD]

No, I really can't (won't, whatever), other than to say there are a thousand instances a day of people pointing guns at other people without shooting them and thereby resolving their problem. I can come up with a thousand scenarios where I might pull a gun, even point it at someone, etc. without pulling the trigger. If you are of the mindset that "draw = shoot" you may find yourself in a very untenable legal pickle one of these days. I suggest seeking out some good training from a reputable trainer with law enforcement experience who can help guide your thoughts on the decision making process. I did that and I am better off for it.


It was frustrating at the OK SDA (CCW) class, that the lawyer who taught the legal part of it had us repeat something along the lines of "If I draw the gun someone has to die". Seriously. As if I drew my gun, and the perp ran away, I had to shoot a bystander on principle or something (heaven forbid he leaves you alone when he runs away...). Like a Ghurka's blade that must taste blood if drawn. I believe his intent was to ensure an understanding that introducing a gun was introducing deadly force to the situation, but what a horrible, horrible way of explaining that.

[SouthNarc]

So here's a question I have for the people who have some level of experience with this sort of thing:

Knowing that the verbal interaction is only 1 part of a much larger picture that a bad guy assesses when sizing up what kind of threat you are, what sort of language would be sensible to use to try and convince a guy who is unimpressed by the muzzle of your gun?

As an example, I did Craig's ELL at the Conference and when interacting with the male role player I stated "If you touch that gun I will fucking kill you." as I maneuvered away from the side of his body where the gun was. The goal was to leave him with no doubt that I had every intention to shoot him in the face the instant he tried to pick up that pistol.

Craig was the outside observer so he could tell you if my recollection is accurate or not, but it seemed to me like the role player actually paused for a second and I thought my attempt at verbal intimidation was going to work. After the "pause" (and that may have just been adrenaline-induced distortion of time in my own head) he did move for the gun and I put three sims rounds in his facemask.

Was this too much, just right, or not enough? My goal was to convince this guy that screwing with me would result in certain death and so what came out of my mouth was a guarantee of certain death and it seemed for a second there that he got the point. An external observer, however, might have heard me tell a guy on his knees that I was going to fucking kill him and then shoot him in the face...which I'm guessing wouldn't give investigators a warm fuzzy.

I know of real life incidents where that sort of verbalization (at least two occasions where almost the exact same sentence I threw out there was used) did a good enough job of convincing the bad guy that death was certain for him to stop hostile actions. I also know that at least one of the people who said something along those lines got questioned about it in court and matter-of-factly explained that he had every intention of shooting the drug dealer the instant he became a threat to the officer making the statement and his teammates in the hopes that the bad guy would understand certain doom and refrain from being an idiot and getting himself killed.

Looking at the whole of the situation, what's advisable to say in that kind of moment? What's aggressive enough to make the bad guy understand his mortality without being so aggressive that you're explaining it to investigators in the aftermath?


With the male role player it happened much quicker than your description actually reads but you read it right and personally I think what you said and how you said it was spot on.

What to say and how to say it?

There's alot of clinical advice given on this subject. "SIR, DON'T FORCE ME TO DEFEND MYSELF SIR!!!" Things like that.

IMO that's horseshit. Clinical statements don't resonate with the people you're pointing guns at OR the people you're explaining your actions to after the fact.

Whatever you say MUST communicate your intent at that moment and the language used is going to be unique to each person. I might say "Motherfucker I'll kill you deader 'en fuck" in my best cracker-ass cracker drawl and sell it. That may not work for someone else. Regardless of what's said you must project dominance and gravitas. Confidence is what allows one to do that. Real confidence. Not mind-set lectures, not NLP, not talking yourself up in the mirror like Stuart Smalley.

Interestingly enough the most elegant solution to the ELL at the TacCon was from a plainclothes service member who has seen the pointy end a time or ten. He solved the problem without a gun being drawn, a shot being fired and so quickly that the second role player didn't have a chance to get involved. THAT is MASTERY. THAT is PROBLEM-SOLVING.

When people are willing to place more of an emphasis on being tacticians rather than marksmen alot of this nin-jery will kinda' become self-evident.

I think it's important. I think anyone who watched the things that happened in my module last Saturday will probably concur.

[TR675]

It was frustrating at the OK SDA (CCW) class, that the lawyer who taught the legal part of it had us repeat something along the lines of "If I draw the gun someone has to die". Seriously.

...

All I can really say about that is that it's always important to remember that lawyers have rates of drug and alcohol abuse way higher than the general population.

[abu fitna]

One of the aspects that is hard to teach through FoF is reading intent. There are absolutely moments when a subject will involuntarily communicate that he is going to guns. In FoF, that decision tends to be made early (or in advance when scripted), and reacting to this moment - while exactly what one needs to teach in many circumstances - can be out of scope for the scenario training objective. Many "early" engagements of bad guy roleplayers prior to the classical scenario triggers of overt threat display (but while bad guy was armed) can be traced to this. Some folks have a challenge articulating the factors that led to the shoot, but it does come out sometimes that they pick up on that hostile intent loud and clear.

I can think of one type of situation in which I have seen it triggered more than a few times, when a hostile subject is at gunpoint and engaged even before their hands have started moving towards the weapon at the waistband. (In these scenarios, the intent to eventually fight was scripted in, and while the hostile player was biding time, there is no doubt that they were going to act.) Interestingly it seems that this occurs more often when there has been a prior action of apparent partial compliance, but prior to the hostile actually submitting to control. Deliberately scripting these stutter steps to test reactions seems to bear this out. It also seems to happen more when the "early" engagement is part of a multiple threat problem, where ambiguity of initial contact may occur in the context of another known hostile activity. (We can get into discussions of psychological priming here as well, but I don't think that is what is at work here.)

While this does not play out all the time - depending on how switched on the player is or is not, and what kind of prior experiences they have had or not (although the reasoning seems to go both ways on this), there has been enough there to make one pause and consider these factors in FoF design.

On a similar but slightly different scenario, a change was required due to a somewhat similar design factor in one scenario for a higher threat environment problem where an initial ambiguous contact was scripted as a photo surveillance hide on a route some minutes prior to an IED initiated small arms ambush. Switched on blue force students would immediately react to the surveillant, based on beliefs regarding adversary propaganda posturing - with some very quickly engaging the (unarmed) cameraman during the course of that contact playing out. While this leads to good debate about the problems of media in the environment, etc. and all of the other factors in places where a camera might just be a camera, the most common factor cited in hot wash was that the bad guy roleplayer was shot due to clearly "reading" as hostile (with varying degrees of attempted justification surfacing in discussions around beliefs regarding command detonated devices, etc.) The change was made to ensure the scenario was training different skillsets that were the intended emphasis for the evolution, but the question still has stuck with me when considering FoF scripting.

[Horseman]

Great, thought-provoking thread, guys.

As a rookie, fresh out of the state law enforcement academy, I confronted a non-compliant, drunk, ex-con at the end of a high-speed pursuit. The pursuit stopped because the engine on his stolen car blew up.

With a cover officer, we attempted a high-risk stop. The driver stepped out, and at gunpoint, and disregarding loud verbal commands, he said to me, "F- you, just shoot me." I could see both his hands, with no visible weapons, so I sprayed him with OC. He gave me a look like, "What? You can't do that!" and then grabbed his face and complied with our instructions after that.

I had no hesitation switching to a different tactic, since my basic academy had put us through quite a bit of force-on-force training involving non-compliant suspects, including those who aren't impressed with guns pointed at them. My instructors had emphasized that you had to have a plan for every force option failing to work. I think similar training should be sought by anyone carrying a gun to protect themselves.

[Jay Cunningham]

This is a kick-ass thread.

[Mr_White]

For the sake of discussion, I'd like to bring up a possibility that was in the video in the OP but didn't actually play out in that situation. This has been touched on somewhat in this thread already, at least from an LE perspective.

Despite the shit talking by the male in the video, what he wasn't doing was resuming the attack on the woman with the gun. He didn't seem very intimidated, but he didn't close distance with her either.

Suppose we turn it into a hypothetical and change the situation. Suppose the woman had justifiably gone to gunpoint in the first place. But then suppose the unarmed male subsequently closed distance with her. And let's also suppose she was a similarly sized man to eliminate a disparity of force justification.

Holstering fast and going hands on is something that seems to happen a lot more in the LE world than the private citizen world, and duty holsters are a lot better for holstering fast than concealed carry holsters usually are. There is a very prominent trainer who has taught a lot of people that if you've justifiably and conspicuously gone to gunpoint, and then the technically-unarmed threat closes distance, that it is consistent with an attempt to disarm the defender and needs to be treated as a deadly force attack.

What's your answer there? (Whoever is willing to answer.) Shoot? Holster fast and go hands on? Something else?

[RoyGBiv]

For the sake of discussion, I'd like to bring up a possibility that was in the video in the OP but didn't actually play out in that situation. This has been touched on somewhat in this thread already, at least from an LE perspective.

Despite the shit talking by the male in the video, what he wasn't doing was resuming the attack on the woman with the gun. He didn't seem very intimidated, but he didn't close distance with her either.

Suppose we turn it into a hypothetical and change the situation. Suppose the woman had justifiably gone to gunpoint in the first place. But then suppose the unarmed male subsequently closed distance with her. And let's also suppose she was a similarly sized man to eliminate a disparity of force justification.

Holstering fast and going hands on is something that seems to happen a lot more in the LE world than the private citizen world, and duty holsters are a lot better for holstering fast than concealed carry holsters usually are. There is a very prominent trainer who has taught a lot of people that if you've justifiably and conspicuously gone to gunpoint, and then the technically-unarmed threat closes distance, that it is consistent with an attempt to disarm the defender and needs to be treated as a deadly force attack.

What's your answer there? (Whoever is willing to answer.) Shoot? Holster fast and go hands on? Something else?
The nuances of law will vary by State.
In TX, the scenario above sounds to me like the victim would have a reasonable belief they are about to be robbed.
No duty to retreat in TX.


Texas PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified
in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section
9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful
deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated
robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was
immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be
reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly
force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully
and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by
Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C
misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the
time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force
is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is
used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force
is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described
by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was
necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[Dropkick]

Interestingly enough the most elegant solution to the ELL at the TacCon was from a plainclothes service member who has seen the pointy end a time or ten. He solved the problem without a gun being drawn, a shot being fired and so quickly that the second role player didn't have a chance to get involved. THAT is MASTERY. THAT is PROBLEM-SOLVING.

When people are willing to place more of an emphasis on being tacticians rather than marksmen alot of this nin-jery will kinda' become self-evident.

Without spoiling the fun of the ELL, can you elaborate on tactics that made things turn out so good so fast?

[TCinVA]

Without spoiling the fun of the ELL, can you elaborate on tactics that made things turn out so good so fast?

According to one of the role players, gravitas. Confidence. She approached, without hesitation he gave a command and she instantly followed it. It wasn't even a forceful order or anything...she approached, he came up with a plan instantly, acted instantly, and she said she felt like she had no choice but to follow.

Everyone else (including me) had an initial moment of indecision about what the hell to do with this mess in front of them and that was an anchor that sucked them ever deeper into the scenario.

[TCinVA]

Whatever you say MUST communicate your intent at that moment and the language used is going to be unique to each person. I might say "Motherfucker I'll kill you deader 'en fuck" in my best cracker-ass cracker drawl and sell it. That may not work for someone else. Regardless of what's said you must project dominance and gravitas. Confidence is what allows one to do that. Real confidence. Not mind-set lectures, not NLP, not talking yourself up in the mirror like Stuart Smalley.


I think this may be hitting near the paydirt of the conversation. There's a difference in someone who is holding a gun because they are about to by-god fix some stuff in a minute and someone who is pulling a gun because they hope that the gun scares the bad guy more than he scares them.

Many bad guys can likely tell the difference between someone who is pulling a gun with the full intention of butt-fucking their soul versus someone who is pulling a gun in hopes of making the bad man go away.

It's the talisman vs. tool thing.

[Aray]

Interestingly enough the most elegant solution to the ELL at the TacCon was from a plainclothes service member who has seen the pointy end a time or ten. He solved the problem without a gun being drawn, a shot being fired and so quickly that the second role player didn't have a chance to get involved. THAT is MASTERY. THAT is PROBLEM-SOLVING.

When people are willing to place more of an emphasis on being tacticians rather than marksmen alot of this nin-jery will kinda' become self-evident.

I think it's important. I think anyone who watched the things that happened in my module last Saturday will probably concur.

I was fortunate enough to watch every scenario, and I most certainly do concur.

One other point that Nyeti made in his presentation and again in this thread was about the experienced gunfighter taking much less time to decide to fight and get to fighting. This has also been my experience, just not in gunfighting, but hands fighting.

The first few fights I was in, I didn't know I was in a fight until the other guy started fighting with me. Once I had some significant amount of experience, I was able to identify if there was really going to be a fight long before (figuratively speaking) the actual fight started.

There is one real downside to this. You are in fights/gunfights. I look back on the manchild that I was, that fought way too much over way too little, that got himself hurt and hurt other people and I really don't like what I see.

The real question here is how to train someone to be able to learn some of these lessons without the danger and idiocy. So far Southnarc leads the pack in what I've seen in evaluating a person's skillset.

I do wonder why the industry continues to train civilians as if panhandlers are the default threat they will encounter.

[David Armstrong]

I do wonder why the industry continues to train civilians as if panhandlers are the default threat they will encounter.
Because that (or similar) IS the default. Suzy Soccermom and Bobby Businessdude don't encounter too many real hard-cases during their lifetime. Most of the threats they encounter are low motivation. It is just like robberies. The overwhelming majority of robbers (outside of those who are robbing other drug dealers) are not planning on any particularly high level of violence on either side and work within that paradigm, which is why pretty much all the folks that research that kind of stuff recommend go along as the default position unless and until the situation provides some reason to change that idea. Do some robbers go in with the idea of using high levels of force and violence as part of their MO? Sure, but they are a very small percentage. Same thing with the threats most folks will encounter. They tend to run into the aggressive panhandler, the low-level junkie, the bad guy who is bad only as long as he feels in control, etc. Sometimes they run into thehard casee who practices and believes in the blitz attack, but it is so rare for most folks as to be off the radar. So the industry trains to a common threat level. I don't have a problem with that. The person who is prepared for 95% of what is likely to happen to them is way ahead of the game than one who does not prepare at all. If the 5% happens, well, sometimes folks do get attacked by tigers in the USA. But how much that should figure into ones personal defense plan....I'm not real sure on that point.

[SouthNarc]

According to one of the role players, gravitas. Confidence. She approached, without hesitation he gave a command and she instantly followed it. It wasn't even a forceful order or anything...she approached, he came up with a plan instantly, acted instantly, and she said she felt like she had no choice but to follow

That was one of those rarely observed moments of perfect, masterful timing that never looks dramatic. It's even anti-climactic. It's so artful it doesn't look like one did anything at all...

So cool to watch!!

[Casual Friday]

The first few fights I was in, I didn't know I was in a fight until the other guy started fighting with me. Once I had some significant amount of experience, I was able to identify if there was really going to be a fight long before (figuratively speaking) the actual fight started.

Same here. I can remember getting punched in the face the first time. I remember thinking "Hey I wasn't ready". I took at least two more before it sank in that I needed to start throwing or get my ass kicked without objection in front of all these people. If a person has never been punched in the face, I can understand why they have a real fear of it. The unknown can be a scary thing.

[Aray]

Because that (or similar) IS the default. Suzy Soccermom and Bobby Businessdude don't encounter too many real hard-cases during their lifetime. Most of the threats they encounter are low motivation. It is just like robberies. The overwhelming majority of robbers (outside of those who are robbing other drug dealers) are not planning on any particularly high level of violence on either side and work within that paradigm, which is why pretty much all the folks that research that kind of stuff recommend go along as the default position unless and until the situation provides some reason to change that idea. Do some robbers go in with the idea of using high levels of force and violence as part of their MO? Sure, but they are a very small percentage. Same thing with the threats most folks will encounter. They tend to run into the aggressive panhandler, the low-level junkie, the bad guy who is bad only as long as he feels in control, etc. Sometimes they run into thehard casee who practices and believes in the blitz attack, but it is so rare for most folks as to be off the radar. So the industry trains to a common threat level. I don't have a problem with that. The person who is prepared for 95% of what is likely to happen to them is way ahead of the game than one who does not prepare at all. If the 5% happens, well, sometimes folks do get attacked by tigers in the USA. But how much that should figure into ones personal defense plan....I'm not real sure on that point.

I think you are misunderstanding me. Dealing with a panhandler doesn't require a pistol class, BJJ or anything in between. Dealing with a robber might. Dealing with an an attacker likely will. Much of the training I've seen falls short anywhere north of panhandler.

I'll defer to your expertise on tiger attacks.

[walker2713]

I'm no expert by any means but I would say that was a very appropriate response. If your at the point your gun is drawn then you've already concluded you would be legally ok to shoot. So why not error on the side of caution and shoot. I'm sure you'd always question what if I gave one more command maybe he would of listened. But maybe he would of shot? I figure if my gun is drawn I've assesed the situation to be legally justifiable to kill the person at the point if the person isn't listening to my commands he/she is getting shot dead. I've got kids and a wife to get home to.

The "un-official" motto of our POST academy class was: "when in doubt, whip it out." In other words, if you think you're in a situation where deadly force MAY be necessary, you're better off having it in hand sooner rather than later.

This does NOT mean that the pistol is pulled and then fired or even pointed in anyone's direction. In particular, we learned that the handgun can be comfortably held down somewhat behind our strongside leg, where it's not highly visible to someone in front of us. This is especially true if your body is slightly bladed toward that side.

The decision to shoot/not shoot is independent of drawing the gun.....

[Totem Polar]

This is a kick-ass thread.

Can we consider a sticky? If it goes sideways later, it can always be pruned back down towards the trunk, which as you note is damn solid. Lots of food for thought here.

[SLG]

The "un-official" motto of our POST academy class was: "when in doubt, whip it out." In other words, if you think you're in a situation where deadly force MAY be necessary, you're better off having it in hand sooner rather than later.

This does NOT mean that the pistol is pulled and then fired or even pointed in anyone's direction. In particular, we learned that the handgun can be comfortably held down somewhat behind our strongside leg, where it's not highly visible to someone in front of us. This is especially true if your body is slightly bladed toward that side.

The decision to shoot/not shoot is independent of drawing the gun.....

Just catching up here. I have to say I strongly disagree with this tactic. This "unready" position with the gun behind the leg was very popular with my original agency. More than one officer found out the hard way why you don't want you gun behind you. I thought modern LE training got away from this 20 years ago or more, but I see I was wrong.

[El Cid]

One thing from the video reminded me of a John Holschen point in an Insights class. He said that in such an incident if the bad person did not comply, the supposed good person with the gun had a tendency to approach the bad person yelling the commands even louders. He pointed out that you had the gun, distance is your friend and you should increasing distance away while giving the commands, warnings or whatever. Why get closer?

The woman at times was following the guy. Why, he was retreating at times? He might have had a subconscious view of a personal space and a zone of dominance. She kept on infringing on him and challenging him. I don't know what was in back of her but moving that way might have been a better plan.

Also, I really couldn't see it. Did the officer let her retrieve her gun? That's all 2nd Amend. nice but is that such a great idea when passions are high?

PS - the FOF I've done at KRtraining and at the old NTI was quite ambiguous at times. Some were specifically designed to talk you way out of a ranting dude. Just getting into a shootout wasn't valued.

As far as her advancing, I'm wondering if she was just trying to keep him in view.

I missed it because the audio was not easy to understand but after reading the comments at the bottom of the page, I'm led to believe she is LE. There were references to her saying she is "on the job" and getting a badge from her purse and hanging it around her neck.

[Jay Cunningham]

In various FoF I've participated in, it's very common for someone to bark out orders over and over while advancing closer and closer to the perceived threat.

[KevinB]

Holstering fast and going hands on is something that seems to happen a lot more in the LE world than the private citizen world, and duty holsters are a lot better for holstering fast than concealed carry holsters usually are. There is a very prominent trainer who has taught a lot of people that if you've justifiably and conspicuously gone to gunpoint, and then the technically-unarmed threat closes distance, that it is consistent with an attempt to disarm the defender and needs to be treated as a deadly force attack.

What's your answer there? (Whoever is willing to answer.) Shoot? Holster fast and go hands on? Something else?

Go hand to hand with me when I already had my gun out is going to get that person shot.
LE has no requirement to retreat.
Everyone has the right to use self defense up to and including deadly force to prevent the loss of their life, grievous bodily harm, or loss of limb/eyesight (or reasonable grounds to assume those issues may occur).
Presuming your where legally okay (state laws blah blah blah) to present the weapon in the first place - any attempt on you and your weapon gives the reasonable person a view that it would be a deadly force attack.

[LOKNLOD]

In various FoF I've participated in, it's very common for someone to bark out orders over and over while advancing closer and closer to the perceived threat.

Seen it too - in fact, Craig caught me doing it last time. It's very noticeable after the fact even when you don't realize you're doing it in the moment, and in my admittedly limited experience, I think it's a subconscious way of attempting to ratchet up the physical intimidation when your verbals aren't having an impact. Unfortunately the posturing monkey dance is pretty deeply innate.

[Dagga Boy]

Go hand to hand with me when I already had my gun out is going to get that person shot.
LE has no requirement to retreat.
Everyone has the right to use self defense up to and including deadly force to prevent the loss of their life, grievous bodily harm, or loss of limb/eyesight (or reasonable grounds to assume those issues may occur).
Presuming your where legally okay (state laws blah blah blah) to present the weapon in the first place - any attempt on you and your weapon gives the reasonable person a view that it would be a deadly force attack.

How much patrol time do you have? This is fairly regular in my old place. It all sounds good, but pretty easy way to spend time in federal court. I would also like to know where you are finding these reasonable people. How many unarmed folks have you shot advancing on you with your weapon out in the US? This was fairly regular crap. How about straight up "make me" people? How about simple resistance of an un-searched person who may be armed based on information but not confirmed?

[Tiffany Johnson]

Tiffany actually did just that at the Tac Conference this year!
I have found my calling in life. :cool:

[Tiffany Johnson]

...lawyers have rates of drug and alcohol abuse way higher than the general population.
Actually.... :)
http://strategyandanalytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Alcoholic-Jobs.png (http://strategyandanalytics.com/hardship-professions-unhappy-suicidal-alcoholic-job-lists/)
http://strategyandanalytics.com/hardship-professions-unhappy-suicidal-alcoholic-job-lists/

[Slavex]

Oh, come one now, Bartenders don't drink and neither do sailors....

[Tiffany Johnson]

Do armed citizens have more, the same, or less discretion to shoot the guy with the pipe wrench than a sworn police officer?
Just out of curiosity I did a quick and dirty search, which I confess is by no means comprehensive or dispositive. Most of the cases I found had to do with non-LE folks who were making citizen's arrests, which I think is a little different from what Cody was asking about. In those cases (citizen's arrests gone wild), courts seemed to agree that the reasonableness standard was the same for LEs and private citizens. See, for example, State v. White (http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2013/2013-Ohio-51.pdf), 988 N.E.2d 595, 612, n.10 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.,2013) ("the rights of a private citizen to use deadly force [in the course of an arrest] are no greater than those of a police officer"). However, I did find this little California tidbit in a wrongful death/battery case involving a police officer who fatally shot a would-be arrestee:


Unlike private citizens, police officers act under color of law to protect the public interest. They are charged with acting affirmatively and using force as part of their duties, because “the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” Graham v. Connor (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/) 490 U.S. 386 (1989). They are, in short, not similarly situated to the ordinary battery defendant and need not be treated the same. In these cases, then, “the defendant police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order [and] he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense.
That's from Edson v. City of Anaheim (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/63/1269.html), 63 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Edson cited Wirsing v. Krzeminski (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3433296012038833148&q=Wirsing+v.+Krzeminski,+213+N.W.2d+37&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43&as_vis=1), 213 N.W.2d 37, 41 (Wis. 1973) ("It should also be pointed out ... that although a peace officer has the privilege of self-defense, as does any other citizen, he is in that respect governed by the ordinary rules of law; but where, as here, the defendant police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order, he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense"). So it sounds like it might depend on whether the force comes about in the course and conduct of "law enforcement" (stop, arrest, etc.) as opposed to the situation where an on-duty LE is randomly attacked and compelled to defend himself/herself. But the line between the two could easily be blurred. Might be splitting hairs a bit.

Just something to think about. Okay, that's the extent of my quick and dirty research thus far. LOL :)

[Tiffany Johnson]

Oh, come one now, Bartenders don't drink and neither do sailors....
I stand corrected LOL...

[Coyotesfan97]

As to the reactions with blades, it is hard to get through life without getting cut on something; so, it is a real sensation and thus a fear for people. Plus, humans have been stabbing/cutting/impaling each other with sharp objects much longer than they have been shooting each other. I'm sure John probably has a PowerPoint slide on it...

People often don't actually believe they will be shot, and, I don't know a cop that doesn't have at least a peripheral story about a perp daring an officer to shoot.

Funny thing though, in my first hand experience, I have yet to see a perp that didn't believe the k9 would bite them.

I haven't read the whole thread yet but that's exactly what I was thinking. Holding someone at Malinois or Dutch Shepherd point is always interesting especially if you show up when someone is daring cops to shoot them. They BELIEVE the dog will bite them. Ive seen hardcore criminals surrender to the dog. I've also run into a few guys who don't think the dog will bite them or they can outrun him. They usually fall into the all of the above crowd. Then we get to discuss why they thought that at the ER..

[Coyotesfan97]

There is an old joke about a standoff with a bunch of officers yelling at a guy to "drop the gun" only to be ignored. Two old salts then arrived on scene. One of them said once to drop the gun, and the guy complied and surrendered.

When asked why he complied with that officer after having ignored all of the others, the bad guy said, "Because when that one guy said to drop the gun, the other guy with him stuck his fingers in his ears."

When one of my partners shot a guy holding his wife at knifepoint I was standing behind him with my fingers in my ears. That short barreled AR was going to be loud inside that apartment!

[LittleLebowski]

I haven't read the whole thread yet but that's exactly what I was thinking. Holding someone at Malinois or Dutch Shepherd point is always interesting especially if you show up when someone is daring cops to shoot them. They BELIEVE the dog will bite them. Ive seen hardcore criminals surrender to the dog. I've also run into a few guys who don't think the dog will bite them or they can outrun him. They usually fall into the all of the above crowd. Then we get to discuss why they thought that at the ER..

I really wish I had gone K9 handler of some sort. #sortajealous

[ToddG]

Same thing with the threats most folks will encounter. They tend to run into the aggressive panhandler, the low-level junkie, the bad guy who is bad only as long as he feels in control, etc. Sometimes they run into thehard casee who practices and believes in the blitz attack, but it is so rare for most folks as to be off the radar. So the industry trains to a common threat level. I don't have a problem with that. The person who is prepared for 95% of what is likely to happen to them is way ahead of the game than one who does not prepare at all. If the 5% happens, well, sometimes folks do get attacked by tigers in the USA. But how much that should figure into ones personal defense plan....I'm not real sure on that point.

I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not a function of training for one or the other.

Not to speak for Aray, but that's the point I read into his post: It's not about training to deal with panhandlers or psycho killers. It's about training to deal with as dangerous a threat as you possibly can given your physical, emotional, financial, and temporal limitations... and then learning how far to push the throttle in a given circumstance.

It's sort of like the hard focus vs target focus thing: Reaching a skill level that allows you to deal with axe murderers will prepare you for the aggressive panhandler who turns violent; training only to the level of dealing with an untrained and low-level panhandler threat won't help you much when the axe murderer starts swinging at your noggin.

[Chuck Haggard]

Sometimes the idiots want to fight the dogs as well as the coppers.

I recall several cases where the bad guy did rather well and the dog might have lost the fight had other coppers not stepped in. One of our handlers had to blast a guy that stabbed and killed his dog during an arrest.

Many times it doesn't work well for the bad guy though. One burglar in particular tried to run from the dog, got caught, started punching the K9, dog let go and then went in to reengage, bad guy was bit in the crotchital region but didn't stop fighting, this led to him losing the head of his penis and the entire organ being what they call "degloved".

[TR675]

Actually.... :)

Also actually... ;D

Estimates of up to 1 in 5 have an alcohol problem. I'm willing to spot some percentage points there to Puritan alarmism and uncertain sources, but from first hand observation and experience...We are a drinkin' bunch!

http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_by_t/mcle/sa.pdf

[1slow]

Sometimes the idiots want to fight the dogs as well as the coppers.

I recall several cases where the bad guy did rather well and the dog might have lost the fight had other coppers not stepped in. One of our handlers had to blast a guy that stabbed and killed his dog during an arrest.

Many times it doesn't work well for the bad guy though. One burglar in particular tried to run from the dog, got caught, started punching the K9, dog let go and then went in toe reengage, bad guy was bit in the crotchital region but didn't stop fighting, this led to him losing the head of his penis and the entire organ being what they call "degloved".

Well, you can't call him pecker head anymore. Ouch !

[Totem Polar]

Many times it doesn't work well for the bad guy though. One burglar in particular tried to run from the dog, got caught, started punching the K9, dog let go and then went in toe reengage, bad guy was bit in the crotchital region but didn't stop fighting, this led to him losing the head of his penis and the entire organ being what they call "degloved".
Dude's probably still out there somewhere, going off half-cocked.

[JohnO]

What to say and how to say it?

There's alot of clinical advice given on this subject. "SIR, DON'T FORCE ME TO DEFEND MYSELF SIR!!!" Things like that.

IMO that's horseshit. Clinical statements don't resonate with the people you're pointing guns at OR the people you're explaining your actions to after the fact.

Whatever you say MUST communicate your intent at that moment and the language used is going to be unique to each person. I might say "Motherfucker I'll kill you deader 'en fuck" in my best cracker-ass cracker drawl and sell it. That may not work for someone else. Regardless of what's said you must project dominance and gravitas. Confidence is what allows one to do that. Real confidence. Not mind-set lectures, not NLP, not talking yourself up in the mirror like Stuart Smalley.


In my mind the following question begs to be asked: Can one over communicate their resolve improperly, be captured on video/audio and in the process jam themselves up?

I'm thinking of a situation where deadly force became necessary. Prior to the use of and in a impassioned attempt to avoid deadly force one barks something along the lines of "I've been itching to put a scumbag like you down". Assuming it was a Justified shooting and one was doing their level best to avoid taking the next step.

I could see where certain communication could be exploited. Especially if the word scumbag above was substituted with a racial epithet.

[Dagga Boy]

On the other side of totally non-verbal- I have a good friend who is on he other side of 50 at LAPD. Very good shooter, martial arts guy and lots of training classes under his belt. He recently had to deal with an uncooperative gang member being a jerk. He was went to the old school rapid draw to a hard low ready that was the hallmark presentation from the elite units within LAPD. He got immediate compliance with a "whoa, don't shoot me old timer". This is a large mammal with outstanding ingrained skills. It is funny how the crook recognized that presentation as coming from someone with no issues in dumping him. Never pointed the gun at him, no screaming "get on the ground" over and over with no follow up, nothing but pure determined confidence. May not work for everybody, but I have found that crooks will be doing constant assessment of those they encounter to push as far as they can. Keep in mind,they are in fight or flight mode as well. They understand and can read if the person they are facing has the stones to follow up on what they are posturing. It is one of the reasons I am so against "regular folks" trying to pull off "street talk" when confronting hardened criminals. The criminal knows you are posturing and essentially "faking it". It will be interpreted as both fear and indecisiveness.

[KeeFus]

Dude's probably still out there somewhere, going off half-cocked.

Thats hilarious!

[Aray]

I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not a function of training for one or the other.

Not to speak for Aray, but that's the point I read into his post: It's not about training to deal with panhandlers or psycho killers. It's about training to deal with as dangerous a threat as you possibly can given your physical, emotional, financial, and temporal limitations... and then learning how far to push the throttle in a given circumstance.

It's sort of like the hard focus vs target focus thing: Reaching a skill level that allows you to deal with axe murderers will prepare you for the aggressive panhandler who turns violent; training only to the level of dealing with an untrained and low-level panhandler threat won't help you much when the axe murderer starts swinging at your noggin.

I hate when Todd is right.

[cclaxton]

Just out of curiosity I did a quick and dirty search, which I confess is by no means comprehensive or dispositive. Most of the cases I found had to do with non-LE folks who were making citizen's arrests, which I think is a little different from what Cody was asking about. In those cases (citizen's arrests gone wild), courts seemed to agree that the reasonableness standard was the same for LEs and private citizens. See, for example, State v. White (http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2013/2013-Ohio-51.pdf), 988 N.E.2d 595, 612, n.10 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.,2013) ("the rights of a private citizen to use deadly force [in the course of an arrest] are no greater than those of a police officer"). However, I did find this little California tidbit in a wrongful death/battery case involving a police officer who fatally shot a would-be arrestee:

[COLOR=#000000]That's from Edson v. City of Anaheim (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/63/1269.html), 63 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Edson cited Wirsing v. Krzeminski (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3433296012038833148&q=Wirsing+v.+Krzeminski,+213+N.W.2d+37&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43&as_vis=1), 213 N.W.2d 37, 41 (Wis. 1973) ("It should also be pointed out ... that although a peace officer has the privilege of self-defense, as does any other citizen, he is in that respect governed by the ordinary rules of law; but where, as here, the defendant police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order, he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense"). So it sounds like it might depend on whether the force comes about in the course and conduct of "law enforcement" (stop, arrest, etc.) as opposed to the situation where an on-duty LE is randomly attacked and compelled to defend himself/herself. But the line between the two could easily be blurred. Might be splitting hairs a bit.

Just something to think about. Okay, that's the extent of my quick and dirty research thus far. LOL :)
Thanks for looking that up, Tiffany. Very interesting. It could be this question about LEO vs. Armed Citizen engagement is jurisdictional, or based on the State.
Cody

[Coyotesfan97]

I really wish I had gone K9 handler of some sort. #sortajealous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjc9-CUxmQI

[Coyotesfan97]

Sometimes the idiots want to fight the dogs as well as the coppers.

I recall several cases where the bad guy did rather well and the dog might have lost the fight had other coppers not stepped in. One of our handlers had to blast a guy that stabbed and killed his dog during an arrest.

Many times it doesn't work well for the bad guy though. One burglar in particular tried to run from the dog, got caught, started punching the K9, dog let go and then went in toe reengage, bad guy was bit in the crotchital region but didn't stop fighting, this led to him losing the head of his penis and the entire organ being what they call "degloved".

Yepp the dog is just a tool like the Taser or the baton on your belt. They can fail. We can put them in situations they haven't trained for or seen. Sometimes we forget we're seeing things the dog can't.

Chuck is right. There are bad guys out there who are dedicated enough to fight dogs. You train, you better be, training your dogs for encountering that 1% who will actively fight them. It's how you select dogs and how you train them to make them street worthy. Just like coppers you put stress on them in training and inoculate them for it. You make them think they are the baddest dog on earth because we could meet someone like that any time we deploy. Every know and then you have to get the best agitator you have and put them through the ringer. Put them in a fight and push them right up to the point of failure. You expose them to as much as you can in training and on the streets. That's how you get ready. If a handler isn't working his dog actively it's a failure waiting to happen. It's a team event. If your dog is in a fight for his life you had better be there fighting with him.

One of the phrases I like I heard in SKIDDS (SWAT K9 Interacting During Deployments) during team area searches. You never know what's behind that gate you're opening. Is this THE gate. You and your dog better be ready.

Some of the more gruesome bites I've seen are guys who start punching the dog in the head and the dog releases and rebites the hand. Ive seen crotch bites too. Its not pretty.

[David Armstrong]

I think you are misunderstanding me. Dealing with a panhandler doesn't require a pistol class, BJJ or anything in between. Dealing with a robber might. Dealing with an an attacker likely will. Much of the training I've seen falls short anywhere north of panhandler.

I'll defer to your expertise on tiger attacks.
Depends on the panhandler, which is why my post was as it was. Lots of training for dealing with interpersonal conflict, armed or unarmed, deals with low-motivation attackers because that is the overwhelming likelihood of what most folks will encounter. People have been attacked and killed by panhandlers. But they are few and far between, so training folks to respond to the panhandler as if he were a terrorist trying to make it to Heaven probably isn't the best way to prepare folks for the more common interactions they might face.

[David Armstrong]

Just catching up here. I have to say I strongly disagree with this tactic. This "unready" position with the gun behind the leg was very popular with my original agency. More than one officer found out the hard way why you don't want you gun behind you. I thought modern LE training got away from this 20 years ago or more, but I see I was wrong.
Agreed. I've seen far more officers get in trouble because they got the gun out too early and needed to put it away than those who got in trouble because the gun was in the holster and needed to be pulled out in a hurry.

[David Armstrong]

I think it's a false dichotomy. It's not a function of training for one or the other.

Not to speak for Aray, but that's the point I read into his post: It's not about training to deal with panhandlers or psycho killers. It's about training to deal with as dangerous a threat as you possibly can given your physical, emotional, financial, and temporal limitations... and then learning how far to push the throttle in a given circumstance.

It's sort of like the hard focus vs target focus thing: Reaching a skill level that allows you to deal with axe murderers will prepare you for the aggressive panhandler who turns violent; training only to the level of dealing with an untrained and low-level panhandler threat won't help you much when the axe murderer starts swinging at your noggin.
I agree, it is not "train for one and not the other." But it is a matter of limited resources and how best to use them. Let's face it, the majority of gun owners won't get any formal training, and for those thta do get formal training it will probably be 8-16 hours over their lifetime. Given that realization I'd rather see the training focus on how best to work with what is likely as opposed to learning how to work with the unlikely and hope that it also works for the unlikely.

[warpedcamshaft]

I've seen "good guys" in FoF freak out and murder people because they "didn't comply"... Don't get me wrong, everyone is super amped-up and hyper vigilant when they are new to it. The debrief is usually where it gets interesting.

I did this in my first FoF class... (ECQC)

Forgot what I'd learned and blasted someone... Consensus was I'd likely be going to jail for a while if it were real.

Still bothers me today.

[Chance]

Go hand to hand with me when I already had my gun out is going to get that person shot.


This is fairly regular in my old place.

Is there anything in particular y'all'd recommend a civilian do in that situation? Paul Howe likes to say, "The cop who responds might have two decades on the job, or two days on the job." Thusly, in my imagined scenarios, I'm always focused on putting the pistol away as soon as safely possible so that no good guys get over-amped and service the wrong problem.


I always love the OC folks with the idea that seeing them with a gun will get criminals afraid.....yeah right. I openly carried a gun, along with a badge that empowered me to not only carry the gun, but to take away a persons freedom. Crooks did not give a rat's ass.

I am extremely weary of open carry for this exact reason. There's zero guarantee that people will either respond, or even instigate, in a rational fashion. Raindogblue posted this (http://marsbarn.typepad.com/raindogblue/2015/01/a-circus.html) just recently, and I think it hammers a point home:


At a light off Second, a transient staggers over to the open driver's window of my patrol car. His hand is wrapped in a blanket, in the shape of a gun, at me.

He screams, "I got a gun." He leers, juts out his lower jaw. "What the fuck you gonna do?"

I look at his hand, then lock eyes. He backs up, aims his finger in the air, and walks away.

I watch him leave.

A man in the car next to me says, "This city is a circus. I appreciate what you do."

I thanked him as he drove away.

RDB's demeanor and confidence no doubt played a critical role in that de-escalation. Call me crazy, but I don't have much faith in your average OC'er handling things with as much discretion.

[HCM]

Is there anything in particular y'all'd recommend a civilian do in that situation? Paul Howe likes to say, "The cop who responds might have two decades on the job, or two days on the job." Thusly, in my imagined scenarios, I'm always focused on putting the pistol away as soon as safely possible so that no good guys get over-amped and service the wrong problem.



I am extremely weary of open carry for this exact reason. There's zero guarantee that people will either respond, or even instigate, in a rational fashion. Raindogblue posted this (http://marsbarn.typepad.com/raindogblue/2015/01/a-circus.html) just recently, and I think it hammers a point home:



RDB's demeanor and confidence no doubt played a critical role in that de-escalation. Call me crazy, but I don't have much faith in your average OC'er handling things with as much discretion.

RDB is a great blog.

[ILoveSigs]

Many times it doesn't work well for the bad guy though. One burglar in particular tried to run from the dog, got caught, started punching the K9, dog let go and then went in toe reengage, bad guy was bit in the crotchital region but didn't stop fighting, this led to him losing the head of his penis and the entire organ being what they call "degloved".

http://i.imgur.com/oGI5WKS.gif

[Casual Friday]

Crotch bit by a K9, or by anything violent with teeth, is in my top 10 of things I never wanna experience.

[45dotACP]

Man, agreed on that one.

[Robert Mitchum]

..............

[Aray]

Depends on the panhandler, which is why my post was as it was. Lots of training for dealing with interpersonal conflict, armed or unarmed, deals with low-motivation attackers because that is the overwhelming likelihood of what most folks will encounter. People have been attacked and killed by panhandlers. But they are few and far between, so training folks to respond to the panhandler as if he were a terrorist trying to make it to Heaven probably isn't the best way to prepare folks for the more common interactions they might face.

I taught my kids to deal with an unfamiliar dog as if it is unfriendly. 99% of the dogs they meet in their life will be very friendly. I don't think I'm wrong.

[Clusterfrack]

During my time in the San Francisco area, I had thousands of interactions with panhandlers. Only three of them resulted in a scuffle, and all resolved quickly in my favor. But, that's still enough for me to agree with Aray's analogy.

[Chuck Haggard]

I think the panhandler scenario, well scripted, can be a good one for folks to learn from.

The vast majority of panhandlers in my experience are some level of douchebag, even if it's only being fake crippled and such. Aggressive panhandlers often cross the line into verbal and physical intimidation. This can ramp up and down a continuum. An example would be the 6'4, 350lb dude I almost had to shoot in broad daylight in the French Quarter a few years ago. Others can be handled with good verbal skills, command presence, etc.

I often use such a branched mini scenario when I do OC training for non LE, Claude has particularly enjoyed being my defender when doing demos at Tac and Paul-E (one of the branches has him spraying me with inert...).

[Hambo]

I think the panhandler scenario, well scripted, can be a good one for folks to learn from.

The vast majority of panhandlers in my experience are some level of douchebag, even if it's only being fake crippled and such. Aggressive panhandlers often cross the line into verbal and physical intimidation. This can ramp up and down a continuum. An example would be the 6'4, 350lb dude I almost had to shoot in broad daylight in the French Quarter a few years ago. Others can be handled with good verbal skills, command presence, etc.


This time of year we have a lot of them, because no shit, they come down just like the Canadian snowbirds. They range from passive (hold a sign and wait) to asking everybody. Some of them select just like minor criminals, which they undoubtedly are, hitting on women, elderly, the unaware. So awareness and a hard look often deters them.

The other advice I've offered people is that they need to learn what drug addicts look like. If you don't have years of street or ER experience, I find the pharmacy is a great place. Afternoon is best. Just browse nearby and eavesdrop on the stories of people wanting to re-up their Xanax or Oxy because they ate or sold a month's supply in two weeks.

Then there are nuts. Not Planters, but the mentally ill. Not far from here there was a case that got a lot of media because a mentally ill homeless guy butchered a dude in broad daylight at a fast food place because he thought the guy was some sort of spy. Having battled my share of them, mentally ill are high on beware list.

[BJXDS]

Well we don't know how this started. It appears the two woman were fighting and then the man gets involved. After he hits her several times they are separated somehow. The man appears to be walking away when the women who was hit produces a gun at starts to follow him.

I can understand how a women who has just been beat on several times by a larger and stronger man feels as if her life was in danger, but once she secures her gun, my question is: wouldn't it have been better for her to stay put, "Stand Her Ground" if you will, request someone call the police and if the man returns, and she believes her life to be in danger, at that point do what is necessary? STOP THE THREAT!

Point being, did she potentially open herself to unnecessary scrutiny by following the Whack Job as far as she did?
I believe most who CCW may not realize even if 100% Good Shoot, Their life will never be they same. At the very least many may be ruined financially. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6, BUT....

[David Armstrong]

I taught my kids to deal with an unfamiliar dog as if it is unfriendly. 99% of the dogs they meet in their life will be very friendly. I don't think I'm wrong.
No disagreement. But I don't think that means one should therefore treat all dogs as if they were rabid, which is the difference to me.

[Chuck Haggard]

No disagreement. But I don't think that means one should therefore treat all dogs as if they were rabid, which is the difference to me.

I still approach all dogs as having a potential for biting, read their body language, and make friends with them before I reach out to pet them. I am very much a dog person, but I am also a realist.

[ToddG]

I still approach all dogs as having a potential for biting, read their body language, and make friends with them before I reach out to pet them. I am very much a dog person, but I am also a realist.

As someone with a playful dog who will bite if she thinks my wife or I are in danger, I see this as a very smart move. I've invited people over, given them specific instructions on how to meet the dog, and been ignored because "I'm good with dogs." Most of those people have got nipped.

[luckyman]

As someone with a playful dog who will bite if she thinks my wife or I are in danger, I see this as a very smart move. I've invited people over, given them specific instructions on how to meet the dog, and been ignored because "I'm good with dogs." Most of those people have got nipped.

+1

What is so hard about the instruction "please totally ignore my dog for 60 seconds and act nice so he figures out you aren't the enemy, before you try to pet him"? And fer chrissakes, when you meet me trying to unlock and come through our gated community's stupid "funnel of death / chokepoint" pedestrian gate, do you *have* to try to squeeze by in the 6" space between me, my dog and the gate???

And God forbid I lose SA for a second like I did that one time while trying to cross the road, and you come up on my backside and try to pet my dog. (well, admittedly that one was mostly my fault)

[GRV]

Talking about the gun drawn situation where now you are holding an uncooperative unarmed person at gunpoint who now begins to advance on you.


Go hand to hand with me when I already had my gun out is going to get that person shot.
LE has no requirement to retreat.
Everyone has the right to use self defense up to and including deadly force to prevent the loss of their life, grievous bodily harm, or loss of limb/eyesight (or reasonable grounds to assume those issues may occur).
Presuming your where legally okay (state laws blah blah blah) to present the weapon in the first place - any attempt on you and your weapon gives the reasonable person a view that it would be a deadly force attack.


How much patrol time do you have? This is fairly regular in my old place. It all sounds good, but pretty easy way to spend time in federal court. I would also like to know where you are finding these reasonable people. How many unarmed folks have you shot advancing on you with your weapon out in the US? This was fairly regular crap. How about straight up "make me" people? How about simple resistance of an un-searched person who may be armed based on information but not confirmed?


Is there anything in particular y'all'd recommend a civilian do in that situation? Paul Howe likes to say, "The cop who responds might have two decades on the job, or two days on the job." Thusly, in my imagined scenarios, I'm always focused on putting the pistol away as soon as safely possible so that no good guys get over-amped and service the wrong problem.


This is a scenario that I have been bothered by quite a bit. It seems quite possible to end up in, and I have a hard time coming up with very good answers. Advice? If possible, let's avoid arguing over how one gets into such a situation, or just saying "you shouldn't have let it get to that point". You're there. Now what. Given the audience here, let's also assume that we're running AIWB, with all the issues that has with respect to reholstering quickly.

[RoyGBiv]

Talking about the gun drawn situation where now you are holding an uncooperative unarmed person at gunpoint who now begins to advance on you.



This is a scenario that I have been bothered by quite a bit. It seems quite possible to end up in, and I have a hard time coming up with very good answers. Advice? If possible, let's avoid arguing over how one gets into such a situation, or just saying "you shouldn't have let it get to that point". You're there. Now what. Given the audience here, let's also assume that we're running AIWB, with all the issues that has with respect to reholstering quickly.
Like this?

Grapevine police expect to release dashcam footage from fatal shooting (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/additional-details-from-grapevine-police-shooting-released.html/)


Eberling said Villalpando, who was unarmed, was told to keep his hands out of the vehicle, but instead got out of his car and walked to the front bumper of Clark’s patrol vehicle. He was out of view of the camera when Clark fired two shots after telling Villalpando to get back to his car.

[GRV]

Like this?

Grapevine police expect to release dashcam footage from fatal shooting (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/02/additional-details-from-grapevine-police-shooting-released.html/)

Pretty much, although civilian flavored. I'm all for training unarmed self-defense, I'm all for ECQC style training, I'm all for firearms-only focused training. But now say you're in this situation. The response to your drawn weapon is a person who is advancing with a "go ahead and shoot me" attitude. Maybe they've thrown down the knife they had in their hand when you drew, or whatever. They're challenging you. Options:

1) Shoot. Very questionable. Do they still pose a lethal threat? Has the original lethal threat disappeared? Are you justified? Is their advancing on an armed person evidence of lethal threat?

2) Go into unarmed self-defense techniques with gun in hand. Really freaking hairy if you ask me. I think this is a bad idea. If they're close enough that you can kick them, maybe that's a reasonable response, but if they're not, do we really want to let them get any closer?

3) Reholster. Running AIWB, I'm not sure I want to do this. How fast can I safely reholster while remaining ready to engage?

I'm not sure that there's a right answer or even a good answer here, nor a universal answer, but I'd be very interested in hearing experienced folks discuss this issue.

[Peally]

The One-Punch-Murder thread is relevant here

[Gadfly]

In the link to the Grapevine Police shooting, there was a response to an alarm call, followed by a two mile vehicle chase through heavy traffic followed by repeatedly ignoring commands to stay back. I think the officer can articulate a heightened state of danger just from the initial chase. Can a civilian articulate that? That is a good question...

Your ability to stay out of jail post shooting relies quite a bit on your ability to articulate why you felt your life was in danger based on the totality of circumstance. There is not, nor will there ever be, a cut and dry answer that applies to every shooting. Take the same shooting and change one variable and the police or public response will vary greatly.

Crazy homeless person coming at you flailing their arms and babbling, ignoring your commands to stay back. You are 5'5" and 50 years old, he is 6'5" and early 20s... can you articulate fear of an impending attack? Quite possibly. Take the exact same circumstance, but switch the size and age of the participants. Now, the young big strong man shot the poor innocent small 50 year old man instead of just pushing him away... Same exact actions, but perception is changed based on a disparity of force between the suspect and victim.

So asking questions like "can a shoot an unarmed man advancing on me" are far too vague. How many people are around? What is the size/age/gender disparity between the two of you? Are you sick or injured? Do you have a small child with you that you have to carry? What time of day is it? Is it wet and icy, or dry conditions? Are you on the side of the road and could end up in traffic if you try and fist fight? There are a hundred variables that would have to be answered before anyone can say if you can or should shoot...

Not enough info is available to tell if the officer had a clean shoot or not.

[ToddG]

Is their advancing on an armed person evidence of lethal threat?

If the encounter began or became a violent confrontation such that I felt the need to draw my gun,
and if the guy continued to advance on me with the kind of attitude you describe,
and if I reasonably believe he has the physical ability to disarm me or otherwise cause me harm (IOW, he's not a paraplegic or some other internet what-if extreme),
and if I cannot extricate myself (and any loved ones) in a guaranteed safe manner,
then yes, I consider him a lethal threat and shoot.

Then I hire Craig Douglas as my expert witnesses to discuss whether unarmed people within arm's length are dangerous threats or not to someone who has (legally and reasonably) drawn a firearm in self-defense. And watch the prosecution/plaintiff try to find an expert who has seen a fraction as many such incidents from which to draw an alternative conclusion.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

If the encounter began or became a violent confrontation such that I felt the need to draw my gun,
and if the guy continued to advance on me with the kind of attitude you describe,
and if I reasonably believe he has the physical ability to disarm me or otherwise cause me harm (IOW, he's not a paraplegic or some other internet what-if extreme),
and if I cannot extricate myself (and any loved ones) in a guaranteed safe manner,
then yes, I consider him a lethal threat and shoot.

Then I hire Craig Douglas as my expert witnesses to discuss whether unarmed people within arm's length are dangerous threats or not to someone who has (legally and reasonably) drawn a firearm in self-defense. And watch the prosecution/plaintiff try to find an expert who has seen a fraction as many such incidents from which to draw an alternative conclusion.

What this guy said...

[wrmettler]

In 2004, Harold Fish, a 57 year old retired school teacher was hiking alone in the forest outside Strawberry Arizona when he was attacked to 2 medium to large dogs. Fish was armed with a Kimber 10mm. He fired 2 warning shots at the dogs, causing them to stop their charge. At that time, a "middle aged" guy started running toward him, waiving his arms and yelling that he was going to hurt Fish for shooting at his dogs. The guy kept accelerating toward Fish and yelling, and when he was about 5-10 ft from Fish, Fish shot him 3 times in the chest.
Fish was charged in Flagstaff Arizona with 2nd degree Murder, convicted and sentenced to 10 years in jail.
If you read the case, you can see the extent to which a prosecutor, combined with a not too thoughtful judge will go to secure a conviction.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Div 1, CR06-0675, ordered a new trial in '09.
Shortly thereafter, Arizona law changed regarding self defense, and as a result, the state dismissed the case.
Fish spent 3 years in jail. He died in '12, leaving his widow with $500K in attorneys' fees.

Fish did not know that the attacker had a screwdriver in his back pocket and a history of violent conduct.

Lot of bold talk on the interwebs about self defense, and in this situation, I would have done the same.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Fish talked a lot, and from my reading on the case, gave contradictory statements as to the details of the incident that made it hard for the police and the prosecution not to move forward.

Bad case to use as an example.

[Guinnessman]

If the encounter began or became a violent confrontation such that I felt the need to draw my gun,
and if the guy continued to advance on me with the kind of attitude you describe,
and if I reasonably believe he has the physical ability to disarm me or otherwise cause me harm (IOW, he's not a paraplegic or some other internet what-if extreme),
and if I cannot extricate myself (and any loved ones) in a guaranteed safe manner,
then yes, I consider him a lethal threat and shoot.

Then I hire Craig Douglas as my expert witnesses to discuss whether unarmed people within arm's length are dangerous threats or not to someone who has (legally and reasonably) drawn a firearm in self-defense. And watch the prosecution/plaintiff try to find an expert who has seen a fraction as many such incidents from which to draw an alternative conclusion.

Todd,

Have you ever considered creating a legal resource page here on the forum? There is a wealth of knowledge here on the forum with several lawyers and SME's that could help out in a crunch. It would be great to have a list of self defense lawyers recommended in every state.

What do you think?

[BaiHu]

Seconded.

[Shellback]

Really interesting thread.


This is a kick-ass thread.


I'll defer to your expertise on tiger attacks.

Jay = Aray?

[wrmettler]

Mr. Mitchell,

To the contrary, I think this case is interesting and addresses issues that have been discussed in these forums, i.e. shooters conduct and/or communications with authorities after the event, the politics of a shooting, criminal prosecution, expert witnesses, and even the role of dogs in the events.

But, with the specific issues discussed in this thread, Fish was convicted, according to news articles containing quotes from the jurors because the attacker had defensive wounds in his hands. So, assuming what Fish said was true (he didn’t testify at trial), at some point in time the attacker changed from flailing his arms during the run toward Fish to putting his hands in front of his chest, apparently changing his posture from being an attacker to being a victim. I would assume this was in response to Fish raising his pistol. How fast could any shooter get his pistol on target and during that period of time does the attacker understand the threat, stop his attack and take a defensive posture? Is the change in posture momentary and would it change again in response to not shooting?

I am not nearly sophisticated as most on these forums, but these seem important issues to discuss when talking about aggression at gunpoint.

[Chuck Haggard]

If the encounter began or became a violent confrontation such that I felt the need to draw my gun,
and if the guy continued to advance on me with the kind of attitude you describe,
and if I reasonably believe he has the physical ability to disarm me or otherwise cause me harm (IOW, he's not a paraplegic or some other internet what-if extreme),
and if I cannot extricate myself (and any loved ones) in a guaranteed safe manner,
then yes, I consider him a lethal threat and shoot.

Then I hire Craig Douglas as my expert witnesses to discuss whether unarmed people within arm's length are dangerous threats or not to someone who has (legally and reasonably) drawn a firearm in self-defense. And watch the prosecution/plaintiff try to find an expert who has seen a fraction as many such incidents from which to draw an alternative conclusion.

That would be an easy day in court. I'm not Craig, but I could easily destroy any expert that tried to claim otherwise.

[GRV]

If the encounter began or became a violent confrontation such that I felt the need to draw my gun,
and if the guy continued to advance on me with the kind of attitude you describe,
and if I reasonably believe he has the physical ability to disarm me or otherwise cause me harm (IOW, he's not a paraplegic or some other internet what-if extreme),
and if I cannot extricate myself (and any loved ones) in a guaranteed safe manner,
then yes, I consider him a lethal threat and shoot.

Then I hire Craig Douglas as my expert witnesses to discuss whether unarmed people within arm's length are dangerous threats or not to someone who has (legally and reasonably) drawn a firearm in self-defense. And watch the prosecution/plaintiff try to find an expert who has seen a fraction as many such incidents from which to draw an alternative conclusion.

Thanks, Todd! I feel that this is a really good articulation. The key takeaway that I like from this that I don't think I really considered before is:


...and if I reasonably believe he has the physical ability to disarm me...

That was the kick my brain needed. Proportionality (AOJ) is an element of a self-defense defense that you need to articulate, generally speaking. A priori, I do not think one would have a solid defense shooting every hypothetical person that might approach you in this way in such a situation. So, there needs to be some distinguishing factor that you can articulate, and I think Todd's quote hits the nail on the head by drawing the line at "ability to disarm me". To break down the AOJ:

Ability: Is physically capable of disarming defender?
Opportunity: Has closed some distance threshold?
Jeopardy: Continually advances on visibly armed defender who has expressed clear intentions that they don't want to fight but are prepared to use lethal force?

If you can answer yes to all three, that sounds like solid grounding to reasonably believe you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death, assuming there is a lethal weapon in your hand that you can't safely remove from the situation (I don't think there is generally a safe way to remove it from the situation here). I think being able to articulate knowledge about the dangers of retention conflicts, ECQC, etc. is important.

I also think being able to articulate that it would be unsafe to attempt to holster is probably worthwhile, whether that be because it makes you defenseless momentarily, or holstering is inherently unsafe, etc.

Of course, it's still highly situational, and there are a lot of details that could make this a definite no shoot for me, but only if they added up to making me feel confident that I was safe from grave bodily harm without shooting.

[GRV]

It also goes without saying that, separately, you'd better have a good justification for having drawn in the first place.

[Chuck Haggard]

Holstering to go hands on while wearing a police duty rig is a vastly different animal than trying to do so while wearing CCW gear.

I would argue that the later is in fact inherently unsafe when done at speed, especially when doing a "no look" reholster.

[David Armstrong]

I still approach all dogs as having a potential for biting, read their body language, and make friends with them before I reach out to pet them. I am very much a dog person, but I am also a realist.
Right, and that is what I am trying to get across, perhaps somewhat less than clearly. Being aware of what is going on and how to respond to it based on reality is probably far more important for most than spending lots of training time and worry on what is the rare and unusual. Being aware that some dogs are outliers and can be a problem, but realizing that most are not and knowing how to respond to them will go a lot further.

[Adam]

Took me a few days to read through the thread in its entirety, but a lot of great discussion here (no big surprise).

I don't like spinning everything in to an ECQC parallel, but pulling a T-gun out and the guy doing nothing or saying "fuck you" is a really great first experience to make you say "Okay, now what?" Same with blasting away with the pistol and the same result happening.

Should the gun really, really come out of the holster? Yes? Am I willing to shoot this person after it comes out? Yes? Proceed. If I thought there was reason enough to pull the gun out of the holster HOPEFULLY, I've got my mind right that if dude chooses the "f*** you option" that I have made some attempt at prior planning to work that problem out as best as possibly. Hopefully it doesn't involve shooting said person. But if it does, that's what the gun came out of the holster for unfortunately.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Todd,

Have you ever considered creating a legal resource page here on the forum? There is a wealth of knowledge here on the forum with several lawyers and SME's that could help out in a crunch. It would be great to have a list of self defense lawyers recommended in every state.

What do you think?


Seconded.

A good place to start:

http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/

[Jay Cunningham]

Jay = Aray?


Aray = Jay's assistant instructor and primary drinking companion.

[Failure2Stop]

Aray = Jay's assistant instructor and primary drinking companion.
And Viking Blue chemist...

[D.S. Brown]

I don't have anything to add, but as a concealed carry holder, and newly licensed CHL instructor in Texas I really appreciate all of the incite and wisdom shared on this thread. It's really opened my eyes about several things, the one that comes to mind is the 'talisman vs. tool mentality. Similarly the decision to throttle back if need be and re transition to say OC if the dynamic of the scenario has changed. My thinking clearly has been rigid and linear in that once I climbed the steps of the use of force continuum if the gun is out there will either be compliance or the criminal actor(s) are going to be shot upwards of several times. Maybe not so much. Thanks again.

Best,

Dave

[Chefjon]

It would seem that some people are simply unimpressed with guns - imagine that.

I think having role-players who are similarly unimpressed with guns is important in shaking the "static response" crowd out of the delusion that their one move will save them. Screaming the same command at increasingly higher volume and rapidity will not always get the desired results - if someone is unimpressed with your commands and/or gun... then what?

It's a topic I'm getting a lot of experience with as I participate more and more in various aspects of FoF, and I'm seeing certain patterns repeat. It's quite interesting.

I did just that in Sage Dynamics Force Focus Fundamentals class...a few times.

If I'm taking training, I volunteer for *everything*. This led to my being the BG often. In one scenario, I was "stabbing" a guy on the ground in a doorway. The GG was just walking down the hall and stumbled upon me. He verbalized too early and I kept "stabbing" the guy until I saw his shirt go up and him go for the gun. I dropped the knife and ducked around the corner into the room. When he ordered me to come out, I taunted him mercilessly. I refused his commands and he finally made entry. I had my hands up and refused his commands to get down. He had no recourse but to "call" the cops with me at gunpoint. I had fun being that much of an asshole.

Aaron Cowan, the teacher, then relayed a story from his beat days about a non compliant collar. At gunpoint, the shitbird refused commands and told him "You think you're the first cop to point a gun at me?". Aaron had to 1h deploy a tazer on the guy while keeping his pistol in play.

In another scenario, I was "stomping a guy's head in". It took a few commands before the GG finally drew. I kept "killing" the guy on the ground. Gun drawn, I stopped. Hands up, I waited until his attention diverted and ran.

I was 1/2 in the escape department, but the big lesson was that I was 2/2 in the murder department.

I fully agree with your assessment based on my experience.

I also, as a bystander, tried to engage the GG in every scenario. I think it made it harder for them to "game it". I was the only one that really tried that.

[voodoo_man]

Nice topic, good thread.

I'll contribute my personal experience on the matter.

The only people who care about having a gun pointed at them are law-abiding and otherwise non-combative.

The people who flip out, as seen in the video and start committing physical acts of violence, while unarmed, will continue to do so even if you point a gun at them.

In multiple situations I have had to point a gun at someone for various reasons during various situations and their response is usually "fuck you shoot me" or "omg please don't hurt me," but almost never in the middle.

I would highly suggest using the element of surprise on persons that may require you to point a gun at, by this I mean, you should only do so when it is absolutely necessary and you are about to use it. This is more applicable for LEO's than the CCW holder.

The force on force that I have done, and the people I have done it with, normally resulted in a wide gap in understanding of "use of deadly force" and verbal commands. Even for a CCW holder, if you are about to engage or are engaged with a person with a weapon, especially one that you reasonably believe can (and many times will if used enough) hurt you severely and/or kill you, then the time for talking has past.

[HCountyGuy]

Stumbled upon this thread lined with "gold nuggets" of information, figured it deserves some attention. This recent incident may have some relevance to the overall issue discussed in the thread:

http://www.wwltv.com/mb/news/local/northshore/self-defense-leads-to-fatal-shooting-at-gas-station-say-police/119358225


I've seen numerous examples of it. Every human interaction is met with I CAN'T HELP YOU or GET BACK, regardless of circumstances or context. I've been subjected to this kind of training as well - if you haven't, you are fortunate.

Edited to add: of course the above may be a wholly appropriate response... but if that's the only response you've got loaded in, then you rapidly cut off options. Getting back to the original topic, I've seen countless cases of DROP YOUR FUCKING WEAPON over and over and over again... but what happens if the person simply doesn't feel like dropping their weapon? Little bit of a Mexican stand-off thing usually happens.

In relation to the "ICHY" and "Get back" conditioning, it can be nerve-wracking to the untrained/poorly-trained on how to otherwise manage unwanted approaches. These days there's no shortage of beggars/scammers trying to score handouts by playing on people's sympathy. Then factor in the criminals utilizing such ruses to get inside their target's comfort zone and many are content to be hostile to any individual who approaches them uninvited.

[GRV]

A great thread rediscovered. Thanks HCountyGuy!

I went back and reread the first 6 pages. What stood out to me is that we talked a lot about what doesn't work, what not to do, etc. However, there was little to no discussion from experts about what they would do, what does tend to work in these scenarios, or how they have managed to resolve similar situations over the years. Certainly, this is territory where there isn't going to be a single answer. It's going to be highly situational, nonlinear, and scenario specific. That's fine. But I think these sorts of discussions, lacking that leadership by example, fall short of the pedagogical value that they are capable of having.

What I'd really like to see is a module of some Craig-like classes that has confirmed experienced guys going through blind scenarios for demonstration purposes. Getting good role-players would become that much tougher, since they might automatically kneel at the known experience gap. If it can be done though, I'm imagining something like "civilian FTO training".

Time and time again, LE on this board have told me and others that they way they learned to manage these situations was by watching more experienced dudes. That fits well within my mental model for how learning best occurs. I feel like this is a massive hole in civilian training. Civilians spend most of their training time being told what to do, trying to do stuff they've never seen done right before, and then watching other unexperienced people try to do the same thing.

[Unobtanium]

It fascinates me personally and I think it's the area least explored and discussed. Everyone wants problem solving to be linear and formulaic and real life rarely pans that way.

I remember AMIS. Realistic scenarios, and the wheels came off for everybody at some point or another. I know people who do what was demonstrated and practiced in that class for a living, who also attended. Noone had any objection to the realism or tactics and thought provocation either there, or later in private. I was very impressed and learned a lot. The one occasion I had, years ago, to consider shooting someone in defense of a loved one...they were drugged up and nutty as hell. THEY called the cops. Thats how nutty they were. You can't predict that. A firearm isn't a talisman, it's a tool. You don't wave a hammer at lumber and get a house. You pound nail after nail until it's built.

[Dagga Boy]

A great thread rediscovered. Thanks HCountyGuy!

I went back and reread the first 6 pages. What stood out to me is that we talked a lot about what doesn't work, what not to do, etc. However, there was little to no discussion from experts about what they would do, what does tend to work in these scenarios, or how they have managed to resolve similar situations over the years. Certainly, this is territory where there isn't going to be a single answer. It's going to be highly situational, nonlinear, and scenario specific. That's fine. But I think these sorts of discussions, lacking that leadership by example, fall short of the pedagogical value that they are capable of having.

What I'd really like to see is a module of some Craig-like classes that has confirmed experienced guys going through blind scenarios for demonstration purposes. Getting good role-players would become that much tougher, since they might automatically kneel at the known experience gap. If it can be done though, I'm imagining something like "civilian FTO training".

Time and time again, LE on this board have told me and others that they way they learned to manage these situations was by watching more experienced dudes. That fits well within my mental model for how learning best occurs. I feel like this is a massive hole in civilian training. Civilians spend most of their training time being told what to do, trying to do stuff they've never seen done right before, and then watching other unexperienced people try to do the same thing.

First, good use of pedagogical in a sentence....;). It was the word of the week dropped often in my wife's teaching credential degree, and makes me laugh every time I see it as it is a beloved academia word.

One of the things I try to tell folks, is that one thing heavily experienced street LEO's bring to the table is dealing with crazy, doped up, drunk, angry, and just plain mean (or a combination of the whole group) on a very regular basis. It is often dismissed as "cop stuff" and not applicable to regular folks. I am at the "whatever" point and lost interest in trying to convince folks that it is one group who really knows your criminal well. Folks seem more interested in "Civilian response to active shooters" and Long range sniping for the zombie apocalypse.
Yep, I think there would be a huge benefit to maybe setting a couple scenarios up at Tom's conference for folks to sit and watch a group of folks handle some scenarios. As you said, FTO training for civilians. Part of being a good FTO was bein able to show your trainee's how to deal with things they had never seen, or knew existed before. The problem was often they were wholly unprepared for what they were seeing. Often, the level of crazy, and the level of violence often needed to deal with it was unnerving and not how it was on TV.
I think you are on to something, it is just how to pull it off. Another issue is also going to be what works for so,e may not translate to others. I know that both Wayne and I have both found very good success with the fence hands and "I can't help you, get away". That may not be as effective for someone who is not shopping in the full size clothes department. Also, things like tone and verbalization will also also be different, and not everybody can switch on a tone that really conveys what they want or a true seriousness.

[GRV]

One part of the tone thing though is again going back to mimicry. There's tons of literature on what tone you should take, or what language you should use. That doesn't hold a candle to actually hearing an expert's tone and language.

Here are some key things I think would need to be managed:

- It needs to be a truly blind scenario for the experts. I'm not interested in watching The Full-Size Man Theatre's production of Macbeth. Sorry Darryl ;)

- The experts need to be able to avoid the "gaming" problem. It's extremely hard for us students to fully zone-in to the roleplaying and not get caught up in the artificial nature of it. This manifests itself in a lot of subtle ways that aren't limited to intentionally taking advantage of the situation. It's just straight up hard to walk in and not immediately start planning how you're going to deal with the roleplayer who hasn't popped out yet. Your brain knows stuff your character isn't supposed to know. Since said experts would be experts in dealing with scum, not with acting or playing D&D, I can imagine it might be difficult for them too, but maybe I'm wrong.

- The experts need to be willing to publicly fail, and the audience needs to be prepared to see people they admire lose a fight. Hopefully, of course, the experts will be coming out on top most of the time, and that's the whole point of the demonstration and choosing the experts, but if it's made impossible for them to lose in any way, or the match is artificially thrown in their favor, then it will have defeated the whole point of the exercise. Moreover, I could imagine some experts being unwilling to participate for fear of making a fool of themselves publicly. Watching experts screw up is still orders of magnitude better than watching newbies screw up. Once while trying to learn a language, I told my friend "I'm okay with making mistakes.....I just want to be making the same mistakes that the natives make." Not exactly the same, but kinda gets the idea across.

- There needs to be a wide spectrum of experts, of different body types, styles, background, etc. People can take nuggets of what works for them from different experts, and what is common among most of them will be suggestive of tactical truth.


Here's another idea too, something I've seen videos of Craig doing a bit in staged ECQC drills, but doesn't seem to happen much in open roleplaying evos: Run a person through, but have experts pause it when they think major flaws are occurring, discuss the issue on the spot, then resume the scenario. I think there is much value in the uninterrupted roleplaying scenarios, but they may not be the best place to first form tactical "muscle memory" for unexperienced individuals. It may be more useful for people to experience first hand what it feels like to do it correctly, in a guided manner, before being let loose on their own in uninterrupted scenarios. It also nips problems in the bud before they grow into reps of catastrophic behavior. Catastrophic failure is also a massive learning experience, no doubt, ask me how I know. This is just a different piece of the bigger picture. Sometimes in catastrophic failure we learn the wrong lessons, because it becomes hard to distinguish exactly what was a mistake and which mistakes were responsible.

That idea was influenced by a recent conversation I had with a supervisor of a small-town department. He said that FTO training didn't do enough in their dept because in a typical probation, recruits probably wouldn't see enough action to learn enough from the FTOs. Also, I think there just weren't enough FTOs to go around. So, with some of the newer guys, he said he'd show up on scene to standby while they dealt with domestics and such. He'd stay largely hands off, but if they were about to do something really stupid he'd pull them aside and correct it before it happened. It sounded like it succeeded at helping the new guys learn the ropes. However, I know jack squat about this, so feel free to step in and say that that's an awful idea for X Y Z reasons.

[scw2]

Catastrophic failure is also a massive learning experience, no doubt, ask me how I know. This is just a different piece of the bigger picture.

Pretty sure the group aced it, going 10 for 10 in the failure department. :( I do think seeing experts running through many scenarios at TacCon would be helpful for attendees.

[GRV]

Pretty sure the group aced it, going 10 for 10 in the failure department. :(

And yet...I was the only one who got shot, right? I'm still reminded every time I look down at the scar on my hand.

[GRV]

Adding to the list:

- Again, the roleplayers need to be top notch and not influenced by the fact that they're dealing with experts.

- There would ideally be multiple scenarios, some of which can be solved without force, some which can be solved with some minimum level of force, and some of which are highly unlikely to be solved without deadly force.

[Dagga Boy]

I would suggest dropping the word "expert" and change to experienced. This is not something you get a rating in and often the experience came through failure.
Also, while I appreciate the enthusiasm for laying down the rules on your catered training, have you thought that just maybe a few people here have actually done exactly what you think you would like, and have that experience thing about how to do it? Lectures about checking ego are probably not needed for the folks you may want to see address some of these problems. They likely got their ego checked already tasting their own blood. Just sayin.

[GRV]

I would suggest dropping the word "expert" and change to experienced. This is not something you get a rating in and often the experience came through failure.
Also, while I appreciate the enthusiasm for laying down the rules on your catered training, have you thought that just maybe a few people here have actually done exactly what you think you would like, and have that experience thing about how to do it? Lectures about checking ego are probably not needed for the folks you may want to see address some of these problems. They likely got their ego checked already tasting their own blood. Just sayin.

Sorry, didn't mean to step on any toes.

Used "expert" because I know "SME" is such a specific term around these parts. "Experienced" reflects what I meant better.

Yea, sorry, just brainstorming out loud, I have a nasty habit of that :o. Certainly there are dudes on here that have been doing this sort of training longer than I've had a pulse, and I unconditionally defer to their judgement and expertise.

[scw2]

And yet...I was the only one who got shot, right? I'm still reminded every time I look down at the scar on my hand.

Fair enough. My comment wasn't intended to one-up you. What I meant was that out of the entire universe of possible outcomes, none of the 10 simulations would have been a desirable outcome in my book. Of those, there were some that were worse.

[GRV]

Fair enough. My comment wasn't intended to one-up you. What I meant was that out of the entire universe of possible outcomes, none of the 10 simulations would have been a desirable outcome in my book. Of those, there were some that were worse.

A race to the bottom! :p My remark about catastrophic failure wasn't meant to mean that particular incident, but, yea, that was a pretty bad one for all of us I'm sure. If you managed to get your hands on any video of the other scenarios, let me know. I'd really like to see how it played out for others.

I'm on a roll for foot-in-mouth today. I think I'll back away from the keyboard before I say anything more stupid. :rolleyes:

[StrikerFire]

First, good use of pedagogical in a sentence....;). It was the word of the week dropped often in my wife's teaching credential degree, and makes me laugh every time I see it as it is a beloved academia word.

One of the things I try to tell folks, is that one thing heavily experienced street LEO's bring to the table is dealing with crazy, doped up, drunk, angry, and just plain mean (or a combination of the whole group) on a very regular basis. It is often dismissed as "cop stuff" and not applicable to regular folks. I am at the "whatever" point and lost interest in trying to convince folks that it is one group who really knows your criminal well. Folks seem more interested in "Civilian response to active shooters" and Long range sniping for the zombie apocalypse.
Yep, I think there would be a huge benefit to maybe setting a couple scenarios up at Tom's conference for folks to sit and watch a group of folks handle some scenarios. As you said, FTO training for civilians. Part of being a good FTO was bein able to show your trainee's how to deal with things they had never seen, or knew existed before. The problem was often they were wholly unprepared for what they were seeing. Often, the level of crazy, and the level of violence often needed to deal with it was unnerving and not how it was on TV.
I think you are on to something, it is just how to pull it off. Another issue is also going to be what works for so,e may not translate to others. I know that both Wayne and I have both found very good success with the fence hands and "I can't help you, get away". That may not be as effective for someone who is not shopping in the full size clothes department. Also, things like tone and verbalization will also also be different, and not everybody can switch on a tone that really conveys what they want or a true seriousness.

This.

Would you consider offering a module on this through HITS and/or privately.

[David Pennington]

You would be surprised at the crap some people will pull while at gunpoint, particularly if they do not believe the gun-holder will actually shoot them. Also, remember that the people you place at gunpoint are almost always A. Drunk B. Drugged C. Crazy as a shit-house rat or D. All of the above. Expecting rational behavior is a mistake. If they were rational you probably wouldn't be pointing a gun at them.

Spot on.

[ford.304]

On the subject of "gaming" scenarios -- with the spread of body cameras/cell phone cameras would we have a better time with a curated list of videos of officers handling real situations well/poorly? I feel like some debriefings on videos like that from one of our experts could be an absolutely amazing resource.

[GRV]

On the subject of "gaming" scenarios -- with the spread of body cameras/cell phone cameras would we have a better time with a curated list of videos of officers handling real situations well/poorly? I feel like some debriefings on videos like that from one of our experts could be an absolutely amazing resource.

Agreed. The recent video documenting our resident deputy sheriff sticks in my mind as the best example of the sorts of videos I'd like to see more of.

[TCinVA]

So here's a real story where many of the things mentioned in this thread come into play:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-fatal-domestic-dispute-intervention-20160503-story.html

It is a setup almost like one of Craig's ELL scenarios:

Woman comes into a store. She's been shot. She's screaming for help.

Good Samaritan isn't carrying his gun (fail number one, of course) and decides to go get it. He confronts the shooter, apparently as shooter is trying to leave. From what I understand from listening to others talk about this, shooter gets out of his truck, closes distance on the Good Samaritan, makes some level of physical contact and then fires a fatal shot into Good Samaritan's head.

As for more footage, here's some of a shooting more local to me:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=743_1462399784

Lots of clear verbal warnings, but the drunk college student (who had already threatened someone with the gun) decided to continue being a dumbass.

[HCM]

So here's a real story where many of the things mentioned in this thread come into play:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-fatal-domestic-dispute-intervention-20160503-story.html

It is a setup almost like one of Craig's ELL scenarios:

Woman comes into a store. She's been shot. She's screaming for help.

Good Samaritan isn't carrying his gun (fail number one, of course) and decides to go get it. He confronts the shooter, apparently as shooter is trying to leave. From what I understand from listening to others talk about this, shooter gets out of his truck, closes distance on the Good Samaritan, makes some level of physical contact and then fires a fatal shot into Good Samaritan's head.


I found this telling:


According to his arrest affidavit, Bradden was driving away from the scene when he called and confessed to several Army supervisors at Ford Hood that he had slapped the gun out of Antell's hand and shot him, reported TV station Fox 4 News.

[TCinVA]

I found this telling:

Indeed. Many mistakes were made...but I think those are common mistakes that many would make. This was something of an ambiguous situation, at least when the would-be Good Samaritan got involved.

I think a lot of people are just like this. Staying out of a situation is certainly a legit strategy and a safe one, but how many people are going to keep themselves out of a situation where there is a bloody gunshot victim screaming for help?

Under unfamiliar stress it's easy to fixate on a course of action suggested by our amygdala and then second guess it a few seconds in. And a lot of people, it seems to me, expect pointing a gun at somebody to be effective.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the situation, but I see here what is likely a common affliction. Inability to stay out of the situation entirely combined with a lack of the resolve necessary to effectively deal with a lethal threat.

[Mr_White]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the situation, but I see here what is likely a common affliction. Inability to stay out of the situation entirely combined with a lack of the resolve necessary to effectively deal with a lethal threat.

No I think that's exactly right. People need to get ALL THE WAY OUT or ALL THE WAY IN - and be ready to switch when the situation dictates. We can 'become entangled' into the situation too, but a lot of people unconsciously put themselves half-in, half-out, and that is a very bad place to be in any conflict.

[HCM]

Indeed. Many mistakes were made...but I think those are common mistakes that many would make. This was something of an ambiguous situation, at least when the would-be Good Samaritan got involved.

I think a lot of people are just like this. Staying out of a situation is certainly a legit strategy and a safe one, but how many people are going to keep themselves out of a situation where there is a bloody gunshot victim screaming for help?

Under unfamiliar stress it's easy to fixate on a course of action suggested by our amygdala and then second guess it a few seconds in. And a lot of people, it seems to me, expect pointing a gun at somebody to be effective.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the situation, but I see here what is likely a common affliction. Inability to stay out of the situation entirely combined with a lack of the resolve necessary to effectively deal with a lethal threat.

Agreed with the need for decisiveness - all the way in or all the way out.

Another issue is closing with suspects while confronting them due to the illusion of control. It's is common, even among cops who should know better.

[GRV]

[snip]

To be honest, it's situations and videos like this that I've becoming increasingly less interested in spending my exposure time on. As someone with little to no experience, I find it too difficult to pick apart which elements are performed well and which were bad ideas, unless an experienced person gives detailed commentary. Over time, I'm slowly growing to be able to discern that difference, I think, but it's not from watching these videos.

Moreover, I think we too often create false dichotomies with these ELL-like situations. The language of this thread is already tending towards "get involved" vs. "don't get involved". A totally reasonable response would have been to let this guy drive off, remember the plate, and then go care for the actual victim. Is that "get involved" or is it "don't get involved"? I'd say it has elements of both; it simply doesn't fit into the dichotomy. That isn't intended to be a MMQB, but rather to point out that the solution space for these problems is far richer than the binary one that tends to get assigned to them in these sorts of discussions. (I don't mean to pick on anyone with that comment.)

Personally, I have found that these videos and the discussions and literature surrounding them suggest precisely these sorts of binary "switch" modes of problem solving, which I have come to believe are inherently fraught with peril. Instead, it seems to me that these interactions are best managed in a very organic, human, and yet carefully analytical way, which does not seem to be well represented in the well-defined, pigeon-holed type discourse that I have come to associate with online discussions of use of force.

[Ronin_Jedi]

To be honest, it's situations and videos like this that I've becoming increasingly less interested in spending my exposure time on.

.....

Personally, I have found that these videos and the discussions and literature surrounding them suggest precisely these sorts of binary "switch" modes of problem solving, which I have come to believe are inherently fraught with peril. Instead, it seems to me that these interactions are best managed in a very organic, human, and yet carefully analytical way, which does not seem to be well represented in the well-defined, pigeon-holed type discourse that I have come to associate with online discussions of use of force.

Or much of anything else in life. There relative few moments when it's purely black/white, right/wrong instead of something a bit more nuanced.

YMMV

Sent from my Sero 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Randy Harris]

A totally reasonable response would have been to let this guy drive off, remember the plate, and then go care for the actual victim. Is that "get involved" or is it "don't get involved"?

You said what I was getting ready to type...

You can do SOMETHING smart by getting tag number (and she already knew who he was ) and then getting in a rep of using your blow out kit to treat her injury and stabilize her until the EMS arrives. If you were not initially involved in the confrontation and he is leaving then the argument can be made that you don't need to interject yourself and start it back up and create a situation where others might get hit by errant gunfire.

In Tennessee it is not lawful to affect a citizens arrest using deadly force unless defending yourself or others and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 99.9% of folks don't really have a firm grasp of the nuances of Tennessee v Garner in regard to shooting fleeing perpetrators. In this case, at the point that dude is leaving, the argument can be made that he is no longer a danger to the woman he shot (or you) and that using your firearm to confront him MIGHT even be viewed as unlawful.

As Mr White said...If you are going to get in, you probably need to get ALL IN or don't get in at all because hesitation can get you killed. And then there is the old "Dog chasing the car"...what exactly do you plan to do once you catch it? Sometimes being a good witness and maybe helping treat injuries (if you know how) is the best thing you can do to help.

[TCinVA]

Personally, I have found that these videos and the discussions and literature surrounding them suggest precisely these sorts of binary "switch" modes of problem solving, which I have come to believe are inherently fraught with peril. Instead, it seems to me that these interactions are best managed in a very organic, human, and yet carefully analytical way, which does not seem to be well represented in the well-defined, pigeon-holed type discourse that I have come to associate with online discussions of use of force.

The bit you are missing with that is that the binary decision making model is what people revert to under life or death stress.

It's by no means optimal, but it is reality. There is a reason why we put fighter pilots and guys who hunt terrorists through millions of dollars worth of training that ingrains helpful practices to the subconscious level. And those are the people who have made it into the program after a very thorough winnowing process that weeds out a majority of people who even care to attempt it in the first place. From a raw material standpoint they are the best possible case...and then we expend tens of thousands of man hours and hundreds of millions of dollars training them to wade into messy situations and manage them effectively. And even then, the formal training only gets them so far. They are apprenticed by longer serving, experienced personnel that add the benefit of their first hand experience as well as watching what those guys do in the real thing.

From a dispassionate perspective, yeah...there are loads of ways to handle the Walgreens shooting that were better than what the Good Samaritan did. It is highly unlikely, though, that he was mentally in a place where his rational brain was operating well enough to recognize those. Under life or death stress the smart part of the human brain that invents smart phones and vaccines shuts down and the amygdala response comes to the fore. In that state if the person hasn't programmed in some useful stuff they aren't likely to improvise some on the spot.

Watch this:


http://youtu.be/thUR9rJoFHE

I'm convinced that the guy with the knife was not trying to gut those three officers. I'm betting he was trying to escape. When his brain went into OH SHIT mode, he didn't stop to consider that perhaps charging directly at three police officers with drawn guns would end badly for him. I'm betting that his brain was fixated on escape and I'm betting that since he didn't take the time to mentally acknowledge an emergency exit, that door was the only door in his collapsed universe.

The police, arriving on scene already wary because of the nature of the call, went into OH SHIT mode, too. They see a dude coming at them with a weapon. It's perfectly plausible that the guy wanted to get away, but when a dude already in the middle of a violent felony is making right for you with a weapon it is perfectly reasonable to believe he means to kill you with it.

Note how this went down. Rationally speaking, nobody flings bullets in their buddy's direction because that's fucking stupid. Everybody knows this. In OH SHIT mode, however, two trained (but not to the standard I mentioned earlier...key) police officers fired shots in the immediate vicinity of the first guy through the door. The first guy through the door recognizes that bullets are incoming and his OH SHIT moment gets worse. He instinctively reacts by trying to get away from the bullets.

If anybody in that shit show was operating with basic reason in place, it wouldn't have looked like that. Everybody was operating in OH SHIT mode. Unfamiliar levels of stress with life on the line and even the trained dudes were doing sub-optimal shit that very narrowly missed killing the wrong person.

Yeah, careful analytical management of dangerous situations would be awesome...but that is not how our biology works.

ELL is, I believe, a splendid demonstration of this. I'm a pretty rational guy. I'm a pretty well trained guy. I tend to be able to keep my head and operate effectively in situations where others are not. Despite all of this, when thrown into the ELL scenario I did a lot of sub-optimal shit that I didn't even consciously recognize I was doing. I missed opportunities that were blatantly obvious after the fact, when the rest of my brain rejoined the party. I could literally feel the situation spiraling beyond my capacity to manage it, and I could literally feel my brain shrinking to the most primal elements.

The point of ELL is to acquaint people with what human beings actually do under stress. It is designed to tax the primary role player's dwindling mental resources and acquaint them with the reality of what they've got left when that happens. It's not a coincidence that the best performer in the ELL I attended was a guy who had been through that exclusive, expensive, and time consuming process I mentioned earlier.

The exact same series of events can produce radically different levels of stress depending on the person in the problem and what level of preparation they have. Somebody coming through the door with a gunshot wound screaming for help is going to trigger a pretty significant stress response for most folks. Would it be enough to shut my rational brain down? Probably not. I'm a little better prepared than most and I have actually been the person with a gunshot wound before and managed that ok enough. And, crucially, if I'm in Walgreens my gun is on me, not in my truck. Because I expected something like this might happen. The average untrained or minimally trained person, though? They're likely going to be thunderstruck.

Non intervention isn't being advocated or discussed because it's necessarily the optimal option. It's being advocated because most people simply do not have the resources to wade into a situation with some level of ambiguity and manage it without becoming very quickly overwhelmed by the circumstances and left vulnerable. They also often lack the certainty and resolve necessary to decisively solve the problem IF they recognize that it's no longer ambiguous. In the ELL I attended and in other FOF scenarios I've participated in, I've seen countless people with a gun in their hand unsure of what to do with it. They felt threatened enough to get it out, but then seem flummoxed that merely pulling it didn't solve the problem. They are unsure of what to do next and in that state they are incredibly vulnerable and quite often end up getting shot because with the gun in hand they didn't seem to be able to understand when it was time to actually pull the trigger.

I'll put it like this: Self defense is a simple problem. A skell sticking a gun in your face is a very dangerous problem, but crucially also a very simple one well within the scope of most people's capacity to handle. Intervention as a third party, however, can become MASSIVELY more complex very quickly and the stakes can ratchet up along with the complexity. Then suddenly someone is trying to play chess with a brain barely able to do tic-tac-toe. If that. This is one of the key reasons why police officers, almost always called to the scene as a third party, end up shooting more of the wrong people than ordinary joes. When an ordinary joe is assaulted by a violent criminal the ordinary joe knows who the bad guy is. The cop responding does not.

Once you are involved, you are not a little bit involved. You are involved. The decision to be involved in the first place has a tendency, under the kind of stress we're talking about here, to suck you ever further into the situation. Recognizing that something is quickly spinning out of control and then extricating oneself from the problem is often beyond the capacity of an individual experiencing this level of stress.

[SouthNarc]

Great post Tim and you've summed up the intentions of the Experiential Learning Lab very well.

[GRV]

Firstly, my choice of labeling the switch "get involved" and "don't get involved" wasn't optimal. I mostly agree with what's being said about the binary nature of committing to decisions, and that the halfway point gets people into trouble. What I mean to say though, is that we tend to boil these situations down into "draw gun" or "don't get involved". When the bell of "not all problems are gun problems" rings loudly enough, it becomes "use X batbelt tool" or "don't get involved". Or it's "use X hand to hand technique", or "use verbal judo" or whatever.

We are exceedingly tactic and tool focused. When I say "we" I mean the self-defense community at large. I don't think we discuss enough strategy, and I think it's a lack of strategic planning that leads to people in these situations sitting frozen, behind the curve, unsure of what to do. Because, they are presented with situations that aren't any of the clear-cut scenarios that can be unambiguously handled with specific tactics. They don't get the scenarios that they've trained in their head over and over again. They have no strategy and are ill-equipped to form one, whether gradually or spontaneously, and so the tactics brain is sitting there screaming "tell me what to do!".


A skell sticking a gun in your face is a very dangerous problem, but crucially also a very simple one well within the scope of most people's capacity to handle. Intervention as a third party, however, can become MASSIVELY more complex very quickly and the stakes can ratchet up along with the complexity.

Agreed. I think the primal, binary mode is going to be most wired when you have someone literally threatening your life right now. And, in that situation, it's probably fine, maybe even beneficial. This is one of those scenarios that most everyone on this forum has played through their head over and over again. We've probably all played this scenario out mentally, with blue guns, and in livefire. We have a specific, tactical response. But, I'm guessing it's not the situation we are most likely to encounter.

When we say "ELL type" scenarios, I think we are all talking about the latter kind, the much more ambiguous and potentially third-party type of situation. If you are not about to be seriously hurt or killed, if you have the luxury of choosing between "get involved" and "don't get involved", then the fact is that you have enough time to problem solve and think rationally. Whether or not you are capable of doing so under the circumstances is a separate issue.

I do not think humans are incapable of being rational in these situations. Plain and simple. That sounds too much like "it's impossible to use your sights in real life" to me.

I do however agree that it requires conditioning, that it is not the natural automatic way humans react, and that the sort of rational action that is possible is not going to be the sort of coolness one has with zero stress.

I think we need to condition our bodies to respond to fear and other associated emotions in very careful, specific ways. For those of us on here that haven't been handpicked to go through ninja training, we're not going to get the same level of exposure-based conditioning. That's true. Instead, we have to use the other opportunities our lives afford us, however small. We experience stress, fear, anxiety, etc. in our normal lives. We can use those as opportunities to condition our minds to respond to those emotions in desirable ways. Is it going to automatically make us smooth operators when shit goes sideways? No. But, if you can't learn to stay or quickly become mentally cool when the dog knocked over the orange juice and saturated the notarized document that's due at work today that you spent all week scavenger hunting for signatures on........then it seems unlikely you'll be able to stay cool in a gunfight, or when some dude is kicking the shit out of his wife, or whatever. It's not ninja training, but we're not all afforded ninja training.

I do think part of the point of ELL is to say "Look! You suck!". And that's an extremely valuable point. However, if that was the only point of Craig's style of training, then frankly, long-term repeated visits wouldn't be worth the time or the money. While his training certainly has tactical instruction too, I think the larger framework is meant to give people a small dose of the sort of exposure-based training that ninjas get. It gives you opportunities to experience stress and try to problem solve without having massive penalties for messing up. It gives you a chance to try to think strategically. So, I think part of the value is probably that you can experiment and see what happens if you choose not to draw in some scenario without being afraid of dying if you're wrong. It's a halfway point between the dog with the orange juice and ninja training for conditioning yourself to stay rational under stress. I'd bet that someone who has spent tons of time training with Craig, trying to approach it rationally, is capable of being more rational in the real situations than we are giving credit to the civilian human brain.

The bottom line is, there's no substitute for exposure and experience. Watching these videos and picking apart what they did wrong and how one would have done it tactically differently doesn't seem like it nets much (I'm not saying it's worthless though); watching videos of people who handle these situations well and rationally seems like it has more value to offer; and practicing staying rational under situations that are just at the edge of what one is capable of staying rational under seems like it has the most value to offer. Doing that over and over again seems like it'd probably push that edge further out.

With regards to videos of the right thing, since I've been harping on that, I'd like to point out the deputy sheriff thing again. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20226-Deputy-Involved-Shooting. I think the most eye-opening and critical moment in that video is at ~1:08. You can hear the slide rack and he says something like "Matt, come here." in the most normal voice imaginable. I think that is the moment that defined how that fight was going to go. Watching UoF videos and reading things and so on would have conditioned my brain to think that going all tactical superhero, elbows out, dog voicing "GUN! GET DOWN. GET OUT THE WAY!" was the only option, or the right option. But, I think something as simple as vocalizing in such a calm way is serious ammunition towards getting your brain to act rationally.

TC, can you tell us a little bit about how the Maverick ninja dude dealt with the ELL situation? It doesn't have to be super detailed, but I'm very interested in that.

As I've said before, I don't know crap about any of this, and I've repeatedly eaten my foot, but thinking out loud and getting the wrong beaten out of me is just the way I learn, so I apologize in advance if this post is out of line or steps on anyone's toes.

[Mr_White]

A few things come to mind.

Excellent post Tim, I agree. Lots of points very well made there.

Ambiguity is really tough. It can cause a lot of hesitation. There are huge chances to make factual errors and errors of judgment. One of the simplest and most effective ways to manage ambiguity is to not deal with it, by avoiding/disengaging/leaving. This works especially well when we have no responsibility to confront the situation and the situation does not directly confront us, like in the third-party intervention under discussion.

Ambiguity can't be wholly avoided, because as has been pointed out, there is nuance in life, and also sometimes an ambiguous situation confronts us directly and it may be physically difficult to simply leave. So it's good to learn to deal with it, but it's not an easy thing to learn to deal with - communication under stress, serial decisionmaking under stress, management of physical space and barriers, use of force and/or deadly force, escalation and deescalation of force (and more) may all be involved. A lot of people PUT THEMSELVES into ambiguous situations unnecessarily, but simply do not have the decisionmaking ability or physical solutions available to effectively deal with the problem that emerges, the true nature of which may not have been apparent at the outset.

Leaving at the earliest opportunity is easy to teach and frequently is also easy to physically accomplish, which makes it a very practical solution.

There is a whole range of 'getting involved', certainly. But we are not the sole arbiter of how much we get involved. The other involved parties decide that too. Might seem like a good idea to get a license plate number or description and call in the incident. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad idea. But there can be subtlety even with that. Do we have to get closer to read the license plate, get a person's description, or ascertain their direction of travel? Like, closer at all? That person could easily decide to go after us because they saw us getting their plate number. How is society going to see it if we then are subsequently put in serious danger by that person and have to use deadly force to protect ourselves?

How other people see our actions has a lot to do with whether they think the situation ultimately had a good or bad outcome.

Zimmerman got credit from almost no one for his intended 'limited involvement' of following someone he found suspicious (ambiguous) from what he thought was a safe distance, in order to call in an accurate description and location. Almost everyone, from the training community to society-at-large, said that he should never have exited his vehicle. Had that incident gone completely differently - suppose the description he called in simply led to the arrest of a person responsible for burglaries in that gated community - I think a lot of people would have been saying 'Way to go GZ, good job being eyes and ears for the police!'

My main point is just that ambiguity can be really hard to manage if we choose (or are forced) to deal with it at all, and the cleanest and most reliable way to manage ambiguity is to leave or otherwise avoid it, if physically possible. If we ARE going to deal with it, it is a good idea to have acknowledged its difficulty and unpredictability, and explored some of the possible eventualities through a lot of training and/or experience. Being boiled alive by getting into water that seems manageable initially but is heating up in a hurry is a serious danger. Look at the sum total of training, tools, and teamwork employed by police forces. That sum total is present largely to manage the absolute mess that can predictably arise from inserting oneself into ambiguous situations and trying to sort them out.

[Mr_White]

TC, can you tell us a little bit about how the Maverick ninja dude dealt with the ELL situation? It doesn't have to be super detailed, but I'm very interested in that.

Trying to get in with this prediction before TCinVA responds (and I don't know what the real answer is): I'd bet a dollar that he avoided/disengaged/LEFT immediately, whereas almost everyone else got boiled alive. Curious to hear what TC says though.

[GRV]

In his Violent Actors class, William Aprill made a big deal about "If you're going to get involved, you better be able to punch your weight.". While part of that is about being physically capable of handling the conflict, I think another huge part of that is being able to mentally work through the ambiguity and deal with the unknown uncontrollables one signs up for with such involvement, as Mr_White is saying.

[Mr_White]

the clear-cut scenarios that can be unambiguously handled

What's clear to one person can be very ambiguous to another person who lacks the knowledge, training, and/or experience that helps clarify the ambiguity and be ready for likely branching of the situation.

---

IMHO, three of the most important experiences to impart to students in foundational, defensive firearms decisonmaking training are:

FLIP THE SWITCH and take action to defend yourself when confronted with a clear, unavoidable deadly threat. Seems dumb maybe, but a lot of people fail to protect themselves against a hostile person advancing with a knife or other contact weapon, or a clear threat with a gun in hand that isn't firing at them (yet.)

REFRAIN FROM USING OR THREATENING DEADLY FORCE when confronted with a situation that inspires fear, but does not rise to the level of requiring and justifying a deadly force response. There needs to be an appropriate response to a roughly physically equal person angrily approaching or confronting us - such as avoidance/deescalation/disengagement where possible, or simple physical force like OC or empty hands.

CHOOSE TO AVOID an ambiguous situation that they are ill-equipped (with training, experience, team, and/or tools) to manage. When people come upon an in-progress physical altercation that they did not witness the beginning of, they often take the side of the person who currently appears to be losing. That may not be the right side. Frequently, there isn't a 'right side' to take.

Those are three of the foundational training experiences I would most want a student to have. There are lots of places to go from there, but those are what I would start with.

---

Let's look at the Walgreen's intervention that spurred this most recent round of discussion:

"We" witness an apparent dispute that involves one party shooting another. The shooter tries to leave. We decide to...what, detain the shooter I guess...so we get a gun in hand and issue commands. The shooter exits the vehicle, holding a gun, does not respond to commands, and closes distance toward us, where we can expect a typically bad pistol shooter to be able to reliably hit. How much more information do we need to make a shooting decision at that point? (And this is now separate from the earlier discussion of whether to intervene at all.) Apparently it was not enough information for this guy, since the shooter got close enough to 'slap the gun out of his hand and shoot him in the head.'

Ambiguous or not? Depends on who is doing the looking. To me, it's ALL IN or ALL OUT (in terms of confronting involved parties or for that matter even remaining at the scene.) One of the likely branches to confronting an armed person and issuing commands is that they immediately try to shoot you. If we're not ready to respond appropriately to that possibility, in the context of this particular situation, I'm calling that half-in, half-out.

[SouthNarc]

What Ninja dude did was execute flawless verbal problem solving with such convincing gravitas that Tiffany just did what he told her to do.

ELL role players have latitude to branch the scenario anyway they want to based on how they feel. So it can truly go any direction. I never know EXACTLY what's going to happen. That's what makes the process so enriching.

The moment was so sublime and dare I say so elegant that no one watching really knew what just happened.

[Wondering Beard]

I am the furthest thing from a ninja tac bearded dude but when it comes to being a third party in some mess, whatever one's choice of intervention vs non intervention, take a long deep breath, take the time to really see what is happening in front of you and then decide. The first two Os of the OODA loop really matter.

If it's happening too fast for anyone of us to make sense of things, maybe we shouldn't intervene at all.

[voodoo_man]

I am the furthest thing from a ninja tac bearded dude but when it comes to being a third party in some mess, whatever one's choice of intervention vs non intervention, take a long deep breath, take the time to really see what is happening in front of you and then decide. The first two Os of the OODA loop really matter.

If it's happening too fast for anyone of us to make sense of things, maybe we shouldn't intervene at all.

If you are on the observation part of OODA, you are reacting, technically speaking unless we are initiating the action (preferably in order to break/interfere with someone else's loop) we are always going to see things that are happening too fast to make sense of.

This is where training, mental preparation / mindset, and overall willingness to get into the fight are important.

[Erik]

What Ninja dude did was execute flawless verbal problem solving with such convincing gravitas that Tiffany just did what he told her to do.

ELL role players have latitude to branch the scenario anyway they want to based on how they feel. So it can truly go any direction. I never know EXACTLY what's going to happen. That's what makes the process so enriching.

The moment was so sublime and dare I say so elegant that no one watching really knew what just happened.

Is there video of this and, if so, can it be posted without violating permissions?

[SouthNarc]

If it's happening too fast for anyone of us to make sense of things, maybe we shouldn't intervene at all.

One thing that good interdisciplinary, immersive, experiential training does is help to slow things down. A good practitioner should be able to see, think, and act faster if the training is well done. A good role player with emotional flexibility within the scenario is key in developing this. When I do primary role play I immediately know who is pointing a gun at me with every intention of pulling the trigger and who's hiding behind a gun hoping I will go away. From the outside looking in, most people can't tell the difference.

[SouthNarc]

Is there video of this and, if so, can it be posted without violating permissions?


No vid on that one.

[HCM]

Originally Posted by dove
A totally reasonable response would have been to let this guy drive off, remember the plate, and then go care for the actual victim. Is that "get involved" or is it "don't get involved"?

IME binary model works best when you break it down into smaller bites. So in your example above the decision is either "get involved" or "don't get involved" .

If you decide "don't get involved" then once the shooter leaves, that binary decision is complete and your decision to aid the victim is part of new post incident protocol / decision making process.

[Wondering Beard]

If you are on the observation part of OODA, you are reacting, technically speaking unless we are initiating the action (preferably in order to break/interfere with someone else's loop) we are always going to see things that are happening too fast to make sense of.

I would imagine that, generally, if one is a third party (and one is a civilian just ambling around the area, not a cop coming in due to a call), the first things one sees are happening too fast to understand at first. Walking out of the grocery store and suddenly seeing a man attacking a woman, you (me, everyone) is reacting and we would have little to no understanding of the whys, wherefores and all the rest of what is happening. That's the reason for my point; to move from observe to orient takes some time (preferably as little as possible), if you're in no way involved in what is going on, I believe it is a good idea to take as much of that time as possible to really see as much as possible before deciding to get, or not, involved.


This is where training, mental preparation / mindset, and overall willingness to get into the fight are important.

Agreed.

[TCinVA]

I do think part of the point of ELL is to say "Look! You suck!". And that's an extremely valuable point. However, if that was the only point of Craig's style of training, then frankly, long-term repeated visits wouldn't be worth the time or the money. While his training certainly has tactical instruction too, I think the larger framework is meant to give people a small dose of the sort of exposure-based training that ninjas get. It gives you opportunities to experience stress and try to problem solve without having massive penalties for messing up. It gives you a chance to try to think strategically. So, I think part of the value is probably that you can experiment and see what happens if you choose not to draw in some scenario without being afraid of dying if you're wrong. It's a halfway point between the dog with the orange juice and ninja training for conditioning yourself to stay rational under stress. I'd bet that someone who has spent tons of time training with Craig, trying to approach it rationally, is capable of being more rational in the real situations than we are giving credit to the civilian human brain.


Stress inoculation is certainly a significant part of the program, and that is incredibly valuable...especially for the average joes and police officers who will not get exposure to that level of pressure in any other circumstances.

...but the people who show up to ECQC and EWO are a very, very tiny portion of the very, very tiny portion of the people who seek out professional training on their own in the first place.



The bottom line is, there's no substitute for exposure and experience. Watching these videos and picking apart what they did wrong and how one would have done it tactically differently doesn't seem like it nets much (I'm not saying it's worthless though);


I disagree. It's not as valuable as the more visceral taint-bruising experiences Craig gives you, but I think there is a lot of value to be had in examining a shit show and thinking through why it turned out that way. Especially on a forum like this one where there are so many different people who have the requisite knowledge, experience, and intellect to actually work through it. The Walgreens story is exemplar. Most places that mention it is a flat discussion centered around MYOB vs. Sheepdog. Everyone being outcome focused with no discussion on the process. Understanding the process is key to avoiding the unfortunate outcome.



watching videos of people who handle these situations well and rationally seems like it has more value to offer;


There's value to that too...but as I will explain later, when it's done at the highest level there ain't much to see in a video.



With regards to videos of the right thing, since I've been harping on that, I'd like to point out the deputy sheriff thing again. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20226-Deputy-Involved-Shooting. I think the most eye-opening and critical moment in that video is at ~1:08. You can hear the slide rack and he says something like "Matt, come here." in the most normal voice imaginable. I think that is the moment that defined how that fight was going to go. Watching UoF videos and reading things and so on would have conditioned my brain to think that going all tactical superhero, elbows out, dog voicing "GUN! GET DOWN. GET OUT THE WAY!" was the only option, or the right option. But, I think something as simple as vocalizing in such a calm way is serious ammunition towards getting your brain to act rationally.


That video is certainly quite interesting...not so much the deputy's statements but the bad guy's. He expresses surprise that they shot him. I don't know if he'd ever tried that sort of stunt before or not, but there are a lot of people out there who have had a gun pointed at them by somebody who really didn't mean it before. Lots of police officers don't shoot when they could or when they should. Unfortunately lots of cops have pulled guns the same way the FOF participants I describe have, in hope rather than expectation.

Somebody who is willing and able to throw down the instant you give them cause to is rather rare. A lot of bad guys do not expect that. That's why a guy like Tom Givens can grin at a dude scoping a BBQ joint and send him fleeing in terror. Because Tom will shoot a motherfucker. And motherfucker can sense that.

The actions of that deputy make me believe he was a little better prepared than most for what was about to happen. He was vigilant, careful, and when there were signs it was about to get ugly he instantly accepted them and reacted immediately. He didn't have an "OMG is this really happening?" reaction that is so common to the un-prepared. He obviously thought this might happen and he had a solution for the problem. And that dude was going to by-god get solved, and in a hurry.



TC, can you tell us a little bit about how the Maverick ninja dude dealt with the ELL situation? It doesn't have to be super detailed, but I'm very interested in that.


In the opening seconds of the problem, the dude completely disabled the scenario by removing the central figure in the drama that was about to unfold from the location where all the bad stuff was about to happen. If you watched it on video you wouldn't really see anything...that's why it was so brilliant. The guy reacted so fast and so effectively that the host of problems everybody else dealt with never had time to materialize.

My run...well, it didn't go so well. If you look under my user name you will see the words "Murder Machine." I quote that from Craig's washdown of my run.



As I've said before, I don't know crap about any of this, and I've repeatedly eaten my foot, but thinking out loud and getting the wrong beaten out of me is just the way I learn, so I apologize in advance if this post is out of line or steps on anyone's toes.

This forum was created for precisely these kinds of discussions. Don't worry about it. I know you're working through this sincerely with the best of intentions.

[TCinVA]

What Ninja dude did was execute flawless verbal problem solving with such convincing gravitas that Tiffany just did what he told her to do.

ELL role players have latitude to branch the scenario anyway they want to based on how they feel. So it can truly go any direction. I never know EXACTLY what's going to happen. That's what makes the process so enriching.

The moment was so sublime and dare I say so elegant that no one watching really knew what just happened.

I wasn't in the room for this one, as I was awaiting my turn on the merry-go-round of awful, but folks in the room told me the same thing. There was a "Wait...that was it?" reaction to his run.

Dove: Shoot me some contact info and I'll send you a couple of videos I did take of runs following mine that will show the scenario.

[TCinVA]

I would imagine that, generally, if one is a third party (and one is a civilian just ambling around the area, not a cop coming in due to a call), the first things one sees are happening too fast to understand at first. Walking out of the grocery store and suddenly seeing a man attacking a woman, you (me, everyone) is reacting and we would have little to no understanding of the whys, wherefores and all the rest of what is happening. That's the reason for my point; to move from observe to orient takes some time (preferably as little as possible), if you're in no way involved in what is going on, I believe it is a good idea to take as much of that time as possible to really see as much as possible before deciding to get, or not, involved.


The story says that the shot girlfriend came through the front door with a gunshot wound screaming for help.

Now my instinctive reaction would be to Alamo up in case shooter wants to come in and continue the violence. If I control a space or can control a space I'm not going to give it up for the unknown without a good reason to. If my loved ones are in the store with me I have no good reason to venture into unknown territory. This instinctive reaction is the result of time spent in a bunch of shoothouses and the Culpepper Rape Dungeon teaching me how difficult it is to clear and control space working just by myself.

Of course, my gun is on me. If my gun is in the car and there's a shooter on the loose? I can see how "GET TO MY GUN" becomes the dominant impulse even if tactically speaking it's the dumbest option. Would I do that? Probably not.

[ford.304]

In the opening seconds of the problem, the dude completely disabled the scenario by removing the central figure in the drama that was about to unfold from the location where all the bad stuff was about to happen. If you watched it on video you wouldn't really see anything...that's why it was so brilliant. The guy reacted so fast and so effectively that the host of problems everybody else dealt with never had time to materialize.


And *that* is what I think would be the most valuable of all to see -- watching the guy ninja his way through the scenario, then watching everyone else fail, then watch ninja dude again.

[Duelist]

The story says that the shot girlfriend came through the front door with a gunshot wound screaming for help.

Now my instinctive reaction would be to Alamo up in case shooter wants to come in and continue the violence. If I control a space or can control a space I'm not going to give it up for the unknown without a good reason to. If my loved ones are in the store with me I have no good reason to venture into unknown territory. This instinctive reaction is the result of time spent in a bunch of shoothouses and the Culpepper Rape Dungeon teaching me how difficult it is to clear and control space working just by myself.

Of course, my gun is on me. If my gun is in the car and there's a shooter on the loose? I can see how "GET TO MY GUN" becomes the dominant impulse even if tactically speaking it's the dumbest option. Would I do that? Probably not.

"Alamo-up" is probably the best option anyway, with a side of "acquire improvised weapon from the store full of crap I'm standing in."

[11B10]

One thing that good interdisciplinary, immersive, experiential training does is help to slow things down. A good practitioner should be able to see, think, and act faster if the training is well done. A good role player with emotional flexibility within the scenario is key in developing this. When I do primary role play I immediately know who is pointing a gun at me with every intention of pulling the trigger and who's hiding behind a gun hoping I will go away. From the outside looking in, most people can't tell the difference.



Other than years of experience, is there any way a "civilian" can increase their "powers of perception?"

[Tom Givens]

PROPERLY DONE force on force work, like Southnarc's ECQC can go a very long way toward building "synthetic experience". Seeing the actions and reactions of real people under realistic conditions helps form mental images that will be invaluable in a real situation.

A high degree of shooting skill also helps a lot. Training and practice build skill. Skill builds confidence. Confidence leads to coolness. Coolness wins fights.

[11B10]

PROPERLY DONE force on force work, like Southnarc's ECQC can go a very long way toward building "synthetic experience". Seeing the actions and reactions of real people under realistic conditions helps form mental images that will be invaluable in a real situation.

A high degree of shooting skill also helps a lot. Training and practice build skill. Skill builds confidence. Confidence leads to coolness. Coolness wins fights.


Thanks for the response/info, Mr. Givens - your students' results speak for themselves.

[SouthNarc]

Other than years of experience, is there any way a "civilian" can increase their "powers of perception?"


Tom beat me to it buddy.

[KeeFus]

Training and practice build skill. Skill builds confidence. Confidence leads to coolness. Coolness wins fights.

^^^^^ This!

[AMC]

Years ago I was taught the mantra in regards to use-of-force training : "Training breeds Competence. Competence breeds Confidence. Confidence breeds Calm. Calm leads to good decisions under pressure." Unfortunately for institutional training programs, most decision makers never develop those skills themselves, and do not see their value. Indeed, most view training with a skeptical if not hostile attitude. I have been flat out told that "If we teach cops to shoot well, then they're gonna shoot more!" The answer to them is not to train, and now to emphasize "de-escalation" over all. This is the main stumbling block to improving institutional programs, in my opinion, over and above budget restrictions.

[GRV]

...but the people who show up to ECQC and EWO are a very, very tiny portion of the very, very tiny portion of the people who seek out professional training on their own in the first place.


Sure. Maybe I'm just misreading you. My thought is that with enough of that kind of training, you can remain cool enough in those situations to stay relatively in the rational part of the brain. One trip to ECQC is certainly not what I mean by "enough".

Maybe what you're trying to say is most people, who will not have that training, will not be capable of being rational in those situations? In which case, I entirely agree.




I disagree. It's not as valuable as the more visceral taint-bruising experiences Craig gives you, but I think there is a lot of value to be had in examining a shit show and thinking through why it turned out that way. Especially on a forum like this one where there are so many different people who have the requisite knowledge, experience, and intellect to actually work through it. The Walgreens story is exemplar. Most places that mention it is a flat discussion centered around MYOB vs. Sheepdog. Everyone being outcome focused with no discussion on the process. Understanding the process is key to avoiding the unfortunate outcome.


Funny enough, I agree with what you're saying here. I've been trying to emphasize the qualifier "with detailed experienced commentary".

But, I there's still a pretty strong negative feeling I have about it:



There's value to that too...but as I will explain later, when it's done at the highest level there ain't much to see in a video.


Even with detailed commentary, I do not trust the written word of experienced people to convey how these situations hypothetically should have been handled. I pretty firmly believe that repeatedly watching these epic fail vids---with any amount of commentary of any quality---without also seeing copious example of what the right thing looks (and sounds) like, is apt to trap people up who now think they know right from wrong in these scenarios but still have their head up their ass with respect to them. I say that as one of those people with their head up their ass about these scenarios.



Somebody who is willing and able to throw down the instant you give them cause to is rather rare. A lot of bad guys do not expect that. That's why a guy like Tom Givens can grin at a dude scoping a BBQ joint and send him fleeing in terror. Because Tom will shoot a motherfucker. And motherfucker can sense that.


That's one of those qualities that I think we simply do not do enough justice to by repeatedly talking about it. I think it needs to be seen first hand to be truly understood.




In the opening seconds of the problem, the dude completely disabled the scenario by removing the central figure in the drama that was about to unfold from the location where all the bad stuff was about to happen. If you watched it on video you wouldn't really see anything...that's why it was so brilliant. The guy reacted so fast and so effectively that the host of problems everybody else dealt with never had time to materialize.


Ironically, post-mortem from my ELL scenario, after much thought, that's exactly what I decided one of the best solutions would have been... I wonder how similar the scenarios were. Needless to say, that's not what I did in the moment, and as Mr_White so eloquently put, I got boiled, like the rest of the lobsters. But the scenario has had a massive impact on my thought process about this stuff.



(I basically blanket agree with anything I didn't quote.)

[11B10]

Tom beat me to it buddy.



In MY perfect world, I would get as much training as I could with the two S.M.E.'s who answered me here. When you guys post, it's study hour for me.

[11B10]

[QUOTE=Tom Givens;441533]PROPERLY DON

[GRV]

Ironically, post-mortem from my ELL scenario, after much thought, that's exactly what I decided one of the best solutions would have been...

Actually, I think it was Craig that suggested that as one of the options when I was hounding him with questions afterwards. I'm guessing it was ninja dude he was thinking about.

It was a total lightbulb moment for me. It just made so much sense. That's recognizing the real problem in the beginning, then efficiently solving it.

Instead, I got trapped trying to solve the problem I expected it to be. Part of that is the gaming issue and part of that is, I think, that some of the self defense community stuff conditions some of us to think too narrow-mindedly.

It was like a mental tunnel vision as soon as I was given the scenario. I did a thing or two in the beginning to try to break it, but I outran my sights so to speak and moved quicker than I could process the problem, which led to me trying to force a square peg into a round hole, because I had spent so much time reading and thinking about round holes. (Yea, I know, phrasing.)

Really, I think the idea of "avoidance" and maybe "deescalation" or even "don't do stupid things with stupid leople in stupid things" is really a chess game where you need to anticipate 15 moves ahead and see what's likely going to end up causing problems.

Typing that out it seems painfully obvious, and it's stuff I do every day to stay out of trouble (of every kind), and it's certainly saved me from trouble before, but somehow that's not what I did...

For me, I think it goes back to the outrunning my sights analogy. I need to work at a pace where I can make my hits when afforded that time, and I need to get tons of reps to increase that pace. Funny, that's the same thing I'm working on in my shooting :rolleyes: Maybe that's one of those "clue" things I hear so much about.

[Dagga Boy]

"It was a total lightbulb moment for me. It just made so much sense. That's recognizing the real problem in the beginning, then efficiently solving it.

Instead, I got trapped trying to solve the problem I expected it to be. Part of that is the gaming issue and part of that is, I think, that some of the self defense community stuff conditions some of us to think too narrow-mindedly."

I think a certain someone has been harping on the mantra of it is about "problem solving" while most want to focus on "shooting" and how to be better "shooters", because "gun" and things like guns and gear are so much easier to focus on as a means to solve problems than brain training. If "I just had the new super mega whiz bang tier 0 endorsed sights, I will be so much better", when what needs to be focused on is "how do I train my brain to find a sight IF a crisis has de-evolved so bad tactically that I need to shoot, which happens well after the threat Identification, evaluation, and elimination part of the complex problem.

[Jay Cunningham]

"It was a total lightbulb moment for me. It just made so much sense. That's recognizing the real problem in the beginning, then efficiently solving it.

Instead, I got trapped trying to solve the problem I expected it to be. Part of that is the gaming issue and part of that is, I think, that some of the self defense community stuff conditions some of us to think too narrow-mindedly."

I think a certain someone has been harping on the mantra of it is about "problem solving" while most want to focus on "shooting" and how to be better "shooters", because "gun" and things like guns and gear are so much easier to focus on as a means to solve problems than brain training. If "I just had the new super mega whiz bang tier 0 endorsed sights, I will be so much better", when what needs to be focused on is "how do I train my brain to find a sight IF a crisis has de-evolved so bad tactically that I need to shoot, which happens well after the threat Identification, evaluation, and elimination part of the complex problem.

I respect everything you have to say, but the above "mantra" can be disingenuous if context is ignored.

For instance: I could decide to go into every "hardware" thread on PF and say "Indian not arrow, bro." Would that make me like Yoda? I know it would make for a boring forum.

:cool:

Look, if someone with no formal training (who can barely hit a target) is asking about a ZEV disconnector and RMR and KKM comp, then the whole "quit worrying about hardware" advice is perfectly appropriate.

But there is certainly a time and place to discuss hardware, just as there is a time and place to discuss physical conditioning, just as there is a time and place to discuss the ability to solve problems behind a gun.

The reality is that it's many things. To what degree each is important or offers the most bang for the buck depends upon where you currently are on the spectrum.

I've read hundreds (if not thousands) of posts from various highly experienced people on this forum regarding hardware. So let's not pretend that it's not important.

I do agree let's not make it the focal point.

:o

[SLG]

But there is certainly a time and place to discuss hardware, just as there is a time and place to discuss physical conditioning, just as there is a time and place to discuss the ability to solve problems behind a gun.

The reality is that it's many things. To what degree each is important or offers the most bang for the buck depends upon where you currently are on the spectrum.

I've read hundreds (if not thousands) of posts from various highly experienced people on this forum regarding hardware. So let's not pretend that it's not important.

I do agree let's not make it the focal point.

:o


I enjoy discussing hardware, but i guess I fall into the Indian not the arrow camp too often. Dave Sevigney was winning with Glocks using almost entirely stock triggers. You can certainly make the argument that the type of competition he was doing didn't have much to do with defensive training, but I don't think you can argue that he wasn't really shooting well. Is anyone on this forum at his level, circa 2005? If not, then you have room to improve, probably quite a bit, before you have to worry about where to spend your money on a new widget.

I'm not trying to be boring. I'm trying to prevent people from wasting their time and money, while likely making their gun less reliable, all in the name of "improvement".

I genuinely believe that most shooters stunt their development, either by not practicing correctly, or by using inappropriate equipment, that is, equipment that they can't really take advantage of given their skill level. I never cease to meet experienced shooters whose fundamentals are sorely lacking. They almost never realize that is the case on their own.

[Dagga Boy]

I respect everything you have to say, but the above "mantra" can be disingenuous if context is ignored.

For instance: I could decide to go into every "hardware" thread on PF and say "Indian not arrow, bro." Would that make me like Yoda? I know it would make for a boring forum.

:cool:

Look, if someone with no formal training (who can barely hit a target) is asking about a ZEV disconnector and RMR and KKM comp, then the whole "quit worrying about hardware" advice is perfectly appropriate.

But there is certainly a time and place to discuss hardware, just as there is a time and place to discuss physical conditioning, just as there is a time and place to discuss the ability to solve problems behind a gun.

The reality is that it's many things. To what degree each is important or offers the most bang for the buck depends upon where you currently are on the spectrum.

I've read hundreds (if not thousands) of posts from various highly experienced people on this forum regarding hardware. So let's not pretend that it's not important.

I do agree let's not make it the focal point.

:o

You are totally right. Let's get back to "Verbal aggression at gunpoint" and discuss the hardware solutions to that and I ll go sit in the corner and suck my thumb while we figure out the hardware needed to solve the problem of the bad guy not caring about your hardware.

[GRV]

You are totally right. Let's get back to "Verbal aggression at gunpoint" and discuss the hardware solutions to that and I ll go sit in the corner and suck my thumb while we figure out the hardware needed to solve the problem of the bad guy not caring about your hardware.

Muzzle engravings, man.

[HCM]

Muzzle engravings, man.

You joke but I remember reading an article by Mas Ayoob years (decades ?) ago regarding a custom .44 or .45 caliber N frame revolver which had the muzzle polished in order to make the muzzle look HUGE in case you had to point it at someone.

[TCinVA]

It was like a mental tunnel vision as soon as I was given the scenario.


Precisely.

Not necessarily because you were stuck in a mode of thinking, but because you've just put on a face mask and you've been handed a sims Glock. Shit just got real, and your brain can't tell the difference between this scenario and the real thing. Consciously you know it's not the real thing, but your limbic system does not. In other words, the mental equivalent to tunnel vision wasn't happening because you were adhering to dogma. Your ability to think outside the bun was being narrowed by physical processes outside your control. I'm guessing prior to this you hadn't done much FOF training, right?

If we had you hooked up to monitoring equipment I bet we could find every physical marker of stress present when Craig handed you the face mask and the blue Glock.



Really, I think the idea of "avoidance" and maybe "deescalation" or even "don't do stupid things with stupid leople in stupid things" is really a chess game where you need to anticipate 15 moves ahead and see what's likely going to end up causing problems.


The Ninja solution was elegant because he took this problematic eruption away from an unknown environment and dragged it back into a known, safe environment. The problem emerged and he immediately acted to deal with the problem on terms most advantageous to him, which completely defused the rest of the scenario. The fact that his day job involves dealing with lots of bad people who will use a ruse to fix you in place and then spring an ambush might have something to do with that impulse. The fact that his day job involves dealing with said bad people trying to kill him also likely means that he was not feeling anywhere near the level of stress some people were experiencing in the scenario.

He likely felt less stress than I did. On the other hand, I was much cooler in the scenario than many of the other role players. Hence my relativity statements earlier.

[Randy Harris]

This is timely in regards to the discussion here.....
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29

When the Criminal Doesn’t Obey your Commands
Written by Greg EllifritzTopics: News and Tactical Advice

156

EmailShare
SUMOME

Written by: Greg Ellifritz


It’s a rewarding thing to watch my firearms students as they learn and progress. They start with safe gun handling skills, the basics of marksmanship, and learning when it is legally appropriate to shoot someone. If they continue training, they might learn more “tactical” or combative shooting skills. As their abilities improve, they might move on to more scenario oriented classes using role players armed with Simunition or airsoft guns.

During the scenario-oriented classes I teach, students often have the most problems with verbal interactions rather than physical skills. This holds true in both unarmed fighting classes and classes focused on weapon use. Students’ physical skills (either shooting or fighting) are usually good enough that they can “win” the scenarios I create. Where they falter is in the area of verbal interaction.

Students have three basic problems with verbal interaction during the pre-attack phase of a crime about to be committed:

1) They don’t have adequate experience communicating assertively or aggressively. Society rewards people who are compliant and go with the flow. Loud, aggressive, and dominant language is discouraged among civilized people. How many times have you heard a parent scold their child by saying “Use your INSIDE voice”? We just don’t get much practice being aggressive in our daily lives.


Some people need practice in order to act like this…
2) Auditory exclusion kicks in. Under most stressful circumstances, the brain has to prioritize the vast amount of data that it is processing. In most cases, priority will be given to information provided by our sight. Hearing things becomes more difficult as sight is prioritized. Students regularly report that they hear their attackers’ voices sounding like the “Wah Wah Wah” sounds of Charlie Brown’s teacher. They know the attacker is saying something but just don’t have the brain power to devote to listening. It’s hard to communicate assertively if you aren’t picking up the words your attacker may be using.

3) The student’s ego gets involved. This one happens primarily when the attacker either insults the defender or fails to obey the defender’s verbal commands. When either of these things happen, the student often becomes enraged. They stop thinking and get caught up in an ever-escalating yelling match with the criminal. Some criminals will even bait their victims into this escalation game. They know that if they can enrage the victim, he or she is less likely to think clearly.

The first two problems are relatively easy to deal with. Assertive communication can be taught and practiced. Auditory exclusion can be reduced through the “stress-innoculation” effects of repeated scenario training.

It’s the third problem that I have the most difficulty rectifying. I still remember a retired Colonel in the US Army who came through one of my scenario training classes at TDI. The Colonel was confronted with the scenario of finding an unarmed drunk man in his house at night. The scenario was supposed to simulate an event where an intoxicated person stumbled into the wrong house by mistake.

The Colonel, who was an excellent shooter and tactician, pointed his gun at the intruder and ordered him to leave the house. It was a very good judgement call as the “drunk’ was not acting threatening in any way. The fun started when the drunk man refused to leave, saying words to the effect of “Chill out dude. It’s all cool. You don’t need to resort to violence. Come on, I’ll get you a beer.” The Colonel verbally escalated. The drunk just stayed calm and mellow, but refused to leave. The situation became even more heated and the Colonel started yelling. His face was red and he was shaking. He wasn’t scared. He was pissed! The Colonel just wasn’t used to people disobeying his direct orders. He didn’t have a mental map of what he should do because in his experience as a high ranking military officer, people always did exactly what he told them to do.

Unfortunately, criminals aren’t the best listeners…even when they have a gun pointed at their faces. I’ve lost count of how many times a criminal has disobeyed my lawful commands even as a uniformed police officer. I once had a domestic violence suspect try to physically attack me while I was holding him at gunpoint with a shotgun and ordering him to get down on the ground. It’s actually quite common. I’ll bet most of you haven’t really thought about the issue.

A prefect example is the case last week where an 11-year old shot a fleeing burglar who refused the command to stop. What a mess. It was clearly an unjustified shooting. The burglar posed no threat to the kid and was running away. The kid shot 12 9mm bullets at the guy and hit him with one. Where did the others go? Will they prosecute an 11 year old kid? I doubt it. Would they prosecute an adult for doing the same thing? You can bet on it. You can’t just shoot someone because they aren’t following your commands.

What if you confronted a criminal at gunpoint? You order him to the ground. He doesn’t comply, but he doesn’t try to draw a weapon or close the distance on you in any way. What would you do? Shoot him?

I think the best answer is “no”.

As surprising as it sounds, I’ve seen many instances in training where as student gets more and more agitated with the role player’s non-compliance and then just shoots the role player out of sheer frustration. As the student gets ever more enraged at the role player’s audacity in ignoring commands, higher order thought processes become harder to perform. My guess is that’s what happened in the case with the 11-year old linked above. If the student was calm, he might be able to think about an alternate solution. That doesn’t work so well when the student is angry.

Don’t let you ego interfere with your safety. EXPECT the criminal to ignore your commands and have a backup plan for when it happens. Don’t get angry. Don’t allow the criminal to manipulate you by challenging your ego. I’ve seen it happen in both real life and in training. The results are not pretty.

Mentally program yourself right now. Expect criminal non-compliance. Think through your options. If the criminal doesn’t comply, but doesn’t escalate, you generally have a little time to act. At first indication of such an experience, either use the opportunity to escape or transition to another, more appropriate, weapon.

Don’t get angry and do something you might regret in the future.
- See more at: [url]http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29#sthash.2NAtCuv8.dpuf (http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29)

[Randy Harris]

So....what are your contingency plans for non compliance?

[Dagga Boy]

This is timely in regards to the discussion here.....
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29

When the Criminal Doesn’t Obey your Commands
Written by Greg EllifritzTopics: News and Tactical Advice

156

EmailShare
SUMOME

Written by: Greg Ellifritz


It’s a rewarding thing to watch my firearms students as they learn and progress. They start with safe gun handling skills, the basics of marksmanship, and learning when it is legally appropriate to shoot someone. If they continue training, they might learn more “tactical” or combative shooting skills. As their abilities improve, they might move on to more scenario oriented classes using role players armed with Simunition or airsoft guns.

During the scenario-oriented classes I teach, students often have the most problems with verbal interactions rather than physical skills. This holds true in both unarmed fighting classes and classes focused on weapon use. Students’ physical skills (either shooting or fighting) are usually good enough that they can “win” the scenarios I create. Where they falter is in the area of verbal interaction.

Students have three basic problems with verbal interaction during the pre-attack phase of a crime about to be committed:

1) They don’t have adequate experience communicating assertively or aggressively. Society rewards people who are compliant and go with the flow. Loud, aggressive, and dominant language is discouraged among civilized people. How many times have you heard a parent scold their child by saying “Use your INSIDE voice”? We just don’t get much practice being aggressive in our daily lives.


Some people need practice in order to act like this…
2) Auditory exclusion kicks in. Under most stressful circumstances, the brain has to prioritize the vast amount of data that it is processing. In most cases, priority will be given to information provided by our sight. Hearing things becomes more difficult as sight is prioritized. Students regularly report that they hear their attackers’ voices sounding like the “Wah Wah Wah” sounds of Charlie Brown’s teacher. They know the attacker is saying something but just don’t have the brain power to devote to listening. It’s hard to communicate assertively if you aren’t picking up the words your attacker may be using.

3) The student’s ego gets involved. This one happens primarily when the attacker either insults the defender or fails to obey the defender’s verbal commands. When either of these things happen, the student often becomes enraged. They stop thinking and get caught up in an ever-escalating yelling match with the criminal. Some criminals will even bait their victims into this escalation game. They know that if they can enrage the victim, he or she is less likely to think clearly.

The first two problems are relatively easy to deal with. Assertive communication can be taught and practiced. Auditory exclusion can be reduced through the “stress-innoculation” effects of repeated scenario training.

It’s the third problem that I have the most difficulty rectifying. I still remember a retired Colonel in the US Army who came through one of my scenario training classes at TDI. The Colonel was confronted with the scenario of finding an unarmed drunk man in his house at night. The scenario was supposed to simulate an event where an intoxicated person stumbled into the wrong house by mistake.

The Colonel, who was an excellent shooter and tactician, pointed his gun at the intruder and ordered him to leave the house. It was a very good judgement call as the “drunk’ was not acting threatening in any way. The fun started when the drunk man refused to leave, saying words to the effect of “Chill out dude. It’s all cool. You don’t need to resort to violence. Come on, I’ll get you a beer.” The Colonel verbally escalated. The drunk just stayed calm and mellow, but refused to leave. The situation became even more heated and the Colonel started yelling. His face was red and he was shaking. He wasn’t scared. He was pissed! The Colonel just wasn’t used to people disobeying his direct orders. He didn’t have a mental map of what he should do because in his experience as a high ranking military officer, people always did exactly what he told them to do.

Unfortunately, criminals aren’t the best listeners…even when they have a gun pointed at their faces. I’ve lost count of how many times a criminal has disobeyed my lawful commands even as a uniformed police officer. I once had a domestic violence suspect try to physically attack me while I was holding him at gunpoint with a shotgun and ordering him to get down on the ground. It’s actually quite common. I’ll bet most of you haven’t really thought about the issue.

A prefect example is the case last week where an 11-year old shot a fleeing burglar who refused the command to stop. What a mess. It was clearly an unjustified shooting. The burglar posed no threat to the kid and was running away. The kid shot 12 9mm bullets at the guy and hit him with one. Where did the others go? Will they prosecute an 11 year old kid? I doubt it. Would they prosecute an adult for doing the same thing? You can bet on it. You can’t just shoot someone because they aren’t following your commands.

What if you confronted a criminal at gunpoint? You order him to the ground. He doesn’t comply, but he doesn’t try to draw a weapon or close the distance on you in any way. What would you do? Shoot him?

I think the best answer is “no”.

As surprising as it sounds, I’ve seen many instances in training where as student gets more and more agitated with the role player’s non-compliance and then just shoots the role player out of sheer frustration. As the student gets ever more enraged at the role player’s audacity in ignoring commands, higher order thought processes become harder to perform. My guess is that’s what happened in the case with the 11-year old linked above. If the student was calm, he might be able to think about an alternate solution. That doesn’t work so well when the student is angry.

Don’t let you ego interfere with your safety. EXPECT the criminal to ignore your commands and have a backup plan for when it happens. Don’t get angry. Don’t allow the criminal to manipulate you by challenging your ego. I’ve seen it happen in both real life and in training. The results are not pretty.

Mentally program yourself right now. Expect criminal non-compliance. Think through your options. If the criminal doesn’t comply, but doesn’t escalate, you generally have a little time to act. At first indication of such an experience, either use the opportunity to escape or transition to another, more appropriate, weapon.

Don’t get angry and do something you might regret in the future.
- See more at: [url]http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29#sthash.2NAtCuv8.dpuf (http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29)


We didn't address the issue that The Katar would like to focus on here....what kind of pistol did the 11 year old use, sights, trigger system, etc.? I think a red dot and DOW would have made a huge difference in that encounter. Because it's the arrow, not the Indian.

[pablo]

This is timely in regards to the discussion here.....
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29[URL="http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/when-the-criminal-doesnt-obey-your-commands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Act ive+Response+Training%29"]

When the Criminal Doesn’t Obey your Commands
Written by Greg EllifritzTopics: News and Tactical Advice

The PERF people say that if we're just nice to the criminal who doesn't follow the rules, say "please" and "thank you", he'll do whatever we ask of him.

Our 12 gauge bean bag and 37mm sponge guns, were excellent tools in these types of situations. Once the word got out that non-compliance at gunpoint was a good way to get thumped, most of that type of resistance ceased.

[Randy Harris]

Civilians (or off duty police) are probably not going to the store for milk with bean bag rounds as an option....

So for others, what is your contingency plan? We can probably all agree that holstering up and going hands on to convince them to comply at fist point is about the last thing we should do. Would you pepper spray a non compliant person you are holding at gun point (assuming you actually do carry spray as your 24/7 edc)? Do you simply leave them there and evade/escape? We all agree that just yelling louder and approaching them while shaking the gun at them is not any more likely to be any more effective at 3 yards than it was from farther away...so what are some strategies for dealing with it?

Let's say you are not "hiding behind the gun" but are fully prepared to drop the hammer....if necessary....but then due to narcotics/alcohol/felonious dumbassery they are not being fully compliant...but not overtly aggressive either....and you being the conscientious sort are not going to simply execute them for simply being frustrating and contrary.... now what?

[HCM]

Civilians (or off duty police) are probably not going to the store for milk with bean bag rounds as an option....

So for others, what is your contingency plan? We can probably all agree that holstering up and going hands on to convince them to comply at fist point is about the last thing we should do. Would you pepper spray a non compliant person you are holding at gun point (assuming you actually do carry spray as your 24/7 edc)? Do you simply leave them there and evade/escape? We all agree that just yelling louder and approaching them while shaking the gun at them is not any more likely to be any more effective at 3 yards than it was from farther away...so what are some strategies for dealing with it?

Let's say you are not "hiding behind the gun" but are fully prepared to drop the hammer....if necessary....but then due to narcotics/alcohol/felonious dumbassery they are not being fully compliant...but not overtly aggressive either....and you being the conscientious sort are not going to simply execute them for simply being frustrating and contrary.... now what?

Backing off at gunpoint (your evade / escape) is a good option if out and about. If I'm in my home, my aggression will be higher and my threshold for use of force will be lower. The situations are legally or morally equivalent.

[SLG]

Civilians (or off duty police) are probably not going to the store for milk with bean bag rounds as an option....

So for others, what is your contingency plan? We can probably all agree that holstering up and going hands on to convince them to comply at fist point is about the last thing we should do. Would you pepper spray a non compliant person you are holding at gun point (assuming you actually do carry spray as your 24/7 edc)? Do you simply leave them there and evade/escape? We all agree that just yelling louder and approaching them while shaking the gun at them is not any more likely to be any more effective at 3 yards than it was from farther away...so what are some strategies for dealing with it?

Let's say you are not "hiding behind the gun" but are fully prepared to drop the hammer....if necessary....but then due to narcotics/alcohol/felonious dumbassery they are not being fully compliant...but not overtly aggressive either....and you being the conscientious sort are not going to simply execute them for simply being frustrating and contrary.... now what?

Why are you pointing the gun at them in the first place? What happened?

[psalms144.1]

Why are you pointing the gun at them in the first place? What happened?This is a question I've been asking myself a lot lately, and probably worth a thread in and of itself.

While I would NEVER EVER EVER want anyone to second guess their decision to use deadly force in the face of deadly force (or the threat thereof), I think LE and shooters in general are VERY prone to "go to guns" as a default solution, absent a clear lethal force threat.

I don't know the answer to that conundrum, as I'd rather have guns out and not needed than guns holstered and good guys behind the decision curve in a deadly force encounter.

I'm sure someone a LOT smarter than I'll ever be will decode this for us eventually, but right now it's a puzzle to me. And, I hear the choirs tuning up, and if I had a decent intermediate option it would be the solution, but I also remember from way back when that Hicks Law tells me for every option I have to decide between, I double my decision making process.

One of my old Bosses, and the smartest non-academic I've ever met (WAY smarter than most of my professors at Georgetown) was once asked, in an industry conference, what his #1 technology need was. His reply was "a gun that kills someone dead, for 30 minutes, with no long term effects." All of us geeks immediately mumbled "phasers set for stun!" but, we're a long way off from that technology yet...

[Randy Harris]

Why are you pointing the gun at them in the first place? What happened?

The same thing that would usually happen when civilians end up holding people at gunpoint...they either broke into your house , approached you on the street, or you inserted yourself into someone else's problems out in public....Nothing specific. I'm simply asking the question to keep driving the discussion....I already know what I would likely do (or at least what I have done in the past) but I'm curious as to other people's suggestions. I realize that answering blindly to an ill defined problem usually leads to an "aha! You failed" type thing so everyone hesitates to give an answer.....but that is not my intent.

We all know that inserting ourselves into potentially dangerous situations with limited information is less than optimal...yet people still do it. And even if it is a clear cut case of self defense , but the guy drops his weapon...but is not completely compliant, but no longer armed and now running his mouth and now maybe the cell phone videos are starting up....how would you attempt to manage that. Again I'm not trying to "gotcha" anyone. I'm looking for legitimate suggestions from people who are deep thinkers....not the "shoot 'em and drag 'em in the house" crowd.

It could be anything....say you stop at a gas station to hit the restroom and when you walk out of the restroom the cashier is being threatened at knife point. And yes, convenience stores do get robbed at knife point occasionally. There were 2 or 3 instances of this that I know about in my town a couple of years ago. So you take cover (well...concealment...nothing in a convenience store is really cover) and tell him to drop it ....and he does. You then tell him to get on the ground and he does not comply. He just starts talking and telling you that he knows you won't shoot etc etc.....and the 2 other folks in the store start pointing their cell phones running video instead of calling the cops.....now what?

[pablo]

It could be anything....say you stop at a gas station to hit the restroom and when you walk out of the restroom the cashier is being threatened at knife point. And yes, convenience stores do get robbed at knife point occasionally. There were 2 or 3 instances of this that I know about in my town a couple of years ago. So you take cover (well...concealment...nothing in a convenience store is really cover) and tell him to drop it ....and he does. You then tell him to get on the ground and he does not comply. He just starts talking and telling you that he knows you won't shoot etc etc.....and the 2 other folks in the store start pointing their cell phones running video instead of calling the cops.....now what?

If the good guy isn't a uniformed police officer and hasn't positioned himself between the bad guy and the only avenue of escape, at certain point it's time to stop talking, hold that little two square feet of earth he's standing on, wait for the badguy. The badguy voluntarily hanging around, to me indicates he's just looking for an opportunity to kill me. For a lot of turds, talking smack is an important part of the pre-fight warm up process, and giving the same verbal challenge to the same predictable results, is just getting caught in a goofy loop, and helping the bad guy psych himself up for the attack. Letting the bad guy leave is always an option too.

It would probably be better to get to that position of concealment and try to call 911 as discreetly as possible first. It will also help prevent those situations where the good guy gets described as the psycho with a gun by someone who shows up in the middle of act two. It's no different than uniformed officers that get themselves involved in a situation before notifying dispatch, and by the time they get on the radio, they are in way over their heads and screaming for help.

If the good guy can remove himself from the situation, there's no legal and IMO very little moral obligation to protect people that willingly remain in dangerous situations, especial people trying to take cell phone video.

Personally I think it's a bad idea to pass on the opportunity to take out a relatively stationary target in a deadly force encounter, but that's neither here nor there.

[SLG]

The same thing that would usually happen when civilians end up holding people at gunpoint...they either broke into your house , approached you on the street, or you inserted yourself into someone else's problems out in public....Nothing specific. I'm simply asking the question to keep driving the discussion....I already know what I would likely do (or at least what I have done in the past) but I'm curious as to other people's suggestions. I realize that answering blindly to an ill defined problem usually leads to an "aha! You failed" type thing so everyone hesitates to give an answer.....but that is not my intent.

We all know that inserting ourselves into potentially dangerous situations with limited information is less than optimal...yet people still do it. And even if it is a clear cut case of self defense , but the guy drops his weapon...but is not completely compliant, but no longer armed and now running his mouth and now maybe the cell phone videos are starting up....how would you attempt to manage that. Again I'm not trying to "gotcha" anyone. I'm looking for legitimate suggestions from people who are deep thinkers....not the "shoot 'em and drag 'em in the house" crowd.

It could be anything....say you stop at a gas station to hit the restroom and when you walk out of the restroom the cashier is being threatened at knife point. And yes, convenience stores do get robbed at knife point occasionally. There were 2 or 3 instances of this that I know about in my town a couple of years ago. So you take cover (well...concealment...nothing in a convenience store is really cover) and tell him to drop it ....and he does. You then tell him to get on the ground and he does not comply. He just starts talking and telling you that he knows you won't shoot etc etc.....and the 2 other folks in the store start pointing their cell phones running video instead of calling the cops.....now what?

Too much there for me to address on a computer...for the last part, short answer is that I would direct the clerk to call 911, and continue giving appropriate commands to the BG, whether he obeys or not, until A) the police arrive, B) he flees or C) he attacks me. If A happens and he's still there, great. If B happens, oh well. I'll wait for the cops and give a good description of events. If C happens, too many variables to type, but suffice it to say, BG is likely getting shot at some point. Gun will not be going back in the holster under most circumstances.

[Robinson]

Civilians (or off duty police) are probably not going to the store for milk with bean bag rounds as an option....

So for others, what is your contingency plan? We can probably all agree that holstering up and going hands on to convince them to comply at fist point is about the last thing we should do. Would you pepper spray a non compliant person you are holding at gun point (assuming you actually do carry spray as your 24/7 edc)? Do you simply leave them there and evade/escape? We all agree that just yelling louder and approaching them while shaking the gun at them is not any more likely to be any more effective at 3 yards than it was from farther away...so what are some strategies for dealing with it?

Let's say you are not "hiding behind the gun" but are fully prepared to drop the hammer....if necessary....but then due to narcotics/alcohol/felonious dumbassery they are not being fully compliant...but not overtly aggressive either....and you being the conscientious sort are not going to simply execute them for simply being frustrating and contrary.... now what?

I'm glad someone expressed this question in such a manner since I have been thinking about it too but didn't quite know how to post it. I can envision the scenario where someone approaches you in an aggressive manner, ignores initial verbal warnings but then stops overt action if you either move your draw hand to your weapon or draw to a ready position. At that point if the person is not attacking but is also not leaving they are probably testing you or waiting for help. It seems like a grey area and it could turn into a waiting game that is not really to your advantage. If you are by yourself in that situation calling 911 might not be feasible as it would present an opportunity for the person to gain an advantage and possibly attack.

Of course, in the above scenario I may not have even drawn a weapon depending on the specifics.

[Randy Harris]

Of course, in the above scenario I may not have even drawn a weapon depending on the specifics.

And that may well be the best course of action all things considered.... If you can visually monitor without them seeing you and you don't really feel the clerk is in mortal danger then waiting and gathering more intel may be the best plan. Nothing is driving you personally to get involved unless you really think the clerk is going to get stabbed. Now, if we change it to "you went to pee and the wife wanted to get a lottery ticket while you were in the restroom" and suddenly things dramatically change......and the action taken would likely be a bit more...decisive.

The problem with scenarios is they are all different...even when they are essentially the same. Nuance is important. Are the bystanders close to register or far away? Are they clearly not with him or is that a little murky? What does the background look like if you miss? Are you 100% physically or do you have the flu? Did you just come back from Rogers Shooting School that day or was the last time you shot 6 months ago? Or have you just had rotator cuff surgery lately and have pain meds in your system? All these things play a role in decision making process...maybe whether you even get involved at all or not hinges on these things. But then maybe not. Unfortunately a lot of folks are hard wired to charge right in...and that is not always a positive thing.

[HCM]

Personally I think it's a bad idea to pass on the opportunity to take out a relatively stationary target in a deadly force encounter, but that's neither here nor there.

Verbal warning / challenge "if feasible per U.S. Supreme court case law. If I am off duty, alone, with no armor, no radio etc in the situation describe then it's probably not gonna be feasible.

This ties into SLG's other thread about age and wisdom vs youth and enthusiasm.

[Mr_White]

Many thanks to Randy Harris and SLG for contributing specifics to the discussion!

[SouthNarc]

Or have you just had rotator cuff surgery lately and have pain meds in your system?

Did I tell you that story?


Here's another real life ELL:



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/04...ntcmp=obinsite

Soldier shot wife at Walgreens over selfie, police say; armed customer killed
Published May 04, 2016 Associated Press


Ricci Bradden. (Arlington Police Department via AP)

A young soldier shot and wounded his wife outside a Dallas-area store and then gunned down a father of three who grabbed his own gun and tried to make a citizen's arrest, authorities say.

Arlington police say Anthony "T.J." Antell Jr., 35, saw Ricci Bradden shoot at the feet of his wife during an argument Monday outside of a Walgreens where she works, striking her once. She fled inside the store to call for help.

Antell retrieved a handgun from his vehicle and confronted Bradden in an attempt to make a citizen's arrest, but Bradden managed to slap it away and then fatally shot Antell, investigators say.

"What was really traumatic, the Good Samaritan's spouse was here and witnessed this," police Lt. Chris Cook told WFAA-TV. "I can't imagine going through that."

Bradden, a 22-year-old Army private, drove away and later turned himself in to authorities. At one point, he called his commanders at Fort Hood and confessed, according to an arrest warrant.

Bradden's wife, Quinisha Johnson, told WFAA on Tuesday that he came to the store because he was upset by a selfie she posted on social media that he thought made it seem she was seeking attention.

"And I was trying to explain it to him, that I married you. You're all the attention that I needed," she told the station. "And I could feel that he was getting mad, so I tried to walk off, and that's when I heard him pull the gun out."

The couple had only been married about two months.

Bradden was being held Tuesday at the Arlington jail on a murder charge. Online jail records didn't indicate if he had an attorney yet.

Cook said it's difficult to determine when an armed Samaritan should intervene in a deadly situation, The Dallas Morning News reported.

"Any time that you can be the best witness you can be, we always recommend that," he said. "Sometimes things turn out like this when you're trying to stop a bad guy."

Antell was a former Marine and fitness enthusiast who owned a CrossFit gym, according to the family's pastor, Marc Lowrance of Saint John the Apostle United Methodist Church in Arlington.

"He had a great sense of being a defender of what was right, we saw that with his family and with his business," Lowrance said. "He had a great ideal of protecting what was good and what was right."
__________________

[psalms144.1]

Here's another real life ELL:Tragic, in all meanings of the word. First, that the Private felt like shooting at his wife was appropriate because of a "selfie." Second, that the Victim decided to intervene AFTER the wife was out of harms way, and ended up dead over it. There should really be a requirement for "when to intervene" training by some of the smart folks on this forum in all CHL classes. Not that it would help, of course, 'cuz heroes gotta do what heroes gotta do and all...

[TCinVA]

https://youtu.be/yOZgWA4si60

Some of the material mentioned in there I snagged from Craig at AMIS and when I relayed that to some police buddies in my area it was like a lightbulb went on for them. I'm talking about veteran police officers who had been in law enforcement for decades, but had not developed any of those sorts of techniques on their own...because they simply hadn't really dealt with enough criminal violence to make that sort of stuff SOP.

I agree with the earlier mention of testing. If a bad guy is not fleeing but is also not meekly obeying, odds are you are being tested. It's also worthwhile to note that a bad guy can shift between these states. In other words, dude tries to hold you up and you pull out your roscoe and he becomes instantly meek...but then he has the opportunity to watch you and sees that while initially you were ready to punch his ticket now you are stressed and unsure of yourself. You are feeling the effects of adrenaline and you aren't sure exactly what to do. He's had time to come out of the initial shock of staring down the barrel of your gun. You're just starting to feel the real impact of having drawn yours.

I've heard reliable accounts of bad men trying all manner of shit in this state. Someone I know owned a gun store and got to a break-in at night before the local constabulary. (Wasn't the first time he had been robbed) He's armed with a Benelli and initially the criminal prones out and does exactly what he's told. But as they're waiting for the police to show (count on 5 minutes for a good response time...longer is usual) the bad guy starts probing, testing. "You can't shoot me, man! That's murder! They'll lock yo ass up fo' life!" Etc. At one point the bad guy starts to get up from his prone position while still talking shit. At that point the store owner dropped a cheap knife with duct-tape wrapped around the handle on the floor and said "When the police get here, you will be dead and that will be in your hand." Bad guy got real meek and stayed that way until the police arrived.

Now, I would not advocate that course of action. It was effective in that situation because it demonstrated that the guy pointing a shotgun at the dude with the criminal record was more than willing to unload that Benelli the second he had the chance.

I think the stuff Larry and Craig have taught (like making the bad guy pull his shirt up over his head, modulating tone, etc) is effective at communicating key points to the criminal:

- This guy knows what the fuck he's doing
- This guy has been here before
- This guy is probably the wrong hombre to fuck with

[Randy Harris]

Did I tell you that story?

Maybe...;) But I will not confirm nor deny to protect the identities of the not so innocent...

[TCinVA]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=63e_1464729274

Another example of intervention gone wrong.

[scjbash]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=63e_1464729274

Another example of intervention gone wrong.

That was like the unstoppable force of fail meeting the immovable object of fail.

[HCountyGuy]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=63e_1464729274

Another example of intervention gone wrong.

Just going to quote myself from the "Shooting Incidents in the News" thread:


Granted there were some less-than-ideal decisions made, but I don't think I'd fault the guy for initially confronting the deceased in an effort to get him to leave.

I know such intervention is generally advised against, but I think that's one contributing factor to some of today's societal issues.

I apologize for the possible thread drift/derailment, and if this is better suited to its own thread I'll string one together.

These days we're all about keeping our own butts out of trouble it sometimes leaves others flapping in the wind, so to speak. Granted there was likely no immediate physical threat to the cashier, in spite of the chips lobbed at him. But my opinion is that there comes a point someone has to stand up and let it be known that that kind of behavior isn't tolerated. Yeah, we typically hand it off to the police to handle, after all it's more their job. But what happened to the rest of us helping maintain a societal standard?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." To many, calling 911 is doing something, but my opinion is that it's a cop out, no pun intended. I'm not suggesting interjecting ourselves into every petty altercation, but at some point there's a necessity for a self-policing society (again, my opinion).

At the risk of potentially insulting some of those far braver than I and who have done far more to help society than I'm likely to accomplish, it's as if our backbones have disappeared because of a fear of a lawsuit or potentially escalating the situation. What ever happened to sticking up for the "little guy"?

/rant off

[SLG]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=63e_1464729274

Another example of intervention gone wrong.

What went wrong? The tactics were not great, but the outcome was ok. Not really an unknown, but a classic MUC, followed by upright slightly entangled shooting, ruled justified.

[BaiHu]

I just have been holding this back for too long: man shot dead after a-salting gas n sip owner.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Robinson]

Man, I have mixed feelings about that video. I guess I can see why the shooting was ruled justified, but if I were in that same position I don't think I would have drawn a weapon. Of course I think the situation was made more complicated due to the fact the shooter was carrying openly, which I don't do. I'm pretty sure I would have gone hands on with the guy in that scene based his type of aggressive actions. Would the judge/jury consider this situation as disparity of force due to the size difference?

I think the conflict in my mind about that video comes from two things: On one hand, I would not have felt very threatened by the guy who was being aggressive so I would feel pretty confident in my ability to defend against him without a weapon. On the other hand, it might not be smart to engage in a physical altercation while carrying a gun -- which could push your response more in that direction. Grey area?

[BaiHu]

Legally justified? Yes. Best practice? No. All else I feel is an "I wasn't there and I probably wouldn't be involved other than driving off while calling 911." The guy didn't get physical until the OC guy stepped in. People are assholes. Some people need a stomping some just need to be ignored.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[HCountyGuy]

In my opinion, the fact the guy was OCing had little bearing on the outcome. Hell, all he did was tell the guy off and try to get a tag number. The deceased was a raging prick who was likely to wind up dead soon anyway based off his willingness to engage a visibly armed individual. I could imagine he'd have fought any officer who showed up to deal with him.

Shooter at least showed considerable restraint in waiting to shoot. Many an average carrier would've started poking holes the instant the deceased got up-close.

[Robinson]

In my opinion, the fact the guy was OCing had little bearing on the outcome. Hell, all he did was tell the guy off and try to get a tag number. The deceased was a raging prick who was likely to wind up dead soon anyway based off his willingness to engage a visibly armed individual. I could imagine he'd have fought any officer who showed up to deal with him.

Shooter at least showed considerable restraint in waiting to shoot. Many an average carrier would've started poking holes the instant the deceased got up-close.

I somewhat disagree though perhaps not strongly. If open carrying, the visible firearm becomes something to protect/retain and practically takes unarmed self defense off the table. Now it may be that the shooter felt he was in great danger from a larger more powerful antagonist, making an armed response justifiable.

[Randy Harris]

The same thing that would usually happen when civilians end up holding people at gunpoint...they either broke into your house , approached you on the street, or you inserted yourself into someone else's problems out in public....Nothing specific. I'm simply asking the question to keep driving the discussion....I already know what I would likely do (or at least what I have done in the past) but I'm curious as to other people's suggestions. I realize that answering blindly to an ill defined problem usually leads to an "aha! You failed" type thing so everyone hesitates to give an answer.....but that is not my intent.

We all know that inserting ourselves into potentially dangerous situations with limited information is less than optimal...yet people still do it. And even if it is a clear cut case of self defense , but the guy drops his weapon...but is not completely compliant, but no longer armed and now running his mouth and now maybe the cell phone videos are starting up....how would you attempt to manage that. Again I'm not trying to "gotcha" anyone. I'm looking for legitimate suggestions from people who are deep thinkers....not the "shoot 'em and drag 'em in the house" crowd.

It could be anything....say you stop at a gas station to hit the restroom and when you walk out of the restroom the cashier is being threatened at knife point. And yes, convenience stores do get robbed at knife point occasionally. There were 2 or 3 instances of this that I know about in my town a couple of years ago. So you take cover (well...concealment...nothing in a convenience store is really cover) and tell him to drop it ....and he does. You then tell him to get on the ground and he does not comply. He just starts talking and telling you that he knows you won't shoot etc etc.....and the 2 other folks in the store start pointing their cell phones running video instead of calling the cops.....now what?



And a local story this morning that appears to be strikingly similar to my hypothetical...and no, I was not the shooter......

http://www.wdef.com/2016/06/30/shooting-armed-robbery-east-ridge-gas-station/

SHOOTING DURING ARMED ROBBERY AT EAST RIDGE CONVENIENCE STORE
0 Comments for this article
By: Collins Parker Submitted: 06/30/2016 - 7:36am Buy This Video
Kangaroo Shooting
UPDATE: East Ridge Police now say the robbery suspect held up with store with a large, bladed weapon.

He got cash and a large number of cigarettes.

Police say the suspect grabbed the female store clerk, threatened to kill her and forced her to accompany him as he fled.

That’s when a customer arrived, witnessed the robbery, confronted the suspect and then shot him at least once in the torso.

—————————————-

EAST RIDGE, Tenn. (WDEF) – East Ridge police investigate an early morning shooting at the Kangaroo convenience store on Ringgold Road.

Police say it happened during an armed robbery attempt.

Apparently a customer go into a confrontation with the suspected robber.

And the customer shot the robber.

The robbery suspect was taken to the hospital, but we don’t know how serious the injury is just yet.

Police are talking to the customer.

[Peally]

Never agree to be moved. Just going off the news story the result seems pretty dang cut and dry.

[Randy Harris]

Anyone have any thoughts on how this topic relates to the shooting in Minnesota?




http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minn-cop-fatally-shoots-black-man-during-traffic-stop-aftermath-broadcast-on-facebook/ar-BBu22Up?li=BBnb7Kz

Minn. cop fatally shoots black man during traffic stop, aftermath broadcast on Facebook 1 / 18
The Washington Post




A Minnesota traffic stop turned deadly Wednesday evening when a police officer opened fire on a black driver and killed him — less than 48 hours after another fatal police shooting in Louisiana.
The confrontation’s bloody aftermath was broadcast live on Facebook by a female passenger in the car.

“He killed my boyfriend,” Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds said in the video posted on her Facebook page.

Philando Castile, 32, died at a Minneapolis hospital, a family member told The Washington Post.

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) said Thursday that he has asked the White House for a federal investigation into the shooting. In a statement, Dayton said he spoke with Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff, to ask that the Justice Department look into the shooting.


FBI Director James B. Comey said he anticipated that the bureau would become involved in the investigation. Comey, testifying before Congress on Thursday, said he was briefed on the shooting and added that he “would expect we’ll be involved.”

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the state agency investigating the shooting, said Thursday that it was conducting initial interviews with witnesses as well as the officer. Officials did not release the identity of the officer who fired the fatal shots in the encounter with Castile.

As blood soaked through Castile’s shirt Wednesday night, Reynolds said on camera that Castile was legally licensed to carry a firearm and was reaching for his identification when the officer started to shoot.

“He let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm,” she said.



Castile moaned and appeared to lose consciousness as the officer shouted expletives in the background in apparent frustration.

“Ma’am, keep your hands where they are,” he yelled at Reynolds. “I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hands up.”

“You told him to get his ID, sir, his driver’s license,” Reynolds responded. “Oh my God. Please don’t tell me he’s dead. Please don’t tell me my boyfriend just went like that.”

The incident occurred in Falcon Heights, Minn., a quiet St. Paul suburb that is a few miles from St. Anthony. The St. Anthony Police Department confirmed the driver’s death during a brief news conference Thursday morning but did not identify the officer involved in the shooting or his race.

Castile’s family members and friends said was a “good man” who worked for St. Paul Public Schools.

Reynolds told reporters Thursday morning that she and Castile were on their way home when he was shot. Castile had just gotten a haircut for his upcoming birthday, she said, and then they had gone grocery shopping.

The two were pulled over for a broken tail light.

Reynolds said the officer came to the window and instructed them to put their hands in the air. He then asked to see Castile’s license and registration, which, Reynolds said, Castile kept in a thick wallet in a pants pocket.

“As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet, he lets the officer know: ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me.’ I begin to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry,’ ” Reynolds said. “After that, he [the officer] began to take off shots: ba ba ba ba. ‘Don’t move, don’t move!’ ”

“But how can you not move when you’re reaching for license and registration?” Reynolds said. “It’s either you want my hands in the air or you want my identification.”

Authorities did not provide details about the encounter during two early morning news conferences.

The Justice Department said Thursday that it was “aware of the incident and is assessing the situation.”

[MVS]

Anyone have any thoughts on how this topic relates to the shooting in Minnesota?




http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minn-cop-fatally-shoots-black-man-during-traffic-stop-aftermath-broadcast-on-facebook/ar-BBu22Up?li=BBnb7Kz

Minn. cop fatally shoots black man during traffic stop, aftermath broadcast on Facebook 1 / 18
The Washington Post



.n.”

The thing that seemed the most odd to me about this deal was how calm the female remained. It was like this was nothing out of the ordinary for her.

[wrmettler]

What needs to be understood here are the differences between Law Enforcement Officers and civilians.

Civilians do NOT have the same rights as LEOs. I doubt you can even restrain someone at gunpoint even after the deadly, immediate and illegal force has ended.

What happens if a guy approaches you with a knife demanding money, you pull your gun, he says "you win", drops his knife, turns around and starts to leave.
Can you restrain him, and if so how.
What if he tells you to shove you gun and continues to walk.

Is the gun a magic wand that will keep all people under your domination and control?

[voodoo_man]

What needs to be understood here are the differences between Law Enforcement Officers and civilians.

Civilians do NOT have the same rights as LEOs. I doubt you can even restrain someone at gunpoint even after the deadly, immediate and illegal force has ended.

What happens if a guy approaches you with a knife demanding money, you pull your gun, he says "you win", drops his knife, turns around and starts to leave.
Can you restrain him, and if so how.
What if he tells you to shove you gun and continues to walk.

Is the gun a magic wand that will keep all people under your domination and control?

You can make a citizen's arrest.

Off-duty LEO's outside their state do it all the time.

Either by meeting the force he uses with greater force to overcome it.

No one other than LEOs and mall-cops carry actual handcuffs, but having a pair of zipties isn't exactly outside the norm for some people (I carry both, because options).

No one says you have to chase him. Let him run away, the threat is over if he drops his knife and runs, call 911, be a good witness and give a good description, then show up to court and make sure that person is prosecuted.

BTW, if you draw your gun, pointing it at a guy with a knife trying to rob you and he has the time to see the gun, process the threat, drop it and run, then you need re-evaluate your personal shoot threshold.

[OnionsAndDragons]

You can make a citizen's arrest.

Off-duty LEO's outside their state do it all the time.

Either by meeting the force he uses with greater force to overcome it.

No one other than LEOs and mall-cops carry actual handcuffs, but having a pair of zipties isn't exactly outside the norm for some people (I carry both, because options).

No one says you have to chase him. Let him run away, the threat is over if he drops his knife and runs, call 911, be a good witness and give a good description, then show up to court and make sure that person is prosecuted.

BTW, if you draw your gun, pointing it at a guy with a knife trying to rob you and he has the time to see the gun, process the threat, drop it and run, then you need re-evaluate your personal shoot threshold.

I'm no LEO; I carry zip ties in my around town bag. The heavy duty construction type, and the restraint type. You never know when werewolves or the right girl might show up. (Not a rape/kidnapping joke, some folks like being tied up)

On the knife subject, it has to be more specific to know if it's an issue of shoot threshold or not, IMO. Some bad guys have to know what a draw stroke looks like and might drop and start bugging before the gun is even presented. Or drop the knife at least. Or maybe sum doode is far enough away that he has just enough time to quit before you finish the press.

I have witnessed at least 2 occasions where accessing, but not drawing, a firearm deterred belligerent street ferals. If a person under 45 reaches for their waistband and clears a garment, they probably aren't going for a holstered cell phone.

I do think it unlikely that it would happen that way in my case, or many others here that have 1sec or so standards they work regularly.

[OnionsAndDragons]

Apologies for the double tap, but it's hard to multi quote on the tablet.

As to Randy's query, I have a question and a personal practice.

Do police in areas where concealed carry is legal get training on dealing with lawful carriers, and how to judge lawful carriers vs unlawful based on actions and demeanor?

This would seem like a prudent thing. Why would someone with an illegal gun divulge that info before it was clear they were going to be searched or arrested?

In my state, informing a contact officer of armed status is not required. I will, however, out of courtesy and a desire for honest communication. I will not say I have a gun or firearm. That seems like a good way to amp up a situation. I always hand the officer my permit with my license and registration. It works fine for me here, may not everywhere. If asked if I'm carrying, I answer, indicate the position and verbalize my intent to keep my hands on the wheel in view unless directed otherwise.

[voodoo_man]

I'm no LEO; I carry zip ties in my around town bag. The heavy duty construction type, and the restraint type. You never know when werewolves or the right girl might show up. (Not a rape/kidnapping joke, some folks like being tied up)

On the knife subject, it has to be more specific to know if it's an issue of shoot threshold or not, IMO. Some bad guys have to know what a draw stroke looks like and might drop and start bugging before the gun is even presented. Or drop the knife at least. Or maybe sum doode is far enough away that he has just enough time to quit before you finish the press.

I have witnessed at least 2 occasions where accessing, but not drawing, a firearm deterred belligerent street ferals. If a person under 45 reaches for their waistband and clears a garment, they probably aren't going for a holstered cell phone.

I do think it unlikely that it would happen that way in my case, or many others here that have 1sec or so standards they work regularly.

Zipties are good, in a bag their role is questionable since they need to be accessed on the spot - people will run away from you. I've considered using the RATS TQ as a impromptu handcuff/restraint as it seems to do the same thing, technically.

Re; draw stroke - I will say that this is a topic that we, as people who practice conceal carrying and shooting often, use our personal filter when referencing. You know what a draw stroke looks like because you've done it and seen people do it often, as have most people here. So most PF members will be able to pick out the beginning of a draw stroke before someone less trained or completely untrained, this does not mean everyone who is doing the same movements will be drawing something, there needs to be more context.

As I've stated before I worked plainclothes for years and during that time I've drawn from concealment dozens upon dozens of times, a few times as a reaction to someone else's movements. I have only seen a handful of "street ferals" even pickup on the draw and only when they actually saw the gun presented they dropped their weapon, stopped drawing whatever they were drawing and/or ran away/froze on the spot. Most people have no idea.

I'd also like to take this time to point out that draw-stroke vs. draw speed vs. one shot time from the draw vs. reaction time vs. reactionary gap are all very subjective to the context. I have personally experienced several instances where I have drawn a firearm, quickly enough, that I have broken past the person in question reactionary gap. Meaning I drew and pointed a gun at someone and they still had to process the fact then react. Average human reaction time can be around .15 to .30 second, so while I doubt I drew faster than .30 I am sure I was close enough to half a second and they may have had a distraction of some sort which gave me the chance to do so. This is optimal.




Apologies for the double tap, but it's hard to multi quote on the tablet.

As to Randy's query, I have a question and a personal practice.

Do police in areas where concealed carry is legal get training on dealing with lawful carriers, and how to judge lawful carriers vs unlawful based on actions and demeanor?

This would seem like a prudent thing. Why would someone with an illegal gun divulge that info before it was clear they were going to be searched or arrested?

In my state, informing a contact officer of armed status is not required. I will, however, out of courtesy and a desire for honest communication. I will not say I have a gun or firearm. That seems like a good way to amp up a situation. I always hand the officer my permit with my license and registration. It works fine for me here, may not everywhere. If asked if I'm carrying, I answer, indicate the position and verbalize my intent to keep my hands on the wheel in view unless directed otherwise.

I will only speak for my PD and experience (as usual) - we got training on CCW legality, permits, how-to investigations and paperwork requirements. The actual actions and demeanor are usually very similar to everyone else who carries, legally or otherwise.

In my experience the only real difference between someone who is carrying legally vs. someone who is carrying illegally is the fact the vast overwhelming majority of illegal carries do not have a holster.

My opinion on the disclosure of ccw is always do it. You remove the unknown variable and give the officer who stopped you for whatever reason an easy understanding of the situation. When I get stopped off duty I do the very same thing I want people to do when I stop them and they are carrying. All windows down, interior lights on, turn off vehicle, place both hands outside the window or both on top of the steering wheel. After the intro - "Officer, I am a *insert your legal status, off duty LEO, FED, CCW holder, tier 0 ninja* and my concealed firearm is *insert carry location*, what would you like me to do?" That's when you listen to the commands and respond moving very slowly. Most officer's won't tell you to remove your firearm (hopefully), I've never done it and I've never been asked to do it, but that doesn't mean there aren't LEO's out there that won't do it. You can always ask them to remove the firearm for you, which is tricky and ill advised, its just better to keep it in place. You can tell them that. Keep your CCW behind your Driver's license so don't have to reach for stuff all around, same with your insurance and registration. When the officer leaves to go back to his vehicle, put both your hands outside the window.

I have never given a CCW permit holder a ticket (not that I write tickets), most guys I work with don't, generally that's a "free pass" for most.

[Painkiller7]

My opinion on the disclosure of ccw is always do it. You remove the unknown variable and give the officer who stopped you for whatever reason an easy understanding of the situation. When I get stopped off duty I do the very same thing I want people to do when I stop them and they are carrying. All windows down, interior lights on, turn off vehicle, place both hands outside the window or both on top of the steering wheel. After the intro - "Officer, I am a *insert your legal status, off duty LEO, FED, CCW holder, tier 0 ninja* and my concealed firearm is *insert carry location*, what would you like me to do?" That's when you listen to the commands and respond moving very slowly. Most officer's won't tell you to remove your firearm (hopefully), I've never done it and I've never been asked to do it, but that doesn't mean there aren't LEO's out there that won't do it. You can always ask them to remove the firearm for you, which is tricky and ill advised, its just better to keep it in place. You can tell them that. Keep your CCW behind your Driver's license so don't have to reach for stuff all around, same with your insurance and registration. When the officer leaves to go back to his vehicle, put both your hands outside the window.

I have never given a CCW permit holder a ticket (not that I write tickets), most guys I work with don't, generally that's a "free pass" for most.


I had an LEO stop me once a couple of years ago. It was later in the night and I, out of courtesy, gave him my CCL. He asked if my weapon was on me, and when told yes, I was instructed to give it to him. He then proceeded to place it on the hood of his car (which is where I was instructed to stand) without ever clearing the firearm. He searched my truck because he had "smelled marijuana". The entire time he was going through my truck, he was alone, with me at the hood of his cruiser, and my loaded G19 on the hood right next to me.

I think that was the one and only time in my life I was literally floored and speechless.

Every other time I've been stopped, which isn't many; I've always notified the Officer out of respect and to eliminate that unknown variable. Aside from that one issue, it's always gone well.

[voodoo_man]

I had an LEO stop me once a couple of years ago. It was later in the night and I, out of courtesy, gave him my CCL. He asked if my weapon was on me, and when told yes, I was instructed to give it to him. He then proceeded to place it on the hood of his car (which is where I was instructed to stand) without ever clearing the firearm. He searched my truck because he had "smelled marijuana". The entire time he was going through my truck, he was alone, with me at the hood of his cruiser, and my loaded G19 on the hood right next to me.

I think that was the one and only time in my life I was literally floored and speechless.

Every other time I've been stopped, which isn't many; I've always notified the Officer out of respect and to eliminate that unknown variable. Aside from that one issue, it's always gone well.

You should have either yelled at him or called for his supervisor and yelled at both of them together.

[OnionsAndDragons]

You should have either yelled at him or called for his supervisor and yelled at both of them together.

This is a little sidebar-ish, but I'm curious.

Do calls to sups tend to have much impact?

I've made a couple positive sup calls for stops that I thought were handled particularly well. I know in my case it was likely noticed because it was the sheriffs dept both times, and ours isn't terribly large. Is it just the sort of thing that varies widely by department or even individual supervisors?

[voodoo_man]

This is a little sidebar-ish, but I'm curious.

Do calls to sups tend to have much impact?

I've made a couple positive sup calls for stops that I thought were handled particularly well. I know in my case it was likely noticed because it was the sheriffs dept both times, and ours isn't terribly large. Is it just the sort of thing that varies widely by department or even individual supervisors?

It really is subjective to the PD.

I always say that if you are really happy write it down and send it directly to the Chief, preferably show up in person and hand the top boss a letter stating what happened with the officers name and badge number. Tell the boss what they did and how happy you are. This will make the best impact possible as they are compelled to meet you and speak with you and they have to follow up with what you gave them, community oriented policing and all that.

If an officer does something derptastic please ask them for a supervisor to come to the location. Being rude will make your complaint disregard fairly quickly, but staying calm is best. When the street supervisor shows up, get their name, rank, badge and HQ phone number so that you can follow up. Then tell them what happened. Some places require the complainant to actually say "I ant to file a formal complaint" some will just self initiate. This is the first and best method of making a critical observation of a street officer. If you show use the commendation process I referred to above for this you may inadvertently get that officer in more trouble than he should be in and/or not have anything done at all.

With that, if you ever have an issue post here or PM me and I'll try to help any way possible. There is a fine line with these things and having been on the receiving end of both of them I know that it really matters which way it's initiated.