Point Guns at Innocents

[John Hearne]

Somebody, somewhere around here has cautioned everyone, including LE, about pointing guns at people who don't need to be shot. Rarely do we get a "perfect storm" case that really test this idea well. Since it's a copyrighted essay, let me summarize quickly:

New/inexperienced officer incorrectly enters a vehicle's tag while running it.
Typo generates an NCIC hit for a stolen vehicle.
Backup is summoned and officers conduct a felony stop.
The driver is with his wife and kids and is a former police officer.
Adults are removed from vehicle, proned out, and handcuffed.
Kids are proned out but not cuffed.
Vehicle occupants maintain that guns were pointed at them and their children during the stop.
After clearing the vehicle and rerunning the tag, the error is made and family released


For more details and the results see:
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/2015_maresca_v_fuentes.pdf

[Luke]

I'm not a cop, but how does this test that theory?

[S Jenks]

Always confirm the plate.

[BehindBlueI's]

Always confirm the plate.

That's the lesson. Along with "comply, we'll sort it out later in court if need be."

[Hauptmann]

Always confirm the plate.

Confirm the correct vehicle too.

[Dagga Boy]

This will be interesting. I have warned of this for quite awhile. It sure is a lot better if you screw up something like this...which happens, if you don't compound it by pointing guns at people with a finger on the trigger......and in the case of the kids and passengers....likely no crime. I would much rather have mistakenly displayed a firearm that is quite reasonable, then the actually act of pointing it at a bunch of folks who were truely innocent.
Also......when things seem "weird"....you need to say something. I prevented one of our guys from getting into a serious situation on one of these because he was not processing that the driver was a deaf mute.

[voodoo_man]

Guns get pointed at people some times. Stuff happens in the heat of the moment.

No one got shot, right?

[Dagga Boy]

Guns get pointed at people some times. Stuff happens in the heat of the moment.

No one got shot, right?

It sounds like guns got pointed at a prone woman on the ground with a trigger on the finger and kids......no one got shot is not the standard of a professional. If one of you your co workers muzzled your head with a finger on the trigger during a call....would "well you didn't get shot" be an okay excuse.......or would you knock the crap out of him?

But if that is the standard you work under....I just lost a ton of respect for you.

[coldcase1984]

It's just not newbies either.

At an agency of immediate concern to me I was present for a brief on large buy bust which included a UC officer inside the car. He was at the briefing, everybody knew him and everyone was told arrest him but don't put a gun on him. So, a far-less-than stable general dick goes straight to the UC, rips him out of the vehicle jumps on his back and shoves a Glock 27 into the back of his head while screaming at the top of his lungs...wait for it...with his FINGER ON THE TRIGGER.

Having been present on three different occasions when this same guy AD'd on narcotics vehicle takedowns, while he was in a combined city/county unit with me. Once he came to our agency I was present for several ADs on range and bi-annual slicing of his thumb when he'd forget he was no longer shooting a Smith revolver (and he was younger than me). And no one would do anything about it. He was shown the door last year for reasons far less important...

[Mr_White]

This has been discussed here before, and I thought the range of responses from the working LEOs was very interesting. There were some important points from the previous discussion that I think bear repeating. I don't know that I would have called these settled - there was still some amount of disagreement about them, or at least about the rubber-meets-the-road application. I'd like to hear more about these points if anyone has anything they think is relevant.

---

Little, if any, time is gained by mounting the gun and aiming it before the decision to fire has been made, versus keeping the gun in a ready position that doesn't directly muzzle the person or block the vision until after the decision to fire has been made.

Potential massive time loss by mounting the gun and aiming it before the decision to fire has been made, thus blocking part of the vision and possibly delaying the decision to fire that will enable the rest of the engagement process.

Finger on the trigger when not engaging is a separate point, but it is basically settled science that it nets virtually no time gain, but a hugely increased risk of ND.

---

Increased compliance was the factor that seemed most cited by advocates of pointing guns at people not yet being actively engaged. There were mixed reports on this - some posters had experienced both increased compliance as well as total disregard of being muzzled by criminal suspects.

---

Speaking purely for myself and from the private citizen perspective: you LEOs have my support. I don't harbor the idiotic misunderstandings about the dynamics of use of force (both ignorant and willful) that drive so much of the anti-police hate going on. That's not me. At all. If I found myself in a LEO contact, and they pointed their guns at me, I'd be very open to hearing the reasons for doing that. I might know them already, like if I just had to shoot a person in self-defense and they are coming to a report of a shooting and here I am with a visible gun. I am not a use of force ignoramus. Observable, articulable factors - I get that. Generic "I need to go home at the end of my shift", "sometimes stuff happens", etc., would not cut it and I would be super pissed off, filing complaints, maybe getting a lawyer, and if the circumstances were right, reading that cop or supervisors the fucking riot act over their fucked up procedures, unjustified threat of deadly force against me, and their shitty gun skills.

[Dagga Boy]

Maybe it is because so many mistakes get made just due to the nature of the job that I get serious about this. I was always very good about going above and beyond in explaining in detail exactly why things happened. I have been on hundreds of high risk felony stops...maybe even thousands. I have had a case where a guy was driving his car home, it had been stolen and recovered by a neighboring agency who released it to him and forgot to remove it from the system. Many times exact vehicle and even suspect matches on crimes, plenty of mistyped numbers on computers.....which is why smart cops always confirmed with dispatch the plate. I had a case exactly like the one mentioned with a cop I didn't trust on a stolen vehicle and what I was seeing was not making sense...so I asked dispatch to confirm the plate and was able to save the situation before it got bad. Of all those felony stops with hundreds of crooks arrested, had guys bail from them,resist, refuse to come out of the car, not compliant, etc.....I never had one end up in a shooting (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen), but the mistakes (mostly innocent and not due to being stupid or an error in typing) far outweighed the shootings......so why someone needs a finger on a trigger is beyond me. Full tatted up gangster exiting a carjack vehicle taken at gunpoint....yea, my firearm was covering them. General stolen car with a bunch of middle age normal folks and kids.....that is what low ready is for.

[LSP552]

Lots of little mistakes can end of a equalling a big pile of crap. I never liked pointing guns at people unless I was seriously thinking about shooting them. Display of a weapon for compliance is a completely different matter and AOK in a lot of circumstances. Pointing a gun at someone cuffed, prone, and not resisting is just stupid

[voodoo_man]

Didn't see the part of finger being on the trigger. Thats unacceptable.

[Dagga Boy]

Didn't see the part of finger being on the trigger. Thats unacceptable.

How about pointing guns at kids? I have a very simple rule that the following should not have guns pointed at them...kids (and I mean children), obvious non-combatants, and other officers/agents. Adult suspects are fairly subjective, but I have no tolerance for the others.

Also, in regards to my previous....are you good with other officers pointing guns at you as long as you didn't get shot.

[BehindBlueI's]

Little, if any, time is gained by mounting the gun and aiming it before the decision to fire has been made, versus keeping the gun in a ready position that doesn't directly muzzle the person or block the vision until after the decision to fire has been made.

Potential massive time loss by mounting the gun and aiming it before the decision to fire has been made, thus blocking part of the vision and possibly delaying the decision to fire that will enable the rest of the engagement process.



I'd be real curious as to how this was measured. I am skeptical you could get as good hits as fast from a high or low ready as you could covering the target. Particularly as proficiency decreases, I think the odds of "overshooting the runway" with the sights under stress would be more common.

[voodoo_man]

How about pointing guns at kids? I have a very simple rule that the following should not have guns pointed at them...kids (and I mean children), obvious non-combatants, and other officers/agents. Adult suspects are fairly subjective, but I have no tolerance for the others.

Also, in regards to my previous....are you good with other officers pointing guns at you as long as you didn't get shot.

It depends on the definition of "kid" really. Ive dealt with juveniles that werent in their teens yet slinging dope and doing shootings, i guess itll be situationally dependant, mom, dad, boy and girl from an affluent area, probably not.

I'm not ok with anyone pointing a gun at me, but does it happen? Yea of course it happens, as long as i dont get shot, im good with it in those particular situations. Ive done everything in my power to teach people not to use certain methods of holding guns when clearing and using others that are better for those in my position. Unfortunately its always left to those who train least and i just keep them in front of me.

[LSP552]

I'd be real curious as to how this was measured. I am skeptical you could get as good hits as fast from a high or low ready as you could covering the target. Particularly as proficiency decreases, I think the odds of "overshooting the runway" with the sights under stress would be more common.

One big problem with being locked in is it tends to block your vision of the suspect's hands and lower body. A low ready lets you see everything and act accordingly. I've done enough force on force to convince me this is the correct approach.

Other key issues with being on target when you don't need is trigger checking, startle response and balance displacement, all causing real life shootings that were an oops moment.

I can easily manipulate the trigger from a low or compressed ready every bit as fast as starting on target. For me personally, I also tend to have a better trigger press because it helps mitigate the now factor.

[Sammy1]

My criminal law instructor at the Academy was on vacation on Cape Code with his family. His vehicle matched the description of a felony wanted vehicle (I believe it was armed robbery) they were stopped at gun point and proned out, handcuffed checked out and sent on their way. Crap happens, cops were professional and no one got hurt.

[Dagga Boy]

My criminal law instructor at the Academy was on vacation on Cape Code with his family. His vehicle matched the description of a felony wanted vehicle (I believe it was armed robbery) they were stopped at gun point and proned out, handcuffed checked out and sent on their way. Crap happens, cops were professional and no one got hurt.

And that is the point I was making. Even under the best of conditions often mistakes, or mistaken identities happen. It is why it is so critical that our people use professional gun handling and tactics and be able to fully articulate why they are doing things. If you take the act of putting a muzzle on another human seriously and take seriously the ramifications of that, you will be far less likely to have a problem than those who find it acceptable to muzzle everything because they have a badge. When we start getting people who muzzle everything with little or no thought, or as a means of intimidating, pretty soon they start getting fingers on triggers, quit worrying about target surroundings, and a tragedy happens and everybody gets all weepy about it. In fact it is not a tragedy, it is often some negligent act with multiple issues.
In today's environment, the last thing we need is a startle shooting of the wrong person to feed our critics. Why be our own worst enemy.

[BehindBlueI's]

One big problem with being locked in is it tends to block your vision of the suspect's hands and lower body. A low ready lets you see everything and act accordingly. I've done enough force on force to convince me this is the correct approach.

Other key issues with being on target when you don't need is trigger checking, startle response and balance displacement, all causing real life shootings that were an oops moment.

I can easily manipulate the trigger from a low or compressed ready every bit as fast as starting on target. For me personally, I also tend to have a better trigger press because it helps mitigate the now factor.

I'm quite aware of trigger check, etc. It's a big reason I like the DA/SA or revolver for duty carry. That said, I can't think of a time that my vision of the target's hand has been blocked by my handgun. Rifle, eh, I can see that happening a bit easier. It's possible I'm not noticing what I'm not noticing, but I'm pretty hep to watching the hands. Maybe I'm just moving my head around? I dunno. I drive a desk with my ass most of the time these days anyway and haven't taken anyone at gunpoint in years. Probably won't have much chance to take notes these days.

[Dagga Boy]

I'm quite aware of trigger check, etc. It's a big reason I like the DA/SA or revolver for duty carry. That said, I can't think of a time that my vision of the target's hand has been blocked by my handgun. Rifle, eh, I can see that happening a bit easier. It's possible I'm not noticing what I'm not noticing, but I'm pretty hep to watching the hands. Maybe I'm just moving my head around? I dunno. I drive a desk with my ass most of the time these days anyway and haven't taken anyone at gunpoint in years. Probably won't have much chance to take notes these days.

This isn't about you.....take your barely qualifies officer with a Glock and using it as an intimidation tool to gain compliance (because they often don't have the command presence to gain it) and add fear and confusion along with posturing.....and then we have a problem. It is the role of our squared away people who know WTF they are doing to set an example for the ball bearings with lips to follow.

[LSP552]

I'm quite aware of trigger check, etc. It's a big reason I like the DA/SA or revolver for duty carry. That said, I can't think of a time that my vision of the target's hand has been blocked by my handgun. Rifle, eh, I can see that happening a bit easier. It's possible I'm not noticing what I'm not noticing, but I'm pretty hep to watching the hands. Maybe I'm just moving my head around? I dunno. I drive a desk with my ass most of the time these days anyway and haven't taken anyone at gunpoint in years. Probably won't have much chance to take notes these days.

BBI,

It's the least common denominator that causes the problem, and what we could get away with might be different than what some others could.

As for driving a desk; Dude, I retired in 2008 and stopped doing police work the day I made Capt in 2000..........

I like to think I was still doing God's work as the SWAT LT.......everything after that was pretty much down hill.

[BehindBlueI's]

This isn't about you.....take your barely qualifies officer with a Glock and using it as an intimidation tool to gain compliance (because they often don't have the command presence to gain it) and add fear and confusion along with posturing.....and then we have a problem. It is the role of our squared away people who know WTF they are doing to set an example for the ball bearings with lips to follow.


BBI,

It's the least common denominator that causes the problem, and what we could get away with might be different than what some others could.

As for driving a desk; Dude, I retired in 2008 and stopped doing police work the day I made Capt in 2000..........

I like to think I was still doing God's work as the SWAT LT.......everything after that was pretty much down hill.

Point taken.

[Sammy1]

These comments got me thinking about pistol platforms. When we carried DA/SA Sigs I was screaming for a poly gun with one constant trigger pull because for me these guns were faster and easier to shoot IDPA/USPSA. Now that we have Glocks I'm rethinking my decision. Like Nyeti said it's about the barely qualifies officer not the "gun" guys and gals that know what they are doing.

[1slow]

I'd be real curious as to how this was measured. I am skeptical you could get as good hits as fast from a high or low ready as you could covering the target. Particularly as proficiency decreases, I think the odds of "overshooting the runway" with the sights under stress would be more common.

Bill Rogers did a presentation on this at Rogers he said that being on target was not faster and did block vision.

[Mr_White]

In the amount of time it takes to move the finger from register to the trigger and press it, the gun can be moved from off target to on target. That's why there's basically no time gain from getting on target early - unless you not only get on target but get on the trigger as well. I don't think anyone, at this point in our development as a community, would argue that being on target and on trigger before the decision to fire has been made, is anything other than a razor thin distance away from a catastrophic ND. Even in that absolutely unacceptable course of action, the time gain can be as little as a quarter second. Not a good deal at all, compared to the risk. You can hit A-zones at 7 yards from a low ready off target position in under 0.5 seconds pretty easily, and with some practice down to 0.25 if everything is perfect. Chasing a .12 time like you can have starting on target and on trigger is pretty worthless.

[1slow]

Bill talked about on a moving target if you were pointed in no time was gained from low ready. I believe the target was 1 that could fall across a door opening either left to right or right to left. Shooters who ere pointed in missed more than those coming from low ready.

[Patrick Taylor]

Along with "comply, we'll sort it out later in court if need be."

Not always.

[JustOneGun]

BBI,

It's the least common denominator that causes the problem, and what we could get away with might be different than what some others could.

As for driving a desk; Dude, I retired in 2008 and stopped doing police work the day I made Capt in 2000..........

I like to think I was still doing God's work as the SWAT LT.......everything after that was pretty much down hill.


I used to disagree with Nyeti's view. Over time I've come to change my view a bit to be closer to his. I agree that we do have a lowest common denominator in police work. However, it is usually not just those officer that are a danger. The reason to not systematically point guns at people no matter your skill is what I like to call the, "There by the grace of god go I" syndrome. Plenty of high end officers, including SWAT have ND, shot each other and shot the wrong person by mistake. I could happen to any of us today or tomorrow.

Yes there are poorly trained officers who are dangerous. Yes we need to train them properly. Highly trained, squared away officers do make mistakes, just not as often. It's been my experience that those mistakes are often covered up by their fellow officers because they feel it was a mistake by a good officer. I called this the, "Chicks dig it" syndrome. I usually took that line to really mean "Fellow cops dig it" syndrome. With those officers It usually keeps happening and leads to a very bad outcome.

Bottom line is that we don't need to point the gun at the bad guy, while keeping in mind that no matter what your ready position you are pointing it in a dangerous direction out in public.

[BehindBlueI's]

In the amount of time it takes to move the finger from register to the trigger and press it, the gun can be moved from off target to on target. That's why there's basically no time gain from getting on target early - unless you not only get on target but get on the trigger as well. I don't think anyone, at this point in our development as a community, would argue that being on target and on trigger before the decision to fire has been made, is anything other than a razor thin distance away from a catastrophic ND. Even in that absolutely unacceptable course of action, the time gain can be as little as a quarter second. Not a good deal at all, compared to the risk. You can hit A-zones at 7 yards from a low ready off target position in under 0.5 seconds pretty easily, and with some practice down to 0.25 if everything is perfect. Chasing a .12 time like you can have starting on target and on trigger is pretty worthless.

I remember one of those Force Science Institute deals that showed a "suicidal" suspect with a gun to his head could turn it on you and fire in about .40 seconds. SWAT guys doing the study with sims could fire about simultaneously. There are certainly times where .12 seconds is worth everything. Now, I get we aren't talking about dealing with someone with a gun already out. I'm not for giving away time, though.

It seems we're getting some mixed signals here, as well. Ok, an "expert" can do it in this or that time. But we're tailoring it to the LCD barely passed guy. Perhaps it's not as simple as we'd like.

[Chuck Haggard]

Thinking a .12, give or take, edge in getting a shot off means much on the street, when a shot dead to the heart can leave the bad guy with 15 seconds or more of oxygenated blood in their brain to do with whatever they want tells me people haven't thought the whole problem out.

If one's safety counts on having that .12 second worth of time, then their tactics are horrible and they have set themselves up for failure in a very bad way.

[Dagga Boy]

I remember one of those Force Science Institute deals that showed a "suicidal" suspect with a gun to his head could turn it on you and fire in about .40 seconds. SWAT guys doing the study with sims could fire about simultaneously. There are certainly times where .12 seconds is worth everything. Now, I get we aren't talking about dealing with someone with a gun already out. I'm not for giving away time, though.

It seems we're getting some mixed signals here, as well. Ok, an "expert" can do it in this or that time. But we're tailoring it to the LCD barely passed guy. Perhaps it's not as simple as we'd like.


Okay, I will take this right out of some study and give you reality. One of the guys I influenced as a young cop just dealt with this for real. He has spent a ton of time with me and after I moved I sent him to Scotty Reitz. Start with this....a guy who just brandished a pistol at numerous citizens and robbed a business at gun point and is now holding himself hostage is not a woman and children passengers in a stolen vehicle that is not looking right.....I have zero issues with being at contact ready on the armed felon holding himself hostage....let's not be dumb and conflat apples and oranges. So...you have suicidal guy at gun point with three officers. All holding on the bad guy. He decides to suicide by cop, and pulls the gun off his head and points it at an officer. My guy delivers a single precision hit dead center with a Federal +P 230 gr. .45 HST and essentially DRT's the guy. Here is the problem...one of the other guy fires three rounds and then malfunctions his 1911, which is good because he then had to stop putting anymore misses into a neighborhood. Even though he was lined up on hthe bad guy...and was fast, he missed three times. My student had a trainee who also fired and missed. All of these officers were lined up on target and when they go the "shoot signal" two of the three fired multiple misses which is exactly in line with what Mr. White is talking about in which they likely slammed the trigger on a "NOW" mega snatch. So......was being lined up on target a huge advantage? My guy also gave me the best shooting de-brief I have ever gotten as far as technical aspects of the shooting part.

My experience has been that super solid shooters who are confident can go from there lower ready (which you should be using for visual input on scenarios like this) position to eyeline as an auto response without issue. I have always found that the compulsive "point guns at everything" cops tend to be the worst shooters, least confident, and are trying to cheat the process to make up for their lack of skills. These also tend to be "screamers" and fear biters......a nasty cocktail of a tragedy or embarrassing situation waitng to happen. I do not want to be them. The best cops I have ever been around tend to run very confident and icely controlled from a hard locked ready while they manage a crisis.....that is who I have chosen to emmulate in how I train and how I worked in the field.

[cclaxton]

When we start getting people who muzzle everything with little or no thought, or as a means of intimidating, pretty soon they start getting fingers on triggers, quit worrying about target surroundings, and a tragedy happens and everybody gets all weepy about it. In fact it is not a tragedy, it is often some negligent act with multiple issues.
Complete agreement here, and this is the focus of my complaints with Fairfax County. In particular, using the gun as a means of intimidation to "show me your hands" is becoming the norm. Add to that someone poorly trained and finger on the trigger....sooner or later someone will die and potentially kill or seriously injure them AND ruin an officer's career.
Cody

[BehindBlueI's]

Thinking a .12, give or take, edge in getting a shot off means much on the street, when a shot dead to the heart can leave the bad guy with 15 seconds or more of oxygenated blood in their brain to do with whatever they want tells me people haven't thought the whole problem out.

If one's safety counts on having that .12 second worth of time, then their tactics are horrible and they have set themselves up for failure in a very bad way.

Right. How many bad guys keep fighting though? Psychological stops get left out of these arguments.

I agree, I'd rather have a situation where time isn't so important. Sometimes it is, though.

[scw2]

Complete agreement here, and this is the focus of my complaints with Fairfax County. In particular, using the gun as a means of intimidation to "show me your hands" is becoming the norm. Add to that someone poorly trained and finger on the trigger....sooner or later someone will die and potentially kill or seriously injure them AND ruin an officer's career.
Cody

I forget if you mentioned this in your prior thread, but in Fairfax are they drawing into a ready position and then issuing and order, expecting increased compliance, or are they also muzzling and getting on the trigger? If it's the latter, is there any policy governing use of force in that case? What about repercussions for police leadership in the event that something goes sideways, instead of just throwing the officer under the bus?

[Chuck Haggard]

Right. How many bad guys keep fighting though? Psychological stops get left out of these arguments.

I agree, I'd rather have a situation where time isn't so important. Sometimes it is, though.

Think about what you just wrote. Seriously.

[LSP552]

I have always found that the compulsive "point guns at everything" cops tend to be the worst shooters, least confident, and are trying to cheat the process to make up for their lack of skills. These also tend to be "screamers" and fear biters......a nasty cocktail of a tragedy or embarrassing situation waitng to happen. I do not want to be them. The best cops I have ever been around tend to run very confident and icely controlled from a hard locked ready while they manage a crisis.....that is who I have chosen to emmulate in how I train and how I worked in the field.

If I were still teaching, I'd be using your description of "screamers and fear biters" every chance I had. This is one of the best characterizations of of the problem I have ever heard!

[BehindBlueI's]

Okay, I will take this right out of some study and give you reality. One of the guys I influenced as a young cop just dealt with this for real. He has spent a ton of time with me and after I moved I sent him to Scotty Reitz. Start with this....a guy who just brandished a pistol at numerous citizens and robbed a business at gun point and is now holding himself hostage is not a woman and children passengers in a stolen vehicle that is not looking right.....I have zero issues with being at contact ready on the armed felon holding himself hostage....let's not be dumb and conflat apples and oranges. So...you have suicidal guy at gun point with three officers. All holding on the bad guy. He decides to suicide by cop, and pulls the gun off his head and points it at an officer. My guy delivers a single precision hit dead center with a Federal +P 230 gr. .45 HST and essentially DRT's the guy. Here is the problem...one of the other guy fires three rounds and then malfunctions his 1911, which is good because he then had to stop putting anymore misses into a neighborhood. Even though he was lined up on hthe bad guy...and was fast, he missed three times. My student had a trainee who also fired and missed. All of these officers were lined up on target and when they go the "shoot signal" two of the three fired multiple misses which is exactly in line with what Mr. White is talking about in which they likely slammed the trigger on a "NOW" mega snatch. So......was being lined up on target a huge advantage? My guy also gave me the best shooting de-brief I have ever gotten as far as technical aspects of the shooting part.

My experience has been that super solid shooters who are confident can go from there lower ready (which you should be using for visual input on scenarios like this) position to eyeline as an auto response without issue. I have always found that the compulsive "point guns at everything" cops tend to be the worst shooters, least confident, and are trying to cheat the process to make up for their lack of skills. These also tend to be "screamers" and fear biters......a nasty cocktail of a tragedy or embarrassing situation waitng to happen. I do not want to be them. The best cops I have ever been around tend to run very confident and icely controlled from a hard locked ready while they manage a crisis.....that is who I have chosen to emmulate in how I train and how I worked in the field.


Now, I get we aren't talking about dealing with someone with a gun already out.

Right. I said that right up front. I'm still not for giving away time, even if its "just a little."

[BehindBlueI's]

Think about what you just wrote. Seriously.

There's no advantage to first hit, since people can keep on fighting? Pain resets the OODA loop. First hit matters, even if it's not a brain box shot that instantly drops them.

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok, before everyone gets entrenched in positions based on hypotheticals in their own head vs in the other guys head.

1) We've established verifying the plate is first. That avoid the "innocents" from the start.
2) Felony stop on a stolen vehicle that complies is questionable to begin with. Carjacking, ok. Fresh steal, ok. Pursuit or long slow roll, ok. Stolen plate/car hit and they pull over as soon as you light them up? Read the situation. Not every "felony" requires a "felony stop". Shoplifting was a felony here until last July...
3) Speed matters in some instances. You won't convince me otherwise. There are a ton of bright line "yes" and a ton of bright line "no" situations. The border is fuzzy, though, and I will point my gun until I figure it out in some of those fuzzy situations. The person may turn out to be "innocent" at the end of the day, but every cop here knows (or should know) that you based your decisions on what you reasonably perceive at the time of the stop, not via crystal ball. Only the media and some of the high brass is issued one of those.
4) The fact that most stops are psychological and can be fought through is irrelevant to this conversation. Again, you will not convince me that first hit doesn't matter, that inducing pain and confusion in your opponent doesn't matter, or that even inducing flinch may not matter.

So, Reader's Digest version, there will be situations where gun pointing is warranted and the pointee turns out to be completely innocent. This is why plain clothes cops are trained that the uniformed cop is in charge until they verify who you. It's why I put my own description out on the radio if I am near, say, a burglary in progress and am going to respond along with uniformed guys. There will be instances where your tactics, training, and positioning just went to shit and you have to figure out a way out of it. Ex: Shooting in a laundry room at an apartment. I'm the only one even remotely close. Suspect resists and I'm holding her (yes, her, she shot someone over the use of a dryer) down in a joint lock she can't escape from but I can't get her other hand, which was trapped under her. Then a male suspect me yelling to let her go. You're damn right I pointed a gun at him. I'm outnumbered, I know there's at least one gun out, and I need to be ready to drop either one of them if it comes to that. That .12 seconds or whatever may make a lot of difference. So, it ended up with him prone in the parking lot at gunpoint, her joint locked and held down, until I got some help there and we got everyone cuffed. So, I'm not basing my opinions on studies, either. I'm basing the TIMES on studies.

[cclaxton]

I forget if you mentioned this in your prior thread, but in Fairfax are they drawing into a ready position and then issuing and order, expecting increased compliance, or are they also muzzling and getting on the trigger? If it's the latter, is there any policy governing use of force in that case? What about repercussions for police leadership in the event that something goes sideways, instead of just throwing the officer under the bus?
In Fairfax County there is no policy on muzzling. They also have not been transparent about what they teach at the Academy and at the SWAT Academy. What we see happening is a result of poor training, not poor policy IMHO. It has been a fight to get the committee to see this and make an appropriate recommendation. Fairfax Police leadership have fought this every step of the way, and I find that very disappointing. Interestingly, the Rank and File street cops have asked for better training. We had another incident where a guy fell asleep in a rental apartment and he left the door ajar. A neighbor called the cops and they entered the dwelling all muzzling the guys head while they entered the room. It is clear to me they have not been retrained to a ready position. I have been asking that the County fund training, replace the training leadership with supervisors that will train ready position and get officers to not use guns to intimidate people into showing them their hands. The guys here have convinced me that policies are not the solution...training IS the solution.
Cody

[voodoo_man]

In Fairfax County there is no policy on muzzling. They also have not been transparent about what they teach at the Academy and at the SWAT Academy. What we see happening is a result of poor training, not poor policy IMHO. It has been a fight to get the committee to see this and make an appropriate recommendation. Fairfax Police leadership have fought this every step of the way, and I find that very disappointing. Interestingly, the Rank and File street cops have asked for better training. We had another incident where a guy fell asleep in a rental apartment and he left the door ajar. A neighbor called the cops and they entered the dwelling all muzzling the guys head while they entered the room. It is clear to me they have not been retrained to a ready position. I have been asking that the County fund training, replace the training leadership with supervisors that will train ready position and get officers to not use guns to intimidate people into showing them their hands. The guys here have convinced me that policies are not the solution...training IS the solution.
Cody

Training is the solution, in most instances.

If you believe that people who are confronted by officers to show their hands should not be muzzled then we need to have a different discussion.

[Mr_White]

There's no advantage to first hit, since people can keep on fighting? Pain resets the OODA loop. First hit matters, even if it's not a brain box shot that instantly drops them.

I really agree there, I do. We are defending and to a large degree behind the curve a bit as a result. Small margins of time that are available should be taken.

With the issue of what position/muzzle direction to hold the gun when not actively engaging, those small margins of time that can be gained, should be, but that's also balanced against safety in terms of muzzle direction and trigger finger discipline.

A gain of ~.12 isn't nothing, it is something. IMHO, it is a much much smaller something than what can be lost (via catastrophic ND) by compromising muzzle and/or finger discipline.

To clarify something with you, are you advocating for pointing a gun directly at someone, with finger in register, before the decision to fire has been made? (At least in some circumstances - I know you don't mean universally all the time.) Or do you also mean finger on the trigger too? If you mean the latter, and I am betting you don't, then what about the ND risk? If you mean the former, which I am betting you do, what I am saying is that there is essentially no time gain to that at all. Has your experience been different? Have you found that you are much or any faster to engage from on target/finger in register vs off target/finger in register?

I can go from off target with finger in register, to an A-zone hit at 7 yards in under 0.35 all day long. A really strong rep is ~0.25. I am very happy with those times bundled along with a clean, unmuddled process of going from decisionmaking to engaging. With a little training, about anyone can do under 0.50.

Those are all little mechanical margins that we do want to take advantage of. I think it's also a pretty enormous advantage to reliably avoid NDing into people I have not specifically and consciously decided to shoot.

There are a lot bigger margins of time that may be available too - via awareness and tactics - which is why those things are correctly harped on so much. I'm absolutely with you on not wanting to give away small margins of time because sometimes awareness and tactics don't cut it either and you are down to the small margins. I think we may not think about the mechanics quite the same way though.

[Dagga Boy]

In Fairfax County there is no policy on muzzling. They also have not been transparent about what they teach at the Academy and at the SWAT Academy. What we see happening is a result of poor training, not poor policy IMHO. It has been a fight to get the committee to see this and make an appropriate recommendation. Fairfax Police leadership have fought this every step of the way, and I find that very disappointing. Interestingly, the Rank and File street cops have asked for better training. We had another incident where a guy fell asleep in a rental apartment and he left the door ajar. A neighbor called the cops and they entered the dwelling all muzzling the guys head while they entered the room. It is clear to me they have not been retrained to a ready position. I have been asking that the County fund training, replace the training leadership with supervisors that will train ready position and get officers to not use guns to intimidate people into showing them their hands. The guys here have convinced me that policies are not the solution...training IS the solution.
Cody

I am very against policies to dictate things like muzzling. That is wholly a training issue and a personnel issue. Management types use policies as the lazy means of trying to dictate situations that are often VERY unique. Leadership will give officers recent, relative, and applicable training to help make good decisions as well as provide training that will increase confidence in by having real skills to deal with lethal force level situations so they do not have to wing it with stupid cop tricks.


Training is the solution, in most instances.

If you believe that people who are confronted by officers to show their hands should not be muzzled then we need to have a different discussion.

I think you are indicating a failure to show hands.......in which case we are in general agreement. Most folks with solid street time can read the hiding weapons or contraband actions and need to act on them. Often, getting ahead of a fight by eliminating the draw is an exceptionally good idea and then ramping up the force from there is smart. Well trained LEO's can often articulate this as well. Of course.........we also have the officers who will use their intimidation thing (pistol) with repeated screaming of the exact same command with zero compliance and they haven't a clue what to do.......which is a massive problem that can also be addressed through better hiring and training practices.

[Sammy1]

The S&W academy did a drill years ago where Officers using simmunitions confronted suspect(s) in an alley, I think it was a B&E situation. There were homeless sleeping in the alley. The Officers had the suspects at gunpoint and one of the "bums" reaches out and grabs the Officer's leg as he walks by or something like that. The majority of Officers fired a round into the suspect they were covering. S&W instructors taught finger off the trigger until the decision to fire was made. You would only lose a 1/4 second or so coming off the frame to the trigger whereas when on the trigger you'd have a AD response to the grab by the homeless. You could take this a step further and cover from the low ready and not muzzle an unknown in a different type of situation.

[runcible]

CClaxton,

In line with previous requests to cite sources, let me help you out here.

Here's what's likely the story you're referencing, as presented solely from the perspective of the subject and with quite a bit of hyperbole:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iraq-i-raided-insurgents-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/2015/07/24/2e114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

However, let's balance out this dialogue with:

http://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2015/08/fairfax-police-chief-responds-to-iraq-vets-complaint/


Do you think presenting things in their whole manner, rather then reducing the words written by someone who self-describes as having drunk from one day into the next and then apparently been too inebriated to either shut their door nor respond to a knock and announce at 9AM (some time after last call, I imagine) into a glib reference such as, "We had another incident where a guy fell asleep in a rental apartment and he left the door ajar. A neighbor called the cops and they entered the dwelling all muzzling the guys head while they entered the room," might take this conversation further?

[Dagga Boy]

I forgot to add earlier that speed and time are things that need to be controlled, and faster does not mean better. Faster can get you into far more trouble than slow. I had exactly one OIS I investigated where pure speed was a major issue in being a positive to the outcome. That is one in 20 years. I had a ton where pure speed led to some very negative outcomes. Speed and poor gun handling combined is a very bad mix. So .12........in my experience that .12 is very likely to be more of a negative than a positive.

[BehindBlueI's]

I really agree there, I do. We are defending and to a large degree behind the curve a bit as a result. Small margins of time that are available should be taken.

With the issue of what position/muzzle direction to hold the gun when not actively engaging, those small margins of time that can be gained, should be, but that's also balanced against safety in terms of muzzle direction and trigger finger discipline.

A gain of ~.12 isn't nothing, it is something. IMHO, it is a much much smaller something than what can be lost (via catastrophic ND) by compromising muzzle and/or finger discipline.

To clarify something with you, are you advocating for pointing a gun directly at someone, with finger in register, before the decision to fire has been made? (At least in some circumstances - I know you don't mean universally all the time.) Or do you also mean finger on the trigger too? If you mean the latter, and I am betting you don't, then what about the ND risk? If you mean the former, which I am betting you do, what I am saying is that there is essentially no time gain to that at all. Has your experience been different? Have you found that you are much or any faster to engage from on target/finger in register vs off target/finger in register?

I can go from off target with finger in register, to an A-zone hit at 7 yards in under 0.35 all day long. A really strong rep is ~0.25. I am very happy with those times bundled along with a clean, unmuddled process of going from decisionmaking to engaging. With a little training, about anyone can do under 0.50.

Those are all little mechanical margins that we do want to take advantage of. I think it's also a pretty enormous advantage to reliably avoid NDing into people I have not specifically and consciously decided to shoot.

There are a lot bigger margins of time that may be available too - via awareness and tactics - which is why those things are correctly harped on so much. I'm absolutely with you on not wanting to give away small margins of time because sometimes awareness and tactics don't cut it either and you are down to the small margins. I think we may not think about the mechanics quite the same way though.

Well, back to what I originally asked. How was it measured, and on who? As it was pointed out to me earlier, it's not about you. You can put an Olympic sprinter in tap shoes, and he'd handily smoke me in a 100m dash regardless of my footwear, but that doesn't mean he wasn't hampered by it. You are not an average shooter, and I would suppose you are not under heavy stress when you're doing this. My question is how was it measured, on who, in what circumstances, and were quality of hits evaluated along with time to first shot?


I forgot to add earlier that speed and time are things that need to be controlled, and faster does not mean better. Faster can get you into far more trouble than slow. I had exactly one OIS I investigated where pure speed was a major issue in being a positive to the outcome. That is one in 20 years. I had a ton where pure speed led to some very negative outcomes. Speed and poor gun handling combined is a very bad mix. So .12........in my experience that .12 is very likely to be more of a negative than a positive.

How about we stop mixing in things that are different issues? Poor gun handling skills, poor marksmanship, poor decision making, etc. Maybe address those pretty substantial issues on their own merits, including what training is being done to eliminate them.

We've been a 1500-1600 man department since our merger with the sheriff's dept. We've yet to have a ND outside of admin tasks (yeah, we've had people shoot a round to break it down to clean it). Our current stats for the last two years put the odds at roughly 1:77 for any given officer being involved in some immediate capacity in an OIS. That's with nearly everyone carrying Glocks. Teaching finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, incorporating decision making into the training with both live fire and Simunitions, and a range staff that is dedicated enough that the LT comes out on ever OIS to incorporate the specifics into training scenarios and I think we've got a pretty good program. Probably because of a low tolerance for poor gun handling skills and a good mix of decision making and marksmanship training. We do not train to do felony stops with the gun at high ready/low ready/etc. I doubt that changes, nor would I want it to.

[DNW]

I forgot to add earlier that speed and time are things that need to be controlled, and faster does not mean better. Faster can get you into far more trouble than slow. I had exactly one OIS I investigated where pure speed was a major issue in being a positive to the outcome. That is one in 20 years. I had a ton where pure speed led to some very negative outcomes. Speed and poor gun handling combined is a very bad mix. So .12........in my experience that .12 is very likely to be more of a negative than a positive.

While being capable of being fast is an important component skill, I prefer to think of tempo, or the "right" speed than just being fast. This speaks to control, decision making, and goes back to your point about "screamers and fear biters".

[cclaxton]

CClaxton,

In line with previous requests to cite sources, let me help you out here.

Here's what's likely the story you're referencing, as presented solely from the perspective of the subject and with quite a bit of hyperbole:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iraq-i-raided-insurgents-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/2015/07/24/2e114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

However, let's balance out this dialogue with:

http://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2015/08/fairfax-police-chief-responds-to-iraq-vets-complaint/


Do you think presenting things in their whole manner, rather then reducing the words written by someone who self-describes as having drunk from one day into the next and then apparently been too inebriated to either shut their door nor respond to a knock and announce at 9AM (some time after last call, I imagine) into a glib reference such as, "We had another incident where a guy fell asleep in a rental apartment and he left the door ajar. A neighbor called the cops and they entered the dwelling all muzzling the guys head while they entered the room," might take this conversation further?
Well, it wasn't my intent to be glib or one-sided. I was simply making reference to recent behavior by Fairfax Police that tells me they have not changed their training methods, and continue to go in to situations with muzzles pointed directly at an individual when they have NOT established any threat, much less a lethal one. If it were not for three other people being shot and killed by Fairfax Police, who clearly should have never even been muzzled, we wouldn't be writing about this.

Our LE agencies must continue to evaluate what works, and what doesn't, and when problems occur, make necessary changes. I am not out to skewer cops....by learning from what didn't work, we protect both citizens AND cops. Ex Fairfax Police Officer Torres is on trial for murder of John Geer, and the county has paid $2.95 Million in a civil lawsuit to the Geer family...that is taxpayer dollars. That is a big problem that we should avoid in the future. The street cops I have talked to all want better training and deserve better training. Being defensive or trying to deny their is a problem just kicks the problem down the road. I think the Fairfax Police Commision's recommendations on use of force are good, but the full Board needs to fund it and enable those changes, and they need to move some supervisors aside if they can't deal with changes.
Cody

[jnc36rcpd]

It should surprise no one who reads the Washington Post that they would not only accept the word of someone admittedly blackout drunk, but actually publish an editorial written by the same person. Without question, the Post accepts this person's word that cops had fingers on the trigger and pistols pointed at his head. How would he know or remember? He was drunk out of his mind.

Of course, this guy also hunted high=value targets and bomb makers. I never served, but the people I know who were in Iraq and Afghanistan never claim t do that (though some certainly did). Most realized they jacked up a lot of innocent people to find the guilty and that they muzzled people who, in 20/20 hindsight, didn't need to get muzzled.

cclaxton, since you are so intent on improving Fairfax County PD, please look into recruiting issues. If FCPD is anything like its counterparts on the other side of the Potomac, there is a lack of qualified applicants. If FCPD wants to staff beats, expect to see lower standards and fewer smart, physically fit, and capable officers. You certainly won't get applicants with real world experience, because who, with real world experience, would volunteer to become a cop? Sure, you'll find a few, but not many.

I have heard suggestions that we need to reintroduce the draft for a variety of reasons. Truth be told, I suspect we will at some point need to create a draft system if only to get cops on the street.

If you have children, cclaxton, karma would dictate that they are the first on the streets of Fairfax County or, better yet, Prince George's County.

[Hambo]

It sounds like guns got pointed at a prone woman on the ground with a trigger on the finger and kids......no one got shot is not the standard of a professional. If one of you your co workers muzzled your head with a finger on the trigger during a call....would "well you didn't get shot" be an okay excuse.......or would you knock the crap out of him?


I'll take option B. As a former union rep I can tell you that "nobody got shot" and similar excuses usually precede time off or worse in disciplinary hearings. In effect you're saying, "fuck training, we relied on luck and it turned out OK, so it's all good." Except that it isn't OK. Own your fuck-ups and try to learn personally and institutionally.

[runcible]

Tom Jones,

Roger, will do!

[cclaxton]

How would he know or remember? He was drunk out of his mind.
cclaxton, since you are so intent on improving Fairfax County PD, please look into recruiting issues. You certainly won't get applicants with real world experience, because who, with real world experience, would volunteer to become a cop? Sure, you'll find a few, but not many.

I have heard suggestions that we need to reintroduce the draft for a variety of reasons. Truth be told, I suspect we will at some point need to create a draft system if only to get cops on the street. If you have children, cclaxton, karma would dictate that they are the first on the streets of Fairfax County or, better yet, Prince George's County.
Even when drunk, I will know if a group of cops barge into my room and point guns at my head. I don't recall him saying they had fingers on triggers. Obviously there are degrees of drunkenness, but being drunk doesn't make you blind. Also, Fairfax police did not deny the claim, and instead stated their officers did nothing wrong upon a review.
I completely support a requirement that every 18yo or HS graduate spend 2-3 years in the military where they would learn self-defense, use of weapons, teamwork, fitness habits, personal management, etc. (I was much better prepared for life after my military service). I don't call that a draft.

While many military skills may crossover into policing, combat experience often does not. Many police departments have had issues with cops who had combat experience because they were more likely to use excessive force. I think the LE's posting here have made the same point.

I would be proud if my kids served as police, wherever they felt they needed to be. I worry about their safety no matter what job they have.
Cody

[Mr_White]

Well, back to what I originally asked. How was it measured, and on who? As it was pointed out to me earlier, it's not about you. You can put an Olympic sprinter in tap shoes, and he'd handily smoke me in a 100m dash regardless of my footwear, but that doesn't mean he wasn't hampered by it. You are not an average shooter, and I would suppose you are not under heavy stress when you're doing this. My question is how was it measured, on who, in what circumstances, and were quality of hits evaluated along with time to first shot?

"How do you know what you think you know?" is one of my most favorite questions, ever.

I don't have a study handy to point to, but I think FSRC has documented a bunch of this stuff with various officers and untrained volunteers. Sorry, no link handy but I believe that may be the most readily available information that is most robustly obtained and documented.

I know I brought my own times into it, but I don't think that invalidates the basic point. I'm not that special. Most people in our classes are able to plug A-zone hits at 7 yards in under 0.50 seconds from ready, repeatedly. That's just a continuation of my mentor/predecessor's standard, which he derived from his prior agency standards combined with some other training standards he had been exposed to. A hit from ready to an 8" circle at 7 yards has been a core skill at the Rogers Shooting School for ~30 years I think. People routinely do it. I don't mean untrained people, but I do mean people of a very wide range of training background get it done with not a whole lot of work.

So that's where I know it from - my own personal experience in training and training others, as well as that standard being used by more than one training school.

How long it takes to fire a shot from on sights and on trigger is something again that I think has been documented by FSRC, and again where I know it from is my own experience training and shooting and seeing others do the same. This is not something I've seen practiced nearly as much as engaging from the ready, so my knowledge of this point is less robust but I still think valid and correct. You can see some self-reporting on this task from the DotW 110: Jerk The Trigger, located here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15895-Week-110-Jerk-The-Trigger&

In that DotW, people had to fire accurate shots starting on sights and on trigger (as an exercise of shooting mechanics, not as a recommended tactical procedure.) Some people reported their specific times. I skimmed the thread just now, and it looks like those times ranged from about 0.15 to 0.49. With just a little instruction and practice, I think all or nearly all of the posters in that thread could be be hitting As from ready at 7 yards in under 0.50 seconds if they couldn't do it already, and I bet a bunch of them can. Actually, that might make a good DotW itself...


To clarify something with you, are you advocating for pointing a gun directly at someone, with finger in register, before the decision to fire has been made? (At least in some circumstances - I know you don't mean universally all the time.) Or do you also mean finger on the trigger too? If you mean the latter, and I am betting you don't, then what about the ND risk? If you mean the former, which I am betting you do, what I am saying is that there is essentially no time gain to that at all. Has your experience been different? Have you found that you are much or any faster to engage from on target/finger in register vs off target/finger in register?

So what about this, BBI? Just looking to hear more about what you do/your experience/etc. Thanks!

[Dagga Boy]

While many military skills may crossover into policing, combat experience often does not. Many police departments have had issues with cops who had combat experience because they were more likely to use excessive force. I think the LE's posting here have made the same point.

My experience has been the polar opposite. The only place the above statement seems to be true is in the media and television. My experience has been that military vets, especially with combat experience are far more mature for their age, far more disciplined, less likely to use excessive force out of fear, less likely to be screamers and fear biters, deal with crisis better, have far better command presence (which solves tons of force problems without force), and are better about liking to train and improve their skills. They tend to be better with equipment selection and maintenance, and are also better at following orders in a crisis from senior officers trying to manage a scene. I would take a combat vet over a college grad any day of the week, and that is from the first guy recruited off a college campus by my PD. As a senior FTO my best trainees were usually the ones from the military. Other qualities....accept criticism and critique well, tend to have less racial perceptions as they have served with lots of different people, been immersed in other cultures, and likely have been supervised by people different than them. They also tend to be good learners in areas of firearms use and use of force tools. They also have a far better understanding of the ramifications of negligence with weapons and not following safety protocals.

Wherever you heard about issues with former military members in law enforcement is utter b.s.

I do have some issues with adopting tactics from pure military trainers who have no LE experience, but I have zero issues with former military going into law enforcement and actually think it is where we should be doing our recruiting.

[runcible]

While many military skills may crossover into policing, combat experience often does not. Many police departments have had issues with cops who had combat experience because they were more likely to use excessive force. I think the LE's posting here have made the same point.


Could you post a supporting cite for that, please?

[RoyGBiv]

Not exactly on topic since nobody got muzzled... but, FWIW.

Driver files complaint after traffic stop in Rosenberg (http://www.click2houston.com/news/driver-files-complaint-after-traffic-stop-in-rosenberg/36532140)

TL/DR... Guy gets pulled for failing to signal. Declares CHL. LEO calls for backup and they arrest the guy for traffic violations. Backup guy with gun drawn.

[John Hearne]

Many police departments have had issues with cops who had combat experience because they were more likely to use excessive force. I think the LE's posting here have made the same point.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. If you don't have any, you are doing a great dis-service to a lot of good people.

[WobblyPossum]

...
While many military skills may crossover into policing, combat experience often does not. Many police departments have had issues with cops who had combat experience because they were more likely to use excessive force. I think the LE's posting here have made the same point.
...
Cody

Cody, I think when you make claims like this without posting at least a link to a study about the issue, that's where you continually alienate a lot of the LEOs on this board.

[BehindBlueI's]

"How do you know what you think you know?" is one of my most favorite questions, ever.

I don't have a study handy to point to, but I think FSRC has documented a bunch of this stuff with various officers and untrained volunteers. Sorry, no link handy but I believe that may be the most readily available information that is most robustly obtained and documented.

I know I brought my own times into it, but I don't think that invalidates the basic point. I'm not that special. Most people in our classes are able to plug A-zone hits at 7 yards in under 0.50 seconds from ready, repeatedly. That's just a continuation of my mentor/predecessor's standard, which he derived from his prior agency standards combined with some other training standards he had been exposed to. A hit from ready to an 8" circle at 7 yards has been a core skill at the Rogers Shooting School for ~30 years I think. People routinely do it. I don't mean untrained people, but I do mean people of a very wide range of training background get it done with not a whole lot of work.

So that's where I know it from - my own personal experience in training and training others, as well as that standard being used by more than one training school.

How long it takes to fire a shot from on sights and on trigger is something again that I think has been documented by FSRC, and again where I know it from is my own experience training and shooting and seeing others do the same. This is not something I've seen practiced nearly as much as engaging from the ready, so my knowledge of this point is less robust but I still think valid and correct. You can see some self-reporting on this task from the DotW 110: Jerk The Trigger, located here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15895-Week-110-Jerk-The-Trigger&

In that DotW, people had to fire accurate shots starting on sights and on trigger (as an exercise of shooting mechanics, not as a recommended tactical procedure.) Some people reported their specific times. I skimmed the thread just now, and it looks like those times ranged from about 0.15 to 0.49. With just a little instruction and practice, I think all or nearly all of the posters in that thread could be be hitting As from ready at 7 yards in under 0.50 seconds if they couldn't do it already, and I bet a bunch of them can. Actually, that might make a good DotW itself...



So what about this, BBI? Just looking to hear more about what you do/your experience/etc. Thanks!

I actually intended to see my own differences at the range today but got distracted by something shiny and forgot to work it in. So, as a followup question, the guys who can plug that circle in .50 from a low ready, how fast are they from sights lined up on target? Are the hits the same? More telling, can they do the same under stress and while distracted? Differences that are tiny in a stress-free admin setting with no movement, ample lighting, no decision making, etc. MAY be multiplied when you're in the proverbial dark alley outnumbered 2:1, etc. Maybe not. But my point is admin tests prove admin performance. In LE speak, they are lead information only. A place to start, indicative, but not proof.


o clarify something with you, are you advocating for pointing a gun directly at someone, with finger in register, before the decision to fire has been made? (At least in some circumstances - I know you don't mean universally all the time.) Or do you also mean finger on the trigger too? If you mean the latter, and I am betting you don't, then what about the ND risk? If you mean the former, which I am betting you do, what I am saying is that there is essentially no time gain to that at all. Has your experience been different? Have you found that you are much or any faster to engage from on target/finger in register vs off target/finger in register?

No, finger off the trigger. Not that it's a great idea at any time, but particularly with the lighter and shorter pull weights of today's typical duty gun too much risk there. I understand this is a sliding scale, nobody is talking about every inth degree of speed regardless of risk, nor is anyone talking about zero risk being possible. Reasonable minds may differ, and situations differ, but I'd have to see some very solid evidence that no time and no accuracy is given up in a questionable situation from on target vs low ready.

FWIW, I tend to use a high ready with the sight under my right eye (field of vision wise, obviously, not actually indexing on my cheek) as I find it quicker and more instinctive to present from that position then a low ready.

[BehindBlueI's]

My experience has been the polar opposite. The only place the above statement seems to be true is in the media and television.

I would concur. The few exceptions have been people who are great in a crisis but suck at admin, or who've had alcohol related issues. God knows they aren't alone in that regard, and I'd be hesitant to pin alcohol abuse as a 'veteran issue'.

[Dagga Boy]

The real test is to use half the Rogers test. Have some one with a gun at low or lower end contact ready finger in register and give a shot/no shoot input. Check time for single solid hit off only the shoot indicator. Do the same with gun lined up on the impact area and check. I think you will find you give up little, and gain a lot of assessment time and vision working from a locked in low where you only have to make a single rapid move from low to eye line.

[Dagga Boy]

I would concur. The few exceptions have been people who are great in a crisis but suck at admin, or who've had alcohol related issues. God knows they aren't alone in that regard, and I'd be hesitant to pin alcohol abuse as a 'veteran issue'.

I have found that many of the just out of the military folks have often got the drinking stuff out of the way, while the just out of college who have never seen bad things tend to use alcohol as a means to cope. I stopped drinking when I became a cop and used the range as my shrink. I was unique. Alcohol abuse and in later years prescription drug abuse are some deep issues in LE and become inappropriate coping mechanisms. Again, many of the combat vets have better figured out coping at an earlier age. It is a huge benefit of having a young person who has seen death, decapitation, and people burned to death and figured out how to deal with that. Most young people out of college who live at home with their parents are ill prepared for what we see daily in LE.

[BehindBlueI's]

The real test is to use half the Rogers test. Have some one with a gun at low or lower end contact ready finger in register and give a shot/no shoot input. Check time for single solid hit off only the shoot indicator. Do the same with gun lined up on the impact area and check. I think you will find you give up little, and gain a lot of assessment time and vision working from a locked in low where you only have to make a single rapid move from low to eye line.

I intend to give it a go. Will add in high ready as well.

[cclaxton]

I apologize to any military veterans for my statements about suitability for law enforcement. I am repeating what I read and I am working to find out where so I can cite the references. However, to start I did find this study:
https://www.bja.gov/Publications/IACPEmployingReturningVets.pdf
I will continue to research where I found the other references.
I am sure there are many military veterans who are serving as LEO's with great distinction, and I mean no offense.
Cody

[Mr_White]

No, finger off the trigger. Not that it's a great idea at any time, but particularly with the lighter and shorter pull weights of today's typical duty gun too much risk there. I understand this is a sliding scale, nobody is talking about every inth degree of speed regardless of risk, nor is anyone talking about zero risk being possible. Reasonable minds may differ, and situations differ, but I'd have to see some very solid evidence that no time and no accuracy is given up in a questionable situation from on target vs low ready.

That is what I thought you meant and just wanted to clarify that. Thanks.


I actually intended to see my own differences at the range today but got distracted by something shiny and forgot to work it in. So, as a followup question, the guys who can plug that circle in .50 from a low ready, how fast are they from sights lined up on target? Are the hits the same? More telling, can they do the same under stress and while distracted? Differences that are tiny in a stress-free admin setting with no movement, ample lighting, no decision making, etc. MAY be multiplied when you're in the proverbial dark alley outnumbered 2:1, etc. Maybe not. But my point is admin tests prove admin performance. In LE speak, they are lead information only. A place to start, indicative, but not proof.

That's where I equivocated a little in the earlier post, in that I have not robustly researched the answers to those specific questions. My belief about the answers to those questions comes from a combination of: I was trained that way, that's what I've experienced for myself and in training others, that's what authorities such as FSRC, my own very experienced mentor, Bill Rogers, Chuck Haggard, and nyeti have all asserted (yell at me if I am incorrectly citing any of you!) I'm pretty sure nyeti quoted Scott Reitz on this point as well. The Rogers Shooting School also has no shortage of instructors and students with extensive experience in the field.

Some of my training experience is piecemeal to the discussion we are in now - like the engagement time for on sights and on trigger. That's not something that I accumulate a subjective/objective sense of from classes. I've tested it for myself at times before, we saw more people's numbers in that DotW, and the times are also known because Larry Vickers, Ben Stoeger, nyeti, and Wayne Dobbs all have used the 'command fire' type of drill in classes, or suggested relevant times in published works. But I don't have all my students do it and then record the times, nor have I set up a stress test or FOF scenario in order to measure it, or looked at accuracy differences finer than an A/-0 zone at 7 yards.

It's settled enough in my mind from all of that, that I've never really wanted to test it extensively. Everything I've seen on this in training has matched what I've been told by a number of highly experienced people. That makes me believe that it isn't going to fall apart for real world use and the dynamics are essentially the same as what I have seen for myself in the training/practice/competitive environments.

That is how I know what I think I know. ;)


FWIW, I tend to use a high ready with the sight under my right eye (field of vision wise, obviously, not actually indexing on my cheek) as I find it quicker and more instinctive to present from that position then a low ready.

Here is how a few ready position engagement times break down for me. This is all for an A/-0 zone hit at 7 yards in the training context.

Low ready/contact ready/threat ready (gun is already extended, and at least barely off target): ~0.35

Retracted/high ready (gun is not extended yet): ~0.60

SUL/indoor ready (yeah I know lots of people hate this one): ~0.90

There is a definite speed hierarchy to those ready positions for me.

[Dagga Boy]

On time and ready.....we also found the high ready significantly slower in our testing protocol.

On the vet thing....The IACP...and looking at many who were on the board....give me a break. Most of those folks have not been in a police car in a couple decades and were not good at it when they were. Want to find out about vets in LE....ask your experienced senior FTO's who have had a lot of trainees. Most of your "Chief types" are very proud of their college degrees (often from a buy a degree mill) and think hiring a bunch of academics like themselves is great and most look down on and are dismissive of military service like the remarks made by Joe Biden years ago that if you are a loser in school you go to Iraq. I ll stand by my actual experience of a bunch of police executives who are generally clueless about the actual realities of street police work. The way to the top is not through graveyard patrol, the range, or the FTO program.

[BehindBlueI's]

Here is how a few ready position engagement times break down for me. This is all for an A/-0 zone hit at 7 yards in the training context.

Low ready/contact ready/threat ready (gun is already extended, and at least barely off target): ~0.35

Retracted/high ready (gun is not extended yet): ~0.60

SUL/indoor ready (yeah I know lots of people hate this one): ~0.90

There is a definite speed hierarchy to those ready positions for me.

If our range is open next Friday, I'm going to try it cold and see what the differences are for me. Our taught "low ready" is at the "feet" of the target, if it were to actually have legs and feet. I've been wrong before, so I'm always willing to give something new (to me) a try and see how it pans out.

The high ready for me isn't the fastest, by the way. It's the most intuitive for a "surprise" target. I get better hits when the sight is already lined up under my strong eye and I just have to bring it to the target. Low ready is great if I know where the target is and am squared up to it. It's less great looking for the target. I should probably clarify that a bit, but high ready was more of my "searching" ready position, low ready or on target my "found you" position.

[cclaxton]

On time and ready.....we also found the high ready significantly slower in our testing protocol.

On the vet thing....The IACP...and looking at many who were on the board....give me a break. Most of those folks have not been in a police car in a couple decades and were not good at it when they were. Want to find out about vets in LE....ask your experienced senior FTO's who have had a lot of trainees. Most of your "Chief types" are very proud of their college degrees (often from a buy a degree mill) and think hiring a bunch of academics like themselves is great and most look down on and are dismissive of military service like the remarks made by Joe Biden years ago that if you are a loser in school you go to Iraq. I ll stand by my actual experience of a bunch of police executives who are generally clueless about the actual realities of street police work. The way to the top is not through graveyard patrol, the range, or the FTO program.
I take back what I said about vets and I take your word for it DB, perhaps with one question:
There does seem to be enough evidence that Combat Veterans who suffered from PTSD may have difficulty. Would it be logical they should take longer to transition and ensure they get a regular psychological evaluation?
Cody

[Coyotesfan97]

There was a reason the LAPD used to recruit Vietnam vets at the airport when they returned to the US. we have a lot of combat vets on our department. We need to hire more. Unfortunately we seem to get a lot of 21 year olds with no life experience who have never been in a fight in their lives. Talk about fear biters.

[Mr_White]

If our range is open next Friday, I'm going to try it cold and see what the differences are for me. Our taught "low ready" is at the "feet" of the target, if it were to actually have legs and feet. I've been wrong before, so I'm always willing to give something new (to me) a try and see how it pans out.

The high ready for me isn't the fastest, by the way. It's the most intuitive for a "surprise" target. I get better hits when the sight is already lined up under my strong eye and I just have to bring it to the target. Low ready is great if I know where the target is and am squared up to it. It's less great looking for the target. I should probably clarify that a bit, but high ready was more of my "searching" ready position, low ready or on target my "found you" position.

Cool, and I'm interested to hear about whatever you notice with the ready positions.

I definitely think choice of ready positions is about context more than anything else, so I sure hear you on your different positions for different situations.

[Dagga Boy]

I take back what I said about vets and I take your word for it DB, perhaps with one question:
There does seem to be enough evidence that Combat Veterans who suffered from PTSD may have difficulty. Would it be logical they should take longer to transition and ensure they get a regular psychological evaluation?
Cody

Personally, I am of the opinion that PTSD gets thrown around way too much, and with WAY too much misunderstanding and utter bull crap. A vast number of folks coming back from WWII had what we call PTSD today and were some of the greatest Americans ever and the reason we have the standing in the world we have....and are losing with the decline in numbers from that generation. Also, some of the best cops ever produced came from that era. Same with our Korean and Vietnam era vets. Everyone going into LE goes through psych testing, I have no worries about our vets.
The crazed PTSD vet like the one that killed Chris Kyle is a fictional thing. That guy was a massive dope fiend who was a mechanic and never saw one bit of combat......yet the media creates a monster. For those who simply have a hard time transitioning from a ton of adrenaline, and a high pace in a combat zone to an office are actually great candidates for cops.

[runcible]

I take back what I said about vets and I take your word for it DB, perhaps with one question:
There does seem to be enough evidence that Combat Veterans who suffered from PTSD may have difficulty. Would it be logical they should take longer to transition and ensure they get a regular psychological evaluation?
Cody

Dude,

From where are you pulling this alleged-data and from what experience do you compose these conclusions? What could justify such gross overstepping and privacy violations while still allowing for lawful employment?

[Sir Guy]

Great discussion, and you've made some very articulate points, nyeti.

A few years ago I moved from night shift FTO to investigations, but I still do the firearms instructor gig.

Drills from on target vs low ready can be illustrative and easy to show differences in times.

What I also enjoy looking at are "par times" for decision-making about when to draw and shoot, compared to just drawing, or compared to just coming up from a low ready. It's harder to quantify under controlled conditions for obvious reasons (when you have your guys on a square range and loaded with ball, they expect shooting to follow).

We have a FATS, which I like as a judgment simulator. I don't have hard data on it but what I've seen is somewhat better and more consistent "hits" when officers start in a holster and don't immediately expect a shooting drill. What rings true to what you've said is that those officers who are more confident, experienced, and better shooters are sometimes a bit more likely to stay in the holster.

It reminds me of the self-proclaimed "high speed" guys who keep the hoods of their ALS holsters down. What I see with that is someone who is as likely to be less confident, competent, or aware of their limitations than someone who consistently practices drawing each time, or who makes conscious decisions to shoot when starting from a low ready.

[Mr_White]

For anyone who's interested, this week's Drill of the Week was written to explore the mechanical aspects of starting off vs. on target:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18116-Week-140-On-Target-Off-Target-%28Ready-Position-Evaluation%29&p=376112#post376112

[Mas]

One point not deeply addressed yet in this thread is “the view from the other side of the gun.”
All here recognize that “the bad guys” are extremely fluent in body language, even if they don’t use that term. (See https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18113-The-Deadly-Mix&p=376070#post376070 ).
“Good guys” gauge others on “are you good or are you bad?” “Bad guys” are more likely to gauge on “are you hard or are you soft?” Which can be read as, “Are you about to shoot me right now if I continue my bad acts, or not?”
Which, in turn, can be perceived by them as “Let me get this straight. You want me to believe you’re ready to shoot me, but you don’t dare even aim your gun at me and can’t bring its muzzle any higher than the ground in front of me? Bwa-ha-ha!”
Since the 1970s, I’ve been convinced that a gun leveled pelvis-high on the suspect is the most effective “middle ground.” It has the same primary tactical advantage as “low ready” or Col. Cooper’s “guard position” that the “good guy” behind the gun can watch the hands without obscuring view of such with his or her own gun and hand(s), but unlike the low (below the target) ready, DOES convey a resolute preparedness to inflict death or grave bodily harm if the suspect’s bad acts escalate.
Advantages:
 Obviously, the ability to “see the hands.”
 If the shot is fired from this point of aim, it tends to be effective. While I realize medical theory is equivocal on pelvic hits, the history of the NYPD Stakeout Squad shows them to be remarkably effective. When the squad was formed in the late 1960s, they went to Dr. Dominic DiMaio at the NYC Medical Examiner’s Office for advice on where to aim the non-expanding .38 Special revolver ammo and 00 buckshot they were stuck with at the beginning, to drop armed violent felons swiftly. His advice – deep brain to turn them off completely, and breaking the pelvis to drop them within a step – worked remarkably well. See Jim Cirillo’s book “Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights” and Paul Kirschner’s “Jim Cirillo and Tales of the NYPD Stakeout Squad,” both from Paladin Press. By all accounts, pelvic shots were successful when they seriously fractured the pelvic girdle. And, there are all those blood vessels there…
 A missed or over-penetrating bullet is going on a downward trajectory less likely to kill a bystander unseen in the dark, or due to tunnel vision, or simply blocked from the shooter’s view by the body of the offender.
 TREMENDOUS psychological intimidation, particularly with male suspects. A gun perceived to be pointed at the genital area cancels any machismo born from “my fellow gang members have survived being shot and wear their scars as badges of courage.” We also have more bad guys wearing body armor on the torso than in the time of John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson, one of whom arguably and one of whom definitely was able to continue his criminal career because the armor stopped good guys’ lead. We all live in a world of armored good guys: in America, except for the most heavily armed SWAT cops, how many of us wear armor below the navel? Has anyone here documented a case where the “bad guys” were armored there? Apparently, not even in the BoA shootout in North Hollywood. Pointing at a part of the body not covered by armor can obviously be advantageous to “good guys” drawing down on conventionally-armored “bad guys.”
Obviously, with what we have now known for some time about what happens when “startle response” combines with a finger on the trigger, the index finger should be in register on the frame.
There’s more to it than how fast the shot can be fired when the stimulus comes, though of course, being already dialed in on an effective point of aim plays into that part of the discussion too.

[voodoo_man]

One point not deeply addressed yet in this thread is “the view from the other side of the gun.”
All here recognize that “the bad guys” are extremely fluent in body language, even if they don’t use that term. (See https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18113-The-Deadly-Mix&p=376070#post376070 ).
“Good guys” gauge others on “are you good or are you bad?” “Bad guys” are more likely to gauge on “are you hard or are you soft?” Which can be read as, “Are you about to shoot me right now if I continue my bad acts, or not?”
Which, in turn, can be perceived by them as “Let me get this straight. You want me to believe you’re ready to shoot me, but you don’t dare even aim your gun at me and can’t bring its muzzle any higher than the ground in front of me? Bwa-ha-ha!”
Since the 1970s, I’ve been convinced that a gun leveled pelvis-high on the suspect is the most effective “middle ground.” It has the same primary tactical advantage as “low ready” or Col. Cooper’s “guard position” that the “good guy” behind the gun can watch the hands without obscuring view of such with his or her own gun and hand(s), but unlike the low (below the target) ready, DOES convey a resolute preparedness to inflict death or grave bodily harm if the suspect’s bad acts escalate.
Advantages:
 Obviously, the ability to “see the hands.”
 If the shot is fired from this point of aim, it tends to be effective. While I realize medical theory is equivocal on pelvic hits, the history of the NYPD Stakeout Squad shows them to be remarkably effective. When the squad was formed in the late 1960s, they went to Dr. Dominic DiMaio at the NYC Medical Examiner’s Office for advice on where to aim the non-expanding .38 Special revolver ammo and 00 buckshot they were stuck with at the beginning, to drop armed violent felons swiftly. His advice – deep brain to turn them off completely, and breaking the pelvis to drop them within a step – worked remarkably well. See Jim Cirillo’s book “Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights” and Paul Kirschner’s “Jim Cirillo and Tales of the NYPD Stakeout Squad,” both from Paladin Press. By all accounts, pelvic shots were successful when they seriously fractured the pelvic girdle. And, there are all those blood vessels there…
 A missed or over-penetrating bullet is going on a downward trajectory less likely to kill a bystander unseen in the dark, or due to tunnel vision, or simply blocked from the shooter’s view by the body of the offender.
 TREMENDOUS psychological intimidation, particularly with male suspects. A gun perceived to be pointed at the genital area cancels any machismo born from “my fellow gang members have survived being shot and wear their scars as badges of courage.” We also have more bad guys wearing body armor on the torso than in the time of John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson, one of whom arguably and one of whom definitely was able to continue his criminal career because the armor stopped good guys’ lead. We all live in a world of armored good guys: in America, except for the most heavily armed SWAT cops, how many of us wear armor below the navel? Has anyone here documented a case where the “bad guys” were armored there? Apparently, not even in the BoA shootout in North Hollywood. Pointing at a part of the body not covered by armor can obviously be advantageous to “good guys” drawing down on conventionally-armored “bad guys.”
Obviously, with what we have now known for some time about what happens when “startle response” combines with a finger on the trigger, the index finger should be in register on the frame.
There’s more to it than how fast the shot can be fired when the stimulus comes, though of course, being already dialed in on an effective point of aim plays into that part of the discussion too.

Most of the bad guys whom I've pointed guns at generally do no care, I sometimes get the random "shoot me pig!" and "what are you gana do, shoot me?" lines, but generally the only people who care that I am pointing a gun at them are the people who are not "hard" or aren't about that life.

If we are talking about the general public who are not criminals or of that life, they do not take well to having guns pointed at them.

[LSP552]

Most of the bad guys whom I've pointed guns at generally do no care, I sometimes get the random "shoot me pig!" and "what are you gana do, shoot me?" lines, but generally the only people who care that I am pointing a gun at them are the people who are not "hard" or aren't about that life.

If we are talking about the general public who are not criminals or of that life, they do not take well to having guns pointed at them.

Real criminal's are not afraid of having guns pointed at them. It happens to them routinely. They also know an officer can't shoot them just standing there not resisting. My personal opinion is pointing guns at people you are not prepared to shoot doesn't intimate hard core criminals, it just conveys you are not serious.

[voodoo_man]

Real criminal's are not afraid of having guns pointed at them. It happens to them routinely. They also know an officer can't shoot them just standing there not resisting. My personal opinion is pointing guns at people you are not prepared to shoot doesn't intimate hard core criminals, it just conveys you are not serious.

Sure, hence why the way the convo goes on this topic is normally "don't point guns at people you aren't read to shoot."

[Dagga Boy]

One point not deeply addressed yet in this thread is “the view from the other side of the gun.”
All here recognize that “the bad guys” are extremely fluent in body language, even if they don’t use that term. (See https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18113-The-Deadly-Mix&p=376070#post376070 ).
“Good guys” gauge others on “are you good or are you bad?” “Bad guys” are more likely to gauge on “are you hard or are you soft?” Which can be read as, “Are you about to shoot me right now if I continue my bad acts, or not?”
Which, in turn, can be perceived by them as “Let me get this straight. You want me to believe you’re ready to shoot me, but you don’t dare even aim your gun at me and can’t bring its muzzle any higher than the ground in front of me? Bwa-ha-ha!”
Since the 1970s, I’ve been convinced that a gun leveled pelvis-high on the suspect is the most effective “middle ground.” It has the same primary tactical advantage as “low ready” or Col. Cooper’s “guard position” that the “good guy” behind the gun can watch the hands without obscuring view of such with his or her own gun and hand(s), but unlike the low (below the target) ready, DOES convey a resolute preparedness to inflict death or grave bodily harm if the suspect’s bad acts escalate.
Advantages:
 Obviously, the ability to “see the hands.”
 If the shot is fired from this point of aim, it tends to be effective. While I realize medical theory is equivocal on pelvic hits, the history of the NYPD Stakeout Squad shows them to be remarkably effective. When the squad was formed in the late 1960s, they went to Dr. Dominic DiMaio at the NYC Medical Examiner’s Office for advice on where to aim the non-expanding .38 Special revolver ammo and 00 buckshot they were stuck with at the beginning, to drop armed violent felons swiftly. His advice – deep brain to turn them off completely, and breaking the pelvis to drop them within a step – worked remarkably well. See Jim Cirillo’s book “Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights” and Paul Kirschner’s “Jim Cirillo and Tales of the NYPD Stakeout Squad,” both from Paladin Press. By all accounts, pelvic shots were successful when they seriously fractured the pelvic girdle. And, there are all those blood vessels there…
 A missed or over-penetrating bullet is going on a downward trajectory less likely to kill a bystander unseen in the dark, or due to tunnel vision, or simply blocked from the shooter’s view by the body of the offender.
 TREMENDOUS psychological intimidation, particularly with male suspects. A gun perceived to be pointed at the genital area cancels any machismo born from “my fellow gang members have survived being shot and wear their scars as badges of courage.” We also have more bad guys wearing body armor on the torso than in the time of John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson, one of whom arguably and one of whom definitely was able to continue his criminal career because the armor stopped good guys’ lead. We all live in a world of armored good guys: in America, except for the most heavily armed SWAT cops, how many of us wear armor below the navel? Has anyone here documented a case where the “bad guys” were armored there? Apparently, not even in the BoA shootout in North Hollywood. Pointing at a part of the body not covered by armor can obviously be advantageous to “good guys” drawing down on conventionally-armored “bad guys.”
Obviously, with what we have now known for some time about what happens when “startle response” combines with a finger on the trigger, the index finger should be in register on the frame.
There’s more to it than how fast the shot can be fired when the stimulus comes, though of course, being already dialed in on an effective point of aim plays into that part of the discussion too.

Sorry, this is some serious fantasy stuff based on my experience. There are a few of us on this forum that have pointed guns a literally thousands of people (if not tens of thousands). In a single year my partner and I made almost 500 felony arrests which include 21 armed with firearms on contact and we shot two. That is one out of almost two decades of dealing with felons. They don't care about guns pointed at them. What do you do when the felon says "go ahead and shoot me". You just lost the who is a bad ass game. It is just like the stupid advice to talk to these folks in "the language of the street" or any sort of street tough language. Know what...they can tell you are not like them. If you are not a scum bag criminal, why try to talk like one? Want to know what they do get....authoritative higher language, just like they have had from school principles, community elders, grand parents, coaches, etc. If you are a cop or solid citizen, speak like one.

Working out of the low ready....in my old area, crooks immediately recognized the draw to a hard low ready...that is serious gunfighter stuff taught to them by folks who do not need to try to intimidate them with a gun. They recognize that draw and positioning from LAPD Metro.....the division that runs in the area of 90% hits on felons and the felons know it. Just had an older LT. out in SoCal with major Crimes pull that draw on a gangster who's immediate response was "don't shoot me old timer". He immediately knew he was being confronted by someone who does not need to wave a gun at them to make a point. The whole pointing a gun at their pelvis is sophomoric fantasy as well. They don't really care. You are likely not the first or last to point a gun at them, and most of the previous were not working from a position of rules. They know that you either "can" or "cannot". Don't overplay your hand. I have shut down more fights than I can count with a hard low ready draw. This goes for others like my partner Wayne who has had the same success with the exact same technique, including stopping a rapist in his tracks with that draw who submitted immediately.....the same rapist who later shot an LEO. Guy obviously was impressed enough at the "seriousness" of that level of gun handling to not want that fight with Wayne. I have never had a single person go "bwa ha ha" at a muzzle below foot line....ever, and that is with a lot of people both on and off duty. People who remain calm, and focused and show the capability to bring serious hate is what scares criminals, not pointing guns at them when you cannot legally shoot them....and they know that. Indicating you are prepared to shoot them at escalation is more important than playing psych games with people who are professional manipulator's and liars, and often chemically enhanced.

Pelvic shots.....please stop with this nonsense as a failure to stop solution. This thread mirrors my experience, and the pathologists on autopsy's from OIS's I have investigated and the same from people like Gene Wolberg who I spent a lot of time in contact with when he was alive.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4330-Shots-to-the-Pelvis

Must be a New York thing, because we were not seeing breaking of Pelvis's with high performance .45 ACP, so I am not seeing the old NYPD .38 LRN working better. Hitting folks in the ass for some reason seems to work, but I think that has more to do with them already being in flight mode when hit rather than massive incapacitation. The pelvis as a target of opportunity, a target for "smaller statured" folks working retention with "full size" opponents, for military guys using rifles to shoot through the hips to ground movers to shoot them more while stationary....all good. As a failure to stop, sorry, have not seen it work in that role and the best you get is a grounded pissed off person that is still a threat. This compared to all the cases of shooting folks in the head that tends to work much better. We have shot both armored and un armored dudes in the head with great effect. I will say that armor is failrly rare unless dealing with interrupted professional robbery crews.
Where to cover....totally situational. I use a hard low ready until I have an articulable reason to put that firearm on meat. Once that happens, the situation dictates where and that is wholly vision oriented for me to do threat assessment, and not to threaten some dudes manhood.
Now we get to what I have found to be what crooks are actually thinking about. Fight or flight. When confronted or the plan goes bad, they are formulating a plan to kill you or escape...period. This is what you need to be worrying about. For a citizen, or the case I have had on several off duty robbery attempts, flight is a win. For cops, you may need to interrupt their thought process and overload them with reasons to surrender. If bad guy chooses killing you, you should be in the best position possible to stop that with force. I want focus where the bullet is going so I can interrupt that line of vision with a sight in order to put bullets in effective places efficiently. I want to dictate the OODA loop and dominate the encounter and not play silly psychological games with an animal playing by separate rules that they have mastered.

[Wondering Beard]

To be sure I understand, what is a hard low ready?

is it sort of like the old weaver low ready at or near full extension but pointed at the feet of the bad guy, or something closer in with the arms somewhat collapsed inward?

Or something else entirely?

[Dagga Boy]

To be sure I understand, what is a hard low ready?

is it sort of like the old weaver low ready at or near full extension but pointed at the feet of the bad guy, or something closer in with the arms somewhat collapsed inward?

Or something else entirely?

Here is the textbook version. If it gets fatiguing, I ll collapse it a bit.

[BehindBlueI's]

Most of the bad guys whom I've pointed guns at generally do no care, I sometimes get the random "shoot me pig!" and "what are you gana do, shoot me?" lines, but generally the only people who care that I am pointing a gun at them are the people who are not "hard" or aren't about that life.

If we are talking about the general public who are not criminals or of that life, they do not take well to having guns pointed at them.

The "what are you going to do, shoot me?" my answer was "that's up to you, now show me your hands" (or whatever).

[Wondering Beard]

Thanks Nyeti.

That brings back Gunsite memories and I remember collapsing it when things took a bit too long on the line and I got a bit tired.

I imagine it still looks more or less the same with an iso stance.

[Dagga Boy]

Thanks Nyeti.

That brings back Gunsite memories and I remember collapsing it when things took a bit too long on the line and I got a bit tired.

I imagine it still looks more or less the same with an iso stance.

Yep, my partner is a modern ISO shooter and our stances are not much different. Idea is the same. Again, if you have an articulable threat that you can legally justify putting a muzzle on (can you defend an assault with a firearm?) put a muzzle on it. We define that as a contact ready in that you have positive contact and can articulate a variable threat that could require lethal force to protect yourself. Where the muzzle is in contact ready is totally situationally depended and should be based on what you need visually to assess your threat. A true low ready should not have a muzzle on any meat and is often used as both a search technique, and a means to get the draw out of the force equation.

[L-2]

Good discussion. I know I'm not the best reader, but I did pass the written/reading/comprehension tests to get into LE work. Between the 1st and 2nd posts, I then got lost reading everyones' postings. The 2nd post really confused me commenting about a "theory", as in what theory?

We went from stolen vehicle information; whether to use a firearm at all; common sense/experience; and firearms tactics/training/usage.

It seems we all have our experiences and techniques we've used, to some success, luck, or somewhere in-between.

I can see the innocent family would be/is quite upset. Whether that family gets some money from a civil suit will likely be between that county agency and that family. Also, whether it actually needs to go to trial or an acceptable settlement remains to be seen.

Here's what I gathered from the referenced article:
-the primary Deputy was very new (although off initial field training).
THERE WAS ONCE A TIME WHEN I WAS VERY NEW. THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMBINATION OF TRAINING & EXPERIENCE, AND NOT NECESSARILY A FAULT OF THE NEW DEPUTY.
-a clerical error, then visual reading errors initiated a traffic stop.
I SUSPECT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF US, HAVE ENCOUNTERED CLERICAL ERRORS IN OUR EXPERIENCE. THIS HAPPENS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ONE IS THAT NEW DEPUTY'S ERROR AND THAT NEW DEPUTY OWNS IT.

-a felony traffic stop was selected.
THIS IS WHERE I RECALL MY ACADEMY TRAINING, ALTHOUGH THAT WAS MANY YEARS AGO. I SEEM TO RECALL GETTING THE IMPRESSION IF THERE WAS A STOLEN VEHICLE, BEGIN A FELONY STOP. THIS WAS PRIOR TO USING MOBILE DATA TERMINALS (MDT OR CAR COMPUTERS). EVEN IF USING ONLY THE DISPATCHER , THE DEPUTY STILL MIGHT MIS-SPOKEN THE LICENSE PLATE TO A DISPATCHER AND OBTAINED THE SAME INFORMATION. AS I RECALL, CONFIRMING WHETHER TO CAR WAS INDEED STOLEN MAY BE "CONFIRMED" AFTER THE CAR IS STOPPED, BUT I DON'T ACTUALLY RECALL THERE BE A PROCEDURE MANDATING THE CONFIRMATION PRIOR TO INITIATING THE STOP (THIS COULD JUST BE MY DEPARTMENT/RECOLLECTION). THERE IS A CONFIRMATION PRIOR TO ARRESTING, TOWING, AND DOING THE REPORT, HOWEVER.

FROM A NEW DEPUTY'S PERSPECTIVE, I'D GUESS A FELONY STOP WAS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP A "SUSPECTED" STOLEN VEHICLE. IN THIS CASE, THE DEPUTY WAS REASONABLY SURE THE VEHICLE BELONGING TO THE LICENSE PLATE (ALTHOUGH THE ACTUAL PLATE WAS IN ERROR) WAS LISTED AS STOLEN IN THE DATABASE.

I'm using to many capital letters as I wanted to differentiate my answers from my perceived topics; switching back to regular use of text/case.

Whether the stolen vehicle info came out via computer &/or spoken by dispatch, would a brand-new Deputy be able to know the difference between a FORD, F150 XLT vs. a FORD, TAURUS, XL. We don't actually know what description information that Deputy saw or heard, or especially, was it a reasonable error?

I'm just thinking out loud as to what I've gathered from this thread and wanted us to all try to remember what it was like when we were younger, not as experienced, and very new.

[L-2]

Good discussion. I know I'm not the best reader, but I did pass the written/reading/comprehension tests to get into LE work. Between the 1st and 2nd posts, I then got lost reading everyones' postings. The 2nd post really confused me commenting about a "theory", as in what theory?

We went from stolen vehicle information; whether to use a firearm at all; common sense/experience; and firearms tactics/training/usage.

It seems we all have our experiences and techniques we've used, to some success, luck, or somewhere in-between.

I can see the innocent family would be/is quite upset. Whether that family gets some money from a civil suit will likely be between that county agency and that family. Also, whether it actually needs to go to trial or an acceptable settlement remains to be seen.

Here's what I gathered from the referenced article:
-the primary Deputy was very new (although off initial field training).
THERE WAS ONCE A TIME WHEN I WAS VERY NEW. THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMBINATION OF TRAINING & EXPERIENCE, AND NOT NECESSARILY A FAULT OF THE NEW DEPUTY.
-a clerical error, then visual reading errors initiated a traffic stop.
I SUSPECT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF US, HAVE ENCOUNTERED CLERICAL ERRORS IN OUR EXPERIENCE. THIS HAPPENS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ONE IS THAT NEW DEPUTY'S ERROR AND THAT NEW DEPUTY OWNS IT.

-a felony traffic stop was selected.
THIS IS WHERE I RECALL MY ACADEMY TRAINING, ALTHOUGH THAT WAS MANY YEARS AGO. I SEEM TO RECALL GETTING THE IMPRESSION IF THERE WAS A STOLEN VEHICLE, BEGIN A FELONY STOP. THIS WAS PRIOR TO USING MOBILE DATA TERMINALS (MDT OR CAR COMPUTERS). EVEN IF USING ONLY THE DISPATCHER , THE DEPUTY STILL MIGHT MIS-SPOKEN THE LICENSE PLATE TO A DISPATCHER AND OBTAINED THE SAME INFORMATION. AS I RECALL, CONFIRMING WHETHER TO CAR WAS INDEED STOLEN MAY BE "CONFIRMED" AFTER THE CAR IS STOPPED, BUT I DON'T ACTUALLY RECALL THERE BE A PROCEDURE MANDATING THE CONFIRMATION PRIOR TO INITIATING THE STOP (THIS COULD JUST BE MY DEPARTMENT/RECOLLECTION). THERE IS A CONFIRMATION PRIOR TO ARRESTING, TOWING, AND DOING THE REPORT, HOWEVER.

FROM A NEW DEPUTY'S PERSPECTIVE, I'D GUESS A FELONY STOP WAS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP A "SUSPECTED" STOLEN VEHICLE. IN THIS CASE, THE DEPUTY WAS REASONABLY SURE THE VEHICLE BELONGING TO THE LICENSE PLATE (ALTHOUGH THE ACTUAL PLATE WAS IN ERROR) WAS LISTED AS STOLEN IN THE DATABASE.

I'm using too many capital letters as I wanted to differentiate my answers from my perceived topics; switching back to regular use of text/case.

Whether the stolen vehicle info came out via computer &/or spoken by dispatch, would a brand-new Deputy be able to know the difference between a FORD, F150 XLT vs. a CHEVY, IMPALA, LS. We don't actually know what description information that Deputy saw or heard, or especially, was it a reasonable error? Could a stolen plate be put onto another vehicle which was also stolen? What was in the Deputy's mind? Was it tunnel vision of "the vehicle ahead is stolen!" and that's all? Obviously, the Deputy had no doubt the plate was entered correctly into the computer.

I'm just thinking out loud as to what I've gathered from this thread and wanted us to all try to remember what it was like when we were younger, not as experienced, and very new.

[JustOneGun]

Here is the textbook version. If it gets fatiguing, I ll collapse it a bit.



Wow, I haven't seen an old school 45 degree down ready position in years. I love it.

[Dagga Boy]

Wow, I haven't seen an old school 45 degree down ready position in years. I love it.

That was last thing many a crook saw right before getting dumped in SoCal. It is also extremely fast and movement efficient to go from the evaluation phase of threat assessment to the elimination phase if it goes that way. You also have the ability to retract to retention at speed and with good force if attacked. I know this from absolute fact and not theory.

[JustOneGun]

That was last thing many a crook saw right before getting dumped in SoCal. It is also extremely fast and movement efficient to go from the evaluation phase of threat assessment to the elimination phase if it goes that way. You also have the ability to retract to retention at speed and with good force if attacked. I know this from absolute fact and not theory.



Yep it worked for many years and with a slight change it gets even better. Interestingly enough putting officers under high pressure leads to something very interesting. We noticed that new and old. Poor shooters to some of the best swat officers sometimes over drove the gun upward. They only did it when we put them in the shoot house with another officer live fire. Meaning some were jacked up emotionally and others such as the swat officers were just plain distracted doing something we had never done before. I suspect that they did it some during FoF but that is difficult to actually see. When shooting slower an officer can just slow down onto the target like slowly putting on the brakes. But that leaves us with a serious fact, after the officer has decided to shoot someone they might overdrive the pistol or calibrate a slow down to get on target. Meaning they are slower to the first shot if we compare it to being able to stop abruptly as they do during the end of the draw.

While I certainly can't prove it I suspect that some of the talk about not controlling the first DA shot on a DA/SA was sometimes just over driving the pistol thus shooting right over the shoulder and of course sometimes folks just not being good shots is still a good guess. LOL

Fortunately we all had the answer. Unlock those elbows and bring the gun in almost as far as we have to lift it to the target. I suspect my default ready position looks like your fatigued ready position. I like to do this because we are moving two joints at once, so it's not slower than the old school way. And just as we don't overdrive the gun upwards when we draw the pistol we will no longer have the chance to overdrive it upward with the bent elbows on the ready position.

And by the way I saw this night after night, year after year. We trained for a different ready position and go figure over driving was gone. It was as you say, fact not theory. With no disrespect intended, I believe you over use the "fact and theory" saying. Is it a fact for you or is it you just not wanting to change something that could be improved? I'm not telling you that you can't or didn't do something. I am telling you that some people unknowingly have a problem with it. Some of those people were little geeks like me. Some of them were macho cool chicks dig it mans man cops cop cops. It seemed to be a mechanical problem not a shooting ability problem.

[Dagga Boy]

Over driving upward and laterally comes from the same thing.....not moving the eyes first. Often what we see when distracted processing, etc. Is that folks do not look at what they want to hit, and are looking at other things,,or are trying to pick the sights up before they get to the target. I find that often they are heavily focused on the "initiator" to the shooting (gun, knife, hands, etc. ) and fail to shift focus to what they wat to hit. Often they are not driving over the shoulder, they are driving on the gun held in a hand that is extend with a shoot indicator and never get an eye and sight visually in the same plane of what they actually want to hit versus what caused them to shoot.

When I talk about fact versus theory, that means I know this works from numerous examples of watching the training translate from what we are doing on the range to seeing identical results in the field. This is compared to people coming up with something that they feel works better based on training,yet have no data on actual use and success to back that up...which makes it still theory based in that "it should work", or we think it will work. I prefer to teach what I know works. May make me caught up in "old or outdated" things, but I have real data on those things. As far as a locked arm versus a little more relaxed is almost irrelevent from my expereince. I find the locked to be a little more positive for me, but I have a point where I hit a physical indicator and it seems to work better on a single stationary opponent. On a multi subject, mover, or more dynamic situation or with movement involved, wearing armor, tend to run with less tension and un locked and we are likely doing and teaching the exact same thing. I also find locked seems to work better at longer ranges, where un locked with a lift is better for me in close quarters. I think we are on the exact same page. I have never gotten too wrapped up in small nuances like arm tension mainly because with lots of different folks who are built different and with different equipment some variances have to happen. Either way, the key is making a direct efficient line from point A (out of my vision) to point B (where I want to hit) with a single technique that can be used with my muzzle off the target completely or covering a portion of the target if I can articulate a reason to put a muzzle on it.

[JustOneGun]

Over driving upward and laterally comes from the same thing.....not moving the eyes first. Often what we see when distracted processing, etc. Is that folks do not look at what they want to hit, and are looking at other things,,or are trying to pick the sights up before they get to the target. I find that often they are heavily focused on the "initiator" to the shooting (gun, knife, hands, etc. ) and fail to shift focus to what they wat to hit. Often they are not driving over the shoulder, they are driving on the gun held in a hand that is extend with a shoot indicator and never get an eye and sight visually in the same plane of what they actually want to hit versus what caused them to shoot.

When I talk about fact versus theory, that means I know this works from numerous examples of watching the training translate from what we are doing on the range to seeing identical results in the field. This is compared to people coming up with something that they feel works better based on training,yet have no data on actual use and success to back that up...which makes it still theory based in that "it should work", or we think it will work. I prefer to teach what I know works. May make me caught up in "old or outdated" things, but I have real data on those things. As far as a locked arm versus a little more relaxed is almost irrelevent from my expereince. I find the locked to be a little more positive for me, but I have a point where I hit a physical indicator and it seems to work better on a single stationary opponent. On a multi subject, mover, or more dynamic situation or with movement involved, wearing armor, tend to run with less tension and un locked and we are likely doing and teaching the exact same thing. I also find locked seems to work better at longer ranges, where un locked with a lift is better for me in close quarters. I think we are on the exact same page. I have never gotten too wrapped up in small nuances like arm tension mainly because with lots of different folks who are built different and with different equipment some variances have to happen. Either way, the key is making a direct efficient line from point A (out of my vision) to point B (where I want to hit) with a single technique that can be used with my muzzle off the target completely or covering a portion of the target if I can articulate a reason to put a muzzle on it.




As far as over driving on multiple targets you hit it right on the head. The dynamic of driving straight arms up or sideways causes the problem. Yes tracking eyes first can help. But you misunderstand what the change is. I'm not loosening up my arms. I'm pulling them in about a foot. I have never in my life ever over driven a target while drawing. I have done it by simply moving my arms upward too fast.

Its a simple dynamic. put your arms down like you are at the ready and drive them up in a crazy out of control speed. So fast you laugh at yourself because of course you are out of control and will over drive the gun. It's a duh moment. Then go the ready but bring the simulated gun a foot to foot and a half into your body. Now drive the gun on target as fast as you can. Crazy speed. So out of control that you would kill a fellow cop if he did that for real. You got it, no over travel. Bringing the pistol in a foot or so eliminates the over travel for the same reason you don't do that when we draw but you can do it when going from target to target.

As far as fact and theory I think what you not getting is that when you say that to people it is used as an argument stopper. It's the same as saying, "You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm super cop and you're not." It's offensive because I was proud to be an instructor under a fantastic lead who took our department to 90%+. Not a unit but the whole department. I was happy to be a part of that unit and to help in small ways. I too have seen these things work.

In fact out department actually used a horizontal ready position. It works for the same reason I stated. I just think it's better to keep the downward angle as it lessen the chance of hitting someone if we have an ND. Until I left there were no ND's and we got those first shots into the target at a very high rate. It works. I just don't agree with the horizontal because there is a middle ground that works just as well.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't think I am a super cop and nobody else is. I learned from super cops, including the guy in the picture. Using what I learned I was the lead who took my guys from a typical 15% hit rate to a 90% rate and many of the shootings were spectacular. I am a lifetime student and still regularly take classes from other people. With all that training from some really great and highly experienced instructors, I do not feel the need to humor people who are selling an unproven product, or one that is more marketing scheme than based in any level of use. If it makes me a dick....oh well. I am the first one to acknowledge that there are many ways to do things right, and sometimes mission alone will change the means to get there. With that said....there is crap that is flat wrong. It isn't another tool for the tool box or some crap like that, it is wrong. The net is full of wrong. We also have to deal with changing expectations. There was a time in life when concern over muzzling folks by LE was not really a thought. That is not today, and it needs to be addressed and I find it important to address it with techniques that have been heavily vetted and any issues wrung out. There was a time when fingers on triggers was an expectation....that changed too. We have learned over the years how to work some best practices to deal with that. LE is under huge scrutiny right now, and being scrutinized with video record by everyone. CCW carriers are also facing huge expectations like LE in their behavior. I simply take "being right" morally, ethically, and legally very serious in today's world and try to work very hard at also teaching to work from a very high level of accountability. May be "super cop", but it is really "super concerned".
Trying to explain stuff in words on the internet is often tough, but I think we are actually doing things exactly the same in most cases.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Really prefer a true low ready, or guard even, but have no problem working from a retention position or the low position on Spaulding's arc of ready. The only thing I'd add to the discussion is the muzzle's position is relative in relation to where the threat is ... think atop a berm or multi-story structure.

Had a brief discussion with Spaulding during a recent class. He commented on following / tracking the suspect down to the ground after an engagement and before assessment. He offered that he very rarely sees a student track the suspect(s) down any more. It was interesting because many, including most on the line were retracting the pistol to some of a high or compressed ready and then assessing. I might have been the only one or maybe one of two working from a low ready but I was corrupted at a young age by one or two of the same crew Nyeti learned from.

Anyway, innocents getting muzzled is an odd thread title or premise. Speaking of odd, did cclaxton even cite any foundation for his opinion about combat veterans?

[L-2]

I really like that photo in post 85. I'm a prior S. Reitz student, too. I suppose I've used that stance/position on occasion. No one stance is used for every situation, of course.
I'm all but done with this thread, unless somebody's got something else of interest.:) Like that photo!!

[Dagga Boy]

I really like that photo in post 85. I'm a prior S. Reitz student, too. I suppose I've used that stance/position on occasion. No one stance is used for every situation, of course.
I'm all but done with this thread, unless somebody's got something else of interest.:) Like that photo!!

That is sort of the key as no one ready position is good for everything.....knowing when to apply a predatory position is the key. In the case of the low ready with nothing covering the suspect.....when you legally cannot shoot them nor have enough to justify a muzzle covering the person, is a very good option. To get back to the initial post....that would have been a better option.

I just had a very good phone conversation with one of the studs of this world who has shot a lot of mutts. One of the keys to separating those who are adept at dealing with predators and those who are not is the ability to remain calm and maintaining a high level of situational awareness. Tools that can help that should be utilized.

[Mr_White]

I shot the Drill of the Week. Full post linked. Short version is that the results were mostly unsurprising to me: extended/low ready was faster than a compressed/high ready. Extended/low ready was also a hair faster than starting aimed at the target spot with finger in register. That was all against a USPSA lower A-zone at 7 yards. On a smaller target (upper A-zone at 7 yards), starting on target with finger in register was faster than either ready position. But it was only 0.15 seconds faster than extended/low ready, which I don't think is worthwhile in this case. It may end up much much slower even with a 0.15 mechanical advantage. Because vision and decisionmaking.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18116-Week-140-On-Target-Off-Target-(Ready-Position-Evaluation)&p=377096&viewfull=1#post377096

[BehindBlueI's]

I shot the Drill of the Week. Full post linked. Short version is that the results were mostly unsurprising to me: extended/low ready was faster than a compressed/high ready. Extended/low ready was also a hair faster than starting aimed at the target spot with finger in register. That was all against a USPSA lower A-zone at 7 yards. On a smaller target (upper A-zone at 7 yards), starting on target with finger in register was faster than either ready position. But it was only 0.15 seconds faster than extended/low ready, which I don't think is worthwhile in this case. It may end up much much slower even with a 0.15 mechanical advantage. Because vision and decisionmaking.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18116-Week-140-On-Target-Off-Target-(Ready-Position-Evaluation)&p=377096&viewfull=1#post377096

I got around to shooting this today

Low ready (at target feet) big target
Fastest: 0.60
Slowest: 0.83
Hits: 8/10
Total time: 7.14

Compressed high ready big target
Fastest: 0.72
Slowest: 0.98
Hits: 9/10
Total time: 8.36

On big target
Fastest: 0.31
Slowest: 0.77
Hits: 10/10
Total time: 4.63

low ready (at feet) small target
Fastest: 0.89
Slowest: 1.07
Hits: 8/10
Total time: 9.70

compressed high ready small target
Fastest: 1.02
Slowest: 1.64
Hits: 7/10
Total time: 12.3

on small target
Fastest: 0.65
Slowest: 1.46
Hits: 6/10
Total time: 8.73


I think on target has a significant advantage for me. 1/3 to 1/2 a second, with most of the difference being reaction time to the beep.

[Mr_White]

I got around to shooting this today

Low ready (at target feet) big target
Fastest: 0.60
Slowest: 0.83
Hits: 8/10
Total time: 7.14

Compressed high ready big target
Fastest: 0.72
Slowest: 0.98
Hits: 9/10
Total time: 8.36

On big target
Fastest: 0.31
Slowest: 0.77
Hits: 10/10
Total time: 4.63

low ready (at feet) small target
Fastest: 0.89
Slowest: 1.07
Hits: 8/10
Total time: 9.70

compressed high ready small target
Fastest: 1.02
Slowest: 1.64
Hits: 7/10
Total time: 12.3

on small target
Fastest: 0.65
Slowest: 1.46
Hits: 6/10
Total time: 8.73


I think on target has a significant advantage for me. 1/3 to 1/2 a second, with most of the difference being reaction time to the beep.

I appreciate you shooting that drill and posting it, BBI. Even if we have not thus far agreed about this, thank you very much for sharing your perspective.

If I am reading you right, you're saying most of the time difference starting off vs. on target for you is reaction time to the beep? How is your reaction time to the beep different from different start positions? Or am I misunderstanding that part?

[BehindBlueI's]

I appreciate you shooting that drill and posting it, BBI. Even if we have not thus far agreed about this, thank you very much for sharing your perspective.

If I am reading you right, you're saying most of the time difference starting off vs. on target for you is reaction time to the beep? How is your reaction time to the beep different from different start positions? Or am I misunderstanding that part?

No, you're reading it right, but not for that reason. That's why I want to shoot it backward next time. Particularly in the last 3 stages I was thinking more about how cold my feet were and if the wind whistling up my backside was going to manage to come out my ears than listening for the beep. I can't keep strings in my timer, so I had to walk down to note the time on the target after every other shot (I can remember one time and then look at my new time), I was cold/distracted/tired so the last one wasn't really fair. I caught myself napping a few times and then refocused and it make a fairly big difference. Stage #5 for example, "napping" got me a 1.64 and then pulling myself back into the drill the next shots were 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.18. That's way more spread than I saw in the first few stages were I was more "into it" and total spread from slowest to fastest were about .20.


**edit**

Actually, sorry, I just reread what you said. No, being on target was definitely the fastest and not just due to the reaction time. What I am saying is that I was in the low .30s most of the time when I paid attention, but the two .6X were me "napping", not an issue with the position itself, and then as the drills went on my "napping spread" increased. The time differences IN A PARTICULAR POSITION were due to "napping", in other words, and it got worse as I went along.

I hope that made at least some sense.

[Dagga Boy]

In an LE context (which is all I much care about on these subjects, so I am a bit prejudiced), the key for me would be times not using a SHOT timer as the start, but a shoot/no-shoot indicator to initiate. It would be a better indicator to the balance of speed and decision making.

[voodoo_man]

In an LE context (which is all I much care about on these subjects, so I am a bit prejudiced), the key for me would be times not using a SHOT timer as the start, but a shoot/no-shoot indicator to initiate. It would be a better indicator to the balance of speed and decision making.

Live people + shoot / no shoot = unable to be timed / get data on as its a dynamic environment.

Rather gun on than not because when / if an opportunity presents itself the window will be extremely short.

[BehindBlueI's]

In an LE context (which is all I much care about on these subjects, so I am a bit prejudiced), the key for me would be times not using a SHOT timer as the start, but a shoot/no-shoot indicator to initiate. It would be a better indicator to the balance of speed and decision making.

I completely get that we respond to a simple audio stimulant faster than a complex visual one. That'd likely change the total times as reaction times would be different, but I think the differences would still be about the same. I

[Dagga Boy]

Just FYI....I have actually figured out a targeting system that would totally change how we would train LE. We could actually put some numbers to this stuff that is realative to the task at hand, and give hard data rather than observation data we often use now. I have been trying to find the right congressional or other access to fund it as it would have to be a USG type of operation done mainly for local LE. On a positive, if Ted Cruz wins, I may have that access. Unfortunately, that is not a great bet right now and I will have to keep the feelers out for the right person or entity to fund this thing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

San Francisco policy changes:

https://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/54685006-San-Francisco-police-change-gun-policy-in-wake-of-fatal-OIS/


SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco police officers who point a gun at a person must now report the action to their supervisors as a use of force incident, according to a bulletin quietly issued in the wake of the Mario Woods shooting.

The policy change has the police union crying foul but is supported by law enforcement experts and watchdogs who see it as an important step toward transparency.

[voodoo_man]

San Francisco policy changes:

https://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/54685006-San-Francisco-police-change-gun-policy-in-wake-of-fatal-OIS/

What a stupid concept.

[Chuck Haggard]

What a stupid concept.

That's where this is headed in the LE UOF world, make no mistake about that.

We did it at my old job years ago, Chief came in from outside and said that's the way it was going to be, it was my job to make it work. We did. It makes the officers accountable to have an articulable reason for muzzling people, that's it. It also gave us solid stats on all the people we didn't shoot, information we never had before.

[voodoo_man]

That's where this is headed in the LE UOF world, make no mistake about that.

We did it at my old job years ago, Chief came in from outside and said that's the way it was going to be, it was my job to make it work. We did. It makes the officers accountable to have an articulable reason for muzzling people, that's it. It also gave us solid stats on all the people we didn't shoot, information we never had before.

We have to do UOF reports on every instance of long gun deployment.

The amount of paperwork that would require generation if we documented each occurrence is literally a mountain of non-required paperwork.

[BehindBlueI's]

We have to do UOF reports on every instance of long gun deployment.

The amount of paperwork that would require generation if we documented each occurrence is literally a mountain of non-required paperwork.

We've went the opposite way. You used to have to get a SGT's permission to deploy a patrol rifle if time allowed. Now patrol rifle officers are allowed to make the decision on our own. We are encouraged to keep our own log of times it's taken out, but are not required to do so. There is no requirement for deploying shotguns.

I always think it's a little funny to watch cops, especially on the coasts, say "this is the future of LE..." because that's what they are doing. Maybe. We still pursue. We still carry batons and use them like batons. We aren't wearing body cameras. We're apparently still policing in the past. I mean, we're still carrying .40!!! I'm ok with the past.

[Erick Gelhaus]

We did it at my old job years ago, Chief came in from outside and said that's the way it was going to be, it was my job to make it work. We did. It makes the officers accountable to have an articulable reason for muzzling people, that's it. It also gave us solid stats on all the people we didn't shoot, information we never had before.

What was the criteria for that report? Muzzle on torso? Muzzle around the thighs, in a more traditional low ready? Muzzle IFO feet in a Nyeti / Reitz low ready? Simply having drawn, which seems to be what believe is pointing a gun at them?

I do not disagree that, contrary to previous case law decision, threat or display of force will be viewed as having actualyy used it. I'm just curious where, in the path from the holster to target, it becomes a reported UoF. None of the "reporting" on SFPD's policy change has addressed that.

As for BehindBlue's numbers ... Your numbers support data from elsewhere, ForceScience being one, that a low ready is faster than a compressed high ready.

[Chuck Haggard]

What was the criteria for that report? Muzzle on torso? Muzzle around the thighs, in a more traditional low ready? Muzzle IFO feet in a Nyeti / Reitz low ready? Simply having drawn, which seems to be what believe is pointing a gun at them?

I do not disagree that, contrary to previous case law decision, threat or display of force will be viewed as having actualyy used it. I'm just curious where, in the path from the holster to target, it becomes a reported UoF. None of the "reporting" on SFPD's policy change has addressed that.

As for BehindBlue's numbers ... Your numbers support data from elsewhere, ForceScience being one, that a low ready is faster than a compressed high ready.

The short version is muzzle crosses meat=UOF report.

We did not have to report having a gun in hand, any gun. We were big on having long guns out on calls, it was common for the troops to have ARs or shotguns out on any "man with a gun" or other such call where smart coppers grab for the bigger guns.

[Chuck Haggard]

We have to do UOF reports on every instance of long gun deployment.


That is in fact stupid.

[voodoo_man]

We've went the opposite way. You used to have to get a SGT's permission to deploy a patrol rifle if time allowed. Now patrol rifle officers are allowed to make the decision on our own. We are encouraged to keep our own log of times it's taken out, but are not required to do so. There is no requirement for deploying shotguns.

I always think it's a little funny to watch cops, especially on the coasts, say "this is the future of LE..." because that's what they are doing. Maybe. We still pursue. We still carry batons and use them like batons. We aren't wearing body cameras. We're apparently still policing in the past. I mean, we're still carrying .40!!! I'm ok with the past.

I'm on a coast PD and we like to tout the "future of policing" and "transparency" nonsense as much as the next very large PD, and we went from supervisor's permission to do as you please for long guns, hell I get to carry a long gun around without supervision.

I think we are moving away from writing down specific usage unless something was specifically done with it. I doubt it'll get more strict unless something crazy happens and even then, it'll need to be something extremely serious.

[voodoo_man]

That is in fact stupid.

Preaching to the choir.

[jnc36rcpd]

We accredited as all get-out, but do not require a "Response to Resistance and Aggression Report" for presentation or pointing of any firearm. As a patrol supervisor, I'm inclined to require some documentation when someone gets muzzled (or handcuffed, for that matter).

Requiring someone to request permission to deploy a long gun strikes me as beyond idiotic. That said, who am I to talk? Back in the day, only sergeants and designated OIC's were authorized to carry our 9mm AR-15's or the 37mm launcher. Now rifles are common for patrol officers and the less-than-accurate 37mm sits in the armory.

[John Hearne]

In Tom Aveni's great study on shoot/no-shoot decisions in ambiguous situations, he found a very negative side effect to these policies. What he found was officer's from departments with policies that required paper on every time the gun came out of the holster was that they were consistently late in deploying the gun, up to and including obvious high risk situations.

With that said, we've had gun out of holster = paper for as long as I can remember. It was very easy when it was just a single line in a normal report narrative. Since a change to a new use of force form for every deployment, I've actually had to council employees for not drawing when it was obviously appropriate because they didn't want to do the extra paper.

The only concession I've seen is to long gun deployment. We used to do paper if it came out of the rack in the field. Now, if you are pulling it out for a detail like a poaching patrol, you don't have to do a report if it's not used to control bad guys.

[voodoo_man]

We accredited as all get-out, but do not require a "Response to Resistance and Aggression Report" for presentation or pointing of any firearm. As a patrol supervisor, I'm inclined to require some documentation when someone gets muzzled (or handcuffed, for that matter).

Requiring someone to request permission to deploy a long gun strikes me as beyond idiotic. That said, who am I to talk? Back in the day, only sergeants and designated OIC's were authorized to carry our 9mm AR-15's or the 37mm launcher. Now rifles are common for patrol officers and the less-than-accurate 37mm sits in the armory.

37mm launcher? Yes please.

And documentation for handcuffing? Would that not be part of your pedestrian investigation report, not a muzzling but that's not exactly the easiest thing to document sometimes.

[jnc36rcpd]

I imagine pedestrian investigation report equates to our field contact report. If so, affirmative. The field contact form, in either written or electronic form, is a reasonably quick and easy document to write. As long as we memorialize that we cuffed up someone or muzzled someone, I'm not especially concerned with where it is documented. Obviously, I don't want someone coming back a year from now complaining that we proned him out with a gun to his head and left him handcuffed for an hour when we have only a vague memory of the incident lo these many months later. This is especially true since there is a move in the Maryland legislature to increase the time limits to file excessive force complaints.

The 37mm launcher was purchased to deploy less-lethal munitions. We pulled it from service because of concerns over its accuracy.

[voodoo_man]

I imagine pedestrian investigation report equates to our field contact report. If so, affirmative. The field contact form, in either written or electronic form, is a reasonably quick and easy document to write. As long as we memorialize that we cuffed up someone or muzzled someone, I'm not especially concerned with where it is documented. Obviously, I don't want someone coming back a year from now complaining that we proned him out with a gun to his head and left him handcuffed for an hour when we have only a vague memory of the incident lo these many months later. This is especially true since there is a move in the Maryland legislature to increase the time limits to file excessive force complaints.

The 37mm launcher was purchased to deploy less-lethal munitions. We pulled it from service because of concerns over its accuracy.

...at least you have a 37mm launcher....

For us, if we report "force" we have to do a "use of force" report which is outside the normal contact report, and involves a supervisor to complete a second supplemental report, both of which get sent to IA who review it for possible issues and then contact the "victim" of police UOF to confirm the reports.

So my objection to further UOF is probably pretty obvious...

[jnc36rcpd]

If there is actual force involved, we do the RRAR. (For those who joined us late, please look above to figure out what RRAR means because I cannot bare to type it again.) Handcuffing, spinning someone into a lock, or pushing/pulling a subject to the ground are not use of force unless there is injury or complaint. The report goes up chain of command, referred to a use of force instructor, and then sent up the chain again.

Having internal affairs contact suspects to essentially solicit complaints seems extremely counter-productive. Use of force is a component of a LEO's job. Treating us like criminals will make us act like criminals. Of course, in today's environment, demanding the same rights everyone lese has doesn't seem like a bad response.

[Ptrlcop]

I have seen some Fucking FOOLISH shit happen with agencies that require a report any time handcuffs go on.

Biggest rule in police mgmt, if you want less of something make cops do a report about it.

We have a gun crosses meat=UOF policy. This doesn't burden the cop but the sup has some extra stuff. They are always "but you had it at the low ready, right?" In an attempt to get out of paper...

[BehindBlueI's]

Biggest rule in police mgmt, if you want less of something make cops do a report about it.


Chief: "So, how can we justify the slugs being slugs and simultaneously burden proactive officers to the point they either become slugs or their efficiency drops to the point you can't tell the difference?"
Minion: "Paperwork, Chief. Needless, endless, redundant paperwork."
Chief:
https://media4.giphy.com/media/8fen5LSZcHQ5O/200_s.gif

[LSP552]

Chief: "So, how can we justify the slugs being slugs and simultaneously burden proactive officers to the point they either become slugs so they can't cause me any problems?"
Minion: "Paperwork, Chief. Needless, endless, redundant paperwork."
Chief:
https://media4.giphy.com/media/8fen5LSZcHQ5O/200_s.gif

Fixed it for you...

[voodoo_man]

Both the above are true and hilarious.

Jokes on them though, id lump a dude up because he resisted and write a fucking novel so theyd have to sit there and read it.

My motto with paperwork writing reports, the more the better, ive gone as far as to put temperatures and position of the sun because i wanted to give them a hard way to go.

[BehindBlueI's]

Both the above are true and hilarious.

Jokes on them though, id lump a dude up because he resisted and write a fucking novel so theyd have to sit there and read it.

My motto with paperwork writing reports, the more the better, ive gone as far as to put temperatures and position of the sun because i wanted to give them a hard way to go.

Reminds me of the guy who did a report on the demonic squirrel after a homeowner called because a squirrel wouldn't let him out of his house.

[Chuck Haggard]

John started a thread for a serious discussion of this issue.

Let's keep the memes and fuckery to a minimum.