What if: Unarmed assailant charges while you're holding a long gun

[0ddl0t]

What if scenario sparked by the suboptimal citizens' arrest tactics in Georgia: you wake to the sound of a nightime intruder. You grab your Biden-approved scatter gun to investigate and discover an unarmed, but intoxicated or mentally ill, burglar who ignores your commands to freeze. Worse, he charges right at you! You can plainly see that he is unarmed, but he also is clearly younger and stronger than you. What do you do? Does the answer change if you are inside your home vs outside in your yard?

How can you nonlethally defend yourself from a fistfight while holding a gun (especially an unwieldy long gun)? Or can you justify prophylactically shooting a completely unarmed man because he *might* subsequently disarm you and use it against you?

[camsdaddy]

If you are killed by an intoxicated or mentally ill person are you any less dead? I think if you are attacked or charged by someone who is on drugs, mentally ill, or just someone who is in your yard and didnt like being seen you have a right to defend yourself. I don't think you have the right to chase them down.
If the person is charging you because you have been chasing him and cutting him off and there are two of you who are armed and you shoot him you are just an asshole.

Disclaimer- this is my reply pre coffee

[LittleLebowski]

You can beat the fuck out of someone with a long gun, just saying.

[critter]

What if scenario sparked by the suboptimal citizens' arrest tactics in Georgia: you wake to the sound of a nightime intruder. You grab your Biden-approved scatter gun to investigate and discover an unarmed, but intoxicated or mentally ill, burglar who ignores your commands to freeze. Worse, he charges right at you! You can plainly see that he is unarmed, but he also is clearly younger and stronger than you. What do you do? Does the answer change if you are inside your home vs outside in your yard?

How can you nonlethally defend yourself from a fistfight while holding a gun (especially an unwieldy long gun)? Or can you justify prophylactically shooting a completely unarmed man because he *might* subsequently disarm you and use it against you?

I have no legal opinion but I wouldn't go investigating. If the intruder is elsewhere in the house, which seems to be the case in your scenario, I'd cover the retreat to the safe area, hunker down and call police -- letting them know exactly where I/we am/are in the house, that I am armed and in a fortified safe area.

I'd let the guy think is cat-burglar tactics were working and continue on his merry way. IMO the best way to survive is to avoid any engagement - in my house or not.

In an unavoidable immediate confrontation inside my home, one of us probably wouldn't make it.

[CraigS]

I think some of the answer depends on whether your state has a castle doctrine.

[willie]

What if scenario sparked by the suboptimal citizens' arrest tactics in Georgia: you wake to the sound of a nightime intruder. You grab your Biden-approved scatter gun to investigate and discover an unarmed, but intoxicated or mentally ill, burglar who ignores your commands to freeze. Worse, he charges right at you! You can plainly see that he is unarmed, but he also is clearly younger and stronger than you. What do you do? Does the answer change if you are inside your home vs outside in your yard?

How can you nonlethally defend yourself from a fistfight while holding a gun (especially an unwieldy long gun)? Or can you justify prophylactically shooting a completely unarmed man because he *might* subsequently disarm you and use it against you?

If an intruder enters my house, he broke in by kicking a door down or climbing in a window. I will not assume that he is unarmed. I am cripple and infirm. I can't retreat. There is no other place to go. Neither can I resist physically. So We know my reaction. I have tried to conduct myself in a way to avoid confrontations. I keep my mouth shut. I will not react to road rage incidents. As an armed citizen I have an obligation to do my best in not getting into disputes that might escalate. If I were to purposely infuriate somebody and shoot him after he jumped on me, then I have violated the law. That is my opinion.

[Zincwarrior]

You can beat the fuck out of someone with a long gun, just saying.

My wife has been in lockdown mode since March. At this point she could put a beatdown on a Kodiak bear...with a spoon.

"if the mamma aint happy, aint nobody happy...and mamma aint happy!"


Scenarios are dramatically different inside the house and in your yard.

[LittleLebowski]

Another great time to have a German, Belgian, or Dutch home security system.

[Zincwarrior]

Another great time to have a German, Belgian, or Dutch home security system.

https://cdn1-www.dogtime.com/assets/uploads/gallery/45-funny-dog-memes/cute-funny-dog-meme-20.jpg

[vaglocker]

I think a lot would also have to do with whether or not you had a right to confront the individual while armed. A bump in the night and a stranger in your house I would say yes. If a scuffle ensues and the unarmed intruder gets shot I think you would probably be in pretty good shape legally. What those dudes did in Georgia not so much. Of course my personal legal opinion is worth exactly what you paid me for it.

[BehindBlueI's]

For my state (relevant portion bolded):


(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Unarmed or armed isn't part of the equation, only if the force is necessary to terminate the entry/attack. You are under no legal obligation to go hands on first.

Outside the home/car you're going to have a bit less protection. If they are trying to rob you of your firearm, you have a forcible felony you can prevent with deadly force. If they are just silently jogging/drunkenly stumbling in your direction you better have something else to hang your hat on.

[UNM1136]

You can beat the fuck out of someone with a long gun, just saying.

Been to several FoF courseswhere if this wasn't explicitly taught the shooters figured it out pretty quick. It is a mindset issue. I have had role players grab my stuff for a couple of decades now, and many of them didn't have to be shot either. Those that needed it, got it. My old agency required a DT refresher before Basic SWAT and an annual refresher for SWAT members for just these reasons. I am not preaching anything legal here, not touching totality of the circumstances and reasonableness, just observations of decisionmaking under simulated pressure.


Another great time to have a German, Belgian, or Dutch home security system.

Right now my Belgian system is made up of The Beast with me rolling backup as supervisor and lethal cover. We need a second animal to complete the system.

pat

[HCountyGuy]

From a different thread regarding verbal aggression at gunpoint (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15181-Verbal-aggression-at-gunpoint), but the overall sentiment of Todd’s reply I feel is applicable, just modify it to the proposed scenario:


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

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

[Robinson]

Study the relevant laws for your location and make your decisions ahead of time as much as is reasonably possible. Then it will boil down to judgement if the time comes.

If I'm alone and have an intruder who is unarmed I might decide not to fire -- depending on the specific circumstances. But I trained in combatives for decades and I know full well that an unarmed person can still hurt me. If my wife is home my priority will be making sure there is no way in hell the intruder will get near her, so that will play into my course of action. Of course, she will also be armed and probably on the phone with the authorities.

If a person is in my house at night, he or she will have already defeated a deadbolt or broken through a window -- either way setting off the alarm system. There will be some lights on in the house. Still, having a white light on your weapon and/or in your hand seems like a very good idea when it comes to heat of the moment decision making.

If an unwelcome person is in the house during daylight and did not force entry (unlikely since we keep the doors locked), they will be strongly advised to do exactly what I tell them. If they charge me, I will defend myself and mine with whatever means I have at my disposal.

[Cory]

Know your laws, know your capability. Act where your capability intersects with need within those laws.

-Cory

[Clusterfrack]

An assailant fighting you for your gun is armed--with your gun.

[Rex G]

An assailant fighting you for your gun is armed--with your gun.

This. Within arms’ reach, both parties are armed, even if only one weapon is present.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Is the issue:

1. The legality of the action?
2. The tactical wisdom of exploring for the noise in the night?
3. The actual 'fight'

Well, know your local laws, study up on experts and the appropriate books and seminars.

No - don't explore unless you need to go save someone in the house. Otherwise hunker down.

In some FOF classes, in this situation - the preferred tactic was to arm up, call the law - loudly inform the bad guys you were armed and law is on the way. Then defend the safe room from a reasonable position. I recall that new guys would here the bad guy stealing the TV and go to challenge them. They were usually knocked on their butt and killed. Given our opponents were defined as economically motivated, if we hunkered down - they went away fairly quickly.

Fighting for the gun. At the old NTI, we had a 'terrorist' attack on a courtroom. I was unarmed, the terrorist had me taken down but in a manner that allowed me to disarm said terrorist (according to safe rules of physical contact, so to minimize beating each other). I took the sims gun and proceeded to shoot the terrorist. After action, the ref team discussed if I was correct. Why not hold the person at gun point? My view was that the attack itself was still ongoing elsewhere. The terrorist was trying to retrieve the gun from me. The refs (SME all) decided, I was correct in such.

As far as the Biden two shot gun, I've mentioned this one before. We were dressed in a smock, to simulate being naked in bed. No one needed real old fat guys or young studs prancing around naked. We had a coach gun and box of mixed slugs and bird shot. Then, the noise in the night and you had to negotiate the shoot house, with multiple life targets that could pop out at you, Surprise! You couldn't stay put as per the scenario.

So, there are two targets, bang, bang! Then one pops out at me, next to me. What to do - butt stroke it repeatedly until the SO says You're good. Not a fun of low capacity, Uncle Joe.

[Jason M]

Unarmed does not mean that they are not capable of causing death or serious injury. As others have mentioned, there are wide variety of factors in play. John Hall and Urey Patrick provide an excellent discussion of the topic including weapons, the role of physical ability, subjective intent etc. The third edition of this book seems particularly relevant to recent events.

https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781611636826/In-Defense-of-Self-and-Others-.-.-.-Third-Edition

[Rex G]

Obviously, Plan A would be to keep an opponent from reaching one’s long gun. Never hold a shotgun “at the hip” in a close-range situation; nor a handgun; that is a gun giveaway move.

IF an opponent already has his hands on the weapon, and he is of equal or greater physical strength, and is pulling the weapon toward himself, one concept is to resist the urge to pull against his pull, but, instead, PUSH in response to his pull, which might well momentarily unbalance and/or rattle him. Perhaps, push toward his pull, and during a moment of his imbalance, shove HARD in a downward direction. This can give one a moment in time to get inside his OODA loop, and, perhaps, open the door for a strike, or, just maybe, trapping one of his hands, which can lead to another move.

If an opponent has performed the classic move of grabbing both ends of the weapon, and then using his resulting greater leverage to windmill-twist the weapon away, well, again, rather than resist his twisting, violently move WITH his twisting, for a brief moment, then during his moment of imbalance, redirect the force.

This is one reason I long favored a dense hardwood stock, or one of the dense synthetics, such as the OEM Marine Magnum stock, on my duty shotguns. This is not just about the classic butt-stroke. If an opponent’s hand can be trapped on the forward part of the weapon, arranging collisions with the upper or lower edge of a hard stock is a force multiplier.

The instant that an opponent places his hands on one’s long gun might be a VERY GOOD TIME to have a knife or SECURELY HOLSTERED handgun positioned for quick access. This would be a good time to have familiarization with pikal/reverse-grip, edge-in.

I am certainly no kind of expert. I managed to keep felons’ hand off my shotguns, while LEO-ing, so cannot claim anything I have said is battle-tested.

[Rex G]

IF an opponent already has his hands on the weapon, and he is of equal or greater physical strength, and is pulling the weapon toward himself, one concept is to resist the urge to pull against his pull, but, instead, PUSH in response to his pull, which might well momentarily unbalance and/or rattle him. Perhaps, push toward his pull, and during a moment of his imbalance, shove HARD in a downward direction. This can give one a moment in time to get inside his OODA loop, and, perhaps, open the door for a strike, or, just maybe, trapping one of his hands, which can lead to another move.

If an opponent has performed the classic move of grabbing both ends of the weapon, and then using his resulting greater leverage to windmill-twist the weapon away, well, again, rather than resist his twisting, violently move WITH his twisting, for a brief moment, then during his moment of imbalance, redirect the force.

The instant that an opponent places his hands on one’s long gun might be a VERY GOOD TIME to have a knife or SECURELY HOLSTERED handgun positioned for quick access. This would be a good time to have familiarization with pikal/reverse-grip, edge-in.

I will emphasize that if an opponent has one or both hands on my weapon, I see this as lethal force already in progress, and, any action taken as a next step, in either of the above scenarios, must be decisive and swift, lest the opponent recover, and regain an advantage.

[rd62]

Just my .02

We've recently seen where a professional UFC fighter struggled with this same situation in his own home. I am no where near as skilled as he is in hand to hand combatives and it was an eye opener to him the challenge it was when dealing with an attacker that was in an altered mental state.

As many have already said, if an intruder enters my home while I am there he has done so despite clear signs the residence is occupied (no garage so cars are visible from the road) and despite two dogs inside. If I encounter him and am armed and issuing commands and he advances or charges he is either to drugged or deranged to know or care or has sized me up and decided he can take me. I'm 6'4" 240lbs and likely the only thing between him and my family. If he beats me the consequences are potentially dire and at that point he would no longer potentially be unarmed. If he's sized me up and thinks he can take me, I have to assume he may be right.

I'm also not sure how you'd definitively determine a person to be unarmed without securing and searching them unless they were fully nude. Fully nude attacker likely falls in that drugged or deranged category and "crazy strength" comes into play.

I hope to never have to make this decision and am in the process of further hardening my doors for additional security. If I'm caught unarmed in a situation such as this, then shame on me and I guess its on.

[blues]

rd, you're a better man than I am.

If someone breaks into my home, whether oh-dark-thirty or while the sun is out, they get one chance to vacate the premises under clear, concise, vocal commands. After that, I will throw myself upon the mercy of the great state of NC and its law enforcement officers for what transpires in its wake.

I have no intention of going hands on in my home with some miscreant that decided it looked like an opportunity. My dog may feel differently.

[rd62]

rd, you're a better man than I am.

If someone breaks into my home, whether oh-dark-thirty or while the sun is out, they get one chance to vacate the premises under clear, concise, vocal commands. After that, I will throw myself upon the mercy of the great state of NC and its law enforcement officers for what transpires in its wake.

I have no intention of going hands on in my home with some miscreant that decided it looked like an opportunity. My dog may feel differently.

Don't give me too much credit that was only if I'm caught unarmed and have no other recourse.

I have no intentions either if it can be avoided.

[Totem Polar]

The tool strikes me as irrelevant. If someone is unavoidably worth shooting, they’re worth shooting with pistol and long arm alike. If an intruder in my home thinks that they can take me, with a gun in my hand, it really doesn’t matter which gun. This isn't a long gun v pistol question; this is a tactics, training, and "understanding state case law" question.

[Clusterfrack]

Good post. Gun grappling with a carbine (safe or blue, obviously) is a good thing to explore. There are definitely some opportunities for the unarmed person that aren't present with a handgun.


Just my .02

We've recently seen where a professional UFC fighter struggled with this same situation in his own home. I am no where near as skilled as he is in hand to hand combatives and it was an eye opener to him the challenge it was when dealing with an attacker that was in an altered mental state.

As many have already said, if an intruder enters my home while I am there he has done so despite clear signs the residence is occupied (no garage so cars are visible from the road) and despite two dogs inside. If I encounter him and am armed and issuing commands and he advances or charges he is either to drugged or deranged to know or care or has sized me up and decided he can take me. I'm 6'4" 240lbs and likely the only thing between him and my family. If he beats me the consequences are potentially dire and at that point he would no longer potentially be unarmed. If he's sized me up and thinks he can take me, I have to assume he may be right.

I'm also not sure how you'd definitively determine a person to be unarmed without securing and searching them unless they were fully nude. Fully nude attacker likely falls in that drugged or deranged category and "crazy strength" comes into play.

I hope to never have to make this decision and am in the process of further hardening my doors for additional security. If I'm caught unarmed in a situation such as this, then shame on me and I guess its on.

[vcdgrips]

I AM NOT YOUR ATTY. I AM NOT GIVING YOU LEGAL ADVICE. ANY OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE THOSE OF ANY EMPLOYER, PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE.

The answer is-it depends. The law vary widely amongst the 50 states. The likely and/predictable application of said laws varies widely within the state. There are some locales where if you shoot someone to death inside your home, bare minimum, you may spend the night in jail and a grand jury is going to decide your initial fate, end of story, full stop. In other places, there will be a very strong presumption in your favor as the descendant was perceived to live a life that demanded that someone kill him and it was just a matter of time until he found someone to oblige him. In my metro area, there are 2 states and 6 counties in play.


You should be seeking your advice from an atty who practices in the criminal law area and who has experience in your specific locale. Almost always, the best criminal defense lawyers in an area were prosecutors, public defenders or both, often in the geographic area where they are now doing defense work. These individuals have the education/training/experience and access that others do not.

I say that with the utmost respect to those who have endeavored to answer then question, particularly those whose answers reflect the fluidity in this area of the law given where they live.

[Duces Tecum]

How can you nonlethally defend yourself from a fistfight while holding a gun (especially an unwieldy long gun)?

Next time you find yourself passing a Marine recruiting station with two cups of coffee and a bag of doughnuts, walk in and ask the guy who stands up. It is astonishing what one can learn from a GySgt.

[BehindBlueI's]

Next time you find yourself passing a Marine recruiting station with two cups of coffee and a bag of doughnuts, walk in and ask the guy who stands up. It is astonishing what one can learn from a GySgt.

Butt stroke to the head and...MOVE!

I've only had to wield a guy off me while holding a long gun once. Another officer went to hip toss him off a porch, misjudged, and literally threw him at me. I instinctively butt stroked the guy between the shoulder blades to make space. Butt strokes, muzzle punches, etc. can work. I'm much more willing to try when I've got a couple of my also armed buddies involved. At home when it's just me and if I go down my family is up next, not so much.

[MVS]

As the question is worded, the answer is pretty simple for me. He gets a butt stroke.

[TCB]

As far as an actual tactic I’ve employed both muzzle strikes and my personal favorite a hockey style cross check with my hands on the fore rail and receiver extension of an M-4 to people who didn’t want to get with the program. I’m not a small dude and the cross check has not yet failed to put someone down. This was in a On Duty setting and I had other lethal and non-lethal options available to me in case the subject attempted to take the rifle. I’ve also been in a number of fights with a slung rifle and it’s awkward to say the least (pro tip: a rubber bumper on your stock may be a good idea, I’ve had the rear edge of a standard M-4 stocks open up my face a couple times pretty bad while grappling).

[DDTSGM]

What if scenario sparked by the suboptimal citizens' arrest tactics in Georgia: you wake to the sound of a nightime intruder. You grab your Biden-approved scatter gun to investigate and discover an unarmed, but intoxicated or mentally ill, burglar who ignores your commands to freeze. Worse, he charges right at you! You can plainly see that he is unarmed, but he also is clearly younger and stronger than you. What do you do? Does the answer change if you are inside your home vs outside in your yard?

How can you nonlethally defend yourself from a fistfight while holding a gun (especially an unwieldy long gun)? Or can you justify prophylactically shooting a completely unarmed man because he *might* subsequently disarm you and use it against you?

In the case you outlined - unarmed, apparently fit, offender in your home, ignoring your commands, and advancing on you, an armed homeowner - first question what would a reasonable person believe the offender's intent was as he advanced?

Up front, where this differs from the Georgia case is that you are clearly in your castle and have not left your property to pursue this man.

In the case we are speaking of, in many, if not most, states, given the fact pattern you stipulate, you would be legally justified in firing to stop the assailant's advance, while both parties are inside your home.

In the same circumstances, outside your home, the situation is more nebulous, because some state's statutes differ on this point. One consideration is, what prompted you to leave your house, armed with a shotgun to confront this man?

In most cases it would be in your best interests to post up inside your house and call the police so long as the intoxicated/mentally impaired person is not taking action that a reasonable person believes is likely to result in death or great bodily harm.

It has already been mentioned, but the thing that most folks don't think about before they use force they aren't absolutely required to use, is how much the ticket to ride can potentially cost them.

My background is as an LE trainer. In the past I've been certified as an expert witness on force matters in Federal and State Court. As a result, I've been called upon by civil attorneys who have offered several thousand dollars for me to write reports and testify. Who do you think pays for that?

Far better to avoid the use of force in situations where it isn't brought to you.

[Coyotesfan97]

Another great time to have a German, Belgian, or Dutch home security system.

I have a retired Dutch Shepherd in an air crate next to my bed. I have no doubts about whether he’d bite. He’d be like I just got reactivated. Woohoo!

[Coyotesfan97]

Butt stroke to the head and...MOVE!

I've only had to wield a guy off me while holding a long gun once. Another officer went to hip toss him off a porch, misjudged, and literally threw him at me. I instinctively butt stroked the guy between the shoulder blades to make space. Butt strokes, muzzle punches, etc. can work. I'm much more willing to try when I've got a couple of my also armed buddies involved. At home when it's just me and if I go down my family is up next, not so much.

I was trained in muzzled strikes by a 19th SF Officer who was on our SWAT team. I’ve used a muzzle strike once in my career. I was very careful to document my trading and experience to justify its use. I’ve been told my supplement has been used in justifying UoF in low frequency high risk encounters.

[andre3k]

You can beat the fuck out of someone with a long gun, just saying.Or they beat the fuck out of you with your own gun.

I read a bunch of robbery reports every week where armed people get their weapons snatched and they end up in sitting in a parking lot with head bleeding waiting on an ambulance and police to arrive. It happens more often than I thought.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

Or they beat the fuck out of you with your own gun.

I read a bunch of robbery reports every week where armed people get their weapons snatched and they end up in sitting in a parking lot with head bleeding waiting on an ambulance and police to arrive. It happens more often than I thought.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

This is why we need to train retention and other ECQC skills, as well as how and when to fire a shot. At least in my experience as a civilian in training scenarios, a long gun makes this more challenging. But those challenges can be overcome with practice.

[Oukaapie]

....

[Doc_Glock]

What if scenario sparked by the suboptimal citizens' arrest tactics in Georgia: you wake to the sound of a nightime intruder. You grab your Biden-approved scatter gun to investigate and discover an unarmed, but intoxicated or mentally ill, burglar who ignores your commands to freeze. Worse, he charges right at you! You can plainly see that he is unarmed, but he also is clearly younger and stronger than you. What do you do? Does the answer change if you are inside your home vs outside in your yard?

How can you nonlethally defend yourself from a fistfight while holding a gun (especially an unwieldy long gun)? Or can you justify prophylactically shooting a completely unarmed man because he *might* subsequently disarm you and use it against you?

I am with blues, anyone who approaches me after breaking into in my home after clear commands to leave gets shot. I see no need for any warning etc. I have fought enough to know I don’t ever want to go hands on. Because I suck at fighting.

[DDTSGM]

Or they beat the fuck out of you with your own gun.

I read a bunch of robbery reports every week where armed people get their weapons snatched and they end up in sitting in a parking lot with head bleeding waiting on an ambulance and police to arrive. It happens more often than I thought.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


This is why we need to train retention and other ECQC skills, as well as how and when to fire a shot. At least in my experience as a civilian in training scenarios, a long gun makes this more challenging. But those challenges can be overcome with practice.

CF: in this case you are preaching to the choir that makes up a very small portion of armed Americans. The reality is that most LEO's, who should see a real need to, don't practice weapon retention skills unless required to at in-service training.

Another problem is where to get initial training? Not everyone has the time or money to attend an out-of-state training event.

Reality is the best action might be for trainers to instill a mindset to avoid those situations if at all possible, and if not possible, use force to protect the firearm from attack.

[md8232]

Had something close to this happen some years ago.
Middle of Night, Wife & dog trying to see who was more hysterical.
Me with G19 at my side. Urban Yute stopped 1 step from meeting a 147 HST.

Turned out he was celebrating the birth of his illegitimate spawn by driving an
hour out into the boonies to steal a 3 wheeler. It didn’t go well and he
“just wanted his mommie”

Delivered his Azz to the Man, then had a CSB for work.

[UNM1136]

I have a retired Dutch Shepherd in an air crate next to my bed. I have no doubts about whether he’d bite. He’d be like I just got reactivated. Woohoo!

My week long basic patrol rifle course in the spring of '01 had an afternoon of retention and countermeasures. It also had two days of classroom that included a bunch of dry fire. I am trying to recall if the last course I helped teach included it. I want to say it did, based on who I was with and where the course came from, but I was co-teaching another agency's course.

pat

[philpac33]

Butt strike or muzzle strike: is one more effective than the other?

[Rex G]

What if scenario sparked by the suboptimal citizens' arrest tactics in Georgia: you wake to the sound of a nightime intruder. You grab your Biden-approved scatter gun to investigate and discover an unarmed, but intoxicated or mentally ill, burglar who ignores your commands to freeze. Worse, he charges right at you! You can plainly see that he is unarmed, but he also is clearly younger and stronger than you. What do you do? Does the answer change if you are inside your home vs outside in your yard?



I do not command people to “freeze.” That terminology was already a bad idea, when I started LEO-ing, in 1984. I never started using it. Now that I am retired, and therefore a private citizen, I simply want to them to stop, and then, probably, depending upon the circumstances, leave my house or yard.

Unless it it otherwise necessary, I would try to avoid blocking an invader’s escape route. Cornering a scared cat is a likely way to get scratched.

If he is charging, well, at that moment, house or yard makes no difference. I cannot run run backwards faster than he can move forward, and, taking the time to turn around allows him more time to close the gap. Oblique movement may be indicated, depending upon the circumstances.

Unless something in my yard is worth more than my life, I would rather not be out there. There are foreseeable exceptions, but, all else being equal, I would rather be inside the castle walls.

It would be simpler to explain to a grand jury, or trial court, why I shot an intruder who was inside the home, but, if I were where I had the right to be, and it was appropriate for me to be armed, at that moment in time, well, house, yard, or other place makes no tactical difference, at that moment in time.

To be clear, I am specifically not addressing the guy in Georgia, here, as it has yet to be determined whether his actions were legal or appropriate. I have, of course thought about this, as we have a house, next door, under construction, and a house to our west, within the same block, under construction. (Our neighborhood is being gentrified, and we are not, exactly, of the gentry.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One has to separate out the dominance response of protecting one's territory, the excitement of the chase or pursuit of the opponent from the reality of the situation. The sense of personal violation, refusal of the opponent to accept your dominance leads people not to avoid or retreat when they can. You MUST have submission.

Thus, you want to engage. Now, a police officer needs a person to submit to his or her authority. A FOF needs the incident to end well. Distance, cover, calling for help, getting the opponent to flee are all good things. Righteous use of violence to get submission can end you not being found to be righteous in court.

How preachy of me. My point being that you need to separate out legit threats to you of grievous bodily harm from insults to your territory. I recall in an Insights class, John Holschen pointing out that when someone doesn't submit the naive civilian defender gets closer and yells at the person more. Bad plan.

As far as the house visit. When we moved into our neighborhood under construction, my wife went to get the mail and decided to stroll into the new one under construction across the street to just to peek around. She was found out by the owner who also came by. Said owner was nasty about it but no gunfire ensued. Those folks were always nasty and stand offish, anyway.

I don't intend to close with someone. That happens when things go bad. Blah, blah - opining on a Sunday.

[UNM1136]

Butt strike or muzzle strike: is one more effective than the other?

Situationally dependent. Each has a place in the tool box. Variables include grip on the gun (yours and theirs), equipment setup, environment, friends (yours and theirs), and a subjective assessment of what is going on. When setting up some active shooter scenarios I have a panicked, unarmed, hopefully small female role player run toward the responder and grab at the responder, not really trying to grab the gun, but not really avoiding grabbing the gun. Akido principles apply. When pushed, pull. When pulled, push. The gun can be applied linearly or circularly. And as a lever. And with leverage. And when all else fails, there are techniques to align the muzzle with your attackers body and trip the bang switch. Firearm retention techniques can be KISS simple.

In public I try to enforce a six foot foot rule (even before it was cool):cool:. It is soverign territory, and you need permission of the ambassador (me) to enter and conduct business. Many times this collapses to three feet or even less depending on my assessment of the situation. In my home (country) I believe I would be MUCH less diplomatic. You invade, I have far more to protect. I will defend aggressively.

In any and all assessments the decisions I take are my responsibility, and mine alone.

pat

[Clusterfrack]

...active shooter scenarios I have a panicked, unarmed, hopefully small female role player

As the bad guy in one evolution, I picked her up while she was attached to my carbine and walked around "shooting" everyone. She thought her weight would be enough to keep my muzzle down.

[UNM1136]

As the bad guy in one evolution, I picked her up while she was attached to my carbine and walked around "shooting" everyone. She thought her weight would be enough to keep my muzzle down.

Yeah, that is when other countermeasures apply. If you can't control the gun, then by definition you have lost control of it, or have failed to control it in the first place. Time to work on something else. All the more reason to transition, or have a different mindset for a citizen and shoot sooner.

Don't get me wrong, my goal is to show that everyone running out and trying to grab on may not necessarily be a threat, or a bad guy. They may be someone you just have to get off of you while you continue to move to the threat.

pat

[UNM1136]

I was trained in muzzled strikes by a 19th SF Officer who was on our SWAT team. I’ve used a muzzle strike once in my career. I was very careful to document my trading and experience to justify its use. I’ve been told my supplement has been used in justifying UoF in low frequency high risk encounters.

Sorry, this should have neen the post quoted when I mentioned my initial patrol riffle course at the turn of the century.

pat

[Rex G]

Butt strike or muzzle strike: is one more effective than the other?

There is no one answer, for all situations. Among other differences, not all stocks are equally dense, and not all barrels are equally long, or of equal wall thickness.

[JDD]

Butt strike or muzzle strike: is one more effective than the other?

I am embarrassed to say that I am out of practice with them, but I see them as fundamentally different techniques with different applications.

The muzzle strike is more of a quick, easy to target, jab that lets you keep your strong hand pinned closer to your hip for weapon control; and that allows you to break a grab attempt, or alternatively trap and do a modified joint manipulation using the barrel. I feel like there is a lot more flexibility in the technique, but perhaps less raw blunt force.

Butt strike (at least, what I was taught at parris island) was more of a power blow, but you are exposing your lower body/torso/side, the weapon is much further from your center. You also need to be closer to the target. I learned it mostly as a setup for a bayonet slash. My rusty skills may be betraying me here, but it feels very much like the kind of strike that allows someone to get inside my guard and hit/wrap me up while I am winding up.

[0ddl0t]

I do not command people to “freeze.” That terminology was already a bad idea, when I started LEO-ing, in 1984. I never started using it.

What is wrong with it? I've always thought it was clear & concise and less likely to have the ambiguity of "stop" or "halt" where someone might curtail their forward progress yet still move their hands towards scary places...

[Erick Gelhaus]

Going back to the OP ...

What is your state's law on the use of deadly force to protect yourself or loved ones? Do you have a duty to retreat? Or are you in a no retreat or castle doctrine state? Additionally, what do the annotated codes in your state say about those sections?

Staying indoors and being charged by someone who has already forced entry is likely to be viewed quite differently than going outside & looking for the guy.

In terms of commands, while cleared is better, have there been any court rulings that might relate? The 9th Circuit has created a standard for L/E where they not only want a warning prior to the use of deadly force. They also want the Bad Guy told what will happen if they don't comply. So "Stop!" or "Freeze!" is no longer enough, there are a few rulings now in which they've wanted "Stop! Or you will be shot!" While not every decision on police use of force applies to the decent, normal humans there might be some carry over that'll get argued against you.

[vcdgrips]

Oddlot

First Medicine

Then Law

What is your training/education/experience such that you conclude that “freeze” is a proper command v. Rex G who started being a LEO in 1984 and Erick G whose court approved commands revolve around Stop + consequence for non compliance?

[Rex G]

What is wrong with it? I've always thought it was clear & concise and less likely to have the ambiguity of "stop" or "halt" where someone might curtail their forward progress yet still move their hands towards scary places...

“Freeze” may only have one syllable, but it takes a long time to say clearly.

The “f” sound is weak. The “r” sound is weak. The compound “fr” is weak. The “ee” can get a bit shrieky.

“H” is a forceful, commanding sound, from deep within the lungs, from the diaphragm muscle, so, “Halt” is better, and Spanish speakers will generally understand, as “Alto” is the Spanish word.

“S” is a bit weak, but, overall, “Stop” is reasonably strong.

As for the hands, well, I got pretty good at belting out “Yo quiero mirar los manos!” ;) This included quick-rolling each “r,” which is quicker that the weak English “r.”

Somewhere, long ago, Mas Ayoob wrote why “freeze” is not a best choice, but cannot I remember what he wrote, though it seemed logical at the time I read it.

[andre3k]

This is why we need to train retention and other ECQC skills, as well as how and when to fire a shot. At least in my experience as a civilian in training scenarios, a long gun makes this more challenging. But those challenges can be overcome with practice.All of my rifle / shotgun training have been courses offered by various departments. I can't think of a single time where weapon retention was discussed, even in the multi-day classes. Honestly, I haven't seen much of it offered in pistol classes either.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[0ddl0t]

What is your training/education/experience such that you conclude that “freeze” is a proper command v. Rex G who started being a LEO in 1984 and Erick G whose court approved commands revolve around Stop + consequence for non compliance?
I suspect you misinterpreted my question as a retort.

[DDTSGM]

Oddlot

First Medicine

Then Law

What is your training/education/experience such that you conclude that “freeze” is a proper command v. Rex G who started being a LEO in 1984 and Erick G whose court approved commands revolve around Stop + consequence for non compliance?


I suspect you misinterpreted my question as a retort.

Seriously, some perspective: At some point a trainer determined that 'Freeze' doesn't mean stop, rather it means 'get cold' and made a big deal out of it. While most of us know what 'freeze' means when said with a degree of forcefulness, even more of us, including those who speak other languages, know what STOP! means. So in that respect it makes a great deal of sense to use STOP.

In addition, identifying the force to employed if the person doesn't stop - 'STOP or I'll shoot' puts the subject on notice and, in essence, makes the decision theirs. If it comes down to it, it gives your attorney a fairly powerful tool to use in defending your use of force.

[Mas]

“Freeze” may only have one syllable, but it takes a long time to say clearly.

The “f” sound is weak. The “r” sound is weak. The compound “fr” is weak. The “ee” can get a bit shrieky.

“H” is a forceful, commanding sound, from deep within the lungs, from the diaphragm muscle, so, “Halt” is better, and Spanish speakers will generally understand, as “Alto” is the Spanish word.

“S” is a bit weak, but, overall, “Stop” is reasonably strong.

As for the hands, well, I got pretty good at belting out “Yo quiero mirar los manos!” ;) This included quick-rolling each “r,” which is quicker that the weak English “r.”

Somewhere, long ago, Mas Ayoob wrote why “freeze” is not a best choice, but cannot I remember what he wrote, though it seemed logical at the time I read it.

Rex, back in the 1970s Lt. Frank McGee, then head of the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Unit, told me their department had gone with the command "Police! Don't move!" The rationale was that "Freeze" was a mushy-sounding word, but the explosive consonants "P" in "Police!" and "D" in "Don't move!" were more clearly audible and distinguishable. It's been over 40 years, but if I remember correctly linguistics expertise and street cop experience were all involved in the study that led to the adoption of that specific command. I suspect John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which was tight with NYPD, was also involved to some degree.

It made sense to me, and I've always taught "Police! Don't move!" for LE, and simply "Don't move!" for armed citizens. P-F members with NYPD experience may have more details to share on that.

[blues]

Rex, back in the 1970s Lt. Frank McGee, then head of the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Unit, told me their department had gone with the command "Police! Don't move!" The rationale was that "Freeze" was a mushy-sounding word, but the explosive consonants "P" in "Police!" and "D" in "Don't move!" were more clearly audible and distinguishable. It's been over 40 years, but if I remember correctly linguistics expertise and street cop experience were all involved in the study that led to the adoption of that specific command. I suspect John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which was tight with NYPD, was also involved to some degree.

It made sense to me, and I've always taught "Police! Don't move!" for LE, and simply "Don't move!" for armed citizens. P-F members with NYPD experience may have more details to share on that.

Mas, slightly later, but in the early 80's, my federal agency in NYC trained with the same command. (We also qualified at the NYPD range at Rodman's Neck so there was probably some training influence overlap. I don't remember specifically what was taught at FLETC at the time.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I remember the "Don't Move" suggestion based on the easier perception of the stopped consonants (meaning you produce a stop of air flow in the vocal tract to produce them - d/t, b/p, g/k). Clean, quick and discrete. Freeze - the /f/ has less energy and is a longer sound. Also, from the speech perception world, we seem to have some clear specific detector systems for the stop consonants that come online earlier in infancy. Seen in baby studies.

Heard the same argument for giving a command to a bad dog. BAD DOG is something that most dogs have heard and gets their attention. Has worked for me at times. Of course, dogs don't have human speech detectors but probably learned it from their trainers. Don't know if this has been intensively studied.

[0ddl0t]

Somewhere, long ago, Mas Ayoob wrote why “freeze” is not a best choice, but cannot I remember what he wrote, though it seemed logical at the time I read it.
I did find one article in which he talked about a 1992 Louisiana case where the homeowner issued the "freeze" command and a costumed Japanese high school exchange student, at the wrong house for a Halloween party, continued advancing to his demise. But it was posited that the Japanese student thought the homeowner was an attendee of the costume party and just playing a role.


Rex, back in the 1970s Lt. Frank McGee, then head of the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Unit, told me their department had gone with the command "Police! Don't move!" The rationale was that "Freeze" was a mushy-sounding word, but the explosive consonants "P" in "Police!" and "D" in "Don't move!" were more clearly audible and distinguishable. It's been over 40 years, but if I remember correctly linguistics expertise and street cop experience were all involved in the study that led to the adoption of that specific command. I suspect John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which was tight with NYPD, was also involved to some degree.

It made sense to me, and I've always taught "Police! Don't move!" for LE, and simply "Don't move!" for armed citizens. P-F members with NYPD experience may have more details to share on that.

Thanks Mas. I like the unambiguity of "Don't Move," but I'm not totally convinced "freeze" is that weak (an exclaimed "fuck" seems pretty strong even if you were to stop yourself from saying the "ck"). Still, I can definitely see how some foreigners might be confused by the use of an alternate definition of "freeze."


As for the hands, well, I got pretty good at belting out “Yo quiero mirar los manos!” ;)

I've always wondered about this. As a citizen I don't need to be slapping handcuffs on anybody, so why would I want to give someone permission to move their hands away from their waistband? If they did come up with a gun, I'd be behind the eight ball because instead of being able to react at the movement I would have lag time waiting to process that they have a gun in their hand, right? So why not just have them freeze/not move until the cavalry arrives?

That and I hate hearing conflicting commands when watching body cam footage (e.g. "Don't move show me your hands hands hands don't move!"

[Sanch]

My lay person opinion.

If you find yourself facing down an unarmed man rushing you as you hold them at gun point with your long gun, or handgun for that matter, you probably need to shoot that person because they may disarm you and kill you with your own gun. A reasonably a prudent person would believe the only reason to charge someone holding you at gunpoint is to take your gun away from you and use it against you.

I render that opinion without context of scenario. Depending on the context, it’s murder, but regardless of context it’s tactically necessary for survival.

If you are performing a citizens arrest in a public place and you are lawfully not allowed to do that with lethal force, then this becomes murder. You probably saved your own life from the imminent moment you are facing down the charging person, but the events leading up to the shoot are what make it murder. You put yourself in a shit situation that required you to shoot, but you voluntarily put yourself in the shit situation where shooting was highly likely.

Imagine you are robbing a liquor store at gunpoint and the clerk pulls out a handgun. You have to shoot him because if you don’t, he will shoot you and you die. But it’s murder because contextually you were robbing a liquor store.

On the justifiable side, you are woken up at home in the middle of the night and there’s an intruder in your living room, and shoot this unarmed man as he’s charging you, it’s not murder because of context.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

On the justifiable side, you are woken up at home in the middle of the night and there’s an intruder in your living room, and shoot this unarmed man as he’s charging you, it’s not murder because of context.

That story has been used to kill an annoying spouse or partner. It's usually figured out. Oh, I didn't know it was beloved hubby, wife, girl friend, etc.

A colleague of mine was an expert witness in such a case. Wife supposedly wakes up and says, that threatening shadow was coming at me. I could not discern who it was - bang!

Oops, it was hubby doing the midnight peepee. My colleague (a USAF vet, vision scientist) did a rather high tech analysis of her vision (who knows why she consented to that), reconstructed the visual image of such a system and guess what - he was readily identifiable. Off to jail.

Didn't that South African athlete who decided to blast away at the 'intruder' in his bathroom, use that justification. Surprise, it was the girl friend.

Having someone not comply to verbal commands is an interesting FOF for the civilian. Going to stand there when you say:

Hand up, Don't Move, Freeze and the guy answers you with some language YOU don't understand and smilingly walks towards you? Open fire?

Holding someone at gunpoint is a bad idea - get rid of them if you can. Let the law chase them down. It was debate at the old NTI. Warn before the shot and then what?

Do you assume that when you shoot, you are going to kill the person? They might well survive and say they were trying to flee and/or give up and you just shot them instead.

[Sero Sed Serio]

For the scenario where the confrontation is in your home* or occupied vehicle, Arizona's presumptions start out in favor of lethal force being justified: the occupant is presumed to reasonably believe force/deadly force is immediately necessary to protect self/others, and the invader is presumed to pose an imminent threat of unlawful deadly harm:

https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00419.htm

The presumption does not distinguished between invaders armed with "deadly weapons" (designed for lethal use) or "dangerous instruments" (objects not designed for lethal use but capable of causing it--bats, chains, butcher knives, etc.), and "unarmed" invaders.

So for our scenario, AZ law starts in favor of the occupant, before we even get to discussing the issues of the invader's aggressive action, the possibility of the occupant being disarmed, disparities in size/strength/fitness, or other things that could be used to articulate the need for deadly physical force above and beyond those presumptions. The previous posters have done an excellent job discussing how lethal force could be justified in a weapon retention struggle.

These are rebuttable presumptions, but the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that he occupant wasn't acting reasonably and/or that the invader didn't pose an immediate threat. There are exceptions for family members, lawful residents, law enforcement officers, or when the residence is used in the commission of a crime.

My mom's old boss, a retired airport manager and law-abiding citizen who lived in a quiet, nice neighborhood, but had incredibly bad luck, was involved in two in-home self-defense situations: the first was the suspect in a police foot pursuit that jumped through his bedroom window and landed virtually on top of him--he physically threw the suspect back out the window. The second was a daytime burglary, where he fired a single, fatal shot into the burglar's head with a .38 snub. I don't believe that the burglar was carrying any sort of a conventional or unconventional weapon, and I'm not sure if the burglar made any threatening actions towards him. No charges were filed or contemplated in either case.



*Criminal case law supports a broad interpretation of "home" or "residence" to include being a lawful overnight guest, hotel rooms, RVs, and even in some cases tents or cardboard boxes.

[Sanch]

Hand up, Don't Move, Freeze and the guy answers you with some language YOU don't understand and smilingly walks towards you? Open fire?

This is actually a much scary visual than a guy silently with an angry face walking towards me while I held him at gun point. Context dependent, just because the person is encroaching on me smiling and speaking in a foreign or possibly invented language, does not remove lethal force justification from the table. If it did, then every bad guy in the country would smile and walk towards cops holding them at gunpoint and jabber off nonsense words and then when they are shot, claim a bad shoot.

Of course, it all depends on why the person is being held at gun point. I agree with you when you said it's a bad idea. In my mind, holding someone at gunpoint is reserved for situations where I have decided to shoot this person but am giving them an opportunity to not get shot depending on their actions. And if I can instruct them to leave the area safely, then I would do that. Get the f- out of here!

Personally, my pre-need decision making is that I would only draw a gun on someone if they were inside my home uninvited and unexpected or if they put me in fear for my life in a public place in a manner that I cannot safely exclude myself from the situation. I'm not doing third party intervention under any situation other than someone I'm out in public with such as a friend or family member. I'm not protecting strangers, my car or any other forms of property. I used to think I would intervene if a uniformed LEO was in trouble but upon deep self introspection, I'm not willing to give up my life for them and will not intervene.

I've pre-need decided there's very few situations I would actually draw the gun, and under all of those situations I'm immediately legally and tactically justified to shoot. There's no grey area, there's no hands up, there's no drop your weapon. Now if when I draw the gun, the circumstances change such that I no longer need to shoot, then there would be a temporary holding at gunpoint until the person either decides to leave and avoid getting shot or decides to come toward me and get shot.

What might that look like? I'm inside my house and there's someone snooping around in the fully fenced in backyard. I draw my gun and approach from behind. Legally I can shoot them but I want more information. Is it the neighbors kid sneaking home? I might hold at gun point giving orders to identify them. If the person suddenly reaches in their waistband and turns towards me, they've forfeited their right to not get shot. I was justified in shooting them even before this point, but legal justification is not ethical justification and I'd like to make sure it really is a bad guy. That's the limited situation I've decided to hold someone at gunpoint, and it's if I can safely give them an opportunity to talk/act their way out of getting shot in a way that doesn't jeopardize my tactical position.

Someone snooping around my backyard with a ski mask on and has a crowbar in their hand? I don't notice them and I'm outside and they startle me. I probably need to draw the gun and shoot immediately since they are too close and can smash my skull in with the crowbar before I can draw my gun and issue commands. But if I have the positional and time advantage then maybe I temporarily hold them at gunpoint provided I can do so safely.

Personally, even if a stand your ground state, I would attempt to leave if possible, unless it's my residence.

[Le Français]

Many PFers know this first hand, but I think it may bear repeating: Do not have rigid expectations about how people will react if/when you confront them with a firearm.

Some will run, others will posture and threaten, others will insist that you shoot them right away (some of these will be sincere), others will freeze, others will pull out cell phones and start recording, and still others will attack in earnest. Some will simply keep doing exactly what it was that they were doing or intending to do before your entrance on stage. Don’t believe me? Ask any patrol officer. :)

It pays to have at least visualized some of these possibilities, and played out the scenarios to various possible conclusions. Force on force training is awesome for this, if you have good partners/role players. One thing you’ll learn from such training is that it’s good to have intermediate force options, like OC spray and striking/grappling abilities. The gun won’t solve every problem whilst also keeping you out of handcuffs.

[Coyotesfan97]

Heard the same argument for giving a command to a bad dog. BAD DOG is something that most dogs have heard and gets their attention. Has worked for me at times. Of course, dogs don't have human speech detectors but probably learned it from their trainers. Don't know if this has been intensively studied.

Dogs recognize the tone and the sharpness of the command. Most will know bad dog but you’ll probably get a better reaction using a harsh NO! Just as an example of this I often encounter dogs when working. If they advance on me I yell PFUI! (PHOOEY) which is a Dutch dog command that I’ve used frequently working with Dutch trained dogs. US dogs wouldn’t know it but they react to it almost every time.

[Odin Bravo One]

You can beat the fuck out of someone with a long gun, just saying.

An ocular fracture of the cheek bone, and eye socket from a muzzle strike has proven to be pretty damn persuasive. (From what I hear) A skill I always teach at any course that isn’t entry level.

[Odin Bravo One]

Butt strike or muzzle strike: is one more effective than the other?

A buttstrike poorly executed has good odds of putting you in fist fight over the gun. Fights between are 50/50 at best. Muzzle strikes in the other hand, have a long, and illustrious history of being pretty damn effective.

My opinion and worth what you paid for it. YMMV.

[deputyG23]

Rex, back in the 1970s Lt. Frank McGee, then head of the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Unit, told me their department had gone with the command "Police! Don't move!" The rationale was that "Freeze" was a mushy-sounding word, but the explosive consonants "P" in "Police!" and "D" in "Don't move!" were more clearly audible and distinguishable. It's been over 40 years, but if I remember correctly linguistics expertise and street cop experience were all involved in the study that led to the adoption of that specific command. I suspect John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which was tight with NYPD, was also involved to some degree.

It made sense to me, and I've always taught "Police! Don't move!" for LE, and simply "Don't move!" for armed citizens. P-F members with NYPD experience may have more details to share on that.

This command is the one we have taught in our basic academy for years. Clear and concise.

[UNM1136]

A buttstrike poorly executed has good odds of putting you in fist fight over the gun. Fights between are 50/50 at best. Muzzle strikes in the other hand, have a long, and illustrious history of being pretty damn effective.

My opinion and worth what you paid for it. YMMV.

I think I argued with you online once. ONCE! (Johnny Dangerously anyone?)

Reading your posts over the years and paying attention to some of the places you have been and some of the things you have done have convinced me that when you talk/post I need treat your advice like gold.

pat

[UNM1136]

Rex, back in the 1970s Lt. Frank McGee, then head of the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Unit, told me their department had gone with the command "Police! Don't move!" The rationale was that "Freeze" was a mushy-sounding word, but the explosive consonants "P" in "Police!" and "D" in "Don't move!" were more clearly audible and distinguishable. It's been over 40 years, but if I remember correctly linguistics expertise and street cop experience were all involved in the study that led to the adoption of that specific command. I suspect John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which was tight with NYPD, was also involved to some degree.

It made sense to me, and I've always taught "Police! Don't move!" for LE, and simply "Don't move!" for armed citizens. P-F members with NYPD experience may have more details to share on that.

As a related note, this was not something that was addressed much in my academy (there was no FoF, Sims were for SWAT once or twice a year). As FoF became more accepted and worked its way into the Academy setting my old agency did some playing with commands. "Police! Don't move!" became the default. It IDs you, and then gives an exact command, one that allows adrenaline sprung officers to collect their thoughts before giving the next command. It allows the officers to determine compliance, even if only in the immediate moment. In the day of audio and video recording it gives a lawful command immediately after identifying yourself. They learned from FoF with untrained role players that things like "Police! Hands up!" resulted in motions for which officers really should have been ready. It frequently resulted in a suspect's rapid hand motions causing keyed up trainees to shoot the role player, while the instructions were followed.

pat

[Odin Bravo One]

I think I argued with you online once. ONCE! (Johnny Dangerously anyone?)

Reading your posts over the years and paying attention to some of the places you have been and some of the things you have done have convinced me that when you talk/post I need treat your advice like gold.

pat

I don’t know about all that. I’ve been wrong as often as I’ve been right. On here, same as in life. We’re all shaped by training, knowledge, and experience. Mine becomes less relevant the more time goes on.

[UNM1136]

I don’t know about all that. I’ve been wrong as often as I’ve been right.

Doesn't mean I won't have it analyzed before using....

pat

[Hambo]

Muzzle strikes in the other hand, have a long, and illustrious history of being pretty damn effective.

All we practiced was muzzle strikes, because our various telescoping/folding/skinny ass metal stocks weren't going to hurt anybody.

[Cacafuego]

My understanding is that most shotguns are not drop safe. If one were to muzzle-strike with a shotgun, what are the chances that the thing would fire? I'd think that would be problematic to explain...

[Erick Gelhaus]

My understanding is that most shotguns are not drop safe. If one were to muzzle-strike with a shotgun, what are the chances that the thing would fire? I'd think that would be problematic to explain...

1st, weapon on safe, finger straight on the receiver.

With a shotgun, I'd go with either a buttstroke or - if you can do it - using the side of the receiver as the point of impact, by driving the side saddle area or ejection port through the desired location.

I have done muzzle strikes with an M4 (weapon on safe, finger straight on the lower receiver) and they have been successful.

[Odin Bravo One]

My understanding is that most shotguns are not drop safe. If one were to muzzle-strike with a shotgun, what are the chances that the thing would fire? I'd think that would be problematic to explain...

Never had an issue with it. The hardest I’ve ever hit a human being was with the muzzle of an 870.

If you’re that concerned about it, use a muzzle snap instead. They’re effective for most folks. Full-on muzzle strikes are generally reserved for when a snap is ineffective or the circumstances warrant a strike.

Keep in mind, if you’re striking hard with the muzzle, especially to the face/head area, you are teetering on deadly force. Close enough so that I wouldn’t want a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty to decide that.

[BehindBlueI's]

It made sense to me, and I've always taught "Police! Don't move!" for LE, and simply "Don't move!" for armed citizens. P-F members with NYPD experience may have more details to share on that.

This. It's also universal. Don't Move means you're whole body. I can "stop" moving and still move my hands.


I like the unambiguity of "Don't Move," but I'm not totally convinced "freeze" is that weak (an exclaimed "fuck" seems pretty strong even if you were to stop yourself from saying the "ck").

Fuck is strong because of the cultural connotations. It's the king of swears. Freeze is cartoony. Even worse, it is not literal. "Don't move" is literal. There is no translation into action required. When someone is running at maximum processing power trying to get through the OODA loop words aren't always processed. A literal command has a better chance of being understood under stress.

[Cacafuego]

Never had an issue with it. The hardest I’ve ever hit a human being was with the muzzle of an 870.

If you’re that concerned about it, use a muzzle snap instead. They’re effective for most folks. Full-on muzzle strikes are generally reserved for when a snap is ineffective or the circumstances warrant a strike.

Keep in mind, if you’re striking hard with the muzzle, especially to the face/head area, you are teetering on deadly force. Close enough so that I wouldn’t want a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty to decide that.

Not super concerned, just something that occurred to me. I had to hold a guy at gunpoint last month; I used a pistol, but 95% of the time in the particular situation it would be a shotgun, and I could easily see wanting to employ force, short of shooting.

Thanks, sincerely, for the info.

[Dog Guy]

Never had an issue with it. The hardest I’ve ever hit a human being was with the muzzle of an 870.

If you’re that concerned about it, use a muzzle snap instead. They’re effective for most folks. Full-on muzzle strikes are generally reserved for when a snap is ineffective or the circumstances warrant a strike.

Keep in mind, if you’re striking hard with the muzzle, especially to the face/head area, you are teetering on deadly force. Close enough so that I wouldn’t want a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty to decide that.

Since I've never been trained in either and I'm now curious, can you briefly differentiate between a snap and a strike?

[Odin Bravo One]

A snap is essentially like bitch slapping them with the shotgun or carbine. Using the side of the muzzle, to give it a quick snap to face/head. It usually requires sutures, but the structural integrity of the face is unchanged. Kind of along Bruce Lee’s one inch punch theory. You’re not hauling off and whacking them with it, just a fast movement with a hard metal object, using the side.

A strike is using your entire body, and the actual muzzle end. It’s not a winding up, telegraphing shove. It is still a quick, short movement, but you’re striking with the business end wear the BB’s come out, and using your entir body to generate a significant amount of force. Sutures are the least of their concerns upon impact. This technique, when done correctly, usually involves significant damage to the face/skull, and I’d argue is just barely a step below lethal force. Done right, no can Defense, and it fucks people up. Permanent.

Did that adequately answer your question? (Better to show an example of each, but I don’t have any willing participants to make a YouTube video.)

[Dog Guy]

I'd have preferred the YouTube video but actors are such pansies these days. Casting would have taken weeks. Great explanation, thank you.