I've watched both the in-car camera and this reenactment...not much difference.
For those that are not familiar.
I've watched both the in-car camera and this reenactment...not much difference.
For those that are not familiar.
Hard to watch, ain't it?
The path of least resistance will seldom get you where you need to be.
I really hate this video, but there are a lot of lessons here.
More than anything else, watching this video in Tom Givens' class for the first time made me understand the concept of "mindset." I've said this before, but Givens' training is invaluable for the average citizen.
Looked like a terrible situation that went from uncontrolled to grave in seconds. Not being in LE, I would be interested in the lessons beyond have back-up.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Never seen this before. No words to describe the feelings these induce.
There are MANY lessons to this video, the most important is mindset. This video gives me the chills every time I see it, and every time I show it to guys during use of force training. Every cop, and non-cop needs to visualize these scenarios in their mind BEFORE they happen for real. Decide in your mind where to draw the line between verbal commands and the use of force (any force) based on your local laws, physical fitness, armament and your perception of what may happen to you if you do not act to stop the chain of events unfolding in front of you.Originally Posted by GJM
I can tell you, based on my personal experiences as a full time LEO (16 years now), my personal line was crossed very early on in the video. I suspect the same holds true for many other LEO's on this forum. I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking Deputy Dinkheller, I am learning from what happened to him and trying to pass it on to others. I was told by another trainer that days prior to this incident, Deputy Dinkheller was "counseled" by a supervisor about his recent uses of force. There is speculation that this, amongst other factors played a role in his hesitance to shoot much earlier. I don't know this to be fact, but it is certainly worth taking into consideration. If I am incorrect in this piece of info, I hope somebody here may have more of an insiders account and can set it straight.
A quote that's been attributed to Einstein goes something like this: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity."
The good Col. from Arizona used to comment quite often on the "willingness" dynamic. It's a mental exercise that has nothing to do with the shooting part, but the willingness to use DF with purpose.
I personally know of at least three officers that didn't have this nailed down and it almost cost them their lives. Two of the three finally pulled it out and got on the sights and trigger and killed their attackers, but not before being wounded first. In one of these incidents, one of them was taken out of action by a headshot and his wounded partner had to deal with the bad-guy by himself. In all three cases, they had every reasonable advantage and they failed to capitalize on it due to their indecisiveness.
Being able and not willing is a recipe for disaster. One of my training mantras was "take control or get out of there." Failing to do one or the other gets a lot of officers killed.
The path of least resistance will seldom get you where you need to be.
I'm not LE and welcome their input, but I think for an LE, an uncontrolled situation like this is grave from the get-go. The officer in this case displayed a marked reluctance to engage his assailant who was demonstrating unmistakable hostile intent, either with his hands, baton, pepper spray or with a firearm. The assailant retreated to his vehicle where he spent a great deal of time making what can only be described as extremely furtive movements while spurning direct commands from the officer. When the assailant produced an M1 carbine, the officer emptied his weapon to no effect. The assailant shot the officer multiple times. Although the officer did manage, in extremis, to wound the assailant in the stomach after reloading, the injury inflicted was not sufficient to prevent the assailant from closing the distance and shooting the officer through the eye at point blank range, killing him.
Interestingly, according to Givens, the assailant, currently on death row, has never expressed any remorse for his actions. He feels justified in murdering the officer because he was not shown sufficient "respect" during their encounter.
The lessons here for LE are obvious and this video is used as a training tool in police academies, etc. For citizens the lessons are less obvious, but if you give it some thought they are apparent.
Imagine if you were involved in a fender bender with an insane or violent person - like I was not too long ago. At what point are you, as a citizen, ready to respond with a an appropriate response to overt, spoken threats to your life? At what point are you ready to respond to overt, unspoken threats like the one in the video? Failing either of those, at what point do you get in your car and leave immediately? And once you've made the decision to engage, are you capable of doing what you need to do with your chosen instrument at the range you find yourself at?
The officer in this case was not prepared to answer any of those questions before they were asked. And if we, as card carrying good guys, aren't ready to answer them at a moment not of our choosing, then we cannot expect a different result.
I personally, in a similar situation, was not ready to answer those questions. That prompted me to seek out training from Givens and Southnarc. More than anything, I think the lesson to be learned here is to understand "mindset" and to know your limitations in that area and seek out the means to overcome them.
ETA: glad to see more authoritative responses in the time it took me to type this out.
According to the reenactment, seems like there was a breakdown in each section of the HiTS triad: Mindset, Marksmanship, and Gun Handling/Tactics. IMO...
The screams are what gets me. Feeling a little nauseous now. At what point was the "line" crossed for others on this board? When the suspect advanced in a hostile manner I would have drawn my sidearm. Hindsight is 20/20, and I'm not LE, but I don't think I would have allowed him to return to his vehicle. Skipping that though, as soon as I saw a weapon, based on the previous hostile acts and failure to heed demands, I would have shot him.
Reply With Quote