Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
One of the things to remember about those force science experiments is that they are framing experiments. They are not meant to say you should do one thing or another. Using them that way could get one in logic trouble (i.e. they are believing something that simply isn't true by jumping to conclusions.)
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
I'm just a nobody but I love the site and have learned a ton from lurking, so I figured I'd toss my two cents into this.
This may not be very popular, but I feel like "Accountability/Assessment Speed" and phrases like it can be used as excuses for the deficiencies of certain guns. I feel that the higher probability of a short stroke and trigger freeze is a deficiency. It's not a deal breaker by any means and can absolutely be trained around, but everyone has to weigh the positives and negatives of a gun and make that decision themselves.
Edit: Changed from "are" to "can be"
Last edited by Bere09; 01-11-2018 at 09:53 AM.
Which is why I'm not a fan of lighter trigger return springs.
I want the trigger to shove my finger back not follow it back.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
Can you explain differently, the way I'm reading what you wrote isn't processing for me.
What I saw in the Investigative Sciences piece was how many rounds could potentially be fired after the STOP indicator - under the best case scenario, i.e: a light coming on but no one trying to kill you. What I take from a lot of their work, and similar work from others, is that long standing myths may not be valid & here's why. And, here is why the outcomes in these event may be what it was.
Thinking of a scenario in which a suspect is shot while turning and some think too many rounds were fired because he was falling. To work through it, you could consider Aveni's study on subject's turning with objects in their hands and how much 'emotion' is in their turn, as well as all part's of the referenced study by Jason - speed of shots fired, rounds fired after the stop stimulus and how long it takes one to fall to the ground.
Absolutely. I'm not saying you were trying to use them incorrectly. But some on pf have. I remember some time ago someone mentioning the FS study and talking about the stop shooting average. They related it to their chosen shooting speed. That would be incorrect and could cause a lot of problems. Your descriptions of the experiments suggest, "What to expect" in a general way. That's probably a good place to be.
One of the problems with assessment is the definition. Are we talking about assessment before the decision to use force is made or assessment during shooting. They would be two different things. One of the many problems with how some police departments train is that they combine those two different processes under one timed training/practice and/or test. What we end up with is some officers driving the pistol onto the target and then trying to stop because they then realize it's a no shoot. Then we want to use hardware or some type of training to artificially control the speed in order to conform to what we see in experiments. Some artificial slowing of the shooting speed isn't going to fix something that occurred before the first shot was fired.
I believe the disconnect is that those two processes must stay linear. One doesn't start until the first ends. Whether it's police with gun in hand or homeowner investigating a bump in the night, it's not movement or emotion that should spur us to move but having an education on use of force that is well developed enough to force us to identify the specific, "Why" we used the force. That mental trigger in most people is not well developed.
What I am concerned with is the artificial use of time or shooting speed to fix the problems of shoot/don't shoot errors. I am also concerned with the fear of shooting rounds after the reason to shoot has ended where that, reason is not defined. If we were to use the framing studies we would be talking about how many second per round to shoot instead of how many rounds per second.
As you so correctly point out, the framing experiments are there to suggest that we may in fact shoot someone in the back or to the ground/on the ground or after the reason to use force has ended.
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
Specifically paced drills and repetitive training are to build discipline once the shooting starts to avoid the speed becoming emotion driven rather assessment and proper application of fundemental shooting skills driven. Worked great at my old place. Of course, other people have wildly different opinions. I lost interest in trying to change those, but am still interested in properly defining the why we did things he way we did. I spent a lot of time on how to make shoot decisions and the proper sequence of that as well, but that was completely different than why we shot at a disciplined pace in line with assessment realities. Speed is only relative to assessment when you shoot faster than your individual abilities to properly make justifiable force decisions with every shot.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
What are you teaching your students to look for? What are they seeing while shooting that should cause them to stop shooting? How do they know before they ever get into a lethal force encounter, what that proper speed will be?
While I agree with every thing you wrote above, what speed I use has to do with that definition. We might disagree about which definition is more applicable but probably not the speed that goes along with each. Another idea that could influence our thoughts on the subject is how we each believe a gunfight will end(or what we might have to do to end it).
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
I teach to put my students on auto pilot for the mechanical,shooting part through high level repetition of critical skills at a realistic pace for the ranges involved. This includes the failure drill as an auto response at appropriate ranges. This free's the mind up for the more difficult task of problem solving. What are they looking for....is the threat still behind that front sight. Front sight, press, follow through is what should be occupying the mind from the mechanical portion....which is fairly simple. A cleaner definition of that is visual confirmation, correct application of a trigger press, and prepare to do it again if neccesary. I wholly base what I do on success based results rather than the traditional methodology in LE firearms training of basing training on failures. "Don't worry about sights, you can't see them in a fight". Pure bullshit.
I ll recount one of my kids who I spent a lot of time training from a puppy with me and then started going to Scott Reitz when I moved to Texas. In the time it took for one officer (who was never under my methodology) to fire three misses (and then malfunctioned his pistol) and my guys trainee to also fire a miss, my guy described his front sight as being huge and in perfect focus, feeling the trigger take up until the shot broke and then as the front sight settled back into his sight line, he saw the guy crumpling under the sight as he tracked him to the ground. That is how it is supposed to go. It was a highly complex situation and very fast moving. Yet, his shooting fundementals were on auto pilot. I could go on for days on situations just like this. I know what I teach works. I know the folks I stole the methodology from have had massive successes with it as did we. I have way more than "anomalies" to look at for data. I believe the most rounds any of my guys fired in OIS's was 5 and that ended with an on demand failure to stop to the head after three lethal chest hits. Had another one of my guys Park two lethal center chest hits into a huge guy overdosed on drugs. The guy just shuddered, so he brained him. Debrief on him was similar.....the shooting part simply mirrored his repetitive training standards. These guys are not shooting "slow". They are shooting in total control and deliberate without an emotional attachment to the trigger so they can problem solve with their brain because the shooting is a hardwired response and process. Oh yea......and not a single successful lawsuit or criminal or civil issue.
So, if folks have something they think works better, buy your ticket and take the ride. Wanna work on max speed, awesome, put as many rounds into bad guys as fast as you can and hope for the best in the aftermath.
Last edited by Dagga Boy; 01-14-2018 at 09:43 AM.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
Reply With Quote