Question about pointing pistol at someone

[jetfire]

"Oh my, look at the time, I'm late for choir practice!"

[Mr_White]

Has anyone thought about possibly showing documentation that you spent at least HALF of your training time trying to stop from shooting someone as you did in shooting them?

Sort of. I can’t claim 50% non-firing repetitions.

But, along these lines...

In addition to more standard shooting drills, our training group also practices:

Draw to a ready position and verbalize
Draw to a ready position and wait silently
Acquire master grip and verbalize
Acquire master grip discreetly and wait silently
Shoot to slidelock, reload, go to ready position and verbalize
Attempt to fire, clear malfunction, go to ready position and verbalize

Sometimes we also use unknown time limits to represent a sudden change in the situation that requires the practitioner to stop shooting unexpectedly. I blow the whistle as a start signal. I blow the whistle as a stop signal. They do not know if or when the second whistle will come. The second whistle represents that the situation has changed and shooting is no longer necessary and justified. Sometimes everyone has time to finish the string. Sometimes some do and others don’t. Sometimes no one has time to finish the string, or even get started in the first place. With unknown time limits, people frequently have to halt in-progress trigger presses.

It is not documented as well as it could be, but between the documentation that I could come up with and the testimony of the various participants in those drills, I think we could get it established that we’ve practiced the above.

[Joseph B.]

I think you provided your own example.

Both examples I was in fact not justified in using or threatening deadly force, again the point of my “legal ramifications” from pointing guns at perceived threats prematurely. I could have very easily been charged with both deadly conduct and terroristic threat for the firework incident. Luckily it did not go that way, but it was a lesson well learned.

So........was this a poor decision in retrospect? And your "shock" at having someone ignore your gun doesn't "shock" me in the least. BTDT more than once.


Yes it was a poor decision, and faced in the same situations I would not have pointed the weapon prematurely. One it left me with very little recourse in that I could shoot or not shoot and two I but the decision “ball” into the perceived threats making “court”. Not only that, I opened myself up to both civil and criminal liability once the perceived threat disengaged.


What if they haven't already committed to attacking/robbing you? Are you saying that one should wait until they do BEFORE a gun is drawn from the holster?

No, what I am saying is that you should not point a firearm as a civilian towards another person unless you are in fact justified in using deadly force, and if you are in fact justified in using deadly force there is no requirement to “wait” as the justification is made and any time given to allow the threat to change their mind leaves you in a reactionary situation. Not what I would recommend, but as I have stated people should seek proper legal advice on these types of questions.

[SouthNarc]

Roger that and I really don't think we're divergent on the issue. I guess my underlying theme that I'm trying to get across in all my posts has been that real life isn't a video game and that when we look at something like feeling like we need to get a gun in hand, it may not be just as simple as shooting them.

OR..............it may very well be that simple!

No what I am saying is that you should not point a firearm as a civilian towards another person unless you are in fact justified in using deadly force, and if you are in fact justified in using deadly force there is no requirement to “wait” as the justification is made and any time given to allow the threat to change their mind leaves you in a reactionary situation. Not what I would recommend, but as I have stated people should seek proper legal advice on these types of questions.

[Joseph B.]

I am tracking on your perspective and really do not disagree with anything you posted, I am more or less playing devil’s advocate with the legal aspects of the question of pointing guns at people. I do everything I can to avoid discussing UoF or legal issues in my POI’s/training mainly due to the spin-off that can take place. Too many theories, opinions, interpretations and changes to the laws to contend with and stay current on, I prefer to point people seeking that information towards UoF specialist or legal counsel.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Sort of. I can’t claim 50% non-firing repetitions.

But, along these lines...

In addition to more standard shooting drills, our training group also practices:

Draw to a ready position and verbalize
Draw to a ready position and wait silently
Acquire master grip and verbalize
Acquire master grip discreetly and wait silently
Shoot to slidelock, reload, go to ready position and verbalize
Attempt to fire, clear malfunction, go to ready position and verbalize

Sometimes we also use unknown time limits to represent a sudden change in the situation that requires the practitioner to stop shooting unexpectedly. I blow the whistle as a start signal. I blow the whistle as a stop signal. They do not know if or when the second whistle will come. The second whistle represents that the situation has changed and shooting is no longer necessary and justified. Sometimes everyone has time to finish the string. Sometimes some do and others don’t. Sometimes no one has time to finish the string, or even get started in the first place. With unknown time limits, people frequently have to halt in-progress trigger presses.

It is not documented as well as it could be, but between the documentation that I could come up with and the testimony of the various participants in those drills, I think we could get it established that we’ve practiced the above.

You just hit on the article, AN EXAMINATION OF POLICE OFFICER MENTAL CHRONOMETRY:
“I SWEAR...I DON’T KNOW HOW I SHOT HIM IN THE BACK”
by
Jeffrey B. Bumgarner, Ph.D.
Texas Christian University
William J. Lewinski, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
William Hudson, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
Sgt. Craig Sapp
Tempe Police Department

http://www.forcescience.org/articles...hronometry.pdf

Also see: http://da.countyofventura.org/docume...ois_111108.pdf
Detailing the shooting investigation by the Ventura County DA dated 11/11/08 heavily referencing this issue.

The operable time to look at the justification for shooting is at the time the decission to shoot is made, and then the events occuring during the period of time in which stopping action based on said decission is not possible.

If you recieve a threat stimulius, make the decission to daw and shoot, and in the process of acting on that justifiable choice the situation changes faster than you can react...

It's still a justified shooting.

It takes explaining, reconstruction and investigation...but life is fluid like that.

The core of self defense is reasonable actions under the situation at hand.

Expecting someone to be able to stop on a dime after having recieved a threat stimulius is no more reasonable than expecting someone to be able to shoot a gun out of somoene's hand on demand.

Training and review of incidents needs to take human reaction time & mental chronometry into account, or the training and the incident review are looking at the event from a flawed point of view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are trying to make sure the people on the unknown time limits drill have faster reactions to stimuli so that they can be prepped to either shoot quickly or stop quickly, and keep a decission making process open right up to the point of BANG?

[Mr_White]

You just hit on the article, AN EXAMINATION OF POLICE OFFICER MENTAL CHRONOMETRY:
“I SWEAR...I DON’T KNOW HOW I SHOT HIM IN THE BACK”
by
Jeffrey B. Bumgarner, Ph.D.
Texas Christian University
William J. Lewinski, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
William Hudson, Ph.D.
Minnesota State University
Sgt. Craig Sapp
Tempe Police Department

http://www.forcescience.org/articles...hronometry.pdf

Also see: http://da.countyofventura.org/docume...ois_111108.pdf
Detailing the shooting investigation by the Ventura County DA dated 11/11/08 heavily referencing this issue.

The operable time to look at the justification for shooting is at the time the decission to shoot is made, and then the events occuring during the period of time in which stopping action based on said decission is not possible.

If you recieve a threat stimulius, make the decission to daw and shoot, and in the process of acting on that justifiable choice the situation changes faster than you can react...

It's still a justified shooting.

It takes explaining, reconstruction and investigation...but life is fluid like that.

The core of self defense is reasonable actions under the situation at hand.

Expecting someone to be able to stop on a dime after having recieved a threat stimulius is no more reasonable than expecting someone to be able to shoot a gun out of somoene's hand on demand.

Training and review of incidents needs to take human reaction time & mental chronometry into account, or the training and the incident review are looking at the event from a flawed point of view.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are trying to make sure the people on the unknown time limits drill have faster reactions to stimuli so that they can be prepped to either shoot quickly or stop quickly, and keep a decission making process open right up to the point of BANG?

Sorry if I gave the impression that they are supposed to stop firing instantly upon hearing the stop signal. That is not the case. They are supposed to stop firing as soon as they are able to, after hearing the stop signal, and we are well aware that that takes time.

Using unknown time limits in shooting drills has the goal of people practicing to abort their string of fire when the situation changes and shooting is no longer required (in this case, the second whistle ham-handedly indicates that change.) People are simply supposed to stop shooting when they are physically able to, rather than mindlessly shoot an entire preplanned string of fire, every time.

[MDS]

Using unknown time limits in shooting drills has the goal of people practicing to abort their string of fire when the situation changes and shooting is no longer required (in this case, the second whistle ham-handedly indicates that change.) People are simply supposed to stop shooting when they are physically able to, rather than mindlessly shoot an entire preplanned string of fire, every time.

This is a phenomenal idea, I'm going to work that into some bill drill runs and see what happens...

[LtDave]

TGS, I am not a lawyer, and is has been some months since I heard it, but Bill Rogers said that in many states pointing a weapon at someone is legally distinct from the low ready, and gives rise to many possible "bad" things for the weapon pointer.

In CA pointing a loaded gun would be assault with a deadly weapon, the low ready could be charged as brandishing a weapon.

[Johnkard]

Hmm, I'm of the "respond with equal force" school.

Just drawing my weapon instantly escalates the situation and puts somebody's life on the line. If somebody's life wasn't already on the line, that's a very big step to take. I thnk it is our responsibility to resolve as many situations as we can without necessitating the use of a firearm.

Take some self defense classes, learn how to be articulate under pressure, or move to a different part of town. Keep your gun in reserve for moments when it's "equalizing" power are actually necessary.