The case for the assessment pause

[HCountyGuy]

I did not know that she got 'hemmed up' over the shooting.

It's kind of coincidental that when I read the OP, I thought of that incident.

At the time I thought she assessed pretty good but had been taught incorrectly.

What I saw was 'he's still moving, I'm still shooting' instead of 'he's still moving AND he is still trying to...' which is a key thing to process before using further lethal force.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...bride-shooting

[BehindBlueI's]

@BehindBlueI's

You've mentioned that cognitive overload presents problems with assessing while shooting.[I] I think there's an inherent flaw in the idea of requiring a LEO to fire two rounds and reassess (or X number of rounds at all) given that cognitive overload prevents most individuals from being able to count rounds fired during a gunfight.

I've found officers and civilians have *generally* had a very good idea of how many rounds they fired, say +/- 2. Even in running gunfights with multiple locations (I fired about 2 here, moved there and fired 3 more sort of statements) There are outliers, but I think that group would be even larger if people thought ahead of time it's something they should do. Then it's not a decision in real time, it's a pre-planned action.

For my greater focus on this being an LE problem, I will state that it stems from we usually see/hear/read about errant rounds more in LE shootings vs private-citizen Bob. Granted there are other factors that go in to that (number of good actors present), but it does seem (granted that’s an assumption I haven’t gone data-digging for) that generally Joe-Bob’s DGU results in less rounds (and potential misses) fired per good actor than LE. But again I’m making an assumption, but one that I’ll try to correct by looking at incidents later on.

I think the "number of good actors" is by far the biggest factor. Criminals tending to try to isolate a victim means fewer bystanders to hit, for example.

If I understand what you're saying, the break caused by reloading isn't sufficient to make them "snap out of it" and realize that shooting a bunch really fast isn't achieving the desired result?

That is correct. Often at a fleeing suspect or a downed suspect. Pawn shop owner who shoots a shit ton into a fleeing car sort of thing, or officer mag dumping at a suspect with partial cover who he has little to no chance of hitting at the speed he's shooting at.

So, I don't think it's a cop specific problem. And, asking non-dedicated people to "git gud" isn't the answer.

I have my thoughts on what "this" would look like in the field. I have my thoughts on how to teach, train it.

@BehindBlueI's I'm still curious as to what you think it this looks like when performed? Or are we going for no extra rounds fired? Very few extra rounds? What is the desired end state?

I think it has to be context dependent, given untrained to semi-trained is a rather large gamut. Do you have someone who gets 16 hours of training a year and has access to non-shooting refresher/online course work a couple more hours? Someone getting a permit who'll take 4 hours of classroom and 15 rounds of live fire in a lifetime? A conversation with your cousin who just bought a gun due to violence in the neighborhood but will *never* practice? It could range from a thought exercise to prime someone's thinking to realistic force on force with pain feedback. I think there's probably multiple ways to skin the cat and I'm very interested in people's ideas that aren't "make them git gud".

[TGS]

I've found officers and civilians have *generally* had a very good idea of how many rounds they fired, say +/- 2. Even in running gunfights with multiple locations (I fired about 2 here, moved there and fired 3 more sort of statements) There are outliers, but I

+/-2 isn't very confidence inspiring for a possible policy and/or legal standard that would require 2 shots to be fired before a reassessment, nor is "generally".

I'm not willing to bet the financial security of me/mine, nor my status of incarceration, on those odds. If we had LEOs that could, we wouldn't be having a conversation about LEOs mag dumping wildly into the air and missing all their shots because of their gross incompetence and inability of cheesedick police management to support proper training.

[JCN]

Cutting ammo / mag capacity to keep people from their own poor judgment is a slippery slope of hardware solutions to software problems.

I think that’s where the national gun laws are going, but as someone who practices I am not thrilled by being kneecapped by the lowest common denominators.

But I’m aware “if it saves one life…”

Like 25 mph residential speed limits.

That’s the cynic in me.

[DDTSGM]

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...bride-shooting

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen it.

[DDTSGM]

Like 25 mph residential speed limits.

That’s the cynic in me.

Was that you? Do you still have my baseball bat?

[BehindBlueI's]

+/-2 isn't very confidence inspiring for a possible policy and/or legal standard that would require 2 shots to be fired before a reassessment, nor is "generally".

I'm not willing to bet the financial security of me/mine, nor my status of incarceration, on those odds. If we had LEOs that could, we wouldn't be having a conversation about LEOs mag dumping wildly into the air and missing all their shots because of their gross incompetence and inability of cheesedick police management to support proper training.

Cool. Then this isn't the conversation for you.

[ssb]

That is correct. Often at a fleeing suspect or a downed suspect. Pawn shop owner who shoots a shit ton into a fleeing car sort of thing, or officer mag dumping at a suspect with partial cover who he has little to no chance of hitting at the speed he's shooting at.

My question then is: if a several-second pause that requires the user to be taken off the task of shooting and then reacquire the target isn’t sufficient to prevent them from continuing to go cyclic at stuff they cannot or should not shoot, why is a brief dip to low ready (or whatever is taught as the pause) going to achieve that goal?

I don’t necessarily disagree with what you wrote in the OP, particularly versus consistently training to “shoot them to the ground.” I am concerned that, much like the transition to the head in the failure drill has become somewhat automated (versus Gunsite’s original teaching of returning to guard, assessing, and delivering a headshot if necessary), so too would this brief assessment pause. If a reload is insufficient to make somebody snap out of the mindset of “I must continue applying force,” I am wondering why this would work. I think it could work, but it would need to be combined with some sort of drill that forces assessment during those assessment pauses.

[JCN]

]If a reload is insufficient to make somebody snap out of the mindset of “I must continue applying force,” I am wondering why this would work. I think it could work, but it would need to be combined with some sort of drill that forces assessment during those assessment pauses.

I'll just make the point for the people who don't train... a reload may not give them a mental break, it's probably MORE cognitive loading and just blanks their brain as they fumble with the mag and try and jam it in....

I've seen that a lot from C/D class shooters... they'll hose on a small steel or a Texas Star, reload and keep hosing without missing a beat (but continuing to miss the target).

[TGS]

Cool. Then this isn't the conversation for you.

Actually, it is.

I have a right to respectfully voice why this is a bad idea, present what I think is a better idea, and explain why, which I've done. You've responded by stating a statistical variance in accuracy which is as big or bigger in the capability of humans to adhere to your idea, which pretty much proves the point on its own that it's seriously flawed and, if implemented, will result in people getting jammed up on an artificial and capricious policy and/or legal standard that is highly dubious for people to execute with reliability, which is why there's a current legal precedent that accounts for human cognitive limits.

If that chafes you, sorry, but I had something to say with relevance to the conversation and I said it. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about it from here, I'm done, but this isn't your unit and you don't get to decide who gets a say just because you don't like what is being said.