The case for the assessment pause

[Clusterfrack]

The shoot 2/assess cycle is now old and busted. Everybody knows you'll be shot in the face while you are looky-lou at the bad guy without pulling the trigger.

I’d love to see “call two good hits and reassess.”

BBI, bear with me while I ask basic questions. Why shoot 2 vs. 1 or 15? Is the idea to build in a pause so the good guy doesn't go 'cyclic' and do a mag dump?

[MVS]

So not sure how we separate LE numbers from Joe good guy to start with. I haven't been around as long as some but started this stuff in the mid 80's, police academy in 91 and of course still follow today. Are hit rates going down? They have never been good. If they are going down, is it caused by poor/lack of training or the singular shift to shoot them to the ground? I have to say I still qualify annually with the MCOLES active duty standard COF (not as an LEO) and I have to say the times and scoring are VERY generous. If I could choose someone who could just pass that but believes in 2/asses or someone who can put 5 into a 4X6" at 15 in 2.5 but wants to shoot them to the ground, I know who I am going with. Do I concede that higher capacity guns are causing people to shoot more? Yes, probably. Maybe the problem is that we don't teach them to shoot accurately at the speed we know they are going to shoot at anyway. I believe it actually will take more frequent training to get to where the person shows more control and restraint. That unfortunately outside of certain circles is something we just don't see.

[WobblyPossum]

I’m interested in seeing this discussion play out. I’ve generally leaned towards firing 2-3 rounds then assessing to see if it’s time to do something else. I’ve always liked hearing DB talk about just repping out failure drills within 10 yards until it was automatic which led to his guys firing either one, two, or three rounds as needed. I tend to structure my practice to shoot 2-3 to the body and transition to the head unless I’m shooting a specific drill that calls for something different.

[Trooper224]

BBI, bear with me while I ask basic questions. Why shoot 2 vs. 1 or 15? Is the idea to build in a pause so the good guy doesn't go 'cyclic' and do a mag dump?

Stop trying to make it a math problem. It's a mindset issue. I know we like to approach every issue like it's solving cold fusion here on PF, but it's not always that complicated.

The idea is that firing as few rounds as absolutely necessary is good for everyone involved, especially innocent bystanders who may be hit by errant rounds. One round might not be enough, so give'em two and assess. The streets of hometown USA aren't a theater of battle. Collateral damage isn't acceptable.

The mag dump standard began before the GWOT, so we can't blame the mil guys for that attitude. We progressed from searching for the one shot stop standard lightning bolt in a handgun, to realizing that handguns are just handguns and can only do so much. Unfortunately, since human beings tend to view things in extremes, many developed the attitude that the handgun was worthless. "There for fighting my way to my rifle" and all that bullshit.

As a consequence, because people are inherently stupid the attitude of shooting until the target was neutralized was further dumbed down into, "just do a mag dump". Assessment went out the window.

All of this happened around the same time the attitude developed where the most important thing was going home alive, not serving the public. As a profession, we lost sight of the reality that, sometimes, the lives of those we were sworn to protect were worth more than ours.

So, we stopped shooting and assessing and started mag dumping and missing a lot, because shooting standards also declined during the same period. So, in the end we put our balls on the shelf and became mag dumping candy asses.

[MVS]

Stop trying to make it a math problem. It's a mindset issue. I know we like to approach every issue like it's solving cold fusion here on PF, but it's not always that complicated.

The idea is that firing as few rounds as absolutely necessary is good for everyone involved, especially innocent bystanders who may be hit by errant rounds. One round might not be enough, so give'em two and assess.

The mag dump standard began before the GWOT, so we can't blame the mil guys for that attitude. We progressed from searching for the one shot stop standard lightning bolt in a handgun, to realizing that handguns are just handguns and can only do so much. Unfortunately, since human beings tend to view things in extremes, many developed the attitude that the handgun was worthless. "There for fighting my way to my rifle" and all that bullshit.

As a consequence, because people are inherently stupid the attitude of shooting until the target was neutralized was further dumbed down into, "just do a mag dump". Assessment went out the window.

All of this happened around the same time the attitude developed where the most important thing was going home alive, not serving the public. As a profession, we lost sight of the reality that, sometimes, the lives of those we were sworn to protect were worth more than ours.

So, we stopped shooting and assessing and started mag dumping and missing a lot, because shooting standards also declined during the same period. So, in the end we put our balls on the shelf and became mag dumping candy asses.

Wow, I just can't agree with that part I bolded more. I came up under the Caliber Press Street Survival seminar era (not sure if they invented the idea but that is were I first heard it espoused) and while they did some good stuff I think promulgating the idea that the only thing that mattered was coming home at the end of your shift was a huge mistake.

[blues]

Wow, I just can't agree with that part I bolded more. I came up under the Caliber Press Street Survival seminar era (not sure if they invented the idea but that is were I first heard it espoused) and while they did some good stuff I think promulgating the idea that the only thing that mattered was coming home at the end of your shift was a huge mistake.

In 1983 I can remember at my first academy the oft repeated mantra to be aware of and avoid becoming a victim of "Tombstone Courage"...and while I think it's true that many of us need to learn that the badge is not a shield which you can stand behind, it remains vital that those wearing a badge are willing to do what is necessary to protect both the public as well as their partners...often at grave risk to themselves. It's a fine line.

[Mitch]

I agree with a lot of what has been posted. My two random thoughts:

I always liked two shots to the heart, ride the recoil up to the head, if the head is still there and dude is still a threat, give him one there. If not, stop shooting.

With red dots if you’re shooting target focus you don’t even have to come out of your sights to do this.

[Borderland]

Body cams is going to change the way LE shoots. 15 rounds to take a shooter down probably isn't going to play very well when the police dept is sued for excessive force.

Not saying I know how it works but it's real time but that's what I see on YT.

[Erick Gelhaus]

I've been mulling this over and felt like it was something PF may want to weigh in on. I think it's time to return to the shoot/assess cycle in training vs the shoot them to the ground that is widely viewed as best practice now.
...
The shoot 2/assess cycle is now old and busted. Everybody knows you'll be shot in the face while you are looky-lou at the bad guy without pulling the trigger. But will it? If we're seeing something like 3 for 17 as a fairly common mag dump hit rate...is that faster trigger pulling helping you? During the assessment phase the gun is settling out of recoil and you're getting back into the mind set of decision making vs just keep doing what you're doing because it hasn't gotten you killed yet. So should we dust off that old and busted 'best practice' and see how it works in the day of the wunder9, a litigious society, and the very real scenario that 'lawful but awful' shootings damage the liklihood of robust self-defense laws (and policies) remaining on the books? Ridiculous? Look how many departments now say you can shoot someone in the fact in situation X but can *NEVER EVER EVER* apply any sort of "choke hold" in the same situation X?
...
I know cool guy trainers at all levels aren't going to stop the Instagram splits, but maybe, just maybe, PF may consider working more decision making in to their drills and in their mental run throughs.

So, last one first. The joy of not being a cool guy trainer. Oddly, I know plenty of trainers who are advocating for problem-solving at assessment speed, rather than working towards pretty short split times and several rounds.

BB, what does your shoot and assessment look like? Two rounds, lower the gun, and look? McBride's pair, followed by a pair, followed by another pair? Or Shot, recover/reset, they are still upright, Shot, recover/reset, they are still upright, Shot, shift to head, recover, reset, etc?

The problem I had with some of the proposed methods was X number of rounds (all more than one strangely) and then lower the gun to look.

I'm really good with the idea, quite interested in how it'll be advocated for and trained.

[DDTSGM]

But that’s not a very P-F response, so I’ll also say that the skewing of the trainer pool more towards the GWOT literati, as opposed to the LE/Civ literati of yore has been a major contributing factor. Which sort of makes sense: if one is in a gunfight in-theater and a pile of extra rounds go downrange, it’s a different standard and spectrum of possible outcomes to a defensive shooting (LE or private) here in civilized Opticsville, USA.

I think you are correct to a large extent. I feel one of the problems is simply todays plethora of instructors, many of whom haven't had the thought, 'hey, maybe before I advocate something I need to decide if I'm willing to stand up in court and say, "yes, I said that."

This can be especially bad when folks who don't necessarily have the background to vet what the 'authority' is selling blindly accept what he/she says because, after all, he's the 'authority.'

Several years ago on LF there was a discussion regarding, IIRC. use of less lethal force on suicidal suspects. One officer reported that their policy was to order the subject holding the gun on themselves to drop the weapon and if they didn't immediately drop the weapon immediately use lethal force. This piqued my interest because my thought was that the policy was contrary to numerous SCOTUS findings, specifically Graham's holding regarding use of force continuums. So I asked this officer if it was a written policy. He responded that it had been put out by a firearms instructor during in-service and he didn't know if it had been vetted by legal staff.

Things like that are recipes for disaster.

BBI, bear with me while I ask basic questions. Why shoot 2 vs. 1 or 15? Is the idea to build in a pause so the good guy doesn't go 'cyclic' and do a mag dump?

There have been several responses to this. I'm going to approach it from thoughts regarding the application of lethal force by police:

Police can use force to protect themselves and/or others and police can use force to apprehend folks who are resisting or attempting to flee a lawful arrest. Police can only use lethal force to:

1) protect themselves or others from a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm

or to

2) apprehend a person resisting/fleeing an arrest for a felony or attempted felony involving the infliction of death of great bodily harm and only them if the fleeing person is using a deadly weapon to facilitate their escape, or if the officer has PC to believe that the fleeing subject will be a continued threat of death or great bodily harm unless arrested without delay, and no other reasonable means exist to make the arrest. Whew!

Generally speaking, when the threat which necessitated the use-of-force has been stopped, the application of force must stop.

So, it seems that a pause after initial application of force to assess whether the threat continues is warranted. This doesn't necessarily mean shoot twice and drop to low ready, rather it means see what the subject is doing after your first shots. If the subject is deaminating - arms or weapon dropping, bending over or falling - cover the subject down and only continue the force if the subject tries to use force again. If the subject is still attempting to use force, continue your force application.

Wow, I just can't agree with that part I bolded more. I came up under the Caliber Press Street Survival seminar era (not sure if they invented the idea but that is were I first heard it espoused) and while they did some good stuff I think promulgating the idea that the only thing that mattered was coming home at the end of your shift was a huge mistake.

Folks that say that are playing to the audience and over-simplifying to sound 'warriorish.' Somehow "I'm going to train seriously and do everything legally and ethically possible to some home at the end of every shift' doesn't sound as tough.

Often the same guys who parrot that are the ones who blow through lights at mach 1 when running code, or fail to use cover on calls, etc.