It hasn't come into news lately but remember when it does

AZ Jim

AZ Jim

R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
Location
SURPRISE, ARIZONA
You are a police officer. In making a routine alley check behind business one night you come upon a man who appears suspicious for some reason. You stop your patrol unit, get out and find this in your face:

Blanks.JPG

You have a split second to respond, what would you do knowing the man can squeeze the trigger in a heartbeat?
 

It's in my face?

Way too close, fella - I'd take you down with an appropriate chin-na technique. Then kick you if there's no surveillance cameras.
 

I know both sides of the story. If someone is stupid enough to wave a fake gun...yes they deserve a sound beating. No not enough to kill them, but...especially in this day and age...even a frickin' water pistol, no you deserve whatever you get. Unless 2% of the police force is black then it's a different story...oy, that my brain hurts.
 
WhatInThe said:
What does the tip of the barrel look like?
Click to expand...

In the case of this particular weapon it looks like a typical barrel, but if you are in a semi dark area and see someone pointing a gun or anything resembling a gun you have only a split second to decide shoot or no shoot. If you hesitate, other officers may be at your house later in the night to inform your widow that you didn't shoot.
 
Is the gun in my face as in inches or the gun is pointed at me from a distance in feet. Still a close call. Depending on visibility mine and many cops weapon would be drawn or have their hand on it ready to go. There was an article recently showing a how fast a suspect could turn a weapon on you used to show the amount of time to make a decision and how fast things happen. Police use him court.
 
AZ Jim said:
It's a tough job with us second guessing every move.
Click to expand...

At the sametime "what would YOU do" doesn't or shouldn't necessarily apply to trained professional officers. The police are not civilians, they are supposed to be a cut above the rest and take that extra calculated step and not react out of fear. That's what training is supposed to do. Repetition and options. If one is really confident and competent at what they do every time they do the job it should not be an adrenaline trip. Much of the trouble with police shooting over the last year seem to be from some unprofessional behavior. This is where actual training and policy comes in. It could also show a lack of training or ignoring training.
 
WhatInThe said:
At the sametime "what would YOU do" doesn't or shouldn't necessarily apply to trained professional officers. The police are not civilians, they are supposed to be a cut above the rest and take that extra calculated step and not react out of fear. That's what training is supposed to do. Repetition and options. If one is really confident and competent at what they do every time they do the job it should not be an adrenaline trip. Much of the trouble with police shooting over the last year seem to be from some unprofessional behavior. This is where actual training and policy comes in. It could also show a lack of training or ignoring training.
Click to expand...

I would say that I would shoot.

What gets me that in other situations, such as a perp running away, do they have to shoot to kill!! With the proper training and shooting range skills they just don't shoot them in the leg or somewhere rather than a kill shot???
 
Ken N Tx said:
I would say that I would shoot.

What gets me that in other situations, such as a perp running away, do they have to shoot to kill!! With the proper training and shooting range skills they just don't shoot them in the leg or somewhere rather than a kill shot???
Click to expand...

Shooting someone in the leg isn't part of standard training. They're taught to aim for center-mass (the torso).

Especially in a dark alley, you aren't going to be able to hit a target as relatively small as a leg or arm, like they do in Hollywood.
 
SifuPhil said:
Shooting someone in the leg isn't part of standard training. They're taught to aim for center-mass (the torso).

Especially in a dark alley, you aren't going to be able to hit a target as relatively small as a leg or arm, like they do in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

There are many scenarios, but a lot that I have seen can/could have been without the shoot to kill shot..
 
Ken N Tx said:
There are many scenarios, but a lot that I have seen can/could have been without the shoot to kill shot..
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat, but you also have to remember that our armchair quarter-backing is VERY different than actually being in that scenario.

It's an entirely different thing to analyze from the safety of our home versus being the target. Adrenaline dumps, fight-or-flight reactions, all come into play.

I taught self-defense for over 35 years and thought I covered all the bases, yet when I found myself in real-life scenarios I found that some of the old instinctive responses still tried to gain control of my body and mind. My training helped - a lot - and usually enabled me to do what was necessary, but those instinctive reactions still made an appearance AFTER the conflict - nausea, disorientation, trembling.

If someone points a gun at me my training, if it was effective, kicks in automatically. I can't take half-steps, I can't improvise on the fly, I can't take the time to allow my brain to analyze and come up with alternatives - that time would mean I am injured or, in this case, dead. I have to rely on my body memory to act - that's the fastest way.

But yes, there are "gaps" in many conflicts where you have the luxury of a few micro-seconds to stop and seek alternatives. They are precious and few and you have to be almost superhuman to take advantage of them, because once again the normal instinctive response is to freeze up. Your mind goes blank. That's why, as has already been said, these incidents seem to happen with newer officers, who haven't been trained or had enough time to overcome that "lock-up".
 
SifuPhil said:
I agree somewhat, but you also have to remember that our armchair quarter-backing is VERY different than actually being in that scenario.

It's an entirely different thing to analyze from the safety of our home versus being the target. Adrenaline dumps, fight-or-flight reactions, all come into play.

I taught self-defense for over 35 years and thought I covered all the bases, yet when I found myself in real-life scenarios I found that some of the old instinctive responses still tried to gain control of my body and mind. My training helped - a lot - and usually enabled me to do what was necessary, but those instinctive reactions still made an appearance AFTER the conflict - nausea, disorientation, trembling.

If someone points a gun at me my training, if it was effective, kicks in automatically. I can't take half-steps, I can't improvise on the fly, I can't take the time to allow my brain to analyze and come up with alternatives - that time would mean I am injured or, in this case, dead. I have to rely on my body memory to act - that's the fastest way.

But yes, there are "gaps" in many conflicts where you have the luxury of a few micro-seconds to stop and seek alternatives. They are precious and few and you have to be almost superhuman to take advantage of them, because once again the normal instinctive response is to freeze up. Your mind goes blank. That's why, as has already been said, these incidents seem to happen with newer officers, who haven't been trained or had enough time to overcome that "lock-up".
Click to expand...

a.jpg
 
Officers are taught, and rightfully so, to shoot for the torso. It is not a western movie where the good guy shoots the gun out of the bad guys hand. Arms or legs might be hit but it is just a accident. I come down on the officers side almost always in these shootings. We don't pay them to be killed or even beaten up on the job.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top