Another excessive use of force

Frank Ettin · Jul 13, 2017

Old Dog said:
I'm merely submitting that sometimes, there is not clarity with regard to the "facts."....

And that's what a trial is for -- to decide the facts upon which the legal result will be based.

Old Dog said:
...Of course "we need to learn to make good decisions." But in a lethal force situation, one is never thinking that nor worrying about leaving one's lawyer with "good facts."...

Which underscores the importance of knowledge and the training to effectively make use of the knowledge. In any case, if one did not make good decisions in the violent incident, it becomes far more likely that the outcome in the legal aftermath will be unsatisfactory. That's just part of the harsh reality of life.

Old Dog said:
.... But I submit much of one's normal driving is performed intuitively...

No, the correct characterization, if one has properly learned his skills is "reflexively" -- without conscious thought. We observe what's going on around us as we drive and execute whatever physical tasks are called for under the apparent circumstances without needing to consciously think through each step.

Old Dog said:
....you are not thinking things through past frantically remembering "front sight, front sight" while trying to get your weapon on target and possibly seeking cover ...

If you've trained properly, you're not necessarily consciously thinking about any of that. You've decided what to do and are doing it -- reflexively, without conscious thought.

In any case, it is the reality that your use of violence will be dissected, examined, and analyzed by others, after the fact and at their leisure. And it's they who will be deciding if your act of violence was justified.

Old Dog · Jul 13, 2017

Frank Ettin said:
No, the correct characterization, if one has properly learned his skills is "reflexively" -- without conscious thought. We observe what's going on around us as we drive and execute whatever physical tasks are called for under the apparent circumstances without needing to consciously think through each step.

If you've trained properly, you're not necessarily consciously thinking about any of that. You've decided what to do and are doing it -- reflexively, without conscious thought.

In any case, it is the reality that your use of violence will be dissected, examined, and analyzed by others, after the fact and at their leisure. And it's they who will be deciding if your act of violence was justified.

Again, I disagree. I've witnessed countless times over the past forty years where individuals have been able to properly and "reflexively" demonstrate skills in the training arena, yet in combat or on the street have failed to do so.

And what you are saying is contradicting Kleanbore's previous post. In any event, I disagree still, as you will have conscious thoughts in a lethal force situation but they may have nothing to do with what you've trained on. An untrained person responds "reflexively," a trained person (should, but doesn't always) respond in accordance with his/her training. There's no amount of training that will simulate how you will react the first time you are engaged in a lethal force encounter. If there were, sales of adult diapers would probably go up.

Frank Ettin · Jul 13, 2017

Old Dog said:
Again, I disagree. I've witnessed countless times over the past forty years where individuals have been able to properly and "reflexively" demonstrate skills in the training arena, yet in combat or on the street have failed to do so.....

Of course you have. Nothing is perfect. People make mistakes. People make bad decision.

Training and practice won't guarantee that you won't make mistakes or bad decisions. They just improve the chances that you might not.

But:

Frank Ettin said:
....In any case, it is the reality that your use of violence will be dissected, examined, and analyzed by others, after the fact and at their leisure. And it's they who will be deciding if your act of violence was justified.

Nothing changes any of that. What do you plan to do about it?

boom boom · Jul 13, 2017

Life is probabilistic, just like when you play poker, you try to maximize the odds in your favor in a hand. Training does that for the armed citizen.

Kleanbore · Jul 13, 2017

Old Dog said:
And what you are saying is contradicting Kleanbore's previous post.

To the extent that there may be a departure, it is die to my imprecision in the choice of words.

I said " it behooves us to also think about the questions 'is he really still attacking me, or is he withdrawing?', 'is that a handkerchief or a wallet that he just pulled out?', 'is anyone moving into my line of fire in the foreground or in the background?', and of course, the question at hand: 'is he still capable of causing me immediate harm?'."

"Think about" may not convey what I intended to convey. Perhaps "observe whether" would be more appropriate.

In any event, It is certainly possible to train for most of that, via simulation and FoF drills, except perhaps for assessing whether that last shot was adequate.

As someone said, a gunfight is no place to learn new skills.

The crux of the issue is that simply training and practicing to "remember remembering 'front sight, front sight' while trying to get your weapon on target and possibly seeking cover" can be a recipe for disaster. One should train to decide when resort to the use of deadly force; when not to; when to stop; and very importantly, how to do so in a manner that does not recklessly endanger others.

Interestingly, that last point was never specifically addressed in any of the training I have received, but the first time I found myself in a use of force situation outside the home, it was an automatic part of my reaction.

Jeff White · Jul 13, 2017

Old Dog said:
Again, I disagree. I've witnessed countless times over the past forty years where individuals have been able to properly and "reflexively" demonstrate skills in the training arena, yet in combat or on the street have failed to do so.

Then they have most likely neglected a critical part of their training. Stress inoculation. One can ace all of the drills on the range, shoot a 3 second el presidente, but if you don't learn to function under stress it's all for naught. The military uses things like high obstacles on the confidence course, the 200 foot night rappel in the mountain phase of Ranger school and other exercises that put the student in a situation that induces real fear and requires them to perform anyway. There is more to training to fight then skill at arms.

strambo · Jul 13, 2017

Jeff White said:
Then they have most likely neglected a critical part of their training. Stress inoculation. One can ace all of the drills on the range, shoot a 3 second el presidente, but if you don't learn to function under stress it's all for naught. The military uses things like high obstacles on the confidence course, the 200 foot night rappel in the mountain phase of Ranger school and other exercises that put the student in a situation that induces real fear and requires them to perform anyway. There is more to training to fight then skill at arms.

Heh, what Jeff said!

It isn't so black and white as side A that says train to unconscious competence and you'll do that and side B that says even so, under combat stress you may still screw up.

Both are true and neither are true depending on other factors. The missing link is getting better and better at performing under high stress. The less stress inoculation you have, they less you will be able to tap into your skills and the less conscious control you'll have over things. The more stress inoculation you have, the more you will have access to your skills and the more conscious control you'll have.

The extreme on the "inoculated" side is our Tier 1 operators who have been through so much high stress training of all types along with many combat operations that their combat performance is very close to their square range performance. So much so, the guy who shot Bin Laden said he quit the Navy after he stopped getting adrenaline dumps in firefights and that scared him!

Before I understood any of this, when I was in High School I practice TaekwonDo. I was extremely coordinated, could do all the fancy jump-spinning kicks etc., far beyond my belt level. Anyway, I entered my first tournament. Due to the stress, all I could do was reverse punch, round house kick. That's it, it was like all my other skills were locked away behind a mental wall. I remember thinking what's wrong with me, why can't I do anything else? Then I got kicked in the solar plexus... :rofl:

Old Dog · Jul 14, 2017

Kleanbore said:
The crux of the issue is that simply training and practicing to "remember remembering 'front sight, front sight' while trying to get your weapon on target and possibly seeking cover" can be a recipe for disaster. One should train to decide when resort to the use of deadly force; when not to; when to stop; and very importantly, how to do so in a manner that does not recklessly endanger others.

And I'm telling you that in real life, in my experience, the latter portion of what you are saying is not what is gonna be going through your head during your first lethal force encounter.

Old Dog · Jul 14, 2017

Jeff White said:
Then they have most likely neglected a critical part of their training. Stress inoculation. One can ace all of the drills on the range, shoot a 3 second el presidente, but if you don't learn to function under stress it's all for naught. The military uses things like high obstacles on the confidence course, the 200 foot night rappel in the mountain phase of Ranger school and other exercises that put the student in a situation that induces real fear and requires them to perform anyway. There is more to training to fight then skill at arms.

Argh! No kidding. And again I say, when you are training, no matter what "stress inoculation" techniques are currently in vogue, your subconscious knows that you're training. The o-course or any fricken' stupid night rappel still doesn't loosen your bowels or your bladder sphincter like realizing those are real mortar or rocket rounds getting close to your position ... It's when you hear that peculiar buzzing noise of bullets going past you that you either perform ... or don't.

Frank Ettin · Jul 14, 2017

Old Dog said:
....in real life, in my experience, the latter portion of what you are saying is not what is gonna be going through your head during your first lethal force encounter.

Old Dog said:
....when you are training, no matter what "stress inoculation" techniques are currently in vogue, your subconscious knows that you're training......

You're still missing the point:

Frank Ettin said:
....In any case, it is the reality that your use of violence will be dissected, examined, and analyzed by others, after the fact and at their leisure. And it's they who will be deciding if your act of violence was justified.

Nothing changes any of that. What do you plan to do about it?

Kleanbore · Jul 14, 2017

Old Dog said:
And I'm telling you that in real life, in my experience, the latter portion of what you are saying about [deciding when resort to the use of deadly force; when not to; when to stop; and very importantly, how to do so in a manner that does not recklessly endanger others] is not what is gonna be going through your head during your first lethal force encounter.

That will depend upon your training, your knowledge base, and your mindset.

If it does not, you risk getting into a whole lot of trouble.

We see reports of such issues here frequently. This thread is a case in point.

Some months ago, a store clerk in Las Vegas was alarmed by the behavior of some individuals entering his store. He resorted to what he had practiced: drawing, grip, getting into a position to hit his targets, stance, thinking 'front sight, front sight' , and pressing the trigger rapidly and repeatedly. He has been charged with murder.

A little realistic "shoot-no shoot" training might have gone a long way toward keeping him out of that predicament.

Some summers ago, I happened into a situation in which a robbery was undeniably imminent. I reacted properly, no shots were fired, no one was hurt, and the robbers fled in panic.

Stress? You bet! I could not even describe the robbers' car afterward.

Jeff White · Jul 14, 2017

Old Dog said:
Argh! No kidding. And again I say, when you are training, no matter what "stress inoculation" techniques are currently in vogue, your subconscious knows that you're training.

Who tells gravity that it's only training? When you are 40 feet up pulling yourself over the next bar, if you fall, gravity thinks it's real, not training.

Old Dog said:
The o-course or any fricken' stupid night rappel still doesn't loosen your bowels or your bladder sphincter like realizing those are real mortar or rocket rounds getting close to your position ... It's when you hear that peculiar buzzing noise of bullets going past you that you either perform ... or don't.

So you're argument is that training is worthless because one either has it or they don't and only combat will separate the men from the boys? REALLY?????

Are you trying to justify your personal choice not to train?

I've spent my entire adult life in the Infantry and after retirement working in LE in a rural area where backup might be 20 minutes or more away. I attribute my success in those endeavors not to my "having what it takes" but to the training I was provided and sought out on my own. My initial reaction to bullets going past was disbelief that it was actually happening. I think that it was because I had already learned that I could keep my head and think clearly while scared to death. How did I learn that? Stress inoculation. If you think your bowels aren't loose and your sphincter isn't tight the first time you exit an aircraft in flight depending on a parachute to take you safely to the ground, you're wrong. I can definitely say I was more scared on my first jump then I was the first time I was shot at.

Stress inoculation works. Thousands of soldiers and Marines will testify to that.

Old Dog · Jul 14, 2017

Frank Ettin said:
You're still missing the point:

Nothing changes any of that. What do you plan to do about it?

No, I am not missing the point. I get this: "...In any case, it is the reality that your use of violence will be dissected, examined, and analyzed by others, after the fact and at their leisure. And it's they who will be deciding if your act of violence was justified." because, well, gosh, I have been in this position. More than once.

What do I plan to do about it? The best I can, of course, and that includes continuing training because one can never have enough training since learning is a life-long process.

You missed my point. Sometimes ... stuff happens and no matter how well we performed, we cannot control the aftermath. I've worked for an employer that's paid out millions of dollars in settlements to family members of deceased or disabled criminals even though the use of force was entirely appropriate to the situation, legal and within the scope of agency policy. "Objective reasonableness" is a lofty ideal, but it's not always the reality.

Kleanbore · Jul 14, 2017

Old Dog said:
You missed my point. Sometimes ... stuff happens and no matter how well we performed, we cannot control the aftermath.

That's is not the came thing as saying "And I'm telling you that in real life, in my experience, the latter portion of what you are saying about [deciding when resort to the use of deadly force; when not to; when to stop; and very importantly, how to do so in a manner that does not recklessly endanger others] is not what is gonna be going through your head during your first lethal force encounter".

Old Dog · Jul 14, 2017

Jeff White said:
Who tells gravity that it's only training? When you are 40 feet up pulling yourself over the next bar, if you fall, gravity thinks it's real, not training.

So you're argument is that training is worthless because one either has it or they don't and only combat will separate the men from the boys? REALLY?????

Are you trying to justify your personal choice not to train?

I've spent my entire adult life in the Infantry and after retirement working in LE in a rural area where backup might be 20 minutes or more away. I attribute my success in those endeavors not to my "having what it takes" but to the training I was provided and sought out on my own. My initial reaction to bullets going past was disbelief that it was actually happening. I think that it was because I had already learned that I could keep my head and think clearly while scared to death. How did I learn that? Stress inoculation. If you think your bowels aren't loose and your sphincter isn't tight the first time you exit an aircraft in flight depending on a parachute to take you safely to the ground, you're wrong. I can definitely say I was more scared on my first jump then I was the first time I was shot at.

Stress inoculation works. Thousands of soldiers and Marines will testify to that.

I actually enjoyed rappelling when I was younger. Injecting fear into training is worthwhile. Never said it wasn't.

And where did I say training is worthless? Good heavens. I believe training is necessary, invaluable and should continue until we're planted in the dirt farm. I have not made any personal choice not to train. I love training (and have been actively engaged in some type of combat or use of force training since 1979). I would agree that stress inoculation is of immense benefit for instilling mindset and preparing one for dealing with fear, and training methods have advanced admirably in this regard. But it doesn't always work for everyone; we all have different fears (mine is heights, which I still deal with) and some are not conquerable.

Old Dog · Jul 14, 2017

Kleanbore said:
That's is not the came thing as saying "And I'm telling you that in real life, in my experience, the latter portion of what you are saying about [deciding when resort to the use of deadly force; when not to; when to stop; and very importantly, how to do so in a manner that does not recklessly endanger others] is not what is gonna be going through your head during your first lethal force encounter".

I'm not really trying to argue with you. I totally agree that training should include realistic and multiple variables of "shoot/don't shoot" scenarios to prepare the military member/law enforcement officer/armed citizen for different types of encounters that could result in decisions to use deadly physical force (your store robbery example is excellent). Again, it's simply that I've seen some folks I respected, skilled and (I thought) well-trained who didn't perform well in some situations and also responded to, or studied, a handful of events where totally untrained individuals responded and provided textbook results.

Finally, I do agree that firearms training should incorporate sessions where the student is forced to either disengage, withdraw, stop shooting and assess. We absolutely need to get away from training scars such as "shoot to slide-lock" ... But training, no matter how solid or how much, isn't always the sole predictor of how each individual responds or thinks during their first lethal force encounter.

Snyper · Jul 15, 2017

Kleanbore said:
What you said was "Nothing that takes place afterwards will change any thing,"

That is not "exactly"

"What the shooter did cannot be changed.

"What is decided about it after the fact will determine his fate."

And that is not what it was that I did not understand.

If you can't understand I meant it won't change what had already happened, I can't help you with that.

Kleanbore · Jul 15, 2017

Snyper said:
If you can't understand I meant it won't change what had already happened, I can't help you with that.

I said "did not". I understand now. Thanks.

pezo · Jul 16, 2017

The defender seems clearly justified. A guy blocks you in and takes a blunt object to you. You don't see the need to shoot? Geez. I had a friend years ago who followed the advice to just drive away from a car jacking. That was 25 years ago he was murdered trying to out run a bullet.

Kleanbore · Jul 16, 2017

pezo said:
The defender seems clearly justified. A guy blocks you in and takes a blunt object to you. You don't see the need to shoot?

That's not the question--at all.

The issue is that he did not stop shooting at the point when the continued use of deadly fore was no longer necessary.

As Carl N. Brown stated in Post 96, "...it is imperative for a handgun carry permit holder to know when not to shoot, when to shoot, and when to stop shooting. When the threat is stopped, continuing use of lethal force is not justified".

Listen to the narration with the video.

pezo · Jul 16, 2017

/\ yes I agree. But post number two is blatantly wrong headed. It set me off. The gun was the most appropriate tool needed and needed faster than the victim was able to get it. The last shot controversial but my opinion is who was the guy who started the violence? I do understand the requirement to only use force until the threat is over. But I'd take some consideration watching the swift violence displayed by mr carry a big stick. Ps to to the folks who always say just run. I've lost two aquaintances who were killed fleeing from a situation. They'd been better off charging and fighting.

pezo · Jul 16, 2017

strambo said:
What stands out to me from the beginning...is yet another case of using a "hammer" when another tool is a lot better. This fascination with guns as these magical self-defense tools to the exclusion of all else drives me bonkers.

He was already in the car, how about this genius, instead of taking 5 seconds to get your magic gun...why not just shut & lock the door, start the car and slam it in reverse? Aaaand before someone says he was blocked in, nope, he could have backed out easy, he'd hit the car behind him yes, but he could have reversed out to screen left and out of the immediate area. Now he's surrounded by steel and glass in a running vehicle vs. stick-boy and not facing a murder charge.

There was an incident posted on another forum where some nut, out of nowhere, jumps on a car hood, then runs away. Predictably, members staring talking about guns. Sheesh! Just back away! Guess what Option A always was in Executive Protection training (and in practice in Baghdad for my team), turn around, drive away. We had FA weapons, we still drove away instead of fighting.

Do not agree. The guy was good until the controversial third shot. But if I were a juror, after watching that vid I'd show mercy. Just my opinion.

RPZ · Jul 16, 2017

I will add here that watching the video, at least as far as resolution allows, the last shot actually appears to be an act of aggression. I am going on everything leading up to it, having to reach over a third party that has intervened, and the "defender's" posture and body movements. It just does not appear to be necessary, and my impression is this guy was just angry at this point.

Creaky_Old_Cop · Aug 10, 2017

The first and second shots...given the totality of the scene in the video would be (to my mind), justified. Even though it appears from the perspective of the video that the guy with the stick "quit the fight" after the first round, we aren't in the place of the shooter and seeing the incident from his perspective. If we assume in that moment that he still reasonably believed that he was in immediate danger, the he could articulate why he fired it. The third shot appears, to me, to have been a coup de grace, or a punitive shot. That's where, I believe, he lost justification.

A punitive shot is not legally justifiable. Yes, we shoot to stop, not to kill. However I can see a situation where a final killing shot would be justifiable. If you are going down a hallway in your home after it has been invaded, and you deal with one subject who is down, but not dead, and you have to get to a loved one who is screaming because they are under assault by a second invader. I mean, you have to get to them RIGHT NOW but can't leave an armed intruder alive behind you and as you pass, you put one in their medulla so you can get to your loved one...I mean, I can see justification in that based on the exigency of the moment.

If I was on a jury and someone articulated that, I would probably give them a pass based on the totality of the circumstances. But that is one, or one very much like it, that I could conceive of...but that would be about it.

Kano383 · Aug 14, 2017

In my car, I carry a handgun, and pepper spray. When in areas rife with thieves, especially when driving slowly in traffic jams, what I have at the ready is the pepper spray. The vast majority of these criminals are petty thieves, and just look for something to grab and run - I would feel no inclination to draw a gun in these circumstances, but would feel bad if an attempt was not invoiced for, and the bill presented to the culprit.

Now, late at night on deserted streets where armed robbers may lay in ambush, that's the time when the gun becomes the first responder on duty.

Works where I live, with what I've learned over the years. Taking a life is a heavy responsibility, much easier in video comments on the Net than in a live-or-die situation, even if the burden of living-or-dying is on the other party. YMMV.

Another excessive use of force

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Similar threads