Claude Werner Article about FBI statistics on gunfights

[Trunk Monkey]

I'm posting from my phone. If it doesn't take the web page is Personal Defense Network.

The article is long and the most interesting thing (to me) is there is ZERO basis for 3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds.

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/

 

[fastbolt]

Well, first of all, the FBI never said they were gathering statistics about "gunfights".

The much ballyhooed "statistics" about LE gunfights occurring at some 3/3/3, 4/5/5 or other round count/distance/time interval may occasionally be supported anecdotally, at any particular arbitrary "local" level, but it's hardly some "hard & fast" set of numbers, let alone some "rule". (A hint of that can be glimpsed even back when the FBI described LE shooting incidents as being virtually "unique" in many disparate factors, individually, in their FTU's paper in the summer of '89, Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. Basically, if it can happen, it will happen, somewhere, but you won't be able to predict it ... and you can easily "cherry pick" any number of specific incidents to support whatever viewpoint you may wish to support at any particular time. )

Their LEOKA report pretty much does what it states it does, meaning it looks a number of specific aspects of reported incidents, received as submissions from agencies reporting officers killed and assaulted.

Now, when LE are able to attend one of the many on-the-road "field" LEOKA classes, presented as part of the LEOKA program, they can hear a LOT of other details not dryly tabulated and stated in the annual LEOKA tables. These day long classes are free to LE/first responders, last time I looked (although I haven't had the inclination to look to attend another one after 2012).

What I personally found interesting in the one I attended was the discussion of some of the things they'd learned from interviewing convicted criminals who had assaulted and/or killed LE. One of the things discussed was what had been learned regarding whether/how criminals studied LE firearms training, or firearms training in general (videos, magazines, TV programs, etc), and whether/how they "practiced" their use of guns, marksmanship, etc. Time was also spent discussing what they'd learned of the mindset of criminals who were willing to confront LE, and other criminals, especially using force.

 

[mbok1947]

I am not sure you can extrapolate a lot from that data except to say there is no clear trend either way. For example I am a little surprised by the data that points to daytime/midday time frames for officer attacks. Thinking back to the shootings of officers or shootings by them in gunfights I personally witnessed or responded to, two officers were killed around 11 p.m., one around 2 a.m., and another around 9:30 p.m., although that was in a training accident. Of shootings of suspects by officers one was about 11:30 p.m. and another I witnessed around 1 a.m. I only recall two cases in 11 years where shots were fired by or at officers in the midday/afternoon time frames.

As to distance, just about all the cases I saw were in the 3-15 foot range, no matter who was doing the shooting. Several were in direct contact during struggles where criminals tried to wrestle away the officer's gun. Overall I think the 3/3/3 rule still holds pretty well, at least in my experience.

 

[strambo]

Another factor, how much does LE statistics apply to a civilian self-defense situation? In a citizen self-defense situation, a criminal is trying to get as close to the citizen as possible to assault or rob them. Contact distance is a necessity to accomplish the crime and not let the prey get away. In a LE situation the officers want to maintain distance for safety if at all possible until they can safely put the cuff on, the criminals want all sorts of distance so they can get away. This drives some long shots going into the LE gunfight stats (plus a lot of close stuff of course).

I think the rule of 3's is a useful concept to understand the most likely environment a citizen will encounter and guide their training. Of course, also train for longer shots as well as unarmed striking skills and awareness/avoidance and de-escalation.

I respect Mr. Warner, but think he is missing the point in some of his extrapolations. Counter to his assertions, I would expect knives, impact weapons and hands to result in higher injury rates than guns. The former all require contact distance, the bar for what is an "injury" is low, and fists, knives, clubs do not jam, need a reload and can strike in any direction.

Firearms, OTOH, only injure in a straight line from the muzzle. They are binary hit=injury, miss no injury. So a deflection of the muzzle or a miss equals nothing. Lots of documented misses at contact range with firearms, it happens all the time. Even at 3 yards, it is still easy to miss in a dynamic gunfight with 2 people under adrenaline and moving in unexpected directions, yet that is still 3x the distance that knife/club/H2H action is happening.

So yeah, I would expect more injuries with knives/clubs/hands than with guns, even limiting guns to 0-5 yards.

 

[Intox]

Going off memory (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong or stating something long outdated), but doesn't the FBI have a really skewed matrix in how they classify any criminal act as a gun crime? For example....while walking out of a convenience store you own another patron is walking in. It's a female and as I pass, I strike her as I grab her purse and run to my car. I get caught three blocks away, and during my arrest they find a firearm in the glove box.

Doesn't the FBI (now or in the past) log that as a gun crime, due to me the criminal having a firearm in my general AO when I committed the crime?

 

[Jeff22]

The FBI gathers statistics about the situations in which law enforcement officers are KILLED.

They have not in the past gathered statistics about other firearm related uses of force by law enforcement officers. (Which surprised the hell out of me when I started as a cop in 1981 and it still surprises me, but it is what it is)

They also compile the information found the UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS which is how they attempt to track criminal activity (reported to the police). They've been doing the UCR reports since 1935 or so.

The LEOKA study and the UCR reports are not the same thing. The 8 UCR index crimes are: Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery are classified as violent while arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Complete anaysis of situations when an officer is killed and of situations that were resolved without shooting and of situations where the officer survived a gunfight, would make for better training material than sketchy stats on when an officer is killed. Unfortunately the complete analyses tend to be anomalous situations like the 1986 FBI Miami shootout.

 

[Kleanbore]

The FBI gathers statistics about the situations in which law enforcement officers are KILLED.

They have not in the past gathered statistics about other firearm related uses of force by law enforcement officers. (Which surprised the hell out of me when I started as a cop in 1981 and it still surprises me, but it is what it is)

Yhe FBI Shooting Incident Review Team performs a forensic analysis and interviews witnesses whenever an FBI agent discharges a firearm away from a training or practice session.

There are legal requirements requiring the the reporting of all officer--involved shootings that involve the death of a citizen, but the statistics are not included in the FBI SIRT reporting database.

The FBI has announced intentions to start compiling data on all officer-involved use of force incidents, starting in 2017.

 

[HMOB3655]

Well, first of all, the FBI never said they were gathering statistics about "gunfights".
Now, when LE are able to attend one of the many on-the-road "field" LEOKA classes, presented as part of the LEOKA program, they can hear a LOT of other details not dryly tabulated and stated in the annual LEOKA tables. These day long classes are free to LE/first responders, last time I looked (although I haven't had the inclination to look to attend another one after 2012).

What I personally found interesting in the one I attended was the discussion of some of the things they'd learned from interviewing convicted criminals who had assaulted and/or killed LE. One of the things discussed was what had been learned regarding whether/how criminals studied LE firearms training, or firearms training in general (videos, magazines, TV programs, etc), and whether/how they "practiced" their use of guns, marksmanship, etc. Time was also spent discussing what they'd learned of the mindset of criminals who were willing to confront LE, and other criminals, especially using force.

This is very true, there is a lot of information not published publicly, the stats make a lot more sense in the not-public versions. The prevalence of criminals attending organized firearms training here in the US is much higher than the average person might expect. When deployed abroad outside of the US I was very surprised to encounter skilled gunmen who had attended specialized military training here in the US during various politically funded programs.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

When deployed abroad outside of the US I was very surprised to encounter skilled gunmen who had attended specialized military training here in the US during various politically funded programs.

But these weren't just random muggers right

 

[fastbolt]

But these weren't just random muggers right

Well, to be fair, what's a "random mugger"?

I remember in the early 70's when many avid martial artists liked to describe their prototypical theorized attackers as an "average street fighter". That included "muggers" who would fight to overcome any resistance of their intended victims.

It flustered some martial artists if they thought that someone had acquired any degree of formal martial arts training (or even informal, meaning reading martial arts books) and used it in their criminal activities. I guess that made "average" go right out the window?

People love to create labels to categorize things.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Well, to be fair, what's a "random mugger"?

It sounded to me like the poster was describing trained soldiers which I think you'll agree is a little bit different than just some random tweaker trying to rip you off

 

[coswabbit]

thanks TM for bringing up the topic, but a five year olde self serving opinion article might not present viable conclusion(s).

further, LE agencies do not have to report their stats to the FBI...it is voluntary!

finally, as British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Frank Ettin]

thanks TM for bringing up the topic, but a five year olde self serving opinion article might not present viable conclusion(s).

further, LE agencies do not have to report their stats to the FBI...it is voluntary!

finally, as British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

But apparently you didn't actually read the article, or if you did, you didn't understand it. Note Mr. Werner's conclusion:

... The purpose of this article is not to say that gunfights and shootings don’t take place at close range but rather that stating “the FBI” says they do is incorrect. Statistics can be useful, but their data collection methods and interpretations must be well understood before the final product becomes useful intelligence. And the actual source for the statistic must be determined and vetted to be real and appropriate. If we’re going to use numbers as a basis for our training and decisions, let’s get them correct.​

 

[fastbolt]

It sounded to me like the poster was describing trained soldiers which I think you'll agree is a little bit different than just some random tweaker trying to rip you off

I don't particularly disagree, as I got a similar impression.

It was just the "random mugger" and "average street fighter" similarities that struck me.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Well, to be fair, what's a "random mugger"?

I remember in the early 70's when many avid martial artists liked to describe their prototypical theorized attackers as an "average street fighter". That included "muggers" who would fight to overcome any resistance of their intended victims.

It flustered some martial artists if they thought that someone had acquired any degree of formal martial arts training (or even informal, meaning reading martial arts books) and used it in their criminal activities. I guess that made "average" go right out the window?

People love to create labels to categorize things.

It was just the "random mugger" and "average street fighter" similarities that struck me.

I know this is a little off topic but I have posted articles on other forums that talk about how some criminals do get some training and most do practice with their weapon of choice. In general I got the same response from people who were stuck in the mindset that the criminal would run as soon as they produced a gun.

For years I assumed that no home invader would continue to try to get into my home once I started shooting. Why would they? They don't have any duty to press the attack. Why wouldn't they retreat and look for an easier target.

To make a long story really short I started reading articles by trainers I respect that said otherwise and I adjusted my thinking but I've seen a lot of people read the same articles and absolutely refuse to consider any position that contradicted their belief that the criminals would run as soon as they heard them rack the slide on their shotgun.


https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/training-vs-experience.737194/

I'm not the one that started that thread but that's the article peop,e usually dispute.

 

[HMOB3655]

"It sounded to me like the poster was describing trained soldiers which I think you'll agree is a little bit different than just some random tweaker trying to rip you off".

I was indeed, I was deployed to Ciudad Juarez 2008-2010 and the response capabilities, equipment, and budgets of the "bad guys" was stunning. We lost over 1,400 people in the first 6 months and I was tasked to assist AFI in investigating over 21,000 homicides that took place in 2007/2008 before there was a mass exodus of over 240,000 residents who vacated in one 3 day time period.

 

[fastbolt]

Just like we can't pick the situation and time in which we may find ourselves facing an imminent threat, neither can we choose (nor predict) the experience, skills and mindset of the potential criminal(s) who might choose to target us. Making assumptions, either general or specific, risks us making the wrong choices, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong circumstances.

A dismaying number of criminals have come to know the rules/laws under which LE and law-abiding citizens typically act, and they can choose to ignore all or any of those same rules when it comes to their actions and conduct. They can act first, and ignore legal consequences, and realize that this may offer them an "advantage" over law-abiding citizens and LE.

It's been observed that criminals fear facing other criminals more than facing law-abiding citizens and LE, because they realize other criminals may act with the same disdain for laws, and might be just as willing to act violently, without warning, and without any regard for the law.

I don't train for the hypothetical attacker, anymore than I once trained for the hypothetical (fantasy) "average street fighter". I train to know my own skills, to develop and refine them, and to try and know how to constrain my own conduct so it remains reasonable, appropriate and within the law.

Yes, it can be "scary" to think about other persons who have little or no thought for respecting the sanctity of life. Probably part of the human condition since before our recorded modern history.

Also, it might behoove folks to carefully consider and understand the difference between what's commonly referred to as a "bare fear" versus a "reasonable fear", for the circumstances. Proper training can not only help develop good skills, but also acquire good knowledge, depending on the type of training chosen and the source.

For the working LE among the members, consider looking into attending any available LEOKA field classes that may be near you. Not a "shooting"/range class, but a class to acquire knowledge which may help save your life.