Fire Two Rounds and Assess....SFPD Charges into the Past

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,889
Location
Alma Illinois
Good grief, we finally get past the dangerous repetitive training methodology of "Draw, fire two round, assess" and a major metropolitan police department makes it policy...:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/02/18/sf-police-told-to-shoot-twice-stop.htm

SF Police Told to Shoot Twice & Stop
By NICHOLAS IOVINO

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - Responding to calls for reform after a fatal police shooting, the San Francisco Police Department on Wednesday unveiled new training methods that require officers to shoot only two rounds at a time.
The changes came more than two months after five officers shot 26-year-old Mario Woods 21 times on Dec. 2 last year. Woods' death led to a federal review of the city's police department.
New pistol training guidelines require police recruits to hear the command "threat" before they fire at targets, to shoot only two rounds at a time, and to stop and reassess threats after every two shots.
"They need to be accountable for every shot they fire," Police Capt. Greg Yee, who heads the city's police academy, told the city Police Commission during a meeting Wednesday.
Recruits must also attend two-hour classes on de-escalation tactics, which teach how to deal with people in crisis, consider proportional force options, respect the sanctity of life and slow down incidents when possible.
Another new policy demands that all sworn officers take an additional eight-hour class on how to handle suspects with blades and other non-firearm weapons.
That new training requirement appears to be a response to the killing of Woods, which witnesses with cellphone cameras recorded. Woods held a knife in his right hand.
Attorney John Burris, representing Woods' family in a wrongful death suit against the city, told Courthouse News last week that Woods did not pose a threat to the officers when they shot him.
Yee said the department is also studying training methods used by other Bay Area police departments, including Oakland, San Jose and Palo Alto, and analyzing which methods will work best in San Francisco......read the rest of the story at the link
Click to expand...

This is applicable to us because policy from major law enforcement agencies is often cited and referred to in criminal and civil court actions involving the private citizen's use of force. How long will it be before we see; Two rounds is enough for San Fransisco PD, and the accused felt the need to fire his whole magazine to stop the attack?

This is just an insane response to a lawsuit.
 
TLDR Version: SFPD is working to create the concept of excessive deadly force. Wonder how many SFPD cops will need to be killed or injured before the brass there is willing to fix this.
 
Cleveland, Ohio (large city near me) is going through the same issues. Due to a recent (within the last two years) pair of shootings, we now have a Police Department that is subject to federal oversight. Policies are beginning to change, and not for the better. I know only a small few of the cops on the force, but they report rumblings of changes coming that do not bode well for quality of training and officer support and safety.

I'm not a "police are always right" type of guy, but neither am I carrying a grudge against them. If we ask them to do a job, it is unfair to tie their hands from effectively doing that job. Policies like this (cited in O.P.) are indeed a step backward.
 
I was in charge of training for a hundred man agency for three years... Thank heavens our politicians didn't try "to improve" our methods... There's actually several well respected outfits that can provide good standards for everything from the most minor use of force all the way to use of firearms (the IACP and CALEA...). San Francisco is just the kind of place to pull this sort of stuff.:. God help the young officer in a bad spot, if he's working in that place.

Yes, every police shooting needs close scrutiny (and I mean at every level, including rules and policies that have any bearing on the outcome) -but at least they should follow a professional standard...
 
"That new training requirement appears to be a response to the killing of Woods, which witnesses with cellphone cameras recorded. Woods held a knife in his right hand.
Attorney John Burris, representing Woods' family in a wrongful death suit against the city, told Courthouse News last week that Woods did not pose a threat to the officers when they shot him."

Only to a plaintiff's attorney would a knife not be a threat.
 
Doesn't that kinda depend on ability, intent and opportunity?

I recall a case in TX where a man sitting in a chair (and even retreating from officers) was shot 'because he was ''advancing'' according to their report. (A report later proven false with on-scene video.)
 
This is the first I've heard that double-tap drills are dangerous (I assume that's similar to what you mean by draw, two shots, assess). What's the reasoning?
 
Alec said:
This is the first I've heard that double-tap drills are dangerous (I assume that's similar to what you mean by draw, two shots, assess). What's the reasoning?
Click to expand...
Probably the sticking point is going to be the definition of "assess". If it just means "BG is still standing, proceed to head shot", that would be very different than if it means "run over to BG to see if / where you hit him".
 
This is the first I've heard that double-tap drills are dangerous (I assume that's similar to what you mean by draw, two shots, assess). What's the reasoning?
Click to expand...

When you solely practice firing two rounds, stopping and assessing, you will end up holstering and waiting for the next command to fire, just like you do on the range. I saw it a lot when we used to train that way. What you do in training is what you will do in a fight. When this was standard police training back in the 80s there were instances where officers fired their two rounds an holstered before the fight was over, just like they did on the range.

Current doctrine is to fire until the threat ceases. (except in San Fransisco now). Handguns are terrible fight stoppers. In the real world people don't fall over as if they were struck by a lightning bolt when hit by a handgun round.

When you fire two rounds and then stop, you are giving up the initiative while you decide if you had the desired effects on your opponent. This stupid, ignorant policy is going to do nothing but create another controversy.

When an officer or private citizen fires two rounds, assesses and decides there is a need to follow up and fires a failure drill, you have just given the critics a reason to accuse you of firing a coup de gras, a shooting becomes an execution in the eyes of the anti-self defense people. "He already shot him twice and then he felt he had the need to kill him by putting one in his head." This policy will solve nothing. In my opinion it gives the critics more things to complain about.
 
Initially, my thought was that this is dangerous only because it would create a window of opportunity for a criminal to return fire, or return fire more accurately, or just get the upper hand on an LEO in general. I hadn't even thought of that last point made by Jeff, but it makes a lot of sense reading it now. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see it play out that way.
 
I hate to tell you, Jeff, but -- two shots and assess is not just SFPD's policy ... (I'm sure you've all heard the joke about our very own SPD (another department operating under DOJ purview)and a few other agencies hereabouts: Bang - bang - bang "Sir, drop the knife NOW!" Two shots and assess ... policy in other places as well.
 
Well, if all you have is a 9mm and practice only just before qualifications might be a risky tactic.

But if you use a much more effective round and practice very often (and well), it sounds good to me.

And the two round and assess leads to the Mozambique.

Deaf
 
Big difference there. In your scenario, you have made the decision to shoot until the threat stops, but shooting controlled pairs until you need to do something different.

When department policy says two shots, every single round after the initial two shots will be scrutinized as a potential violation of policy. Guilty until proven innocent.
 
More or less, according to the law and how it's interpreted where I am, you basically must assess after every shot.

If someone turns and runs, firing another shot would constitute some type of (attempted) murder. If someone falls down, firing another shot could be interpreted again as (attempted) murder, depending wether or not you could make a good argument that the guy was still a threat (if he has a gun then this could work, if he has a knife he stopped being a threat). If someone stops and drops the weapon, firing another shot would again be (attempted) murder of some sort.

The law (here, but I suspect it's no different) only allows for lethal force use in case and during an immediate threat to life, when it stops, any further use of lethal force is illegal.

This is especially important if you're a civillian where in case of defensive shooting you are essentially speaking guilty until proven innocent. Police officers are given more leeway although here they're also responsible for every shot.
 
It is insane to dictate how many rounds can be fired in any given situation, no matter what super bullet you have nor how good you are--or think you are.
Shooting to stop is the goal and bad guys filled with hate, desperation, a keen will to survive, drugs or body armor may dictate a lot more than two shots before one can "assess" the situation.
 
When department policy says two shots, every single round after the
initial two shots will be scrutinized as a potential violation of policy.
Click to expand...
And there. my friends, is the bottom line in a nutshell... and an even wider
open door to lawsuits against the city when LEO shootings do occur.
As usual, San Francisco has shot itself in the foot.

Gee.... what's new ?
 
The Villanueva Report finally came out in Canada.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1035117/q...waited-report-into-death-of-fredy-villaneuva/

A couple of interesting findings are:

► The Ministry of Public Security should review its guidelines, especially the way police officers are trained to “aim into a mass” when shooting a firearm;

► Weapons and ammunition used by Montreal police officers should be reviewed and the ability to shoot three to eight bullets in succession within seconds after the first shot is fired should be not be allowed;


Jan Stevenson said that at one time the Austrian police target depicted a running man in profile. The scoring rings were centered on his right knee.

As one wag said, does the second item indicate potential for large city contracts to Bond Derringers?
 
I think some are missing the point. I'm not a cop, but have worked under Rules of Engagement. Can be considered "department policy", in that disobeying or breaking ROE was punishable by higher ranking people who instituted a policy but were behind a desk while you were in a firefight.

Of course the law says you must stop shooting if the situation no longer justifies shooting. That is NOT what this policy states. This policy states that two rounds may be fired, then an assessment of the situation. Sounds good to lawyers but here's the catch:

The pause to assess must be noticeable to be verified. You just gave up momentum and advantage.

You should have been watching your target and surroundings (assessing) while shooting, not just after every second shot. This policy denies that.

You are no longer justified in shooting continuously to stop a dud charging you with a machete at a few yards. Just as an example.

And with every written policy, there is the unwritten intent. They WILL make an example of the first officer who fires more than two rounds per suspect. Even if they can't make a case through Internal Affairs, prosecution, etc. They'll end up just firing him or her. Saw it happen already this year in Cleveland. Half dozen officers involved in a shooting were cleared by Internal Affairs, No Bill by Grand Jury, cleared by a review board run by the State of Ohio, all the way up to the Ohio Attorney General. So Cleveland Police Department simply fired them.
 
4thpointofcontact said:
I recall a case in TX where a man sitting in a chair (and even retreating from officers)..
Click to expand...
MedWheeler said:
Was it a wheelchair?
Click to expand...

Nope, office chair, although he had risen from it when officers arrived. He did not raise his arms nor step forward as the officer's sworn testimony reports though. The officers were unaware they were being videotaped (although that should not have mattered.)

http://legacy.wfaa.com/story/news/local/dallas-county/2014/08/19/14115006/
 
This is applicable to us because policy from major law enforcement agencies is often cited and referred to in criminal and civil court actions involving the private citizen's use of force. How long will it be before we see; Two rounds is enough for San Fransisco PD, and the accused felt the need to fire his whole magazine to stop the attack?
Click to expand...
What a lovely hook for the leftists to demand all civilian magazines be limited to two rounds only...

My Dept teaches shoot to stop. On the discretionary line we aren't told how many times to shoot, but keep going until the threat is stopped, reload and step on.
 
Speedo66 said:
"That new training requirement appears to be a response to the killing of Woods, which witnesses with cellphone cameras recorded. Woods held a knife in his right hand.
Attorney John Burris, representing Woods' family in a wrongful death suit against the city, told Courthouse News last week that Woods did not pose a threat to the officers when they shot him."

Only to a plaintiff's attorney would a knife not be a threat.
Click to expand...
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and am often in the city. This change in policy is mostly driven by Woods. What the media doesn't talk much about is that Woods was OC sprayed and shot several times with bean bag rounds and was an active suspect in a nearby stabbing.

Law enforcement has a thankless job and I feel sorry of what they have to go through to keep order for us.
 
Sounds like 10mm with a compensator, or heck nice big bore revolvers might be making a comeback....

Ridiculous to mandate something like that.... or even hint at it or whatever they are doing. Things like that are what get people killed in the line of duty. You know the bad guy is not worrying about what the court thinks of his third shot, and he darn sure is not going to hesitate to fire.... LET ALONE COUNT THE SHOTS to stay "legal."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top