Rule 4 and Cover vs. Concealment

[Craig_AR]

A tragic police shooting in Los Angeles just before Christmas is described in
LA police shoot, kill 14-year-old girl in dressing room while shooting at assault suspect
and many other news stories.
The police killed the bad guy, but rounds also passed through dressing room walls and killed the teen [removed inaccurate content].
Obviously, we cannot expect the general public to be aware of the distinction between cover (protection) and concealment (hiding from view). However, we can include in both armed citizen and LEO training a focus on Rule 4 ("... and what is beyond") to realize that interior walls are not cover, misses go somewhere, and hollow point ammunition is an important life saver by reducing possibility of over penetration.

 

[jmorris]

I guess it’s not just looting and lawlessness out there. Who could/would misplace their 14 year old daughter overnight?

 

[redcon1]

Only the police are properly trained to carry firearms! total sarcasm.

Seriously though, good luck finding adequate cover in a store when the bullets start flying especially if rifles are in play. I think I'd be high crawling my tail to the nearest exit and giving the wife her first lesson on individual movement techniques.

 

[AK Hunter]

It sounds to me to be another incident where an officer used their service weapon instead of their taser gun.
It also sounds like some officers desperately need more training.

 

[Jeff White]

https://apnews.com/article/police-shootings-los-angeles-hollywood-a8e0d5c9cc3d880cf2704d72f40f3539

This report says she was in the dressing room with her mother.

Officers found the teenager dead after seeing a hole in “a solid wall that you can’t see behind,” LAPD Assistant Chief Dominic Choi said.

This mentions nothing about the victim not being found until the next day. I don’t see anything in either article about that.

The reporting on this incident is terrible and we don’t really have enough information to know what actually happened.

 

[FL-NC]

If it comes of the end of your gun, you are responsible for it- period. Flyers are not something to be taken lightly- ever. They always end up SOMEWHERE. That was one advantage we had in afg. using 5.56 up close, with friendlies/non-hostiles on the other side of the wall- those people in the outback use mud as a primary construction material. I have seen those walls defeat 50 caliber from 100 meters. We had to use sections of bangalore torpedoes to do wall breaches. Things like particle board and sheetrock won't stop much of anything.

 

[westernrover]

Not enough information to judge the circumstance in question, but invoking rule 4 suggests the bullet passed through the target and hit what is beyond it. Given that the low-hit rate for law enforcement officers reported by the FBI, I would be more concerned about a miss than a pass through.

Some officers give an order and if the subject doesn't comply, they will fire towards the subject repeatedly until the subject drops their weapon or falls. We've seen it numerous times in video. Just a few years ago, we saw the LAPD shoot the hostage:



This wasn't a matter of being aware of what was beyond the target. The overwhelming majority of their shots missed. The problem isn't failure to comply with a gun safety rule. It's missing. If you're not taking every single miss with deadly seriousness, you are the problem.

 

[westernrover]

The New York Times reported in 2007 on the low hit rates police have -- like the 17% hit rate for NYPD in 2005:

Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect.

“When you factor in all of the other elements that are involved in shooting at an adversary, that’s a high hit rate,” said Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner. “The adrenaline flow, the movement of the target, the movement of the shooter, the officer, the lighting conditions, the weather ... I think it is a high rate when you consider all of the variables.”

John C. Cerar, a retired commander of the New York Police Department’s firearms training section, was more tempered in his assesment of the hit rates. “They’re acceptable,” he said. “In pristine conditions, you are going to get better hit ratios.” He said handguns were an imperfect weapon. “As long as the handgun is the main tool for the police officers to use, you are going to have misses,’’ he said.
​

That's the standard they accept because of qualified immunity. You don't get it. Your hit rate has to be, must be 100% and there are no excuses. Adrenaline, fear, moving targets, low light, your hurry: Not excuses.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Presumably the police will just tack the extra victim onto the charges against the other one they killed and call it a day. Qualified immunity and such.

 

[hso]

There's no real cover in a Burlington clothing store and firearms use is typically so sudden that people aren't afforded the opportunity to seek cover. Burlington's are large open spaces with nothing to interrupt the path of a bullet. Hitting the floor and trying to flee from the building are the only option if you even know what's going on.

 

[Kleanbore]

Not enough information to judge the circumstance in question, but invoking rule 4 suggests the bullet passed through the target and hit what is beyond it.

Why, and how?

I would be more concerned about a miss than a pass through.

Why? What difference would it make?

Some officers give an order and if the subject doesn't comply, they will fire towards the subject repeatedly until the subject drops their weapon or falls.

What are you talking about? A police officer may shoot whan it is immediately necessary fro elf defense or to lawfully
defend an innocent third party. We expect them to shoot unil the trheat is neutralized.

That's the standard they accept because of qualified immunity.

That is not what qualified immunity is about. Read Spats McGee's treatise here.

Your hit rate has to be, must be 100% and there are no excuses.

That is completely unrealistic.

 

[armydog]

Your hit rate has to be, must be 100% and there are no excuses. Adrenaline, fear, moving targets, low light, your hurry: Not excuses.

Do you have any idea how long it would take each civilian cop to achieve that level of competence? lol I'll answer... it's never going to happen.

 

[westernrover]

Why, and how?

Because the pretinent facts are not known and there is misinformation reported. Rule 4 does not ensure safety when you shoot something other than the target.

Why? What difference would it make?

First of all, because there are far more misses than pass-throughs. Second, because the target absorbs most of the bullets energy and causes it to expand reducing its sectional density so that when it hits another barrier it is much less likely to penetrate even if it is only drywall. Countless bullets are stopped by "the tee-shirt on the back." I'm not claiming the target will stop all bullets or render them non-lethal. Here the FBI reported, "It should be noted that no maximum penetration standard was established. This reflects the judgment that underpenetration of a handgun bullet presents a far greater risk to the law enforcement officer than overpenetration doe to an innocent bystander. Con idering that approximately 80% of the rounds fired by law enforcement officers engaged in violent encounters do not strike the intended targets , it wa s deemed somewhat unrealistic to attach too much significance to the potential risks of overpenetration on the part of those that do." More recent commentary: https://www.police1.com/police-prod...overpenetration-is-nonsense-ssYXOnGCGDmHsxIO/

What are you talking about? A police officer may shoot whan it is immediately necessary fro elf defense or to lawfully
defend an innocent third party. We expect them to shoot unil the trheat is neutralized.

Let's re-read what I wrote: Some officers give an order and if the subject doesn't comply, they will fire towards the subject repeatedly until the subject drops their weapon or falls.

It looks like we're in agreement. What I stated are facts in clear evidence in many videos.

That is not what qualified immunity is about. Read Spats McGee's treatise here.

Call it whatever you want. The officers who shot the hostage were not held liable. The officer who shot this 14 year old will not be either.

That is completely unrealistic.

It is realistic not to shoot if you're not going to hit your target.

Do you have any idea how long it would take each civilian cop to achieve that level of competence? lol I'll answer... it's never going to happen.

Slacker.


In Redding, the police are shooting their own dog: https://krcrtv.com/news/local/assau...ing-police-k-9-shot-by-friendly-fire-da-finds

If you think that's an acceptable standard, stay away from me.

 

[armydog]

Because the pretinent facts are not known and there is misinformation reported. Rule 4 does not ensure safety when you shoot something other than the target.


First of all, because there are far more misses than pass-throughs. Second, because the target absorbs most of the bullets energy and causes it to expand reducing its sectional density so that when it hits another barrier it is much less likely to penetrate even if it is only drywall. Countless bullets are stopped by "the tee-shirt on the back." I'm not claiming the target will stop all bullets or render them non-lethal. Here the FBI reported, "It should be noted that no maximum penetration standard was established. This reflects the judgment that underpenetration of a handgun bullet presents a far greater risk to the law enforcement officer than overpenetration doe to an innocent bystander. Con idering that approximately 80% of the rounds fired by law enforcement officers engaged in violent encounters do not strike the intended targets , it wa s deemed somewhat unrealistic to attach too much significance to the potential risks of overpenetration on the part of those that do." More recent commentary: https://www.police1.com/police-prod...overpenetration-is-nonsense-ssYXOnGCGDmHsxIO/



Let's re-read what I wrote: Some officers give an order and if the subject doesn't comply, they will fire towards the subject repeatedly until the subject drops their weapon or falls.

It looks like we're in agreement. What I stated are facts in clear evidence in many videos.


Call it whatever you want. The officers who shot the hostage were not held liable. The officer who shot this 14 year old will not be either.


It is realistic not to shoot if you're not going to hit your target.


Slacker.


In Redding, the police are shooting their own dog: https://krcrtv.com/news/local/assau...ing-police-k-9-shot-by-friendly-fire-da-finds

If you think that's an acceptable standard, stay away from me.

Slacker? You sound like someone who's never been in a situation with hostiles, but you seem very well read up on it. You seem very well read up on the standards of some units where it takes years of living and breathing tactics to get to the level you casually expect of your average LEO. lol Talk about unrealistic... maybe even childish. And since I know what it actually takes to achieve that level of competency you so casually expect of the average LEO, I actually know what I'm talking about. If you personally knew what it takes to get to that level, you would not be sounding so novice and cavalier by citing these standards that everyone in LE should be able to achieve before they step foot on the streets with a badge and gun. lol Slacker? lol I actually know what to expect from my fellow human on the ground. You sound like you would be really good at a board game... maybe even a video game. lol

And don't worry about staying away from me. I would never allow anyone like you anywhere near me. lol

 

[luzyfuerza]

However, we can include in both armed citizen and LEO training a focus on Rule 4 ("... and what is beyond") to realize that interior walls are not cover, misses go somewhere, and hollow point ammunition is an important life saver by reducing possibility of over penetration.

I agree with these recommendations. I also agree that they apply to both the sworn and to the non-sworn.

However, all armed individuals, both sworn and non-sworn, should recognize that these recommendations all point to this principle:

Shoot as fast as you can while still guaranteeing your hits.

Balancing speed and accuracy in a life-and-death moment doesn't come naturally.

To learn to achieve this balance, we have to practice shooting at large targets. At small targets. At targets on our firing side, support side, and behind us. From compromised positions. Rolling on the ground. From prone. From supine. While resting on either side. With an elevated heart rate. While breathing heavily. Under/around/over barricades. Avoiding no-shoots. While we are moving. While the targets are moving. In the dark. Using a flashlight. Up close and far away. Engaging multiple targets. Etc. All this we can do at the range.

In addition, we have to experience balancing speed and accuracy while solving tactical problems in real-time. And while seeing and hearing and feeling effects of in-coming rounds. This we can learn in force-on-force exercises.

All these experiences help us learn how quickly we can press the trigger while still guaranteeing our hits.

Those who don't have these experiences have no idea how quickly they are capable of shooting under real-ish conditions while still guaranteeing their hits. Which leads to missing. Which leads to tragedies like the one the OP cited.

And which lead to accepting numbers like a 17% hit rate. Or blaming the tool.


The GOAL is to NEVER miss in combat conditions. Getting closer to that goal with every training class, every range activity, every competition, every round fired in practice, literally every dry press, is a life-long pursuit.

 

[luzyfuerza]

And since I know what it actually takes to achieve that level of competency you so casually expect of the average LEO, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Please, for the benefit of this community, share what you know.

 

[armydog]

Please, for the benefit of this community, share what you know.

I just did.

I'm realistic about what I expect from LE.

I'm not going to ramble on about delusional expectations like some guy who failed a psych eval...or two. lol

I know some people will be terribly disappointed with this, but don't expect the average cop to arrive on the scene with someone talking to them through an earpiece calling out heat signatures in the next room. lol

 

[luzyfuerza]

I just did

Sorry. Let me restate my request. Please share the following for the benefit of this community:

what it actually takes to achieve that level of competency

 

[armydog]

Sorry. Let me restate my request. Please share the following for the benefit of this community:

Ill just leave it at this, the level of training that the other poster stated and demands of the average LEO that would respond to the situation at the Burlington coat factory, would be expected from the units I have been in.

 

[Kleanbore]

Because the pretinent facts are not known and there is misinformation reported. Rule 4 does not ensure safety when you shoot something other than the target.

That would not lead me to conclude that the injury in the case at hand was due to a miss.

First of all, because there are far more misses than pass-throughs.

that does not make the effect of a single miss that strikes an unintended target more serious than that of a pass through that does so.

Here the FBI reported, "It should be noted that no maximum penetration standard was established.

Current FBI specifications do include a maximum penetration standard.

Let's re-read what I wrote: Some officers give an order and if the subject doesn't comply, they will fire towards the subject repeatedly until the subject drops their weapon or falls

Noncompliance by itself does not justify shooting--the same rules that apply in civilian encounters apply. And it is certainly appropriate to shoot until the threat is neutralized.

Call it whatever you want. The officers who shot the hostage were not held liable. The officer who shot this 14 year old will not be either

Qualified immunity has to do with civil torts. It is a Fourth Amendment issue.

It is realistic not to shoot if you're not going to hit your target

True indeed, but hitting does not imply never missing.

The GOAL is to NEVER miss in combat conditions. Getting closer to that goal with every training class, every range activity, every competition, every round fired in practice, literally every dry press, is a life-long pursuit.

Very well put.

 

[Jeff White]

That's the standard they accept because of qualified immunity. You don't get it. Your hit rate has to be, must be 100% and there are no excuses. Adrenaline, fear, moving targets, low light, your hurry: Not excuses.

That’s the standard they accept, because you, the taxpayer is unwilling to fund your police department adequately to meet the standard you expect.

To meet your standard you are first going to have to hire at least two thirds more officers then you do now so that someone can work the streets and do investigations while the others train. You are going to have to make a huge investment in infrastructure, ranges, shoot houses and simulators. Then there is the cost of ammunition.

Even with the hundreds of billions the nation spends on defense they can only afford to train a handful (compared to the 2 or so million who serve) of people to that standard. How many officers do you think your local PD would have to have if they worked on a train, work, rest cycle?

Are you willing to reach into your pocket to pay for that?

There are a lot of recreational shooters who think that all police officers should meet some impossible standard who have no idea what it would actually take to do that.

 

[lemaymiami]

Since at one time I was very training oriented (towards the end of the cocaine cowboy era down here in paradise), my first thought is that this is a training issue as much as a marksmanship or tactics issue. Modern interior construction in dwellings, office spaces, etc. is really very flimsy... to the point that I'd always did what I could to work it so that any confrontation takes place out of doors if at all possible... With that approach of course is the reality that not only you can't control "how the deal goes down..." many times - and we won't even consider the actual combat incidents that were never anticipated or planned for since they can erupt when you least expect sudden violence in law enforcement...

If I were designing training to cope with this problem believe I'd want to hook up with a general contractor or two and try to arrange a mock-up of the kinds of walls, doors, etc that a team or individual might encounter during a high stress possible shooting situation... Then I'd want some live fire demonstrations to each class (law enforcement or armed citizens...) to show them what actually happens if you fire a single shot into a wall or door (or multiple walls, etc), with different levels of construction materials- using various weapons from handguns on up... You can take it forward from there - and I wouldn't be surprised at to learn that higher level armed responders, special weapons teams, and really dedicated folks in the private security world aren't already doing what I'm describing...

What really sticks out in my personal experience was an incident involving one of my senior officers who'd fired a single shot with his service handgun at one of a group of young men that had just bailed out of a stolen car after a high speed chase in a residential community... The officer was still pumped up after the incident - and reported that he didn't see any wound on the young man he'd fired at from about 20 feet away... All of the young men that day fled on foot afterwards and we did a fair job of catching four out of the six involved - and no one was hurt - the best part... The part I remember the most? The look on my officer's face when I asked him where his shot went... He looked down the street, full of nice houses - and you could see him having a serious moment and worried to death that his round might have hit a resident... I can tell you it absolutely ruined his morning... Nothing came of it - and we never did find out where that shot impacted - but that's one of the things you think about when you're in training... at least for me it was...

 

[herrwalther]

LA mayor promised that body camera footage of this shooting will be released this coming Monday. Hopefully that will shed a lot more light one what happened.

 

[Kleanbore]

LA mayor promised that body camera footage of this shooting will be released this coming Monday. Hopefully that will shed a lot more light one what happened

That could tell us about the particular case at hand, but it would not be prudent to limit our learning to that set of circumstances.

Bullets can and do pass though or miss their intended targets, pass trough walls and windows, and hit innocents.

To the extent possible, a civilian defender or police officer who cannot avoid the use of deadly force should observe and take into account persons moving in the area beyond the target; persons moving in the area in front of the target; and possible backstops. That may require movement.

Avoiding misses is just part of the challenge.

 

[MedWheeler]

What about the the bad guys' bullets as well? In one incident, a police detective engaged a convenience store robber. When it was over, the robber was wounded and in custody, and a nine-year old girl who had been behind the officer was dead. Should the officer involved have done more to control his opponent's projectile trajectory?

There is an expectation of reasonable marksmanship ability placed on those sworn to carry a gun and wear a badge, but it can never be realistically expected to be entirely without risk to others until we reach a level of technology in weaponry only hinted at in science fiction. Sometimes, schiff just happens (despite one's best efforts) when the balloon goes up. Yes, it sucks but, as has been pointed out (post 21), no-risk engagement when under fire is not yet a possibility if anyone else is around.