Self defense failures?

[JERRY]

unfortunately the average patrol officer is not equiped to engage most armed felons.

very few have quick access to their shotguns and even fewer have patrol rifles.

most patrol officers are only equiped by their command with defensive weapons and not "offensive" weapons as preferred by anybody whom knows they are going after an armed felon. also, most officers are trained at defensive tactics (and barely at that) and very very few patrol officers are trained in offensive tactics.

 

[conw]

unfortunately the average patrol officer is not equiped to engage most armed felons.

very few have quick access to their shotguns and even fewer have patrol rifles.

most patrol officers are only equiped by their command with defensive weapons and not "offensive" weapons as preferred by anybody whom knows they are going after an armed felon. also, most officers are trained at defensive tactics (and barely at that) and very very few patrol officers are trained in offensive tactics.

I was nodding until I got to the 2nd paragraph...then I kind of started nodding again at the 3rd.

The bottom line is there is not (as evidenced by the outcomes of encounters with "bad men out to do harm to cops" as an instructor described it) enough skill training, mindset prep, and scenario-based training.

However if we are discussing a Deputy Dinkheller (link - graphic) type, quick access to shotguns or rifles is not the solution. If we are talking truly "offensive" or dynamic tactics, I would say that having access to long guns is a small part of the solution, and certainly the knowledge of team tactics and use of such toolsets/skillsets is more common now. I am not the person to tell you how well implemented it is in general but there are success stories and failures as well.

Admittedly I am not a LEOKA scholar but my limited knowledge suggests that if we rule out ambushes (which again is not an issue that relates to choice of tool, unless we bring body armor into the equation), many of the deaths are due to poor tactical decisions...again not dependent on hardware but more on lack of training and pressure tested scenario work, IMO.

A good example of this (tactics, not hardware, based failure) is the Ceres CA incident. The police had positional advantage and initiative, and lost it...then the guy with the rifle shot at and killed at least 1 (maybe 2) of them, because of their lack of training. He, by the way, was a Marine and Iraq vet who also had gang connections.

It was his superior training and will, not his tool choice, that enabled him to do what he did.

 

[JMusic]

We would like to think that LE deaths are due to horrible mistakes. It makes acceptance much easier but real life is never that simple. Most are simple mistakes are lapses in concentration. Very similar to what you see in Industrial accidents. The sense of urgency and heat of the hunt will cause you to make mistakes that you may not have made normally. One lesson I learned over time is you have all the time in the world. Do not rush. A good example was the use of dogs in building clearance. Call it in and wait for help. Overwhelming force is a good way to stay safe.

 

[JERRY]

We would like to think that LE deaths are due to horrible mistakes. It makes acceptance much easier but real life is never that simple. Most are simple mistakes are lapses in concentration. Very similar to what you see in Industrial accidents. The sense of urgency and heat of the hunt will cause you to make mistakes that you may not have made normally. One lesson I learned over time is you have all the time in the world. Do not rush. A good example was the use of dogs in building clearance. Call it in and wait for help. Overwhelming force is a good way to stay safe.

if youve ever been in L.E. before you will know that unlike other professions, you can do everything correctly and still get killed. its the human bad guy that can not be predicted....

 

[Dnaltrop]

Years ago as a teen, I witnessed a failure of a CCW'er that only ended well because 20 people started charging the Mugger at once.

The fellow was walking down the street, and the guy behind him unsnapped the victim's fanny-pack and tried to run. A massive violent tug of war ensued, with the man punched in the face repeatedly, the attacker started to sprint empty handed when the crowd turned on him. 2 jacked up trucks loaded with angry country-boys ended up roaring after the man. (hooting, yelling, pile of angry men in the beds of the trucks wearing cowboy hats)

The victim, now safe, and breathing hard, dug into his fanny pack, withdrew his pistol, and clutched it to his chest like a Vampire hunter holding a Crucifix in a bad movie.

Fat lot of good it did him, nearly armed a punk mugger for his lack of attention.

 

[Wapato]

Scroll down to see - "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted" at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

The report details the circumstances of each murder (Click on a year then on "Summaries of Officers Killed" link.)

I've been going through those. Very interesting. I suppose I've seen some confirmation of things suspected, for example a .22 to the chest can put someone down... a little while after they've finished emptying their own gun.

Overwhelmingly I'm left with two observations.

First that many officers are killed because they go, often alone or in pairs, into dangerous situations and suddenly find themselves looking into a muzzle flash. I have to respect their bravery but, I dunno, maybe there is such a thing as too brave.

At first I didn't think that had much relevance to civilians defending themselves. However I think those stories where the officers knew or suspected a threat was present might give someone something to think about if they plan to go running off to investigate gunshots with their CCW or clearing their house when they hear people rummaging around downstairs. Especially in light of the unfortunate events where someone kills a loved one because they didn't take the time to identify their target.

The second things is why do we keep realasing these people? I suppose it's expensive and possibly immoral to keep even career and violent criminals locked up forever, but these guys turn routine traffic stops and whatnot into officer homicides.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I would bet an overwhelming majority of SD failures can be traced to one specific error on the defender's part:

The inability or unwillingness to act quickly and decisively.

Most people don't want to hurt other people, and will do all they can to avoid it. When your life or the life of a loved one is on the line, compassion is not a luxury you can afford.

I've had to explain this to more folks than I care to count. They want a gun for defense, but their plan is to threaten or wound an intruder/attacker, because they don't want to kill him/her. Trying to get them to understand that when you've been forced to use a deadly weapon to preserve your own life, your options are few, can be challenging. You either stop the threat, or you don't. People seem to get it in their head that they'll be able to think clearly and maintain fine motor control, allowing them to shoot out a knee or somesuch. My goal has always been making them realize that it is going to be difficult to react at all, let alone to do so in a very calculating and agile manner. Even highly trained professionals are not immune to the physiological effects of autonomic nervous system response.

Equipment and tactics matter, but mindset is paramount. If you're not sure you can defend yourself, you need to get sure or accept that you'd likely become a sad statistic.

 

[Wapato]

I would bet an overwhelming majority of SD failures can be traced to one specific error on the defender's part:

The inability or unwillingness to act quickly and decisively.

Well, that is the case with a number of the LEOs killed in that database.

However I suspect those instances have something to do with some rules of engagement that officers are held to. I imagine there is some police committie whose sad work is to establish ROEs by balancing citizens and criminals who didn't have to die with officers who didn't have to die.

I'm not sure how often it comes up in non LE self defense.

Most people don't want to hurt other people, and will do all they can to avoid it. When your life or the life of a loved one is on the line, compassion is not a luxury you can afford.

Well, don't forget target identification, for both legal and "not murdering your spouse" reasons.

You should certainly inform them that in many (all?) states warning shots and wounding shots are legally treated the same as lethal force. Additionally wounds to the legs are often lethal anyway.

That said, especially if it's just one individual they might be able to make a choice of increased risk to themselves (especially if they live alone) in exchange for not taking. There may be religious factors in there as well. And if that is their choice I'd hope you'd train them as best as you could.

I could see suggesting a Taser in some of those cases since they're availible to civilians now. Or maybe a less lethal round in the chamber and lethal ammunition after that. For example you can get rubber rockets for shotguns or glazers for pistols.

Of course all of those options could get the defender killed or raped. But at least they're better than bare hands.

 

[JustinJ]

We would like to think that LE deaths are due to horrible mistakes. It makes acceptance much easier but real life is never that simple. Most are simple mistakes are lapses in concentration. Very similar to what you see in Industrial accidents. The sense of urgency and heat of the hunt will cause you to make mistakes that you may not have made normally. One lesson I learned over time is you have all the time in the world. Do not rush. A good example was the use of dogs in building clearance. Call it in and wait for help. Overwhelming force is a good way to stay safe.

Calling in and waiting is problematic when you have a Columbine like event occuring. I've read that some departments are transitioning to different tactics today that call for engaging active shooters which i believe is a good thing.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

Some people, unfortunately good guys and gals, are simply taken completely by surprise and/or overwhelmed by the ferocity of an attack or weight of numbers, and really don't have a chance to fight back.
It happens.
A gun is not a magic talisman that automatically wards off those with a predatory mind, but it does give us more options to protect ourselves.

 

[Wapato]

Calling in and waiting is problematic when you have a Columbine like event occuring. I've read that some departments are transitioning to different tactics today that call for engaging active shooters which i believe is a good thing.

I'll second that. While running alone into a location on a shots fired call seems a good way to wind up dead, it's also a good way to save some lives. And I think our LEOs deserve a lot of respect when they do that however it works out.

That said when you've got an individual holed up somewhere, I wish they'd be more careful. Some of those reports are pretty sad to read. It almost makes me want to start a petition where we'd agree to pay some more taxes so the officers can be paid overtime to take their time and maybe get some drones or dogs.

 

[lemaymiami]

Interesting stuff, officer survival. If I were evaluating a department of any size one of the items I'd want to know is their training level (how often, what topics, how much, if any, innovation) and what it's designed to accomplish. In my early years (back in the Stone Age) all of the training I received was strictly to comply with existing requirements from the state (Florida). Little consideration was ever given to how effective or practical that training was. I can still remember a senior lieutenant in charge of training citing the FBI's great value as our firearms trainers (he said, "No one's ever been successfully sued with this kind of training"...).

As things got hot in south Florida and officers were being alternately killed or prosecuted (the first annual Arthur MacDuffie riots were just the beginning of an era when Janet Reno was our DA, and prosecutions of officers were commonplace - note I said prosecutions, not convictions...which says it all.) serious personnel problems meant lots of officer turnover. That in turn led to a very bad situation where some outfits had rookies training rookies... That led to serious safety problems as well as opportunities for heavy corruption (in an era where the bad guys actually transported their profits in grocery bags full of cash...). Then came real prosecutions for real crimes and the convictions to go along with them...

With that background a few outfits (mine among them) began to re-evaluate weapons and tactics training. The emphasis shifted towards officer survival training and a change in tactics actually used day to day. Since I left that world some years ago (sixteen years now in "retirement", when you retire at 47, you're not likely to stay that way for more than a month or two...). I haven't kept up with it, but looking at current officer casualty incidents I'd say that many departments have gotten away from what we learned to do the hard way. Every time I hear of an incident that appears to involve bad tactics or poor officer survival procedures I think of how we learned to operate safely and effectively. I'd guess that every generation has to learn that sort of stuff themselves. The turnover in most police outfits is just about 10% annually... That means that only 10% in any agency will actually have been there for ten years. The individuals who leave move on to other outfits or leave the work entirely, but the "institutional memory" in any department is a lot less than you'd guess...

 

[JMusic]

Calling in and waiting is problematic when you have a Columbine like event occuring. I've read that some departments are transitioning to different tactics today that call for engaging active shooters which i believe is a good thing. justinj


OK just how many of those happen in a decade??? Have you ever done this or even dreamed about it...

 

[Wapato]

. The turnover in most police outfits is just about 10% annually... That means that only 10% in any agency will actually have been there for ten years. The individuals who leave move on to other outfits or leave the work entirely, but the "institutional memory" in any department is a lot less than you'd guess...

Huh, that would explain some things. They almost always list the years victim officers have had on the force, and it typically is a single didget number and almost always under 20 years. Even for indivduals who themselves are a bit older.

I figured that was because of mistakes of inexperience getting people killed, or from people being promoted after a while to detective work or other jobs that tend to not involve chasing down people with guns.

But why is that? Is the police force like the armed forces where you can retire if you put in 20 years?

Calling in and waiting is problematic when you have a Columbine like event occuring. I've read that some departments are transitioning to different tactics today that call for engaging active shooters which i believe is a good thing. justinj


OK just how many of those happen in a decade??? Have you ever done this or even dreamed about it...

Maybe not so much with things on the scale of Columbine, but officers are getting killed doing things like trying to keep a gun armed psycho from killing his ex wife.




On theme I'm seeing that's maybe relevant to civilian self defense, but that is probably pretty well known on this forum, is that handguns are unreliable stoppers.

A fair number of incidents involve an offender and an officer pumping rounds into each other at relatively short ranges. Though there are certainly "one shot stops" as well.

Sometimes a cop will keep fighting after taking a hit from twelve guage buckshot at short ranges, but I suspect that's largely due to their body armor.

Luckily the perps only very rarely seem to have body armor.

 

[lemaymiami]

Fortunately for everyone involved Columbine type incidents are very rare events (but they certainly will get all the press attention for years afterwards). As a result most police agencies train and expect very different types of lethal events, mostly involving panicked, intoxicated, or just plain crazy opponents. The scenario where a young or inexperienced officer is facing a skilled deadly adversary is mostly the stuff of books and movies (but not always) thank heavens. By the way, even though they're often heavily armed, and certainly willing shooters, I don't consider gangbangers to be skilled adversaries. Skilled or un-skilled, though, anyone with military grade weaponry is a terrible opponent.

My advice to young officers facing that kind of situation is go to cover and withdraw as soon as possible while letting everyone know what you're seeing... Any officer caught in his/her vehicle by someone with that kind of gear is smart to escape and evade any way possible. Anti-barricade vehicle tactics (high speed reverse, then high speed turns, etc.) are very valuable if you know you're coming into that kind of situation. Of course in real life the first sign of that kind of trouble is when your car is getting shot full of holes... and you're in deep trouble while still behind the wheel. I actually know one officer who lost a piece of his ear while sitting behind the wheel of his patrol car to a fellow with an assault weapon who fired pointblank from inside the SUV he had just stopped some years ago. The first sign of trouble was when the rear window of the SUV exploded as the shooter opened up. The SUV had tinted windows so the two officers (training officer behind the steering wheel, rookie officer on his first day on the road as passenger) were sitting ducks as their windshield was shot out - miracle, both officers survived the incident. The only way you survive that kind of scenario is with a bit of luck (and you'd better be at your church, synagogue, or temple at your first opportunity if you do survive...).

There are a few potential opponents that come from other countries (anyone that's worked in law enforcement around border or port towns has heard or seen these kind of situations) who are a much different type of shooter than what most expect. I'm talking about young guys from Central or South America who might have been real combat veterans before they were 14 or 15 and are pretty much cold blooded shooters. We're seeing some of that now in border areas, particularly the Mexican border. In my era it was Columbians, Nicarguans, Jamaicans, etc in the south Florida area. The world they come from is pretty much "survival of the fittest" or those that shoot the quickest. An example would be a bank robbery near my town where an off-duty cop was executed as the first part of the robbbery. The officer was escorting a money drop from the drive up tellers to the bank when the shooter walked up from the rear and shot the officer in the back of the head without warning... The individuals responsible were caught but similar things involving armored cars have occurred since, where the first act involved shooting the guard before doing the robbery... Pretty hard to train for that kind of scenario.

Constant training, daily reminders about vigilance, and careful review of each shooting incident makes for better officer survival results any where you do it.
Police work needs bright young folks that really want to make a difference in their communities - then proceeds to grind them down until they become cynical, withdrawn, and if they're smart - they get into some other line of work. Wish it wasn't so.

 

[Wapato]

Is there a reason that police cars don't have some level of bulletproofing besides the costs? I suppose I don't know how much performance would be degraded if you're just trying to improve the protection of the passengers as opposed to the whole vehicle.

You would think that would also improve survivability in a rollover or other accident.

Do you know what sort of body armor they're using themselves? It seems like maybe even officers called in as backup to go after a guy with a rifle and swat teams aren't wearing rifle resistant armor?

Or is it just that even rifle resistant armor isn't so reliable at the nearly point blank ranges that they run into?

 

[Sam1911]

Is there a reason that police cars don't have some level of bulletproofing besides the costs? I suppose I don't know how much performance would be degraded if you're just trying to improve the protection of the passengers as opposed to the whole vehicle.

You would think that would also improve survivability in a rollover or other accident.

Cost -vs.- benefit is probably the biggest factor. How many millions of police cars are there? What percentage (1 in 50,000? 1:100,000?) ever actaually catch a bullet? Of those very few, how many officers were shot/killed by gunfire while actually in their car?

It is easy to say, "well, if it saves one life," but in reality things just don't work like that. The tens of thousands of dollars needed to bullet-proof EACH car could solve lots of other very pressing needs (needs that would save even more lives) -- if that money was actually sitting in police department budgets, which it isn't.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Is there a reason that police cars don't have some level of bulletproofing besides the costs? I suppose I don't know how much performance would be degraded if you're just trying to improve the protection of the passengers as opposed to the whole vehicle.

I expect it's simply the statistical liklihood vs. cost. Though such events always make the evening news, it's really pretty rare that a police officer's patrol vehicle is being shot full of holes. Even in the case of people who intend to kill the officer, they usually wait until he/she is out of the car, and from what I've seen/read, the shot is generally fired when the officer gets to the window of the suspect vehicle. It seems that the most employed tactic to curb this (and likely the most effective one) is to have two officers approach from either side of the vehicle.

The other reason is the age-old mobility vs. protection equation. Bullet proffing vehicles add A LOT of weight. Cruisers are already heavy and relatively slow, so adding a bunch more weight that makes them even more sluggish and less nimble doesn't make sense when officers are far more liklely to be involved in a high-speed pursuit than sitting in their vehicle while it gets shot up.

Do you know what sort of body armor they're using themselves? It seems like maybe even officers called in as backup to go after a guy with a rifle and swat teams aren't wearing rifle resistant armor?

Or is it just that even rifle resistant armor isn't so reliable at the nearly point blank ranges that they run into?

Mostly Level II or IIIa, which stops most handgun bullets. Rifle protection requires rigid plates. They're fairly heavy and seriously hinder mobility. I'm sure LEO's are allowed to wear trauma plates in their vest if they so choose, and I'm sure most of them would decline. Soft armor is encumbering and stifling enough; I've known quite a few officers who opted against it.

Military uses plates because soldiers are usually under rifle fire from their opponent. Police officers in this country, however, are many, many times more likley to be engaged with a handgun. Longarms are only used in something like 9% of all gun crimes, and shotguns account for 2/3 of that. I can't find a exact breakdown of percentage of those rifles that would defeat soft body armor, but .22 rimfires make up a decent amount of the "crime rifles", and they will not.

Though highly publicized when it does happen, the AK-47 or M-16 weilding bandit shooting his way through hordes of police officers to make his escape is very, very uncommon. North hollywood shootout type situations are such a rarity that they do gain the kind of notariety that everyone knows exactly what you're talking about when you say "North Hollywood shootout". It's not like there have been two of those.

 

[Wapato]

Cost -vs.- benefit is probably the biggest factor. How many millions of police cars are there? What percentage (1 in 50,000? 1:100,000?) ever actaually catch a bullet? Of those very few, how many officers were shot/killed by gunfire while actually in their car?

So far it seems like maybe 3-6 a year accross the whole US. Which, poking around the internet, seems to be out of a pool of about 700,000 non-fed LEOs.

So far I think the fatal rounds have always come through the windshield, or the front side windows, as opposed to the doors, rear window, rear side windows, etc. So maybe you'd get almost all the benifits from just bullet proof glass there.

It is easy to say, "well, if it saves one life," but in reality things just don't work like that. The tens of thousands of dollars needed to bullet-proof EACH car could solve lots of other very pressing needs (needs that would save even more lives) -- if that money was actually sitting in police department budgets, which it isn't.

True I suppose.

 

[Sam1911]

So far it seems like maybe 3-6 a year accross the whole US. Which, poking around the internet, seems to be out of a pool of about 700,000 non-fed LEOs.

Which? Cars getting shot up? Or officers dying when shot through the body or windshield of their car?

If the first, wow, my estimating skills are GOOD today!

 

[Loosedhorse]

I expect it's simply the statistical liklihood vs. cost.

So maybe you'd get almost all the benifits from just bullet proof glass there.

Let's start to think about the cost.

What rounds are we trying to defeat? Cars do pretty well with handgun rounds (and of course LEOs wear armor) already. .223? .30 cals? .50s? AP rounds in any of those calibers?

Think not just of the "installation" cost, but the operating costs. As you make a car heavier, what does that do to: fuel, handling, performance, brakes/tires/springs maintenance. And that's for every car in the fleet, every day, for (currently) 5 shootings nationally per year.

Bullet-proof glass; what type? Polycarbonate is light, but scratches easily: very poor choice for a windshield--would need to be replaced often. Thick, laminated glass is HEAVY, unlikely to resist two hits near each other, and hard to get in curvatures besides flat. Spinel? Very national-defense-budget, @ $10-15 per square inch!

Look at the example of body armor. We've made a decision to protect every LEO, but that took years to afford (is it truly universal at this point?). And we decided to protect LEOs against common handgun rounds only, COM only, because of weight, cost, and "usability." If an LEO gets shot anywhere else or with anything else, he's not protected.

Not sure if there's a "good" compromise (enhance cars "a little"--say, just the cockpit area, including driver's side door), or if that will end up just being an expensive "feel good" approach--worst of all worlds. Is a "little bit" of car armor going to change what a 7.62x39 does?

 

[conw]

Cars do pretty well with handgun rounds

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot3.htm

Lessons learned:
1. A single car door offers NO protection against handgun rounds.

2. Even two car doors and the passenger compartment offer little protection, and even that protection can be expected to evaporate when multiple rounds are fired.

Additionally when rounds were fired in a tight group they actually exited out of the passenger door.

 

[lemaymiami]

When I'd been a cop for a few years I realized just how many serious mis-perceptions there are about police, policing, and the gear involved.

Let's look at just one... the patrol car. All it is... is the exact same vehicle that taxi fleets use, but with a bit better set of tires... Many, many departments only order what's on their state's contract list since they're the cheapest fleet vehicles going. Remember that every dollar a police agency has comes from ordinary taxpayers, so fancy won't be on the menu unless it's a donation or a confiscation (and un-like the movies most bad guys don't have anything you'd want to own, no matter how much they paid for it originally...) That basic vehicle is then up-graded with the usual bells and whistles (and in that area, lights & sirens are so far improved that they bear little resemblance to what was in use the first time I went out on my own in the spring of 1974...), a cage of some kind (hopefully with roll bar as part of that proposition), and a few other items. Once the basic hardware is in place you'll then be adding all the communications gear, computer hardware (where you'll be mounting your laptop) and all the hidden items that make today's communications so far superior to what was standard almost forty years ago. I was actually at the end of the generation that didn't routinely have handheld radios...

Now that you have your basic patrol vehicle you might add a shotgun or patrol rifle rack, all the various emergency items from traffic cones to boxes of road flares, and I've probably forgotten a few items... Money for "bullet proofing" - not very likely. Yes there are special purpose vehicles that a SWAT or other special team might need (if you can figure out how to pay for it) but that's just not what the ordinary officer will ever have.

Just keeping a fleet of police vehicles road worthy and in service is another difficulty. A really good fleet manager is worth his/her weight in gold to any agency. By the way, the greatest hazard any young officer will ever face won't be from a firearm or an assailant. I'll bet that more career ending injuries, or job ending mistakes, occur behind the wheel of that cruiser than from any other source - and it's all part of the job. The moment that any agency issues a restrictive chase policy (no chasing cars unless there's a violent felony involved, period) they've done the greatest service they can for their officers and the public at large. Chasing some idiot at 100+ mph is just plain foolish unless it's absolutely necessary (no matter how much young aggressive officers are put off by that kind of policy).

None of what I've just described is the kind of thing that makes for good movies or television....

 

[MachIVshooter]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot3.htm

That's just one anecdotal "test"

Another, real-life occurance comes to mind. It's on youtube, a video of SWAT officers engaging a fleeing SUV with handguns and SMG's. Out of something like 163 rounds fired from all directions, only one bullet hit the driver, and it was in the arm.

We've shot up quite a few cars, and the reality is that handgun bullets fail to get inside just as often as they succeed. Additionally, the ones that do get through are seriously compromised. They are slowed down, deformed and deflected.

Rifle rounds are a different story, but again, we're talking a fraction of a fraction of gun crimes. It seems that centerfire rifles are used in only 1 or 2 out of 100 firearm-involved assaults on average. .22 LR, .25 ACP, .380. ACP, 9x19mm and .38/.357 revolvers encompass the overwhelming majoirty of firearms used in assaults from the numbers I've looked up in a few different places.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I didn't take pictures, but not long ago I shot multiple rounds of .22 through two abandoned pick up truck doors and penetration was near 100%, and this from a handgun - a Buckmark.

A slug is probably less lethal after traversing a car door, but it won't stop a bullet.