The effects of different muzzle positions

[GEM]

https://www.calibrepress.com/2020/0...il&utm_term=0_dcd0c1c239-ac7c6cc26b-177279637

The gist is that :

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of engineering resilience into the split-second decision environment police officers face during potential deadly force encounters. Using a randomized controlled experiment that incorporated a police firearms training simulator and 313 active law enforcement officers, this study examined the effects of muzzle-position – where an officer points their weapon – on both officer response time to legitimate threats and the likelihood for misdiagnosis shooting errors when no threat was present. The results demonstrate that officers can significantly improve shoot/no-shoot decision-making without sacrificing a significant amount of time by taking a lower muzzle-position when they are dealing with an ambiguously armed person – a person whose hands are not visible.

From: The formal paper on Taylor’s experiments, titled, “Engineering Resilience” Into Split-Second Shoot/No Shoot Decisions: The Effect of Muzzle Position, appears in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. You can read a free abstract or access the full study for a fee HERE.

 

[Jeff White]

Can you explain a situation where a private citizen would be justified in having his weapon in hand when confronting a bad guy who's hands aren't visible? Citizen's arrest? Confronting a trespasser maybe....In a lot of street confrontations you might be facing charges for displaying your weapon in that situation.

There are a lot of things that are applicable to LE and others who have a duty to act but aren't really applicable to the legally armed citizen.

 

[fastbolt]

Wait until a further study examines whether a low ready position held too long for circumstances (even if only 11/100's of a second), and a resulting sudden surge in upper body muscular effort to "raise the weapon NOW!", under sudden stress, may result in misses involving too-high shots when the shooter is desperately trying to raise the weapon.

There are some obvious training issues involved, including the critical necessity of correctly identifying threats before deciding to use deadly force, and these things have been addressed in various ways over the years. (The importance of periodically discussing and assessing those skills during recurrent training and quals is another topic, albeit a critical one.)

Being able to let the potential threat clearly see the officer's face, unobstructed by the presence of a weapon held high, to encourage effective communication? Is that a point? Um, okay ...

Next thing you know, someone's going to suggest that bright lights - like WML's or hand-held lights - not be shined in the face of some threat? Because they interfere with the threat being able to easily and effectively see the face (and body) of the officer?

 

[emartin]

I was always taught not to point a weapon at someone you dont intend to shoot. You dont use a weapon as a threat(will get you killed) You need it, pull and fire! Very simple.If there is a threat on your life or someone elses you kill the bad guy. Dont play with him, or her

 

[JohnKSa]

Can you explain a situation where a private citizen would be justified in having his weapon in hand when confronting a bad guy who's hands aren't visible?

In TX there is a separate level of justification where a weapon can be drawn and displayed that is lower than the justification required for the use of deadly force. I don't know if other states have similar laws.