Using Your Bullets As "Cover"

Status
Not open for further replies.
taurusowner,

Brownie, when you use your firearm against anyone, you will be taken to court

Thats interesting, can you support that statement with evidence that everyone who has discharged a weapon in theoir defense has been arrested? I can provide documentation to the contrary.

Your prosecutor WILL use things like number of shots and how fast in his argument.

I've tesitfied and sat in on criminal trials where neither of those [ number of shots and how fast ] were brought up. In fact, if they had been, the defense atty [ who I usually worked for ] woudl object as to relevance. You need to understand relevance in trial litigation, if it has none, it can not be spoken, and if spoken or suggested by an aggressive DA, it will be quashed as irrelevant and they'll move on in their prosecution.

BTW- how are they going to know the answer to "how fast" to ask thequestion to begin with. Certainly if I fire 3 rds a second, witnesses might think that was "fast", then others migh think 2 a second was "fast" as well. "Fast" is a relative term, and can quite frankly be defended based on the witnesses not being experts in determining what "fast" shooting means or can be described legally.

Is there a presedence of the legal definition of "fast" within the criminal justice system where number of shots per incident/per second is concerned? If you find one anywhere, let us know. I'd be interested in that case law anywhere in the US.

He will argue that you endangered the lives of innocents by firing uncontrollably.

Simply firing your weapon once within some city limits in the US is considered endangering, and it's not that you endangerd the lives of innocents but would likely read "recklessly endangering the public" or something similiar to that effect.

Again the defense atty would intervene and object, as to relevance on your behalf. The DA may play his game, your atty will stop that in short order with facts in evidence, as what you are suggesting the DA WILL do is portrayal without supporting facts to convince the jury of his claims.

It only matters what the prosecutor can convince your jury of.

I think OJ Simpson would disagree with that.:D You don't seem to understand the court systems very well by your statements.

Double Naught Spy:

Every self defense instructor I have ever had has stated that the goal of self defense is first to survive, whether or not you are using lethal force. Applying lethal force in compliance with local law doesn't mean a damn if trying to comply with local laws as your first objective results in getting you killed.

Thats not what I susggested [ underlined ]. SD starts before you ever carry a gun by knowing the when and where's of the laws within your jurisdiction in regsard to lethal force use. As such, it's the primary long before you have a gun to defend yourself with.

Brownie
 
Ok. I've posted in this thread, and pretty much laid out my points. And I've kind of been in lurk-mode since. But one phrase caused the alarms to start ringing.

Most of the time, a serial killer....
Click to expand...

A phrase starting "most of the time, a serial killer" is edging into crime/drama fiction, in my opinion. Exactly how many serial killers have we had in the US? I mean, less than a hundred over the past 40 years or so, right? Average population of the US in the past 40 years has been what, 225 million?

So let's do some admittedly very rough math on that...

225 million times 40 is 9 billion.
To determine the percentage chance that any given person is a serial killer, we divide 100 by 9 billion. This leaves us with a 0.0000011% chance that we're dealing with a serial killer. Real, actual, zombies are probably a more realistic probability.

We are talking about the real world here, right?
 
Hope for the best, train for the worst.

Admit it--at 5 yards, you can get hits in that big old "A" zone pretty easily, using just about any visual reference on the gun as your alternative sights.

Admit it--at any distance, hits on the edge of that "C" zone (first one out from the body "A" if we're all talking IPSC) turn into outright misses (or peripheral wounds that don't help you a bit) if your target is a 160-lb felon who's turned sideways.

Admit it--it doesn't happen EVERY time, but both civil and criminal cases have been brought against SD shooter 'good guys' which have included number of shots fired and other "excessive" force arguments. Just because they don't always stick doesn't mean you would want to buy all those extra hours of defense attorney work. Heck, ammo choice has already been used on a bad workplace shooting case in Hawaii--the guy chose the Glock (highest mag capacity of any gun in his home) AND the hollow-point ammo (deadliest ammo he owned). Now, it's no great leap to take this from an "intent to kill" crime, to have a bottomfeeder spin YOUR gun/ammo/TACTICS into the CBS crime drama stereotype of the manhunting gun nut who's just itching to kill someone at the slightest excuse.

Sounds like a 5% solution to me. Can be useful, could save your life, in some situations is the best option.

It ain't the only one.

For maybe 75-80% of the time, it would seem that shooting while moving oblique in, or lateral, or oblique out, would be better.

I'd be most likely to charge in IF the BG is otherwise engaged and not pointed at me, but still a threat.

The paintballers I know are fighting against inherent inaccuracy on top of everything else. When they charge, usually BOTH get tagged. Most often, only the "two hit" rule keeps one in the fight. BTDT. It ain't perfect force-on-force, but it sure teaches you to DUCK!
 
it's no great leap to take this from an "intent to kill" crime, to have a bottomfeeder spin YOUR gun/ammo/TACTICS into the CBS crime drama stereotype of the manhunting gun nut who's just itching to kill someone at the slightest excuse.

It would be with 36 years behind you authorized to carry in three states with ccw licenses, working professionally on the streets for 28 of those years wouldn't you think?.:D

For maybe 75-80% of the time, it would seem that shooting while moving oblique in, or lateral, or oblique out, would be better.

Then again Bryce and Jordan were, for the most part, stand and deliver guys right? [ though Bryce was one to move offline slightly while drawing with one foot leaning into the fight, neither were known to move obliquely in or out nor laterally ]:D

Which goes to prove that there are many ways to skin the cat, with movement and stand and deliver as well as charging the threat [ in certain circumstances which I believe was Matts premise though others apparently took it to mean all the time ].

Grump,

I understand what you are saying here, anything CAN be attempted by an agressive prosecutor. Any claim could be made by them to get a conviction. Thats their job, it's what they do. Your defense attys job is to cut him off at the knees when he steps on his d**k in that attempt.:D

Brownie
 
Last edited:
A phrase starting "most of the time, a serial killer" is edging into crime/drama fiction, in my opinion. Exactly how many serial killers have we had in the US? I mean, less than a hundred over the past 40 years or so, right? Average population of the US in the past 40 years has been what, 225 million?
Click to expand...
Sig that is paraphrasing a statement by a police trainer discussing tactics. You will notice that he did not say only serial killers. I believe his exact words may have included violent criminals as well. But his point was that they have a script and that when they are taken off of the script they usually fall apart. Three of the examples I remember were the Texas Tower, Luby's and VA tech. So my point is still valid and nowhere near bordering on fiction.
 
Ok, fine, I can see the point in taking someone out of their action plan. Movement's a good way to do it. And I've been in enough unarmed streetfights to know that aggression counts for a lot. To summarize my position here (actually done for me earlier) I consider a charge a tool in the toolbox. Wargaming these things in a forum is certainly an interesting intellectual exercise. But these things happen so fast, you're just going to be acting or reacting. My advice would be to practice shooting on the move in all directions, INCLUDING towards the opponent/target. Who knows which way you'll need to move, or even be ABLE to move if the real thing happens. Practice it all.

Regardless, surely you can see the statistical folly in preparing for a street encounter with a serial killer. And surely you can see why the alarm bells might begin to ring from such a statement. I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
 
I'll agree with Siglite that too many typical Joe's seem to concentrate their training on the most unlikely events that could possibly happen.
Long range pistol shooting comes to mind.
Talk about a legal liability nightmare----try explaining how your errant shot taken at 25 yards killed an old lady who was looking at her window on the 3rd story.
How about the famous "hostage shot"?
How often is the typical CCW/home owner confronted with this situation?
Then again, there is the good ol', "What to do when surrounded by a biker gang
at 0300 hrs" question that pops up from time to time.
But that is not what Lurper was referring to.
He is correct that the criminal has a script--in which the victim launching an immediate and violent counter attack is not a part of the plan.
 
As far as the "serial killer" comment goes...it doesn't matter. Neither does worrying about facing a "Mike Tyson" in the H2H arena. These are just red herrings that people get spun up about.

The worse case scenario is that the criminal(s) will not quit until their bodies no longer function. So, the answer is to train to injure them until they cannot function via the most effective methods available. It doesn't matter who you are facing, you should use and train what you feel are the most effective tactics anyway. It's not like people train a lower level response for "common" criminals and reserve their "A" game for the uber-psychos...do they?

The way I'd handle a deadly force encounter isn't dependent on the skill level of my adversaries, I'm giving it my best response anyway no matter who I think they are. Worrying about super-criminals just introduces fear and doubt over something you can't control. Train the best methods you know...research better methods and keep improving.

For everyone who thinks this method is crazy, next time you are conversing with someone imagine taking a big step back (even 2 steps), this is roughly the distance we're talking about. Closing from here isn't gonna give the criminal some huge leap in hit percentage he didn't have anyway. 2+ rounds in the gut-chest and one in the face as you charge in beats standing still or backing up at this distance IMO.
 
IMO the only use for "suppressive fire" is in military combat, and then only where the rules of engagement allow for "free-fire zones." Those extra bullets you fire have to come to a stop somewhere. And how is a single handgun, wielded by a single person, going to provide all this volume of fire?
 
I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement. strambo has it exactly right, immediate and violent counter attack using any means available. This takes us full circle back to the recent thread on how to put an attacker down. At these close distances, accessing your handgun while on the move and closing distance may take longer than it takes you to actually close with your attacker. H2H skills are extremely useful in this area.

The subject of this thread (Using your bullets as "cover") may not have been the best choice of words. Some of us would calculate that if you've got enough distance and time to access your weapon and you have no duty to perform (like Jelly Bryce and Bill Jordan), getting THOOD may be the best option. There's nothing wrong with making sure that the VCA has to worry about your bullets flying in his direction while he's trying to shoot you, though. I agree with siglite, practice shooting while moving in any direction and you should have your bases covered.

The difference between Bryce and Jordan and the average "Joe" is that the average Joe isn't trying to take known violent criminals into custody on a regular basis, all due respect to Bryce and Jordan and many others like them. You'll see us LEO's on this board telling people time and time again, don't make physical contact with the VCA unless it's absolutely necessary. It's the most dangerous part of the job that we do. Then again, if you have to and you're really, really close, body check the sucker long enough to get your gun out and shoot him. :evil:
 
Sounds like it might work as a good tactic. I know it works well in first-person shooters, and it's usually the tactic I take, as it yields good results. If you're reasonably close, move closer and shoot rapidly.
 
The difference between Bryce and Jordan and the average "Joe" is that the average Joe isn't trying to take known violent criminals into custody

There is that difference, no question about that.

Where it's similiar to the average "joe" is someone was immediately threatening them with a firearm, was about to shoot them, and posed an immediate threat to their life.

In those similiarities, we average "joes" find ourselves in the same dilemma as did the lawmen mentioned on the streets at times. In that regard, the Bryce's, Jordan's and Askins's of the world could teach us a thing or two about surviving the encounter. JMO, and I'm sticking to it.:D

I train it as "Hiding behind a wall of bullets" [ not using it as cover ]. Those bullets are finding their target, thus either getting the BG to move before my own gun barks breaking his offensive action and going defensive or taking multiples of rds and suffering the resulting outcome of those hits.

Brownie
 
You guys missed the point. It's not about serial killers, it's about violent criminals, how most have a plan (or idea of how the incident will go) and that when you alter the plan it catches them offguard, makes them have to think and levels the playing field. Sort of like accellerating your position in the reactionary curve. Stop focusing on the words and focus on the sentence.

From what I've seen, done, read, interviewed and heard, there is rarely time to seek cover once the bullets start flying. That most often means the only choice is to put lead on the target quickly. In fact, that is the surest way to ensure your safety. IMO whether you move or not isn't as critical as scoring the first hit.
 
Where it's similiar to the average "joe" is someone was immediately threatening them with a firearm, was about to shoot them, and posed an immediate threat to their life.
Click to expand...

brownie, we're in basic agreement here. The reason I mention a difference is that, given the difference in intent ("apprehend" vs. "try to be somewhere else") would influence the distance at which you might consider this a viable tactic. I posted in another thread about charging in a FOF training scenario and getting chewed out for it.

Basically, I was flanked by two opponents and when I saw the one to my right, I realized that I was in a "pinch" and charged 15 yards while firing at my ambusher. I even changed magazines on the run and continued firing, so I know he had an opportunity to shoot me. What happened was that he, an experienced LEO and martial artist, wasn't expecting me to charge him. He missed me, fumbled his mag change (we were working with 5 rounds loaded to a mag on purpose) and actually got so flustered he turned and ran. I shot him in the back. The other guy was really out of the fight because I had gotten two hits on his upper right torso from 15 yards at a dead run, but I didn't know that because I couldn't see him behind the barricade he was using for cover.

I had never trained FOF with sims with these guys, and they were pretty shocked. The worst part was that I was held up as an example of what not to do, since I had killed both of them. Oh well, I'll just try to play nice next time, but I'll continue to train for shooting on the move.

I agree with the concept and tactics, I'm just saying that there will be different considerations for when it should be used based on individual perspectives. As for me, I'd rather be the buzz saw than the wood. ;)
 
sacp81170a,

The worst part was that I was held up as an example of what not to do, since I had killed both of them.

Of course, how dare you win a gunfight against two people. In the real world, you and I both know you won that fight.:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Good show, stay sharp

Brownie
 
Here is some interesting historical info on this topic from a man who trained with both Jelly Bryce and Col. Askins.
I really like the advice that you will figure out which way to move when needed.
As many here have said, practice moving in any and all directions and let the situation dictate the rest.....

"Mostly they believed and taught me to go from 15 yards in,, IF!!!! there was a need, and NEED was the big question, Mr.Bryce was fond of saying "You root , you die"

remember they where brought up in a time that dictated , their actions,,it was much better to die going forward,with your boots on then backing down as a coward would.

Mr.Bryce and Askins again taught me that shooting and moving was good, angles where thrown in but not stressed, both said "Kid you'll figure it out,when needed"

Askins and Jordan both told me about the blind corners and pushing away from things as needed."

Good info, but can't say that I agree about the 15 yard thing.
 
A pertinent fact that may help in the employment of this technique:
Some friends of mine did some force on force experiments regarding use of cover and movment between covered areas. From those experiments they discovered that when moving between cover with a person knowing you are there you basically have NO MORE than 3 seconds to get to cover before the attacker can consistently get hits on you. in practice you can just about count on 2.5 seconds before they focus in on you and get shot off.

from these experiments i beleive we can interpolate that if one used that 2.5 seconds to press the advantage then we could be successful.

To those of you who believe that games have no bearing on reality, i propose to you the following
-you are dealing with another live human
-weapons and handling are strikingly similar to the real thing in some games (Call of duty comes to mind)
-reaction times are identical +-50milliseconds
- the tactics that work in real life have been successful for me in game as well. squad movments in partiucular work quite well.

I wouldnt stake my life on a game technique working in real life but can be a good indicator that it needs to be tested in FOF.

for those of you who are quite certain that you will be prosecuted and demonized for shooting someone defensively, i have this to say
"it must suck where you live"

jack
 
Speaking of using your bullets as cover...from the woman that shot the defect in Colorado..."I told him to drop the weapon. He didn't," Assam said. "I shot him several times and just kept moving towards him and made sure he was down."
 
When I teach this at police seminars the SWAT guys see it as a good response to an active shooter situation.
 
Speaking of using your bullets as cover...from the woman that shot the defect in Colorado..."I told him to drop the weapon. He didn't," Assam said. "I shot him several times and just kept moving towards him and made sure he was down."
Click to expand...

But she was not using her bullets for cover....she was using God for cover.;):D
 
Larry Bourbonnais, a combat-tested Vietnam veteran, said it was the bravest thing he's ever seen.

"She just started walking toward the gunman firing the whole way," said Bourbonnais, who was shot in the arm. "She was just yelling 'Surrender,' walking and shooting the whole time."

Seems there's something to Matts idea of "hiding behind you bullets" [ using bullets as cover ] after all the discussion here. Hard to argue with a real world event thats current on this subject with a positive outcome:eek:

Brownie
 
Brownie,..thanks for the kind words butt his is not my idea.
Quite a few real world gun fighters have shared this with me..either via personal lessons, phone calls and the written word--and I am just passing along this information.
And a Merry Christmas to all.
 
A pertinent fact that may help in the employment of this technique:
Some friends of mine did some force on force experiments regarding use of cover and movment between covered areas. From those experiments they discovered that when moving between cover with a person knowing you are there you basically have NO MORE than 3 seconds to get to cover before the attacker can consistently get hits on you. in practice you can just about count on 2.5 seconds before they focus in on you and get shot off.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, most gun fights are over in 3 seconds, apparently before they start! :eek:

Actually, it brings up a significant point. The notion that gun fights are over in 3 seconds is actually just the amount of time firing often occurs. The "fight" itself actually lasts for much longer, including the confrontation leading up to it, the time to deploy and start firing, and then the amount of time to realize it is over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Brief History of Fairbairn & Sykes Point Shooting
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
Jeff White
J
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Close Combat Article--by Robert Bolt.
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
strambo
S
B
  • Locked
FAS and Pistol QK is not the same
Replies
1
Views
301
pax
P
Matthew Temkin
  • Locked
Point Shooting Home Study Course
Replies
18
Views
728
JMusic
J
kilogulf59
  • Locked
Matt Temkin's Point Shooting Lesson Plan
Replies
13
Views
2K
kilogulf59
kilogulf59
Back
Top