This was intense

I don’t think I’ve been in a fist fight since I hit an age with double digits. However, your comment reminded me of a line / concept I read in The Little Black Book of Violence. Basically, if you go into it thinking fist fight and your opponent is thinking combat, you’re going to be in for a surprise and A LOT of possibly life altering hurt.
That reminded of the mentality I had to keep in the back of my mind while I was down. I knew where I was, I knew, that when the time came...I'd have to go all the way, no holding back. That was my biggest fear! I thank God it never came to that, but being faced with a very dangerous situation, and people whom you do not know their full intent...that is when all bets are off and I'll fight for my life.
 
I don't even know what force on force training is, just the name seems to tale the tale to me. I've had to learn to fight the hard way...by fighting. So when I hear the term "force", I think, threat, my instincts to force, threats, or whatever you call it, is fight. You don't learn to fight good without sustaining some sort of injuries, I know this from just my few limited skirmishes in my time. I don't know why, I just think everyone that attacks my opinions, sometimes...is LEO, and I feel I'm hated or strongly disliked by LEO...because most in here know of my past.

I am a LEO and in no way do I hate you. I don't make assumptions about people I don't know just because they are prohibited from possessing firearms. There are many felony crimes which will prohibit firearms possession, the overwhelming majority of them are non violent crimes. Actually I applaud you for trying to do things the right way now. There are many people who have not learned personal responsibility and accountability. @xtp308 has done a great job at explaining the answer for to your question about shooting for extremities. I encourage you or anyone else to ask questions, the movies are horrible at spreading false information about what will and won't work.
 
I am a LEO and in no way do I hate you. I don't make assumptions about people I don't know just because they are prohibited from possessing firearms. There are many felony crimes which will prohibit firearms possession, the overwhelming majority of them are non violent crimes. Actually I applaud you for trying to do things the right way now. There are many people who have not learned personal responsibility and accountability. @xtp308 has done a great job at explaining the answer for to your question about shooting for extremities. I encourage you or anyone else to ask questions, the movies are horrible at spreading false information about what will and won't work.
I appreciate the kind words. Stay safe out there. Is it fair to say America is divided more than it has been in a long time?
 
I appreciate the kind words. Stay safe out there. Is it fair to say America is divided more than it has been in a long time?

I feel it is a very fair statement.
 
Oh my at the responses on this thread. I most certainly do NOT want to start anything, but it amazes me at some comments on here. 1) it is EASY to scrutinize these officer's decisions under stress and chaos from the comfort of a chair. 2) there are some valuable training takeaways and 3) the level of misinformation that floats around the internet is amazing.

I do not think anyone knows how he/she is going to react unless they train for such events. Your brain will react how you train, think, etc. You rise to your lowest level of training in most situations, not all, but most. In our Defensive Handgun 1 class, we test the students actual draw time compared to how quickly someone covers distance to see the student's actual distance in which its safe to draw. Some students can be 50/60 feet. Even I, who am certainly not great, draw in about .9 seconds on average and its still 13 feet for me.

I think Force on Force is the most valuable training for testing and evaluating yourself and your training. We offer many force on force classes, and its amazing to see law enforcement and self-praising CCW holders clam up and get killed all day. We had a "contractor" in the last class who thought he was better than Rambo die over and over, and kill civilian after civilian, all day long.

Unless you are training under stress, training in areas like force on force, actually putting in the hard work, the tools you practiced once in a class, or how you think you are going to react is just hypothetical. Ask anyone who has taken Advanced Carry w/ Force on Force or Home Defense w/ Force on Force or Tactical Medicine 2 w/ Force on Force with us.

Ultimately, these officers resorted back to their lowest level of training, and trained like most people do. There are some key takeaways- controlling distance is not practiced enough. Do not attempt to draw when the attacker is charging at you 10 feet away- he will close that distance every time. Prepare to go to the ground, and for heavens sake take a self-defense or weapon retention class like we offer, if you cannot maintain control of your gun in a fist fight or on the ground you are a liability to yourself, a taser is a compliance tool, i.e. it makes people comply with your lawful orders, it is not there to defend yourself against an attack.

Lastly, and this goes for everyone- DO NOT BE SO QUICK TO RE-HOLSTER YOUR WEAPON. In EVERY class- all day long- you guys draw- shoot- and bring your gun back off target or re-holster as quick as you draw. It is normally done to feel fast or see how fast you are compared to everyone on the line. You will have all the time in the world to re-holster- so train how you fight. If you are one of these people on here arguing- PLEASE come take a force on force class with us or get some training from one of the other instructors on here- at the end of the day is a training issue. End of rant. I am sure someone will want to argue. -Ryan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. Just posing what I feel are valid questions that should be answered in an AAR and then used for training purposes.

IMO, the only way they failed at all was in communicating with each other. However this is a training issue. If they trained more as a team some of this might change. But I’m not sure that’s feasible.

So, for example, in the beginning they were all shouting the same command. As a team with better communication one of them should have been shouting the command while the others figured out a resolution to the situation whether or not it played out the same way is moot.

The same with the switch to the taser at the end. With better communication one officer should have stayed hot and ready to fire while one switched to taser and the other prepared to move in with cuffs. Instead they got caught with their pants down as nobody was still trained on him at a good angle and hot.

And I’m sure the answer to whether or not to try less than deadly force in the beginning is “Dude, he had a knife. We are trained to command and create space which we did. I don’t want to be the one with a taser facing a knife do you?” Well that would be my answer. Lol.
Excellent observation- we usually see a communication breakdown unless it is trained during stress. One could have communicated he was going to non-lethal. Honestly under such a prolonged adrenaline dump- we see auditory exclusion just like we see tunnel vision. Both should have commanded space, maintained lethal, and waited for backup who could go taser. Just my .02 cents.
 
Oh my at the responses on this thread. I most certainly do NOT want to start anything, but it amazes me at some comments on here. 1) it is EASY to scrutinize these officer's decisions under stress and chaos from the comfort of a chair. 2) there are some valuable training takeaways and 3) the level of misinformation that floats around the internet is amazing. I do not think anyone knows how he/she is going to react unless they train for such events. Your brain will react how you train, think, etc. You rise to your lowest level of training in most situations, not all, but most. In our Defensive Handgun 1 class, we test the students actual draw time compared to how quickly someone covers distance to see the student's actual distance in which its safe to draw. Some students can be 50/60 feet. Even I, who am certainly not great, draw in about .9 seconds on average and its still 13 feet for me. I think Force on Force is the most valuable training for testing and evaluating yourself and your training. We offer many force on force classes, and its amazing to see law enforcement and self-praising CCW holders clam up and get killed all day. We had a "contractor" in the last class who thought he was better than Rambo die over and over, and kill civilian after civilian, all day long. Unless you are training under stress, training in areas like force on force, actually putting in the hard work, the tools you practiced once in a class, or how you think you are going to react is just hypothetical. Ask anyone who has taken Advanced Carry w/ Force on Force or Home Defense w/ Force on Force or Tactical Medicine 2 w/ Force on Force with us. Ultimately, these officers resorted back to their lowest level of training, and trained like most people do. There are some key takeaways- controlling distance is not practiced enough. Do not attempt to draw when the attacker is charging at you 10 feet away- he will close that distance every time. Prepare to go to the ground, and for heavens sake take a self-defense or weapon retention class like we offer, if you cannot maintain control of your gun in a fist fight or on the ground you are a liability to yourself, a taser is a compliance tool, i.e. it makes people comply with your lawful orders, it is not there to defend yourself against an attack. Lastly, and this goes for everyone- DO NOT BE SO QUICK TO RE-HOLSTER YOUR WEAPON. In EVERY class- all day long- you guys draw- shoot- and bring your gun back off target or re-holster as quick as you draw. It is normally done to feel fast or see how fast you are compared to everyone on the line. You will have all the time in the world to re-holster- so train how you fight. If you are one of these people on here arguing- PLEASE come take a force on force class with us or get some training from one of the other instructors on here- at the end of the day is a training issue. End of rant. I am sure someone will want to argue. -Ryan

Dude...paragraphs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All I can say is that those two officers exhibited tremendously more restraint than I think was required under the situation. I applaud them for that, but it nearly got them killed. They were obviously trying to do the right thing and I think both learned a lot from the experience. We can all learn a lot from it.
 
I am in no way questioning the officers actions because I wasn’t there dealing with the situation and as we all know, it’s easy to come up with 15 ways we “woulda done it” while watching the video, but I do wonder about a couple of things.

I went through BLET back in the early 90s in SC and we were taught to work in conjunction with other officers when dealing with similar situations, again I am arm-chairing like a sumbitch and it’s a question and not a critique.

I found it odd that the officers spread themselves so far apart rather than having one armed with lethal and the other non lethal, have non lethal attempt to incapacitate bad guy with Mr Taser and if it fails the other officer with lethal goes to work, again it’s a question not a criticism.

I wonder if current officers lack confidence in the newest model of the X26 series of tasers, I believe the majority of departments have “upgraded” to the newer X26P that has a reputation of being extremely ineffective compared to the older X26, I’ve read accounts of the X26P failing to stop people at alarmingly high rates, up around 60-70% in some areas, I read that the original X26 had mid/high 90% success rate at stopping people in their tracks, the new models have far less “microcoulombs” (I have no friggin clue what that is or what it means) which isn’t getting the job done as well as the original X26.



I couldn’t find the information where officers were throwing out failure rates as high as I suggested above, but here is a story that explains the whole situation better than I can.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-x26/
 
I am in no way questioning the officers actions because I wasn’t there dealing with the situation and as we all know, it’s easy to come up with 15 ways we “woulda done it” while watching the video, but I do wonder about a couple of things.

I went through BLET back in the early 90s in SC and we were taught to work in conjunction with other officers when dealing with similar situations, again I am arm-chairing like a sumbitch and it’s a question and not a critique.

I found it odd that the officers spread themselves so far apart rather than having one armed with lethal and the other non lethal, have non lethal attempt to incapacitate bad guy with Mr Taser and if it fails the other officer with lethal goes to work, again it’s a question not a criticism.

I wonder if current officers lack confidence in the newest model of the X26 series of tasers, I believe the majority of departments have “upgraded” to the newer X26P that has a reputation of being extremely ineffective compared to the older X26, I’ve read accounts of the X26P failing to stop people at alarmingly high rates, up around 60-70% in some areas, I read that the original X26 had mid/high 90% success rate at stopping people in their tracks, the new models have far less “microcoulombs” (I have no friggin clue what that is or what it means) which isn’t getting the job done as well as the original X26.



I couldn’t find the information where officers were throwing out failure rates as high as I suggested above, but here is a story that explains the whole situation better than I can.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-x26/
You could ask yourself, what is the range of a taser? and then what is the lethal range of a guy with a knife?

Asa far as the officers separating, it would be impossible for them to maintain the same relative positions since they were only reacting. One would be moving straight away from the guy and one would be off to the side changing their angle the whole time.
 
Things I see that could have been done differently.....

1) Sad to say but they retreated too far and let it go on too long. At a certain point the odds of retreating into a populated area increase. Then he's got targets to force your hand in shooting him and you've got less safe lines of fire.

2) From the camera angles it appeared as if they separated from each other more as they were retreating. Danger of him advancing between them and then turning on one. Again your safe zone of fire gets compromised as your partner is downrange and being attacked. And you're downrange from him.

3) Stickman is right on above. After the first hits the officer that got choked was absolutely focused on bringing his gun to what has become a fist and knife fight. Within those ranges you just made the fight over the gun that's half out of your holster.

I'm glad the officers weren't more injured than they were. I hate they had to shoot him, but they had to shoot him. He wasn't going to let it end any other way.

Thanks for posting. A lot to learn from this....

The officer on the right lost sight of the perp and the partner when the driveway split them and tall grass hid them both from view. I expected the assault to happen then. So glad it turned out ok for the officers and sad that the perp so wanted to be killed. What a horrible day all around.
 
Massad Ayoob testifies ALOT in court cases. He is considered by the court to be an Expert witness. That in itself is pretty good. He wrote of a case where he explained to the jury where...when a person tells/shows another person that he is armed and the aggressor continues on anyway, you can then reasonably determine the aggressor has the Means and Intent to overcome you. He got a Not Guilty for his client.
 
Monday morning quarterbacking, a luxury not available to the officers at the time, it might have been possible to drop the guy with mag dumps toward his knees, calves, feet. No telling where the rounds might have ended up after hitting the street.

Imagine what was going thru the officers’ heads during those few moments. :confused:
Exactly! Also, these leg shots are not only super difficult in any stressful situation, but, if you DO score one, and happen to hit the femoral artery, the perp will bleed out before you could get the cuffs and a tourniquet on him. I know you would say just go for the tourniquet, and why bother with the handcuffs. My answer would be...really? I'm not LEO, but I have many, many friends that are. Every single one I know never wants to take a life. They have and will always avoid it at all costs... except they also want to go home at the end of their shift. If it comes down to it, they will do what has to be done to make it home.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Well I'm by far the least qualified to arm chair quarterback on this, BUT, 5 rounds wasn't enough, FACT! and required more rounds on target to STOP the threat. The guy takes 5 hits to the torso and can still attack with little indication he has damage indicates he is on something or determined to end it his way.
 
Massad Ayoob testifies ALOT in court cases. He is considered by the court to be an Expert witness. That in itself is pretty good. He wrote of a case where he explained to the jury where...when a person tells/shows another person that he is armed and the aggressor continues on anyway, you can then reasonably determine the aggressor has the Means and Intent to overcome you. He got a Not Guilty for his client.
Well, he literally wrote the book...

51886MD5PDL._AC_SY400_.jpg


I've been a fan of his since I read his book in the '80's. He was and maybe still is a good competitive shooter too. I always loved his reports of the NTI challenge exercises. Always wanted to be invited to one.

Exactly! Also, these leg shots are not only super difficult in any stressful situation, but, if you DO score one, and happen to hit the femoral artery, the perp will bleed out before you could get the cuffs and a tourniquet on him. I know you would say just go for the tourniquet, and why bother with the handcuffs. My answer would be...really? I'm not LEO, but I have many, many friends that are. Every single one I know never wants to take a life. They have and will always avoid it at all costs... except they also want to go home at the end of their shift. If it comes down to it, they will do what has to be done to make it home.
This also brings up the specter of man-slaughter. "So, you were just trying to wound him, when you killed him?"

When debating this point I usually tell others... Never attempt to use a lethal weapon to inflict a non-lethal wound.
 
Last edited:
This also brings up the specter of man-slaughter. "So, you were just trying to wound him, when you killed him?"

When debating this point I usually tell others... Never attempt to use a lethal weapon to inflict a non-lethal wound.

Your intention either way was to "stop the attack." You are not better off by saying "I tried to kill him." It is ok if he dies when deadly force is justified. You are not required to make sure the wound is deadly so it is also ok if he survives.

This is why it is a good idea to talk to a lawyer now and if the day ever comes, don't make a statement until you talk to a lawyer again.
 
Your intention either way was to "stop the attack." You are not better off by saying "I tried to kill him." It is ok if he dies when deadly force is justified. You are not required to make sure the wound is deadly so it is also ok if he survives.

This is why it is a good idea to talk to a lawyer now and if the day ever comes, don't make a statement until you talk to a lawyer again.
Well, the discussion was about intentional wounding, by shooting the legs/knees and trying not to kill the target. If you're trying to stop an attack in the most efficient way, why aren't you shooting center mass? Why did you choose the more difficult and less reliable target? Is that negligent? By shooting at the legs shows intent not to kill him, but you might kill him unintentionally. Or what if the survives, but he is permanently disabled? Can he sue?
The point being that shooting to wound has a lot of complications, not to mention difficult and is not a good idea.
 
Well, the discussion was about intentional wounding, by shooting the legs/knees and trying not to kill the target. If you're trying to stop an attack in the most efficient way, why aren't you shooting center mass? Why did you choose the more difficult and less reliable target? Is that negligent? By shooting at the legs shows intent not to kill him, but you might kill him unintentionally. Or what if the survives, but he is permanently disabled? Can he sue? The point being that shooting to wound has a lot of complications, not to mention difficult and is not a good idea.

I think we are discussing two related but separate issues. The first being the legal discussion around implied/constructive intent and the second being "mindset" for lack of a better word. Let me try to address them separately so hopefully it appears helpful as intended and not argumentative.

Issue 1 intent - criminal:
For a criminal trial, your intent to use deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury or death (stop the attack) is the only intent required. Deadly force is that which is likely (but not guaranteed) to cause serious bodily injury or death. You never have to prove an intent to kill or make an effort to kill. A particular shot placement is also not required. It is possible that a lower torso/pelvic or extremity shot was all that was available when you were able to shoot. We all pull shots on occasion and even more under stress. You may miss entirely and the attacker could run away. You could draw your gun with the intention of using it and the person may run/surrender before you ever fire a shot...no further action is required by you. If deadly force was permitted, and if you stop once the attack has stopped, you have successfully and legitimately used the force necessary regardless of how thoroughly your opponent was or wasn't killed.

None of this guarantees that you won't be the guy that loses his trial and spends years in jail/on appeal, but this is how it is expected to work. We may already agree on this portion and I suspect most of your concerns are aimed at the civil case (negligence/lawsuits/disability) but winning or avoiding the criminal trial should help tremendously with the civil case. Your statements need to support your actions and focusing on stopping the attack as soon as possible, vs wounding or killing, makes that easier.

In regards to a civil trial, people can sue for anything and you should expect that (and all of the other complications) after any shooting, but I think NC protects you from civil liability under stand your ground. Civil court is a circus and you can only prepare as much as possible and hope for the best here. At this point, my main concern is not going to jail or getting a record.


Issue 2 mindset:
I agree 100% that shooting center of mass as soon as possible is the best plan to stop an attack. If a center of mass shot is not available I'd shoot the next best target available to try to stop the attack. You may lose if you wait for them to give you the perfect shot. I would never choose to shoot a knee or a shoulder if a more viable target was available. Your final point is a very good point!



 
Well, the discussion was about intentional wounding, by shooting the legs/knees and trying not to kill the target. If you're trying to stop an attack in the most efficient way, why aren't you shooting center mass? Why did you choose the more difficult and less reliable target? Is that negligent? By shooting at the legs shows intent not to kill him, but you might kill him unintentionally. Or what if the survives, but he is permanently disabled? Can he sue?
The point being that shooting to wound has a lot of complications, not to mention difficult and is not a good idea.
This reminds me of the lady in FL that admitted o_O to firing a warning shot at her (ex?) husband who was threatening and attacking her. Her mistake was in saying it was a warning shot, where she should have just said "lucky for him, I missed, and he stopped his attack".
 
I know someone who shot someone in self defense here in NC early this year.

I'll ask him how things are going. Perp didn't die but it's highly unlikely he ever throws a punch again.
 
Back
Top Bottom