Why you need to practice at 3’ and why “get off me guns” are a bad idea

Well. Taken to ground, terrible place to be. Lotsa quarter backing her but, credit where due. She retained her weapon, used it, lived.

As for the other video (binary trigger/ambush). Props for the Officer.

Our opinion on Late start, late reloads, number of shots fired, calibers, capacity, etc, don't recognize the real issue either.

Both officers may or may not have made mistakes (that'll be covered by professionals in the after action report) but most importantly, they stayed in the fight and fought through the ambush. All other variables pale in comparison.
 
Last edited:
John Travis said:
I watched the video four times. It was pretty clear what happened. Wondering why is the next step and logically, there are only three possibilities.

A. She wasn't mentally prepared to shoot a human being until she was at the point of being killed herself. She had 10 seconds to respond after the first time she told him to drop it.

He/She who hesitates is lost.

B. She was unable to accept that it was really happening, and froze.

It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Buck fever comes in many forms.

C. She defaulted to her training and reached for the radio instead of reaching for her pistol the instant his feet were on the ground. That happens more than we suspect, and...frankly...more than most police agencies want to admit to.

When you got to shoot, shoot! Don't talk.
-Tuco Benedicto Pacífico Juan María Ramírez-

And, it was even possible that it was a combination of any two or all three.
Click to expand...
You need to watch it again.
If she shot him before he began running it would have been straight up murder. Shooting him “as soon as his feet hit the ground” when he was 30 feet away has no justification. At that point he could just be a frustrated homeowner mad because the local Karen called the cops on him because he was fixing his porch and she didn’t like the banging.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
If she shot him before he began running it would have been straight up murder. Shooting him “as soon as his feet hit the ground”
Click to expand...
I didn't say that she should have shot him as soon as he started running. I said she should have been reaching for her pistol instead of the radio when he came off the porch...and when he broke into a dead run with a lethal weapon in his hand, he became a legitimate target when he got to within 20 feet. A healthy man can cover 20 feet in 1.5 seconds from a standing start...I proved that when I was 40...and he already had a full head of steam when he got to that line which meant that she had about one second to bring him down before he got to her.

Or, do you feel that she should have let him get closer? Ten feet? Five? How many times can you hit a running man in a vital spot...under stress...in under one second?

It seems like you're trying to make this about marksmanship or the lack thereof. It's not. Her marksmanship score has to be good enough to qualify, or she couldn't work the street. It was about her failure to properly respond to an imminent lethal threat. Even a grand master would have trouble after being knocked flat on his back by a crazy man swinging a hammer at him.

So, the question still stands. Why did she...with 10 seconds to respond...fail?
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
This info is 36 years old^^^^^ Lotsa Good projectiles now that didn't exist then.
Click to expand...
I'll defer to Dr. Gary K. Roberts / DocGKR

"Service Caliber Handgun Duty and Self-Defense Ammo
6/1/16

When comparing well designed duty handgun ammunition, there are minimal differences in penetration depths and temporary cavity effects, as noted below in the gel shots by Doug Carr:

As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers. For some, the incremental advantages of the larger calibers are offset by weapon platform characteristics. As is quite obvious from the photo above, NONE of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage. Anyone interested in this topic should read and periodically re-read, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness” by Urey Patrick of the FBI FTU, as this remains the single best discussion of the wound ballistic requirements of handguns used for self-defense.

Keeping in mind that handguns generally offer poor incapacitation potential, bullets with effective terminal performance are available in all of the most commonly used duty pistol calibers—pick the one that you shoot most accurately, that is most reliable in the type of pistol you choose, and best suits you likely engagement scenarios.

The following loads all demonstrate outstanding terminal performance and can be considered acceptable for duty/self-defense use:

9 mm:
Barnes XPB 115 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Federal Tactical 124 gr JHP (LE9T1)
Federal HST 124 gr +P JHP (P9HST3)
Remington Golden Saber bonded 124 gr +P JHP (GSB9MMD)
Speer Gold Dot 124 gr +P JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 124 gr +P JHP (RA9124TP)
Winchester 124 gr +P bonded JHP (RA9BA)
Winchester Ranger-T 127 gr +P+ JHP (RA9TA)
Federal Tactical 135 gr +P JHP (LE9T5)
Hornady Critical Duty 135 gr +P PT
Federal HST 147 gr JHP (P9HST2)
Remington Golden Saber 147 gr JHP (GS9MMC)
Speer Gold Dot 147 gr JHP
Speer G2 147 gr PT
Winchester Ranger-T 147 gr JHP (RA9T)
Winchester 147 gr bonded JHP (RA9B/Q4364)

.40 S&W:
Barnes XPB 140 & 155 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Speer Gold Dot 155 gr JHP
Federal Tactical 165 gr JHP (LE40T3)
Speer Gold Dot 165 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 165 gr JHP (RA40TA)
Federal HST 180 gr JHP (P40HST1)
Federal Tactical 180 gr JHP (LE40T1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)
Speer Gold Dot 180 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 180 gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester 180 gr bonded JHP (RA40B/Q4355/S40SWPDB1)

.45 ACP:
Barnes XPB 185 gr JHP (copper bullet)
Hornady Critical Duty 220 gr +P JHP
Federal HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2)
Federal HST 230 gr +P JHP (P45HST1)
Federal Tactical 230 gr JHP (LE45T1)
Speer Gold Dot 230 gr JHP
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr JHP (RA45T)
Winchester Ranger-T 230 gr +P JHP (RA45TP)

Notes:
-- Obviously, clone loads using the same bullet at the same velocity work equally well (ie. Black Hills ammo using Gold Dot bullets, Corbon loads using Barnes XPB bullets, etc…)

-- Bullet designs like the Silver Tip, Hydra-Shok, and Black Talon were state of the art 15 or 20 years ago. These older bullets tend to plug up and act like FMJ projectiles when shot through heavy clothing; they also often have significant degradation in terminal performance after first passing through intermediate barriers. Modern ammunition which has been designed for robust expansion against clothing and intermediate barriers is significantly superior to the older designs. The bullets in the Federal Classic and Hydrashok line are outperformed by other ATK products such as the Federal Tactical and HST, as well as the Speer Gold Dot; likewise Winchester Ranger Talons are far superior to the old Black Talons or civilian SXT's.

The keys are:

-- Cultivate a warrior mindset
-- Invest in competent, thorough initial training and then maintain skills with regular ongoing practice
-- Acquire a reliable and durable weapon system
-- Purchase a consistent, robust performing duty/self-defense load in sufficient quantities (at least 1000 rounds) then STOP worrying about the nuances of handgun ammunition terminal performance."
 
John Travis said:
So, the question still stands. Why did she...with 10 seconds to respond...fail?
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, here, but I believe it was due to him sporting a hammer and not a firearm. Not saying a hammer isn’t lethal…it has been, can be and is, but in this case, I really do not believe she viewed the hammer as a “weapon” and I believe she did so because the focus tends to be on “GUN!”

Think about this…you get pulled over and the officer, trooper or deputy asks if you have any “guns or dangerous weapons” in the vehicle. If you respond with, “Yeah..I have a pistol down in the driver’s door”, think they are going to feel any different had you responded with, “Yeah…I have an Estwing framing hammer in the seat beside me.” The first response may put them “on edge” while the latter may even elicit a chuckle.

I can’t speak intelligently on how officers are trained…know a few, worked with a lot, but I have never been one. What I can say, though, is there seems to be a such a heavy focus on demonizing firearms in the media, politics, etc, that I do believe some folks fall into the dangerous mindset of believing, “If it ain’t a gun, it ain’t a threat.”
 
Dale Gribble said:
Just my opinion, here, but I believe it was due to him sporting a hammer and not a firearm. Not saying a hammer isn’t lethal…it has been, can be and is, but in this case, I really do not believe she viewed the hammer as a “weapon” and I believe she did so because the focus tends to be on “GUN!”

Think about this…you get pulled over and the officer, trooper or deputy asks if you have any “guns or dangerous weapons” in the vehicle. If you respond with, “Yeah..I have a pistol down in the driver’s door”, think they are going to feel any different had you responded with, “Yeah…I have an Estwing framing hammer in the seat beside me.” The first response may put them “on edge” while the latter may even elicit a chuckle.

I can’t speak intelligently on how officers are trained…know a few, worked with a lot, but I have never been one. What I can say, though, is there seems to be a such a heavy focus on demonizing firearms in the media, politics, etc, that I do believe some folks fall into the dangerous mindset of believing, “If it ain’t a gun, it ain’t a threat.”
Click to expand...
There is validity to your point about the weapon in this scenario. Some instructors do not spend enough time discussing improvised weapons and the possible threats to them or others. I try my best to cover these types of scenarios. Deadly force situations doesn’t come wrapped in packaging with deadly force labels all over it. You have to think outside the box.
 
They have a mind, hands and feet?

They have a weapon…

and they ain’t gotta be Royce Gracie or Charles Norris to beat yer ass to death.
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
Just my opinion, here, but I believe it was due to him sporting a hammer and not a firearm. Not saying a hammer isn’t lethal…it has been, can be and is, but in this case, I really do not believe she viewed the hammer as a “weapon”
Click to expand...
Sure she did. That's why she was yelling for him to drop it. They're taught that contact weapons are dangerous up to 20 feet away, especially with a duty or snatch resistant holster that slows the draw a fraction of a second. Under extreme stress, fouling the draw with such a holster is a real possibility.

An obviously belligerent, deranged man came off the porch with a hammer in his hand. That should have been her "Showtime!" signal. Instead, she reached for the radio with her gun hand.

That's nearly the equivalent of starting a gunfight from the "surrender/shooter ready" position.

I think that at least part of it was that she expected him to comply and surrender because she had a gun and he only had a hammer. After all...nobody would be stupid enough to bring a hammer to a gun fight.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing his family will sue her and the department; all he had was a hammer. :(
I'd like to think I could calmly draw my firearm, fire one shot, and the threat will stop. Since I'm daydreaming, then there will be a parade and the mayor will give me the key to the city.
 
Blades said:
I'm guessing his family will sue her and the department; all he had was a hammer. :(
I'd like to think I could calmly draw my firearm, fire one shot, and the threat will stop. Since I'm daydreaming, then there will be a parade and the mayor will give me the key to the city.
Click to expand...

He was “unarmed”… :rolleyes:
 
Blades said:
I'm guessing his family will sue her and the department; all he had was a hammer.
Click to expand...
That may have also played into her failure to immediately respond. Plus, nobody wants to see a city burn after an incident like this.

People who try to make an issue of "only" being armed with a contact weapon don't understand the dynamics of mano e mano violence. They feel like a gun makes a person invincible.

I've often said that everyone should have to run or fight for his or her life just one time, so they can come to understand that bacon and eggs don't come from the grocery store and protection doesn't come from policemen.
 
Last edited:
John Travis said:
That may have also played into her failure to immediately respond. Plus, nobody wants to see a city burn after an incident like this.

People who try to make an issue of "only" being armed with a contact weapon don't understand the dynamics of mano e mano violence. They feel like a gun makes a person invincible.

I've often said that everyone should have to run or fight for his or her life just one time, so they can come to understand that bacon and eggs don't come from the grocery store and protection doesn't come from policemen.
Click to expand...


Another lesson from the bacon and egg thing is that for the chicken it Is a one time investment while for the pig it is a life time thing.
 
So I let my GF watch this video, and she said, "she shot him didn't she?" Fully believing that the "one shot stop" exists. We had to have a classroom session.


Something I wanted to share from seeing these repeated near death experiences... I had the opportunity to train with some real life military heavy hitters, it was scenario based, and so firearms were in play. We were using simunitions. What really amazed me was they they didn't run when shot at.....the just hunkered down into a good shooting position and returned accurate fire. 99% of the time neutralizing the enemy. I learned several lessons from that.

1) trust your equipment.
2) a lot of piss poor accuracy/rounds down range doesn't make up for a few well placed shots.
3) make yourself small and make your shots count.

I know "get off the "x" and all of that jazz, but watching professional shooters operate in a lot of different scenarios that still had consequences if they were "killed" made me rethink my method of shooting in close quarters. Everyone keep in mind the 21" rule, which has been sort of mentioned earlier on from John.

Trusting my firearm, and my accuracy, with focused well placed rounds will be where I'm at.
 
Dirtydirtysouf said:
A graze from a 45 would have stripped that mans soul out.
Click to expand...
Izzat better than regular ol displaced lungs?
Asking for a friend... 🥴 😁

yard mongrel said:
Shooting any dipshit with their pants hanging off their ass would probably be a good way to avoid these situations altogether.
Click to expand...
I dunno bout this.. I was repo'ing a car down in the "Racetrack" area of Murder Beach and the thing had died on me cause the dipstick dealer sent me the "valet" key or some such crap. I was tryin to push this thing into a convenience store parking lot but was stuck at the driveway hump.
Two kids "fitting that description" stopped and helped me get it into the parking lot and calling me "Sir" the whole time.
So I dunno.. 'Much as I'd like to be able to simplify things with generalizations, it just doesn't seem to work steadfastly enough for reality.
Some of the best "life lessons" I've received have been from some shady characters. :cool:
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
You need to watch it again.
If she shot him before he began running it would have been straight up murder. Shooting him “as soon as his feet hit the ground” when he was 30 feet away has no justification. At that point he could just be a frustrated homeowner mad because the local Karen called the cops on him because he was fixing his porch and she didn’t like the banging.
Click to expand...
Maybe YOU need to watch it again. She told him several times to drop it before he started running and he didn’t . She should’ve shot his sorry ass while he was still on his driveway.

Straight up murder? Gtfo here with that bs
 
Burt Gummer said:
Maybe YOU need to watch it again. She told him several times to drop it before he started running and he didn’t . She should’ve shot his sorry ass while he was still on his driveway.

Straight up murder? Gtfo here with that bs
Click to expand...
Well I will have to concede that you certainly seem to have considerably more experience with anger management issues than I do…
 
A couple other thoughts.

1. Dogmatic training in drawing, transition, extension, etc. is problematic. Center axis relock or something something. With quick closure some of that 'set your stance, draw, etc., etc.' may not work.

2. Combatives. It's an escalation of responses from less-than-lethal to lethal. Once the booger-eater is upon you, if you are on the ground, you have to fight like you are the third monkey trying to board Noah's ark, and it's starting to rain. Almost no officer trains in MMA, BJJ, and MA. Sometimes a gun ain't gonna help, but having some martial arts training will save your life.
 
Sneakymedic said:
So I let my GF watch this video, and she said, "she shot him didn't she?" Fully believing that the "one shot stop" exists. We had to have a classroom session.
Click to expand...
Public perception of gunshot wounding is a big part of the problem. The majority of the American people believe that people who get shot are knocked off their feet or thrown violently into the air, never to move again after they hit the ground.

A few years back, there was an incident in a local restaurant...may have been Salisbury...where an upstanding citizen came through the door waving a sawed-off shotgun around, threatening anyone who didn't get on the floor. He may have fired a round into the ceiling. I can't remember for sure. An off duty cop having supper with his wife stood up and shot him, hitting him five times before he dropped with the shotgun still in his hands.

The screams immediately started...even among the customers that evening...over the "murder" of the poor, young miscreant.

Why did he have to shoot him so many times? Why did he shoot him in the back? Why didn't he just shoot him in the leg? One fool even suggested that...because he was behind him...he could've just taken the shotgun away from him.

This is what gets towns and cities burned and looted even after the most righteous shootings.

The whole of the public needs a classroom session.
 
John Travis said:
Public perception of gunshot wounding is a big part of the problem. The majority of the American people believe that people who get shot are knocked off their feet or thrown violently into the air, never to move again after they hit the ground.
Click to expand...

On a deployment we had a young Marine shot, definitely survivable (he did). He screamed like his legs were blown off, then someone told him to shut up and breathe, then he was OK. And that was being shot with an AK. He barely moved when he was shot. Movies do not do justice to the real thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom