2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jl808 on February 16, 2014, 08:39:13 AM
-
... hostile intent?
Paul Merkel of Student of the Gun discusses how the boy with a toy gun in California was shot by police.
(Disclaimer: yes the boy should have dropped the toy gun when the officers asked him to.)
Paul also talks about "blue on blue" shooting where LEOs mistakenly shoot undercover cops.
He asks in his video if the method of training for LEOs make them subconsciously equate "gun" as a go signal in a Shoot-No-Shoot training.
What so you guys think?
http://youtu.be/3GsmwTiC8Pk
-
I think the biggest problem is that when a gun is visible, then we are in an "immediate" time frame where something can happen. For instance, my draw to one shot time is right around .8... by 1.3 I've already shot 3-4 rather accurate rounds (to one target). That is faster than some people can even react to a situation.
-
... hostile intent?
Paul Merkel of Student of the Gun discusses how the boy with a toy gun in California was shot by police.
(Disclaimer: yes the boy should have dropped the toy gun when the officers asked him to.)
Paul also talks about "blue on blue" shooting where LEOs mistakenly shoot undercover cops.
He asks in his video if the method of training for LEOs make them subconsciously equate "gun" as a go signal in a Shoot-No-Shoot training.
What so you guys think?
http://youtu.be/3GsmwTiC8Pk (http://youtu.be/3GsmwTiC8Pk)
Blue on blue ?
Are you familiar with DHS "NO MORE HESITATION" series which are also sold to law enforcement ?
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/ (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/)
Granted these targets do show "intent" as they are pointed in the viewers direction, a criteria I believe required for a legitimate "Shoot" situation.
But if a person is just possessing a firearm in view, that does not a justified shooting make.
That would REALLY be tuff on open carry :shake:
-
Blue on blue ?
Are you familiar with DHS "NO MORE HESITATION" series which are also sold to law enforcement ?
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/ (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/)
Granted these targets do show "intent" as they are pointed in the viewers direction, a criteria I believe required for a legitimate "Shoot" situation.
But if a person is just possessing a firearm in view, that does not a justified shooting make.
That would REALLY be tuff on open carry :shake:
It's not tough on open carry. You aren't waving that gun around in your hand lol.
-
Blue on blue ?
Are you familiar with DHS "NO MORE HESITATION" series which are also sold to law enforcement ?
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/ (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/)
Granted these targets do show "intent" as they are pointed in the viewers direction, a criteria I believe required for a legitimate "Shoot" situation.
But if a person is just possessing a firearm in view, that does not a justified shooting make.
That would REALLY be tuff on open carry :shake:
Yes that "No more hesitation" series came out with some controversy. I believe it was discussed before that police need to be mentally prepared for any situation as all bad guys may not look like your typical bad guy.
However, this makes it really difficult to distinguish between bad guy vs good guy. What if the person holding the firearm just happens to be a home owner who is scared for their life and pointing the gun in the direction of the door when the police bust in?
Because police training is such, doesn't this kind of SWAT-mindset put us all at risk everytime the police decide to knock on someone's door? What does this do for us legitimate firearm owners who might be checking out a knock on the door in the middle of the night while carrying a firearm? I've read too many incidents where police shoot a homeowner when they raid the wrong address in the middle of the night.
What exactly are the stops in the OODA loop training for LEOs?
Should they have mandatory "command voice" training and make sure they are able to shout a command out loud and audible enough, before they start shooting?
What if a LEO is so soft spoken (or slurring, or loud noises around) that when they shout "drop the gun", the home owner doesn't even hear it (loud noises around, hard of hearing, doesn't speak English, wearing ear protection while carrying a gun, hearing aid not turned on)?
Perhaps as firearm owners, we should also remember to keep our firearm holstered, point our firearms on the floor until hostile threat is confirmed? Or is this a bad idea?
-
However, this makes it really difficult to distinguish between bad guy vs good guy. What if the person holding the firearm just happens to be a home owner who is scared for their life and pointing the gun in the direction of the door when the police bust in?
Because police training is such, doesn't this kind of SWAT-mindset put us all at risk everytime the police decide to knock on someone's door? What does this do for us legitimate firearm owners who might be checking out a knock on the door in the middle of the night while carrying a firearm? I've read too many incidents where police shoot a homeowner when they raid the wrong address in the middle of the night.
What exactly are the stops in the OODA loop training for LEOs?
Should they have mandatory "command voice" training and make sure they are able to shout a command out loud and audible enough, before they start shooting?
What if a LEO is so soft spoken (or slurring, or loud noises around) that when they shout "drop the gun", the home owner doesn't even hear it (loud noises around, hard of hearing, doesn't speak English, wearing ear protection while carrying a gun, hearing aid not turned on)?
Perhaps as firearm owners, we should also remember to keep our firearm holstered, point our firearms on the floor until hostile threat is confirmed? Or is this a bad idea?
There is so much stuff wrong with this. First, you as the home owner likely called the police and should be expecting them. They will always announce their presence and that might be a very good time to drop you gun immediately.
Police are trained to address the threat and part of that training teaches them action is always faster then reaction. If you are holding a gun in your hand and pointing it in their direction, or don't drop it on their command there is a 99% chance you will get shot. BTW, police train to shoot center mass, don't expect them to shoot the hand with the gun.
The ooda loop is for suspects not for the police.
The mandatory voice command is "police", if your not smart enough to drop your gun at that point you might just get shot and it will be your fault.
Keeping your firearm pointed to the floor and your finger off the trigger might be a good idea until the threat has been identified and the decision to shoot has been made. In hawaii you have to be faced with deadly force to justify the use of deadly force. The suspect better have a weapon before you shoot him or you will go to prison.
-
Thanks for the education, dblnaknak. This clarification will help me with the knowledge on how be gun safe when LEOs are around.
-
The ooda loop is for suspects not for the police.
This process works for everyone. As I pointed out above, if an officer is drawn on, he or she is having to process that - you can get caught in your own thought process and end up just as I demonstrated - dead. Hence my post and point about my specific draw time.
In hawaii you have to be faced with deadly force to justify the use of deadly force.
I'm not sure why you think that. It's not at all what our laws deadly force say. There are a variety of reasons you can engage in deadly force. Other than the Deedy incident, which was more imo because he was shot with a gun, and a federal agent, than it was about the incident itself - there have been dozens of reasonable uses of deadly force in Hawaii. In most situations they don't even appear to be charged.
-
There is so much stuff wrong with this. First, you as the home owner likely called the police and should be expecting them. They will always announce their presence and that might be a very good time to drop you gun immediately.
Police are trained to address the threat and part of that training teaches them action is always faster then reaction. If you are holding a gun in your hand and pointing it in their direction, or don't drop it on their command there is a 99% chance you will get shot. BTW, police train to shoot center mass, don't expect them to shoot the hand with the gun.
The ooda loop is for suspects not for the police.
The mandatory voice command is "police", if your not smart enough to drop your gun at that point you might just get shot and it will be your fault.
Keeping your firearm pointed to the floor and your finger off the trigger might be a good idea until the threat has been identified and the decision to shoot has been made. In hawaii you have to be faced with deadly force to justify the use of deadly force. The suspect better have a weapon before you shoot him or you will go to prison.
If the suspect (i.e thief, rapist, killer) and coming at you or family member without a weapon does that not justify deadly force?
-
If the suspect (i.e thief, rapist, killer) and coming at you or family member without a weapon does that not justify deadly force?
§703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.
(4) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
(a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(b) To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:
(i) The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; or
(ii) The actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.
(5) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(a) The actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties, or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform his duty, effect the arrest, or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
(6) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; ree L 1975, c 163, §3; am L 2001, c 91, §4]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm)
The standard is whether or not a reasonable person would have formed the belief needed to use deadly force. This doesn't limit itself to firearms as the only means of deadly force, but that's the context of this discussion.
You mentioned "thief." Protection of private property is not a legal justification for use of deadly force in Hawaii.
-
If the suspect (i.e thief, rapist, killer) and coming at you or family member without a weapon does that not justify deadly force?
It depends on if you feel it is necessary and that he is about to commit serious bodily injury to you.
-
It depends on if you feel it is necessary and that he is about to commit serious bodily injury to you.
Makes complete sense. I was just wondering about the previous post I quoted. What they stated (or what I interpreted) was the suspect needed to have a weapon in order to justify deadly force otherwise we go to jail.
-
Blue on blue ?
Are you familiar with DHS "NO MORE HESITATION" series which are also sold to law enforcement ?
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/ (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/)
Granted these targets do show "intent" as they are pointed in the viewers direction, a criteria I believe required for a legitimate "Shoot" situation.
But if a person is just possessing a firearm in view, that does not a justified shooting make.
That would REALLY be tuff on open carry :shake:
Unfortunately in a lot of these situations where a firearm in encountered, the fear of said firearm has the not properly trained officer shooting people.
Interestingly enough, in states and locales where LEO are forced with open carry and almost everybody conceal carrying, there are significantly less incidents of LEO shooting civilians.
-
Unfortunately in a lot of these situations where a firearm in encountered, the fear of said firearm has the not properly trained officer shooting people.
Interestingly enough, in states and locales where LEO are forced with open carry and almost everybody conceal carrying, there are significantly less incidents of LEO shooting civilians.
I bet in many of these places they are not even getting what is mostly considered "standard" amounts of training. By court cases, it's more than semi-annually, maybe once a quarter, but not certainly once a quarter. Factor in that many officers don't train on their own, refuse to train b/c the job isn't paying for it or any other excuse for why they aren't seeking further education with a firearm - and we have a recipe for people carrying that really have no idea wtf they doing!
-
Tragic no doubt, but perhaps we might also ask what we as a society and parents are imparting upon our children about acceptable behavior. Walking down the street with an airsoft AK47 and pistol, which we know are amazingly hard to discern from the original. Is it a failure of perhaps the child, the parents and even society for what we consider to be acceptable behavior? It is hard to judge without all the facts, but we do know that a citizen in a vehicle driving by told the teen to put the guns away as the police were right down the street and on their way. It is understandable that he was just a teen processing this information but what was that teen educated about when he was allowed to have those airsoft weapons and carrying them in public? Did his parents do their job when allowing him to have these replicas? Did they know that he had them? Did the kid think it would be funny to spin around with the weapons in a threatening manner? Did he actually spin around in a threatening manner? Can a 13 year old who is into airsoft and is carrying two airsoft weapons not have the cognitive ability to understand potential issues from carrying these airsoft guns in public even after being warned about putting them away as the police were coming? Did the Officer react too quickly? Or perhaps some combination of in between? Was it justified? This is not intended to sound like a pro-LE stance as it is not, but this is a WTF happened here stance? Perhaps a lot of failures which led to this incident.
Lets scrutinize the LE side of things. We need to consider a spectrum when it comes to training that an Officer may have. This is a pretty broad sweeping estimate which may not apply to any certain agency as some are better and some are worse, however if we look at it in a national setting it can make more sense. Now there will be Agencies with different standards for hiring. There will also be different standards for training. So there will be Officers who are lacking acceptable training to those who receive training that might meet some type of State or National recognized standard and finally you will have Officers who receive a high degree of training. If we put numbers to it, it might look something like 2% lacking, 88% meeting and 10% above average.
It is pretty recognized in LE via training and via studies that Officers with substandard training (bottom 2%) often make incorrect decisions in regards to use of force. This could be shooting too late, making incorrect decisions on appropriate application of use of force, to flat out what the effs. So indeed when that bottom 2% is involved in a use of force incident, it does not automatically mean they will react poorly, but the odds can increase. It is also pretty clear via stats and via force on force training that the 88% who meet at least the minimal standard have one common theme in that they often react way too late or with too little force in a genuine scenario where use of force is justified. Reality based force on force training with say SIMUNITIONS clearly shows this. They often wait until fired upon or until they have been cut before responding. The response is often not correct and errs on the lesser side of the force options.
Now the top 10% show a much larger gap in proficiency between the first 2 groups. Why is that? Real life statistics and training shows that the more inoculation to actual deadly use of force incidents ie. gunfights or to higher levels / frequency of reality based training, the more experienced or more highly trained the Officer the quicker the processor runs. The OODA loop that was referenced above in a highly trained Officer already has a larger data base from which to draw their life experiences from (Orient phase), then since the Officer may have found themselves in similar real life or reality based scenarios, the Decision making process has a frame of reference which greatly reduces the time to the Action phase. In other words they have seen or been in this situation before real or training, perhaps multiple times and already processed various potential actions or outcomes. So in essence the highly trained Officer understands many of the nuances of a deadly use of force situation from experience and they react more quickly with what has proven to be effective. So that 10% generally will have more experience with varying outcomes, they will probably have better mechanical or technical skill sets, their observational skills are probably enhanced, they have a better understanding of how quickly a person can raise a muzzle, clear 21 feet and deliver a lethal blow. They tend to understand that even under "IDEAL" conditions reaction is about .25 of a second slower than the action and that they are behind the curve from the start. So if we look at the OODA (observe, orient, decide and act) model, basically their training and experience makes the Observation to Action phase much quicker with higher levels of precision when applying use of force.
So what does this mean? Training is the key. Lack of training (2%) means potentially bad things. Base minimum standards (the 80%) generally gets more Officers killed as they are often more concerned about after action topics (investigation, liability, self doubt, etc). If someone is doing a bad act and are confronted by a highly trained / experienced Officer (top 10%) we need to understand that they may process and react with a more precise response in a much shorter time frame. Best to not be doing something Darwin like as the window of opportunity for ceasing bad or unwise acts may be short especially if you fail to heed warnings if one is given.
The last thing is we need to understand the use of force and perhaps the "reasonable person" standards and how those may apply. There is no black and white when it comes to use of force. Of course there are situations as defined by law, but how the individual perceives the threat is key and there are varying factors that may justify the force used. The same standard is not going to apply to an 80 year old 100lb female as opposed to a 25 year old 240lb muscled male as just a singular example. Also Officers like any professional, doctor, dentist, etc are also held to a standard of reasonableness among their own professional peer group. In other words if another appropriately trained Officer having the same information at the time of the contact, working within the confines of the agency use of force policy were to utilize the same level or a higher level of force, then the use of force guideline under "reasonable standard" for LE is met. Of course untrained or lesser trained individuals who have never acted within the same confines could have an entirely different perspective of what was reasonable, which is why juries are a crap shoot especially in civil litigation. They often have no frame of reference of having received training in force on force, or been in one or multiple deadly incidents from which to draw a similar conclusion as to how use of force should be applied in a given scenario. They need a lot of education from subject matter experts and even then they often still fail to understand as they have no personal experience to draw from.
All in all a very sad situation for the individuals directly involved, their families and society.
-
Tragic no doubt, but perhaps we might also ask what we as a society and parents are imparting upon our children about acceptable behavior. Walking down the street with an airsoft AK47 and pistol, which we know are amazingly hard to discern from the original. Is it a failure of perhaps the child, the parents and even society for what we consider to be acceptable behavior? It is hard to judge without all the facts, but we do know that a citizen in a vehicle driving by told the teen to put the guns away as the police were right down the street and on their way. It is understandable that he was just a teen processing this information but what was that teen educated about when he was allowed to have those airsoft weapons and carrying them in public? Did his parents do their job when allowing him to have these replicas? Did they know that he had them? Did the kid think it would be funny to spin around with the weapons in a threatening manner? Did he actually spin around in a threatening manner? Can a 13 year old who is into airsoft and is carrying two airsoft weapons not have the cognitive ability to understand potential issues from carrying these airsoft guns in public even after being warned about putting them away as the police were coming? Did the Officer react too quickly? Or perhaps some combination of in between? Was it justified? This is not intended to sound like a pro-LE stance as it is not, but this is a WTF happened here stance? Perhaps a lot of failures which led to this incident.
Lets scrutinize the LE side of things. We need to consider a spectrum when it comes to training that an Officer may have. This is a pretty broad sweeping estimate which may not apply to any certain agency as some are better and some are worse, however if we look at it in a national setting it can make more sense. Now there will be Agencies with different standards for hiring. There will also be different standards for training. So there will be Officers who are lacking acceptable training to those who receive training that might meet some type of State or National recognized standard and finally you will have Officers who receive a high degree of training. If we put numbers to it, it might look something like 2% lacking, 88% meeting and 10% above average.
It is pretty recognized in LE via training and via studies that Officers with substandard training (bottom 2%) often make incorrect decisions in regards to use of force. This could be shooting too late, making incorrect decisions on appropriate application of use of force, to flat out what the effs. So indeed when that bottom 2% is involved in a use of force incident, it does not automatically mean they will react poorly, but the odds can increase. It is also pretty clear via stats and via force on force training that the 88% who meet at least the minimal standard have one common theme in that they often react way too late or with too little force in a genuine scenario where use of force is justified. Reality based force on force training with say SIMUNITIONS clearly shows this. They often wait until fired upon or until they have been cut before responding. The response is often not correct and errs on the lesser side of the force options.
Now the top 10% show a much larger gap in proficiency between the first 2 groups. Why is that? Real life statistics and training shows that the more inoculation to actual deadly use of force incidents ie. gunfights or to higher levels / frequency of reality based training, the more experienced or more highly trained the Officer the quicker the processor runs. The OODA loop that was referenced above in a highly trained Officer already has a larger data base from which to draw their life experiences from (Orient phase), then since the Officer may have found themselves in similar real life or reality based scenarios, the Decision making process has a frame of reference which greatly reduces the time to the Action phase. In other words they have seen or been in this situation before real or training, perhaps multiple times and already processed various potential actions or outcomes. So in essence the highly trained Officer understands many of the nuances of a deadly use of force situation from experience and they react more quickly with what has proven to be effective. So that 10% generally will have more experience with varying outcomes, they will probably have better mechanical or technical skill sets, their observational skills are probably enhanced, they have a better understanding of how quickly a person can raise a muzzle, clear 21 feet and deliver a lethal blow. They tend to understand that even under "IDEAL" conditions reaction is about .25 of a second slower than the action and that they are behind the curve from the start. So if we look at the OODA (observe, orient, decide and act) model, basically their training and experience makes the Observation to Action phase much quicker with higher levels of precision when applying use of force.
So what does this mean? Training is the key. Lack of training (2%) means potentially bad things. Base minimum standards (the 80%) generally gets more Officers killed as they are often more concerned about after action topics (investigation, liability, self doubt, etc). If someone is doing a bad act and are confronted by a highly trained / experienced Officer (top 10%) we need to understand that they may process and react with a more precise response in a much shorter time frame. Best to not be doing something Darwin like as the window of opportunity for ceasing bad or unwise acts may be short especially if you fail to heed warnings if one is given.
The last thing is we need to understand the use of force and perhaps the "reasonable person" standards and how those may apply. There is no black and white when it comes to use of force. Of course there are situations as defined by law, but how the individual perceives the threat is key and there are varying factors that may justify the force used. The same standard is not going to apply to an 80 year old 100lb female as opposed to a 25 year old 240lb muscled male as just a singular example. Also Officers like any professional, doctor, dentist, etc are also held to a standard of reasonableness among their own professional peer group. In other words if another appropriately trained Officer having the same information at the time of the contact, working within the confines of the agency use of force policy were to utilize the same level or a higher level of force, then the use of force guideline under "reasonable standard" for LE is met. Of course untrained or lesser trained individuals who have never acted within the same confines could have an entirely different perspective of what was reasonable, which is why juries are a crap shoot especially in civil litigation. They often have no frame of reference of having received training in force on force, or been in one or multiple deadly incidents from which to draw a similar conclusion as to how use of force should be applied in a given scenario. They need a lot of education from subject matter experts and even then they often still fail to understand as they have no personal experience to draw from.
All in all a very sad situation for the individuals directly involved, their families and society.
Great post Surf. I wonder if any studies on reaction times have been done regarding the firearm. Specifically, I wonder if there is kind of a mental point of no return where a person might process the information but it's too late to come off the trigger. I think it would be interesting to see the gap.
-
Yes thank you Surf for the great post. It is good to see it from the LEO point of view.
As an armed private citizen, it's best to know what mistakes to avoid and how to avoid getting mistakenly shot.
It sounds to me that if one is legally armed and LEOs are around, best to keep the gun holstered, or if you can't help it, keep the gun pointed down and the finger off the trigger.
Also probably a good idea to clear the ears so as to hear when police issue a verbal command.
Would this ensure that one will not get shot at if one is legally carrying in one's property?
-
Tragic no doubt, but perhaps we might also ask what we as a society and parents are imparting upon our children about acceptable behavior. Walking down the street with an airsoft AK47 and pistol, which we know are amazingly hard to discern from the original. Is it a failure of perhaps the child, the parents and even society for what we consider to be acceptable behavior? It is hard to judge without all the facts, but we do know that a citizen in a vehicle driving by told the teen to put the guns away as the police were right down the street and on their way. It is understandable that he was just a teen processing this information but what was that teen educated about when he was allowed to have those airsoft weapons and carrying them in public? Did his parents do their job when allowing him to have these replicas? Did they know that he had them? Did the kid think it would be funny to spin around with the weapons in a threatening manner? Did he actually spin around in a threatening manner? Can a 13 year old who is into airsoft and is carrying two airsoft weapons not have the cognitive ability to understand potential issues from carrying these airsoft guns in public even after being warned about putting them away as the police were coming? Did the Officer react too quickly? Or perhaps some combination of in between? Was it justified? This is not intended to sound like a pro-LE stance as it is not, but this is a WTF happened here stance? Perhaps a lot of failures which led to this incident.
Lets scrutinize the LE side of things. We need to consider a spectrum when it comes to training that an Officer may have. This is a pretty broad sweeping estimate which may not apply to any certain agency as some are better and some are worse, however if we look at it in a national setting it can make more sense. Now there will be Agencies with different standards for hiring. There will also be different standards for training. So there will be Officers who are lacking acceptable training to those who receive training that might meet some type of State or National recognized standard and finally you will have Officers who receive a high degree of training. If we put numbers to it, it might look something like 2% lacking, 88% meeting and 10% above average.
It is pretty recognized in LE via training and via studies that Officers with substandard training (bottom 2%) often make incorrect decisions in regards to use of force. This could be shooting too late, making incorrect decisions on appropriate application of use of force, to flat out what the effs. So indeed when that bottom 2% is involved in a use of force incident, it does not automatically mean they will react poorly, but the odds can increase. It is also pretty clear via stats and via force on force training that the 88% who meet at least the minimal standard have one common theme in that they often react way too late or with too little force in a genuine scenario where use of force is justified. Reality based force on force training with say SIMUNITIONS clearly shows this. They often wait until fired upon or until they have been cut before responding. The response is often not correct and errs on the lesser side of the force options.
Now the top 10% show a much larger gap in proficiency between the first 2 groups. Why is that? Real life statistics and training shows that the more inoculation to actual deadly use of force incidents ie. gunfights or to higher levels / frequency of reality based training, the more experienced or more highly trained the Officer the quicker the processor runs. The OODA loop that was referenced above in a highly trained Officer already has a larger data base from which to draw their life experiences from (Orient phase), then since the Officer may have found themselves in similar real life or reality based scenarios, the Decision making process has a frame of reference which greatly reduces the time to the Action phase. In other words they have seen or been in this situation before real or training, perhaps multiple times and already processed various potential actions or outcomes. So in essence the highly trained Officer understands many of the nuances of a deadly use of force situation from experience and they react more quickly with what has proven to be effective. So that 10% generally will have more experience with varying outcomes, they will probably have better mechanical or technical skill sets, their observational skills are probably enhanced, they have a better understanding of how quickly a person can raise a muzzle, clear 21 feet and deliver a lethal blow. They tend to understand that even under "IDEAL" conditions reaction is about .25 of a second slower than the action and that they are behind the curve from the start. So if we look at the OODA (observe, orient, decide and act) model, basically their training and experience makes the Observation to Action phase much quicker with higher levels of precision when applying use of force.
So what does this mean? Training is the key. Lack of training (2%) means potentially bad things. Base minimum standards (the 80%) generally gets more Officers killed as they are often more concerned about after action topics (investigation, liability, self doubt, etc). If someone is doing a bad act and are confronted by a highly trained / experienced Officer (top 10%) we need to understand that they may process and react with a more precise response in a much shorter time frame. Best to not be doing something Darwin like as the window of opportunity for ceasing bad or unwise acts may be short especially if you fail to heed warnings if one is given.
The last thing is we need to understand the use of force and perhaps the "reasonable person" standards and how those may apply. There is no black and white when it comes to use of force. Of course there are situations as defined by law, but how the individual perceives the threat is key and there are varying factors that may justify the force used. The same standard is not going to apply to an 80 year old 100lb female as opposed to a 25 year old 240lb muscled male as just a singular example. Also Officers like any professional, doctor, dentist, etc are also held to a standard of reasonableness among their own professional peer group. In other words if another appropriately trained Officer having the same information at the time of the contact, working within the confines of the agency use of force policy were to utilize the same level or a higher level of force, then the use of force guideline under "reasonable standard" for LE is met. Of course untrained or lesser trained individuals who have never acted within the same confines could have an entirely different perspective of what was reasonable, which is why juries are a crap shoot especially in civil litigation. They often have no frame of reference of having received training in force on force, or been in one or multiple deadly incidents from which to draw a similar conclusion as to how use of force should be applied in a given scenario. They need a lot of education from subject matter experts and even then they often still fail to understand as they have no personal experience to draw from.
All in all a very sad situation for the individuals directly involved, their families and society.
Finally, someone who actually sounds like he knows what he is talking about!
Good run down.
Glad there is more to it than just placing accurate shots under 1.3 seconds.
-
Glad there is more to it than just placing accurate shots under 1.3 seconds.
I wasn't going to take the time to explain the entire loop to you. But the point is that when dealing with seconds and fractions thereof - a shooter is not provided a lot of time to respond and alter decisions once a 'decision' has already been made. That time frame also decreases if my gun was already out. Try doing some the car simulators that show you reaction time to a stimulus and performance of an action (breaking etc.).
Another example would be some of the kids on say call of duty. Look at how fast some of them respond to the movements of another person. It's impressive.
-
The last thing is we need to understand the use of force and perhaps the "reasonable person" standards and how those may apply. There is no black and white when it comes to use of force. Of course there are situations as defined by law, but how the individual perceives the threat is key and there are varying factors that may justify the force used. The same standard is not going to apply to an 80 year old 100lb female as opposed to a 25 year old 240lb muscled male as just a singular example. Also Officers like any professional, doctor, dentist, etc are also held to a standard of reasonableness among their own professional peer group. In other words if another appropriately trained Officer having the same information at the time of the contact, working within the confines of the agency use of force policy were to utilize the same level or a higher level of force, then the use of force guideline under "reasonable standard" for LE is met. Of course untrained or lesser trained individuals who have never acted within the same confines could have an entirely different perspective of what was reasonable, which is why juries are a crap shoot especially in civil litigation. They often have no frame of reference of having received training in force on force, or been in one or multiple deadly incidents from which to draw a similar conclusion as to how use of force should be applied in a given scenario. They need a lot of education from subject matter experts and even then they often still fail to understand as they have no personal experience to draw from.
All in all a very sad situation for the individuals directly involved, their families and society.
Great post Surf! I just wanted to add though that in a LEO legal training hopefully the training department would not just look at agency use of force policy but actual court cases such as TN v Garner, objective reasonable test Graham v Connor, any LE contact Terry v Ohio, and repercussions that happen to a suspect Scott v. Harris. So in light of this an officer may well be able to defend their actions of stopping the threat (you) even though you may be in the right (albeit dead) unless a lawyer can prove the fruit of the poisonous tree was held (slim).
All in all comply with LEO commands and fight the legal fight after when you're alive.
-
Great post Surf. I wonder if any studies on reaction times have been done regarding the firearm. Specifically, I wonder if there is kind of a mental point of no return where a person might process the information but it's too late to come off the trigger. I think it would be interesting to see the gap.
There is quite a bit out there when you start digging. This is a very complex topic and I could not possibly get that in depth on it here as it could be an entire seminar in its own right. I will give some points to consider and to search for. In short, there are points of "no return" so to speak. As an example, a person has gone from Observation, Orient and are at the decision phase. From the moment they make a decision to the time that the action has happened can be extremely quick. Now if they receive new visual information during the decision to the act phase, the cognitive thought process can take much longer to come up with an alternate course of action even longer than the when the initial action has already been completed. Lets say an Officer has someone at a low ready or at gun point and the decision was made to use lethal force and fire. It may only take .30 of a second to complete that act. Lets say that at halfway between that time frame (.15 sec) the other person drops the weapon leaving the Officer only .15 seconds to stop their actions. It would be virtually impossible to stop this action as it takes the cognitive thought process way more time to take in the new visual input, get to the brain, have the brain decipher the information, come up with a new response, then send those signals back to the trigger finger to not take the shot. For this reason many people truly misunderstand reaction time, because of the cognition involved in the process. We also need to consider how events may slow down or even speed up due to the chemical or physiological effects in the body that distorts events and time. This is also why people might shoot an individual as they are falling to, or even on the ground. Or when a car is heading to run them over and they begin shooting even as it is swerves and they continue firing as it is going past them instead of running them over. Under stress the mind does some crazy things with how time appears and how the thought process works. Which is often why people ask how come an Officer shot so many rounds at a vehicle even after it passed them, when they were no longer in front of or in a risk of being run over.
Again a lot of people misunderstand reaction time and the factors. Some might think that reaction time is getting a timer putting trigger finger on the trigger with weapon aimed in and firing as soon as they hear the beep. Good times with this method is around .10 - .15 seconds, but this is highly flawed as it is a known stimulus that we are waiting for without the need for cognitive thinking. When we factor in the cognitive process, ie
attention, working Memory, processing speed, long-term memory, visual processing, auditory processing, logic and reasoning, combining that with prior training and or experience, plus the chemical or physiological factors that the body goes through during the "fight or flight" process, reaction time can be amazingly slow and time can get "warped".
So for your question, we need to take into account not only reaction time, but the thought process and how the chemical and physiological effects on the body may react to the thought process and the action phase. I know your into the law thing and there is a reason that experts, truly excellent subject matter experts in this arena can be invaluable in a courtroom setting.
Yes thank you Surf for the great post. It is good to see it from the LEO point of view.
As an armed private citizen, it's best to know what mistakes to avoid and how to avoid getting mistakenly shot.
It sounds to me that if one is legally armed and LEOs are around, best to keep the gun holstered, or if you can't help it, keep the gun pointed down and the finger off the trigger.
Also probably a good idea to clear the ears so as to hear when police issue a verbal command.
Would this ensure that one will not get shot at if one is legally carrying in one's property?
I get the question, but it is a difficult thing to answer as there are so many factors to consider. There is a lot of responsibility to carrying a concealed firearm especially from the training aspect of things in regards to LE contact. The home thing is a difficult situation as we all feel that the home is the castle and a lesser instinct exists within our own home to momentarily relieve ourselves of our weapons as opposed to in a public venue when we are contacted by LE.
Finally, someone who actually sounds like he knows what he is talking about!
Good run down.
Glad there is more to it than just placing accurate shots under 1.3 seconds.
Well there is more to it, but a good point from this is that if someone doing a bad thing were to encounter a highly trained individual, the leeway or margin of error time wise for the bad person to correct their behavior dramatically decreases. Training and experience can provide more knowledge on why a quick response is necessary. In essence the higher trained, the more you understand how quickly you can get killed and the justification factor becomes more easily understood and explained.
Great post Surf! I just wanted to add though that in a LEO legal training hopefully the training department would not just look at agency use of force policy but actual court cases such as TN v Garner, objective reasonable test Graham v Connor, any LE contact Terry v Ohio, and repercussions that happen to a suspect Scott v. Harris. So in light of this an officer may well be able to defend their actions of stopping the threat (you) even though you may be in the right (albeit dead) unless a lawyer can prove the fruit of the poisonous tree was held (slim).
All in all comply with LEO commands and fight the legal fight after when you're alive.
Use of force policy and virtually all training lesson plans are heavily influenced and written to comply to existing case law. For a training division it could not be successful otherwise. In LE, an individual trainer / instructor cannot, or should not be teaching firearms, tactics, defensive tactics (DT), use of force etc, without being heavily versed in case law and how it applies. Of course like anything in life there are few guarantees.