The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: Rob Pincus on January 29, 2009, 10:03:27 AM
-
For years, my staff and I have run scenarios in Concealed Carry and Home Defense Tactics classes which involve situations that may be "scary" but in which the role-players do not make any overtly threatening moves or statements to test the students in a dynamic shoot-no-shoot situation.
A fair number of students, especially in the Home Defense scenarios, end up shooting and then rationalizing their decision by citing laws that say they could shoot the person (castle doctrine, "make my day law" in today's news, etc). My standard remark is "I don't care about what the law says, I am teaching you to defend yourself and your family." Generally, when we say that we teach for "Street, not Court" people take that to mean that we are going to be assertive... the fact is that in the case all over Fox News today, the street required more restraint than the law allows for.
I had a number of students say that our "drunk guy comes to the wrong house and is upset when he finds the door locked" scenario was borderline realistic. Admittedly, it is an exception, which is why it is getting so much airtime, but it was a plausible situation for us to show the difference between "should" and "could" when it comes to the use of lethal force. Unfortunately, it played out for real.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484267,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,484267,00.html)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_re_us/home_shooting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_re_us/home_shooting)
My position has always been that I like Vermont Style CCW Laws and the premise of Castle Doctrine, but if someone is paying me to prepare them to be responsibly armed, I'm not going to do a $50 4 hour "CCW Class" and I'm not going to support the idea that you can shoot anyone you want in your home as long as you articulate the circumstances properly. Two or Three days certainly don't cover everything, but at least the signature on the certificate means something. Running No Shoot and judgement based scenarios are an important part of development in terms of tactics and appropriate responses.
I think everyone with a gun in the house that intends it to be used for defensive purposes should seriously think about this case. It is not important to "monday morning" the scenario, but it is important to scrimmage the scenario in your head.
Please post your thoughts on this topic.....
-RJP
(fair warning: "I'll kill anyone I want to in my home!" posts without explanation and thought will be deleted.....)
-
So I think that this fits nicely with another thread that speaks to "Post Shoot stress." We talk about what happens to the soldier or LEO that are often required by the nature of their jobs to take another human life. Rob, correct me if I am wrong, but in Blauer's "Three Fights" (not sure if it was Tony) he speaks about the aftermath of a shooting and the price that we can pay on several levels. Now, this person that was "defending" his family may not have to pay legal fees (although I am not sure that this will hold up, there may end up being some civil ramifications when they hear what a funeral costs), but he will have to live forever with the guilt of shooting someone that shouldn't have been shot. We can spout all of the false bravado about "what I woulda done" but in the end, are we going to be able to return to normal function while seeing this person's face in our dreams?
This is a sad story, and I hope one that affects (to whatever degree is reasonable) the training industries take on how to deal with these situations...
-
Yes, "Three Fights Theory" is out of BTS..... here is what I posted about Fight 3 in another thread:
Fight 3: Aftermath.
The aftermath is You Vs. Everything. This is all of the ramifications of the conflict. Medical, Personal, Financial, Social, etc., etc.. In fact, I define the existance of "conflict" by the existance of an aftermath. If someone else's actions affected you in a negative way (including having to spend extra energy to walk around the block...etc), then you were in a conflict. The aftermath starts immediately and lasts forever and is the most complex fight. It is also the hardest to prepare for. The most important part of the aftermath for our discussions should probably be the way it affects our Fight 1 in relation to future conflict. Learning from previous conflict (yours or others') is vitally important to efficiency in Fight 1.
-
but he will have to live forever with the guilt of shooting someone that shouldn't have been shot.
Even if someone SHOULD have been shot there is still an emotional price to pay for the taking of another human life.
-
My standard remark is "I don't care about what the law says, I am teaching you to defend yourself and your family." Generally, when we say that we teach for "Street, not Court" people take that to mean that we are going to be assertive... the fact is that in the case all over Fox News today, the street required more restraint than the law allows for. I'm not going to support the idea that you can shoot anyone you want in your home as long as you articulate the circumstances properly.
I can see teaching "for street, not court" as a double-edged sword. On one hand it may cause you to hold off firing even when legally justified. On the other you may shoot to defend yourself when it isn't legally justified. (Ex: states that have a duty to retreat) That would be a bad thing.
It may be better to take a wider picture of self-defense situations and say the ultimate goal is to get through the entire event as unscathed as possible. That includes physical, emotional, legal and civil aspects. Yes I want to protect myself and my family from immediate physical harm. Yes I want to recognize and effectively deal with post-shoot stress. Yes I want to avoid going to jail. Yes I want to have liability insurance that will pay for legal costs when the suspect's family sues. Getting through the immediate self-defense situation is just one battle in a much bigger war and you may have to make some compromises in that "battle" to help win the overall "war".
-
+1 Robin
If I have to sit in a jail for the rest of my life, that still would leave my kids to be raised without a father
-
Even with the Castle doctrine you should still rely on the rules of engagement that are in place out on the street. Those most importantly being "ability" and "intent"by the aggressor. I want no doubt that my actions are justified. From what Ive read this was not a good shooting.
-
Even with the Castle doctrine you should still rely on the rules of engagement that are in place out on the street. Those most importantly being "ability" and "intent"by the aggressor. I want no doubt that my actions are justified. From what Ive read this was not a good shooting.
Hind sight is always 20/20, but when someone is breaking into your home in the middle of the night it should be assumed that they are there to do harm to you and/or your family...... NOT that they are just confused or lost.
I am not saying that you should run into the room with guns a blazin, but I personally would have gun in hand, and if they had a weapon or not, if they get too close or did anything that I perceived to be aggressive then they will be shot.
These are exactly why these castle doctrines were put into place. It is unknowable to the home owner at the time of the incident that the guy was confused and thought it was his house. The homeowner should have a legal right to defend himself against the perceived home invasion...... Its just like a police officer who may shoot someone who has a toy gun. If there is no reasonable way to discern the difference, then how can you expect someone to respond a different way? The perception in either case is that lethal force is required to preserve ones own life.
-
There is no easy way through this maze.
I faced a similar situation years ago in Florida on New Year's Eve. Somewhere around 1AM a clearly inebriated young man decided that he had to visit his ex no matter what. Unfortunately — or fortunately for her — he came to my house instead of her house. He went from knocking on the door and yelling obscenities, at which point I called 911, to attempting to kick down my door.
I was armed with an old Remington 11-48 12-gauge alternately loaded with #00 and slugs and an S&W M27 .357 with 125gr JHP screamers and had taken a position of cover diagonally across the room from the door. I kept the line open with 911, informed the police I had a gun and shouted the same to the miscreant on the porch. I shouted that if the door failed, I would shoot. My chow dogs, never the friendliest of animals, were in a frenzy and barricaded behind me; I had turned on the porch lights and shut off all the lights in the house, guaranteeing me a clear shot. The miscreant was shouting that he was not afraid of the dogs or the gun and that he was going to kill everyone in the house as soon as he kicked the door open. The police informed me to expect a 20 minute response time and to "do what you have to do to protect yourself and your family"...in short, I was in the strongest position possible for a homeowner both for the shooting and the subsequent legal issues.
However, the young guy was obviously falling down drunk, I could see both his hands and his belt and saw no weapons and it was New Year's Eve and I profoundly didn't want to kill that kid. I made a risky decision to give the shotgun to my girlfriend with the instructions that if I failed, shoot first, then turn the chows loose. I took the S&W revolver, inched toward the door (which was very close to splintering open) and from the best, most shielded position I unlocked and opened the door and stepped back into the shadows. All the miscreant could see was the muzzle of the revolver.
It stopped him cold. he raised his hands. Is that a gun, he asked me? I said yes. Am I going to die, he asked? I said that if he lowered his hands or made a fast move, I would shoot him. He started crying. I went through the usual drill to spread-eagle him on the ground facing away from me, feet crossed, hands palms up, yada yada, and got to hear his whole drunken life story, wrong house, sorry sorry...I waited 30 minutes for the cops, and when they didn't show I told him to get the hell out off my front porch, go home and sober up. The cops showed up about an hour later and said they'd have done the same thing.
Short story...I was well within my legal rights to shoot the kid if and when he succeeded in breeching the door, and I would not have hesitated to do so had he succeeded. But I decided to take the risk I took because I wasn't sure being drunk and stupid on New Year's Eve was grounds enough for me spending the rest of my life dealing with what my 12-gauge would deliver on command. I also never doubted my ability to make the shot if the miscreant made the wrong moves. It was a risk, but in my opinion an acceptable risk.
The reason I train is to allow me to go as far as possible, to know what risks I can take, before taking a human life!
One situation; one outcome. Food for thought.
Michael B
-
Michael-
Your encounter is exactly why there is no right or wrong answer to this.......
Yes, you made the right decision for you in that situation. BUT you took a calculated risk and it is one that is not recommendable for every person in that situation........ A woman home alone, an elderly person, someone with out very much shooting experience, or just someone scared to death because someone is trying to kick in their door. There are countless reasons not to take the calculated risk of opening the door - even the fact that the guy on the other side may just be trying to use that lost drunk excuse to get you to open the door.
I personally would have remained barricaded. I would have been continuing to yell at the guy to reminding him that I was waiting with a gun until the door failed and I had to deliver decisive action. My situation is different in that I have a wife and small kids who I dont want to end up raped and/or murdered. I am their first and realistically only line of defense in a situation like a possible home invasion. I will not increase the percentages of their lives being in danger in such a situation by taking a calculated risk like that. I will reiterate, you DID do the right thing in your situation..... and all is well that ends well, but there must be a mind set that once your home has been breached ANYTHING can happen.
I will not say that "I'll kill anyone I want to in my home!", but I will be damned if I will take any chances with the well being of my loved ones.
-
Therein lies the most of the problem for me. While I know that I will do what it takes to protect my wife and kids, I can agonize over what "it" is or needs to be. I could very easily shoot some punk attempting to carjack me while one or all of my kids are with me. On the other hand, in my house, I would most likely be much more reticent to shoot. Lots of kids in my neighborhood, and in my house. While I try to always make sure of the "hardness" of my house (target), I can never be sure that my kids haven't left something open or as they get older, called a friend over. They do and will know how serious late night shenanigans of ANY kind can be but as one saying goes, "Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement." Of course this could be decidedly different for my wife if she is home without me. I have lain awake for hours many a night running "scenarios" through my head trying to think of everything. And anyone who knows me, knows how much work thinking is for me! ;)
There is certainly no simple answer to this. I just hope that I will have the clarity of mind or thought to make the proper decision at the proper time. Well, and the training and ability to follow through with whatever the decision is.
At work so I can't follow through with my feelings completely, witch I'm sure is a relief to anyone who has read this far.
-
"most shielded position I unlocked and opened the door and stepped back into the shadows."
In one case in PA the act of opening the door was seen as an invitation to enter by the court, resulting in a manslaughter conviction for the home owner for shooting a drunk naked man in his house. The drunk naked young man did not follow the orders of the homeowner, continued to advance and did not see the pistol that was being pointed at him.
In this case the drunk naked man did not threaten anybody so there was no intent to do bodily harm. Opening the door eliminated any breaking and entering, burglary or a just cause defense. The homeowner was in truly in fear for his life, was on the phone to 911, and the police officer was less than 1 minute away before the shots were fired.
The man wandered out of his parents house to take a leak, it was believed he got confused and tried to enter a neighbors house.
I would strongly suggest don't open the door.
-
In one case in PA the act of opening the door was seen as an invitation to enter by the court, resulting in a manslaughter conviction for the home owner for shooting a drunk naked man in his house.
It varies from state to state...... In my neck of the woods, even if I invite a person into my home, once I tell them to leave and they refuse it is no different then if they broke in. Unwelcomed is unwelcomed.
Thats why it is kinda important not to take advice about this sort of thing from people off the internet. Check your local laws.
-
Ericire12,
I agree with you about knowing the rules of engagement. MB had backup when he did what he did as well.
My point might be better stated as your defense in using deadly force may appear better to a jury if the late Mr. Deadguy broke down the door that you letting him in.
-
Ericire12,
I agree with you about knowing the rules of engagement. MB had backup when he did what he did as well.
My point might be better stated as your defense in using deadly force may appear better to a jury if the late Mr. Deadguy broke down the door that you letting him in.
I agree. Even if I asked them to leave and they were starting to get hostile, I probably would not introduce a weapon to the situation unless faced with a weapon or the threat of extreme bodily harm.... a jury is always an unknown quantity.
-
That is totally why you must know the laws of your home state, and you need to hire an attorney to do that!
In Florida, I was golden. I also did not have small children, and my spousal unit at the time was a USPSA Section Coordinator...
Michael B
-
In my state, we are not protected by any castle doctrine. If we have to shoot someone and it goes to trial, the instruction to the jury is going to be along the lines of "what would a reasonable person have done?". Some of the DA's treat this automatically as you are not the reasonable person and some don't. We don't have a lot of consistency in California, even less when it comes to CCW. I just don't want to shoot anyone if I don't have to. Having little ones makes things a little more urgent when things go bump, so when I can, I avoid lights at first and try to stay stealth while I ascertain if there is indeed a threat. I carry my pistol with the muzzle down and my Surefire in my weak hand, thumb on the switch. Luckily, this method hasn't been put to the test ever.
When I was single, I lived with my brother. One night someone tried to come through a window at 1:30AM. They started to get it pried open and that woke me up. I retrieved a handgun and went and listened to the whispering outside the window. It turned out that it was some of my brother's friends who were drunk. I put the gun away and let them in. After discussing the "situation" with them, they never tried that again. These guys were losers, but they were basically good guys. I'm awfully thankful fo a cool head.
-
My home defense strategy is reliant on the cell phone, shotgun, and 9mm in the bedroom.
My wife and I don't have kids, so we have no reason to go out searching. We can wait in the bedroom after we've called the cops. It's a 3rd floor bedroom, so we have nowhere to retreat to.
If someone kicks in the bedroom door, they will be getting a chest full of buckshot pretty quickly. I cannot imagine any reason to kick in a locked bedroom door that does not include bodily harm to me and/or my wife. I think it's a pretty clear self-defense situation at that point.
-
Rob,
What do you think of Massad Ayoob's theories on home defense? In this context, I live alone and if the alarm goes off, someone has already committed a felony in this state and we have a "modified" castle doctrine here. I assume they are fair game as it would take some malicious effort to gain entry here as opposed to a misguided drunk.
I have already encountered the "broke down vehicle" scenario as I live adjacent to a main state highway. I am a target of opportunity as this highway will connect a vehicle to a Interstate on one end and another State on the other in 10 minutes either way. During the scenario, someone limped into the development in a vehicle in front of my house and gave a good show of attempting to restart the auto. After 20 minutes, they came to the front door and rang the bell. The storm door is full steel framed with safety glass and a three point locking mechanism. I opened the main door and had a .45 visibly holstered on my hip and told them I would be glad to call the sheriff's office for them. Amazingly another car appeared, and after conversing both parties left.
That was easy as home invasions are all the rage in this area right now.
Kelly
-
My home defense strategy is reliant on the cell phone, shotgun, and 9mm in the bedroom.
My wife and I don't have kids, so we have no reason to go out searching. We can wait in the bedroom after we've called the cops. It's a 3rd floor bedroom, so we have nowhere to retreat to.
If someone kicks in the bedroom door, they will be getting a chest full of buckshot pretty quickly. I cannot imagine any reason to kick in a locked bedroom door that does not include bodily harm to me and/or my wife. I think it's a pretty clear self-defense situation at that point.
I'd pretty much agree with all of this, maybe adding that if I heard someone on the other side of the door, I might very loudly state my intent if they enter and it would be a big plus to have a police dispatcher on the line to overhear that.
You may want to add a good bright flashlight to that emergency pacj in your bedroom.
-
In my current situation, (single no kids at home) I would be more likely to use discretion or as MB put it, take a calculated risk.
As I understand it the guy in Colo. had a wife and at least one child in the house, BG already had his arm through the window reaching for the lock, Had ignored warnings about Cops AND gun. Under those circumstances I think I would have shot as well. You have to be alive to regret past actions, chalk outlines regret nothing.
Some one else said hindsight is always 20/20, and we are considering this quietly in front of our computers. Would we come to the same conclusion when it's choose now, with BG at the door yelling, wife screaming, and adrenaline pumping ?
-
Tom, and others,
Again, this isn't about Monday Morning Dissection of the incident in question.... We're talking about the concept of preparation ahead of time to deal with the fear/circumstances and really analyze the situation in the context of NEEDING to shoot, as opposed to "The Law Now Says I CAN Shoot"....
****
Weads,
As far as:
What do you think of Massad Ayoob's theories on home defense?
I don't want to jump into that until the question is more clearly expressed.... Mas has been writing/speaking/teaching on defensive issues for a long time..... if you have a specific point of his, I'd gladly address it.
In your post, you mentioned that you opened the door in a situation where you also felt like it was important to show your firearm. My advice in that type of situation is that if you don't need to open the door, don't do it. There is no sound tactical reason to open the door and expose yourself to danger. As we demonstrated on TBD, you can talk to the person through the door or window. When you leave your room for no reason (securing other family members, etc), when you open the door, when you go outside your home or in any other way "move forward" into more danger, you are inviting an otherwise unnecessary use of force. Through your own actions, you can create a "justified" situation.....
-RJP
-
Tom, and others,
Again, this isn't about Monday Morning Dissection of the incident in question.... We're talking about the concept of preparation ahead of time to deal with the fear/circumstances and really analyze the situation in the context of NEEDING to shoot, as opposed to "The Law Now Says I CAN Shoot"....
Rob, let me make sure I'm understanding the question right:
We've all prepared tactically. You want to know how we've prepared mentally for how we would analyze the situation and decide whether or not to shoot?
-
Tom, and others,
Again, this isn't about Monday Morning Dissection of the incident in question.... We're talking about the concept of preparation ahead of time to deal with the fear/circumstances and really analyze the situation in the context of NEEDING to shoot, as opposed to "The Law Now Says I CAN Shoot"....]
My point is when you have a person who is obviously drunk pounding on your doors and windows making lots of noise, reason says he is not there to do you harm, he is confused. That being said all caution should be taken but , shooting before determining a lethal threat is WRONG.
-
My point is when you have a person who is obviously drunk pounding on your doors and windows making lots of noise, reason says he is not there to do you harm, he is confused. That being said all caution should be taken but , shooting before determining a lethal threat is WRONG.
Drunks are unpredictable, I would agree with you if you said GENUINE threat. No one in their right mind would risk being beat to death just because "He was drunk and confused"
-
My point is when you have a person who is obviously drunk pounding on your doors and windows making lots of noise, reason says he is not there to do you harm, he is confused. That being said all caution should be taken but , shooting before determining a lethal threat is WRONG.
Isn't that one of the most basic safety rules, "Be sure of your target and what's beyond?"
It's hard for me to imagine a justification for shooting someone who is outside your home, just on your property, and not shooting (or preparing to shoot) through the windows.
If you've called the police, there is no reason to open the door and expose yourself to a potential threat, even if he did break your garden gnomes. Like any safe room situation, it's best to stay put and not go looking for trouble and force a situation that may not have existed if you sat tight.
-
Drunks are unpredictable[/color], I would agree with you if you said GENUINE threat. No one in their right mind would risk being beat to death just because "He was drunk and confused"
Correct.
Take Bane's situation for example.....
1st There is no guarantee that this guy is really drunk or just using a ploy to get you to open the door (similar to the "my car broke down" routine).
2nd If the guy is drunk or high, there is no way of knowing that he is not so drunk or high that he is going to be able to comprehend that you have a gun and are willing to defend yourself..... or in Bane's case, that he was not so drunk or high that he would be able to understand that he really was not at his girlfriends house or that Bane really was not her new boyfriend whom he would want to fight.
-
I'd pretty much agree with all of this, maybe adding that if I heard someone on the other side of the door, I might very loudly state my intent if they enter and it would be a big plus to have a police dispatcher on the line to overhear that.
You may want to add a good bright flashlight to that emergency pacj in your bedroom.
If you note the phrasing we had our role player use in episodes 1 and 2, we included specific mention of the phrases "I have a gun. You're in my house. I've called the police." If someone is pounding on your bedroom door and hears those phrases (which would also be recorded on the 911 tape) the "terms of your relationship" are pretty clear...
Stay safe,
Mike
-
Correct.
Take Bane's situation for example.....
1st There is no guarantee that this guy is really drunk or just using a ploy to get you to open the door (similar to the "my car broke down" routine).
2nd If the guy is drunk or high, there is no way of knowing that he is not so drunk or high that he is going to be able to comprehend that you have a gun and are willing to defend yourself..... or in Bane's case, that he was not so drunk or high that he would be able to understand that he really was not at his girlfriends house or that Bane really was not her new boyfriend whom he would want to fight.
If he is that messed up and has gotten into my Apt He's probably going to get shot. If he lifts a hand he WILL get shot.
-
If you note the phrasing we had our role player use in episodes 1 and 2, we included specific mention of the phrases "I have a gun. You're in my house. I've called the police." If someone is pounding on your bedroom door and hears those phrases (which would also be recorded on the 911 tape) the "terms of your relationship" are pretty clear...
Stay safe,
Mike
I like that. :)
-
I'm pretty sure the distinction between a "lethal" threat and a "real " threat are clear. Like I said the rules of engagement are clear also. Its like the difference between a club and a firearm, like a pool or a pond. A pond may be better for you .
-
You want to know how we've prepared mentally for how we would analyze the situation and decide whether or not to shoot?
Yes.... or at least this thread should be getting people's minds around this aspect and away from "If he's in my house, I'll kill 'em" bravado, if that is where they were.
-RJP
-
This thread has gotten so obscured that I'm not sure what we are talking about. Lets get back on topic please. Drunk guy banging on your door, what do you do? You shoot the guy who breaks your window thinking he may or may not want to do harm to you, Give me a break.
-
2HOW,
That was never what the thread was about.... It is about considering the the reality of the NEED to shoot someone as opposed being able to articulate that it was a "good shoot".
It is also about the importance of training reaction to stress before you encounter it.
It is decidedly not about the tactics of "what to do".. see opening post. The pond is in another thread.
-RJP
-
ROB , I totally agree , I think I was cllear about the need to shoot and the ability to shoot acording to the law. [ the reality of the need to shoot someome ] Rob that is preciscelly what I was saying . I think we are both saying the same thing .
-
I have thought about this a while and here's my take.
I think before anyone gets to that point, they need to have their philosophical, religious , or ethical codes reconciled to who they really are. I remember one of the scenes from the movie, "Saving Private Ryan", the cartographer could not bring himself to kill the German soldier, who happened to be killing one of his team mates.
Another thing that occurred to me is how good is one at being able to accurately determine what is happening in a stressful situation. We have all read or heard of those who can not accurately describe a traffic accident involving one vehicle, even when they are watching it from a short distance. If we have all day, we can methodically make the judgment whether someone poses a genuine danger to our lives. But it doesn't work like that.
How about this:
Maybe the next time you go to the range, maybe you should picture yourself shooting a bad guy and then accidentally shooting a good guy/non-threat. Don't use notorious criminals and politicians you do not like, but maybe some stranger you saw on the street. Do some introspection and think of what you might think of yourself afterward.
Just my thoughts....
-
As you read this you need to be aware that in my apt I'm never more than 7 feet from one of the 2 doors (I just measured it ) If a menace, or annoyance is outside the door I see no need to do more than call 911 (arming myself if they are attempting to get in ) and announcing the fact that I have done so. If the person gains entry the chance that I will shoot sky rockets for the following reasons, 1) If they kicked in your door the chance that they want to borrow a cup of sugar is non existent, They have bad intentions, or they would have waited for you to open it. (remember I've already informed them that I have called 911 and armed myself) 2) Remember those dimensions above ? As soon as the door gives way they are more or less in my face, leaving me very little distance to retreat and almost no time to choose an alternative. If the person ignores SEEING my pistol the only thing that will prevent me from firing is if the Police arrive before I have to. In my case this IS a possibility as the PD is only about 200 yards away.
Your options may vary.
-
Mr. Bane’s story was very compelling and what I took away from it was not to forget the best weapon any of us have, our brain. I’m not saying at all to ever put yourself and / or your family in jeopardy; in a time of duress it’s easy to stop thinking. You’ve got your gun(s), cell phone, flashlight, dogs, etc. but we always need to be thinking as well. Grant it, this is just one scenario and changes with each person even in the same situation…kid(s), spouse, home alone, etc. just wanted to say thanks for sharing as I took something away from the account. No right answer, no wrong answer but food for thought.
-
That was never what the thread was about.... It is about considering the the reality of the NEED to shoot someone as opposed being able to articulate that it was a "good shoot".
It is also about the importance of training reaction to stress before you encounter it.
It is decidedly not about the tactics of "what to do".. see opening post. The pond is in another thread
Let's start off with the caveat that most of us will never know exactly how we will react under pressure.
It's another world, but I spent 6 years competing as a speedskater and 4 years as a cycling. The things you do in the pressure of competition are WAY different than some of the things you do in training most of the time. Of course, most high level competitors find that the more intensely you train, the better your training can resemble the competition. The same goes for firearms and tactical training. What's the saying? "Train as you want to fight?"
I think mental preparation for a dynamic critical incident goes way beyond what most people think of. I've seen people sit around going "What would you do if ....." and present some wild situation to the other person. The other person strokes their chin thoughtfully for a few seconds, then says "ummm..... well..... I guess I'd....." and then some long train of thought comes out. Total time: over a minute.
The theory of working through scenarios is OK, but there's a problem similar to the ones I faced in some of my time trials when I was racing: the goal is not to get there at all, the goal is to get there faster. In a real incident, you have seconds to both decide and react.Working it through logically could get you or someone else killed. It's highly unlikely that you will have even five seconds to think over what to do, and that makes it all the more important to prepare as much as you can. To paraphrase Massad Ayoob, you never want that "file not found" error to come up when you have a real incident.
The first bike race most people enter is what's called "Category 5" racing. Cat 5 is the beginners, Cat 1 is the near-pro. Cat 5 races average 24 to 26 miles per hour. Think about that: a beginner race is 24 mph. Most fit people can barely ride at 18 mph. The most common thing overheard from new racers: "I had no idea it would be so fast!"
Watching Rob and Mike on TBD, I see the same thing. They assess, orient, present, shoot, reassess, and rehoslter in the time most people can barely draw.
I struggle with how to improve my mental tactical training. My home range is pretty cool (Hague's in Thorofare, NJ, which I highly recommend), but you still can't do a much in the way of tactical training and it's almost impossible to do "shoot/no shoot" drills in a range. I've done a lot of that mental "scenario" stuff with my friends (trying to stick to the plausible), but never at real-life speed.
-
An important aspect of mental preparation in my opinion, is threat evaluation. Look at your lifestyle and habits and assess what threats you might actually face and then put serious thought into how you would deal with them.
For example, I work second shift, and live more or less in the center of town, I don't have any social night life as I and all my friends are usually working at those hours, I sometimes walk TO work, but that does not take me through "bad" neighborhoods. My "threat assessment therefore includes dog attacks and home invasion, I've considered my particular circumstances and decided on my course of action in each potential case. I have not bothered considering carjacking as I don't have one, I have not considered riot because if there were one it would most likely occur on the other side of the city center and across a river. If you are driving through a large city every day these things may be VERY high on your threat assessment, which will vary according to each persons situation.
But to honestly assess your habits, and the locations they take you to is a MAJOR first step in mental preparation.
-
Maybe the next time you go to the range, maybe you should picture yourself shooting a bad guy and then accidentally shooting a good guy/non-threat. Don't use notorious criminals and politicians you do not like, but maybe some stranger you saw on the street.
[\quote]
That brings up a good point. One that I have read about in a book somewhere, probably on my night stand... oh yeah... Plasters Sniping Bible... anyway...
When shooting targets, what kind of target do we use? Cardboard? USPSA or IDPA silhouets... the funny bad guy full size targets that are at all the ranges, or paper plates and bullseyes? My question, would it be beneficial to use some more life like and realistic targets for practice and training? Something like a picture of a normal person? A real 8x10 photo? Maybe a picture of a loved on on the hostage with a BG holding a gun on them?
Are we condintioning ourselves to shoot at nothing, so to speak, with paper targets that don't represent a real person? Should we be using real photo's and pictures? Plaster say that part of the snipers training should be shooting photo's or real people, so that the mind doesn't "lock" up for lack of a better work when having to actually shoot.
Opinions?? I know I just use IDPA, USPSA and steel for most of my target shooting. others?
Brian
-
Excerpt from the book Hagakure:
Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily. Everyday when one's body and mind are at peace, one should meditate upon being ripped apart by arrows, rifles, spears ans swords..."
In that same vein, INHO, you should consider seriously what the long term worst case scenarios could be, and decide on basic courses of action from there. Such as, is sitting in jail waiting for a trial, regretting killing some mistaken fool trying to get into his (your) house, with wife and daughter living with in laws :'( acceptable? Is living for the rest of your life with the grief of thinking you should have done more to keep your son from being killed by the crazed drunk guy beating in your door :'( acceptable? Dealing with the humiliation of having to exit out the back door and run down the alley :-\, to avoid the confrontation?Make your decision based on those scenarios, and assume you cannot fathom the actual feelings. I think once those thoughts are ingrained it will surface quickly and help make your on the spot 'NEED TO SHOOT?' decision easy.
All this, of course, at the same time you are physically training to defend life and limb.
-
I use what ever will serve as an aiming point for a given shooting situation, paper plates, cans, or clay pigeons in a sand pit. Bulls eye or silhouettes at the range. The threat that needs to be eliminated with gunfire may not, in my area, probably will not, be a person. More likely a dog, fox or some other type of animal.
-
Let me start by saying that I enjoy THIS forum, mostly because I have come to respect Rob, Mike J, and Mike B. I like their collective common sense attitude toward keeping your butt wired to your head, and all limbs working properly. Another big reason I like it, is that I don't see a bunch of tactical teddy wannabe high speed low drag operators who wear their 5:11 gear to their cubicles at the insurance office, and are prepared to do battle on the way to the coffee machine with their tacticool folder until they can get to their hidden Krink in their tactical briefcase.
Having been in two real life deadly force encounters while I was still a police officer...I can tell you that you WILL want to KNOW you were right and HAD to shoot. I am not talking about being able to make it SOUND like shooting was reasonable, and the only option. I am talking about KNOWING in your mind that it was truly the ONLY way you or your family would survive.
There are several other times in my LE career, and one time in my new career as retired full time dad, where I COULD have used deadly force. It would have been, according to the letter of the law here in AZ, totally justified. However, I didn't HAVE to use deadly force...and boy howdy, I thank God Allmighty I didn't take a life in those situations. The situation was resolved by the subject KNOWING that I was WILLING AND READY to end the encounter with gunfire if neccessary, and they made the choice to live and allow me to go home once again to my family with no blood on my hands.
A person who shoots someone, even if they don't KILL them, if there is another way that allows you to accomplish your own survival without having to shoot someone, is just crazy. My gun is my last resort. If all I had was a hammer, then all my home repairs would start to look like a nail. The only tool in my toolbox is not my pistol.
I don't want to get preachy. I will go to ANY length I need to in protecting my family, and one of those lengths is to use restraint when I can.
Be safe all.
-
Thanks for the comments, Frisco.... and the real world examples.
-RJP
-
I'm in a situation where I'm generally unarmed more than armed. My employer does not allow any firearm on company property so during the week I'm vulnerable and must think outside the box. (Yes I follow the rules since I'm staff!)
Avoidance is a necessity in my situation because the use of deadly force in this state is an absolute last resort under any circumstances regardless of where or when it may become necessary. If I discharge a firearm, I will probably be charged before the facts are made clear to the DA or LEO on scene. It's that simple...
I live well outside any city, would never again reside inside a city proper and spend as little time in them as is absolutely necessary. Those are parts of my life that will never change. I choose to distance myself from the shitheap of humanity that has become the urban jungles of this country.
-
Thanks for the comments, Frisco.... and the real world examples.
-RJP
Thank you Rob.
I will never discuss details in an open forum for obvious reasons.though it is not something I like to talk about, I would talk with you about it in a private setting. I had a good post critical incident counselor, and great support from my partner and brother agents. I was not yet married, and luckily didn't lose a marriage over it.
-
I remember one of the scenes from the movie, "Saving Private Ryan", the cartographer could not bring himself to kill the German soldier, who happened to be killing one of his team mates.
When my brother in law left for Iraq and the other left for Afghanistan I told them both the same thing; Everytime a human life is taken in violence the world is incrementally lessened, but never let that stop you from doing what needs to be done.
I don't think that I would be happy about shooting a kid that made a mistake, but it would be a better alternative than living with me making one and having my family hurt.
-
When my brother in law left for Iraq and the other left for Afghanistan I told them both the same thing; Everytime a human life is taken in violence the world is incrementally lessened, but never let that stop you from doing what needs to be done.
I don't think that I would be happy about shooting a kid that made a mistake, but it would be a better alternative than living with me making one and having my family hurt.
I don't disagree with you there...as I have often said....I would walk through hell in gasoline soaked underwear to protect my family.
I thank God I didn't have to pull the trigger again. I would if I had to. Absolutely. No question in my mind. With all that, you have to know that a lot of pain, grief, and sleepless nights come with it. As you said, I would go through it for my family, and accept it all again. It just makes it a whole lot easier to sleep at ngiht if you KNOW you did the right thing and had NO other choice.
-
As someone who had to take a life in Somolia, I can tell you that it will cause the sleepless nights. Would I hesitate to take a life to protect my family? Not one moment, but I would also be the first to try and deescalate a situation or walk away if at all possible. That being said, knowing that I couldn't deescalate the situation, it would be over as fast as possible. "Take out the trash" if you will. It is not something that is fun, it is sad, but sometimes things have to be done.
-
The net result of 5 pages of discussion being..... There is no hard/fast/one-size-fits-all solution. The going-over of all these considerations gives everyone a much firmer grasp on the variables of such scenarios, and hopefully time won't be spent pondering them should the go/no-go situation arise.
Locally last year, a young man was in the back of his house watching TV one night when the police started staving his front door in. A couple days prior, the police had sent a CI to the property to verify that the guy had a few pot plants in his garage, and the CI broke in and stole them. The subject of the investigation, thinking that he was about to experience a home invasion, fired one shot, killing a young police officer. A father. A husband. A son. It was, and still is, f*cking tragic.
I don't smoke dope, and I don't support it, and I'm not trying to place blame, simply highlight the fact that ultimately, the trigger pull is yours, and your alone, and you can't take bullets back.
-
The net result of 5 pages of discussion being..... There is no hard/fast/one-size-fits-all solution. The going-over of all these considerations gives everyone a much firmer grasp on the variables of such scenarios, and hopefully time won't be spent pondering them should the go/no-go situation arise.
Locally last year, a young man was in the back of his house watching TV one night when the police started staving his front door in. A couple days prior, the police had sent a CI to the property to verify that the guy had a few pot plants in his garage, and the CI broke in and stole them. The subject of the investigation, thinking that he was about to experience a home invasion, fired one shot, killing a young police officer. A father. A husband. A son. It was, and still is, f*cking tragic.
I don't smoke dope, and I don't support it, and I'm not trying to place blame, simply highlight the fact that ultimately, the trigger pull is yours, and your alone, and you can't take bullets back.
Did he call 911, or warn the "intruders he was armed ? Did he wait till the door actually gave way to identify what/ who he was shooting at ?
If he HAD called 911 would they have told him "don't shoot you are being raided"?
-
Did he call 911, or warn the "intruders he was armed ? Did he wait till the door actually gave way to identify what/ who he was shooting at? If he HAD called 911 would they have told him "don't shoot you are being raided"?
Unfortunately none of those questions would really make a difference. While I don't know the specifics of that incident I can give the following generalities:
1. There probably wasn't time to talk to 911. When police make dynamic entry they attempt to control territory as quickly as possible.
2. Even if homeowner had talked to 911 the dispatcher may not immediately recognize the caller's location as a raid target. Numerous factors like size of the jurisdiction, communication equipment and even dispatcher (in)attentiveness to the board could play into this.
3. If the police announced themselves, homeowner could still think it's a home invasion by impersonators. The same applies to any visual cues like uniform or gear carried by the officers.
4. Most homeowners in that situation will react to movement and fire before making a full visual ID. They mentally program themselves to quickly shoot anyone who enters. Even when you tell yourself you need to ID before shooting it still takes lots of practice to do it correctly.
5. If the homeowner said, "I have a gun!" that won't necessarily stop or slow down the officers from clearing rooms.
6. No mention was made if the officers fired any shots. If they did shoot the homeowner would have a strong disposition to return fire.
So as you can see there are too many "what-ifs" to draw any conclusions based on what gorknoids related.
-
Unfortunately none of those questions would really make a difference. While I don't know the specifics of that incident I can give the following generalities:
1. There probably wasn't time to talk to 911. When police make dynamic entry they attempt to control territory as quickly as possible.
2. Even if homeowner had talked to 911 the dispatcher may not immediately recognize the caller's location as a raid target. Numerous factors like size of the jurisdiction, communication equipment and even dispatcher (in)attentiveness to the board could play into this.
3. If the police announced themselves, homeowner could still think it's a home invasion by impersonators. The same applies to any visual cues like uniform or gear carried by the officers.
4. Most homeowners in that situation will react to movement and fire before making a full visual ID. They mentally program themselves to quickly shoot anyone who enters. Even when you tell yourself you need to ID before shooting it still takes lots of practice to do it correctly.
5. If the homeowner said, "I have a gun!" that won't necessarily stop or slow down the officers from clearing rooms.
6. No mention was made if the officers fired any shots. If they did shoot the homeowner would have a strong disposition to return fire.
So as you can see there are too many "what-ifs" to draw any conclusions based on what gorknoids related.
All true enough, not really enough information.
One thing I'm curious about though, all things being equal, WOULD a 911 operator say " Don't worry, It's a real raid." or words to that effect ? Would they even have access to that information ?
-
Did he call 911, or warn the "intruders he was armed ? Did he wait till the door actually gave way to identify what/ who he was shooting at ?
If he HAD called 911 would they have told him "don't shoot you are being raided"?
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
All this guy knew was that he'd recently been burglarized, and now someone was reaching through a hole they'd smashed in the door. As I understand it, the officer shot was backing up the breaching team. The guy reaching through the door was not shot. Some say it was a warning shot gone wrong....Two witnesses the police called were both career criminals, one of whom testified that the guy bragged about being a cop-killer while in jail. Did he really? Would a jailbird lie? Would the police make a deal to help their case? They have video of the guy crying like a baby and puking in the detention cell after the raid.
Calling 911 while someone is breaking your door down simply ensures that the police have a recording of you being killed, in my opinion. That's why I am such an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment. It's not my friend's job to be my personal body guard. Unfortunately, that unrealistic expectation has been held up as the standard in localities where firearms ownership has unconstitutionally been denied the law-abiding, like Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, etc.....
Police officers are our eyes and ears, but they can't be our guardian angels.
-
While a dispatcher could confirm a real raid to someone who was barricaded (safe room, etc), they generally could not do so on the fly... especially in a big city.
Personally, if heard "Big City PD, Big City PD, Open Up!" and the door came crashing in, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
-RJP
-
While a dispatcher could confirm a real raid to someone who was barricaded (safe room, etc), they generally could not do so on the fly... especially in a big city.
Personally, if heard "Big City PD, Big City PD, Open Up!" and the door came crashing in, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
-RJP
Yeah, but that is a white hot branding iron there. You are damned if you do, and could well be damned if you don't. If you are a law abiding good guy...it WILL be sorted out. Do what the nice officers tell you, and no matter how angry you are...keep your pie hole shut. It WILL be worked out in the end.
On the other hand, if you are a law abiding good guy, who knows you have done nothing wrong, and there is no good reason why PD would be at your door....see where I am going here?????
This is where being alert and aware just might save your butt.
If a knock comes to my door, and someone is demanding entry with a warrant...I will inform them through the door I am the homeowner, IF I can see them through the peephole or the side window of my home. The advantage for me, is that to gain entry to my porch, one must go through a metal security gate that creates a 4' x 4' box at my front door in which there is no place to hide. My front flood light will be on, and I will see whomever it is. If it is kosher, and it is the police...they can come right on in, and I will offer them coffee, and cake. It WILL be sorted out. Once I have ascertained their identity and their purpose for being in my home...things will work out.
If it is clearly NOT the police...then I am not saying anything, and heading to the master bedroom with the kid in tow, and in a position of cover and ambush while I call the real cavalry. I will be waiting with the M4. Anyone who crosses into the master bedroom will be toast.
This is no easy one to wargame...it has so many variables.
-
Some say it was a warning shot gone wrong....
One more instance that might confirm that warning shots are a bad idea.
-
One more instance that might confirm that warning shots are a bad idea.
I don't believe in warning shots. I feel, that if you feel the need to "shoot to warn" you should probably be "shooting to stop".
IMO
-
I don't believe in warning shots. I feel, that if you feel the need to "shoot to warn" you should probably be "shooting to stop".
IMO
Agreed, and if you DON'T need to shoot to stop, you don't need to shoot.
-
Okay, guys.... great discussion... I think we've run it out for now.....
-RJP