Fire Two Rounds and Assess....SFPD Charges into the Past

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are really worried about the two rounds and assess thing... then use a shotgun.

Usually with a 12 gauge, one will do.

Deaf
 
And that ladies and gents is why I'm thinking about a career change from LE. I've spent 11 years doing this job, 5 years of it as an instructor on this very topic. No where in case law does it say that there is a quantum of deadly force. Force is either deadly, or it's not. There is no "2 shots is less deadly then 3 shots" or the like. If you are justified in using deadly force you can use it, period. The only thing ridiculous policies like this do is train officers to get hurt or killed.

I'm not going to train officers on things that are going to get them killed. I'll tell my chain that if they push it here (which has started already), and if they don't like it they can find someone else to teach it. I'm perfectly fine going to a job that pays the same, without someone potentially wanting to kill me solely for the uniform I wear.

-Jenrick
 
I was taught to fire two rounds and then get my butt at maximum speed behind some hard cover and - THEN reassess.
 
Clearly, the right solution is to abandon these awful pistols with large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and return to time-proven revolvers. Even better they can be made safer by requiring they be carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber... :uhoh:

The Old Fuff now runs to his reinforced bunker. :D
 
Jenrick said:
And that ladies and gents is why I'm thinking about a career change from LE. I've spent 11 years doing this job, 5 years of it as an instructor on this very topic. No where in case law does it say that there is a quantum of deadly force. Force is either deadly, or it's not. There is no "2 shots is less deadly then 3 shots" or the like. If you are justified in using deadly force you can use it, period. The only thing ridiculous policies like this do is train officers to get hurt or killed.

I'm not going to train officers on things that are going to get them killed. I'll tell my chain that if they push it here (which has started already), and if they don't like it they can find someone else to teach it. I'm perfectly fine going to a job that pays the same, without someone potentially wanting to kill me solely for the uniform I wear.

-Jenrick
Click to expand...

So sad. :(
 
redbullitt said:
Sounds like 10mm with a compensator, or heck nice big bore revolvers might be making a comeback....

Ridiculous to mandate something like that.... or even hint at it or whatever they are doing. Things like that are what get people killed in the line of duty. You know the bad guy is not worrying about what the court thinks of his third shot, and he darn sure is not going to hesitate to fire.... LET ALONE COUNT THE SHOTS to stay "legal."
Click to expand...
Being San Francisco (used to live there) I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers started using some fanciful metric like "foot pounds of energy to BMI ratio" to demonstrate police brutality.
 
Jenrick... I spent three years in charge of training for a 100 man department. If you can put up with the BS, remember that the training you provide can be a lifesaver for the young ones that come your way (and also for veteran cops -if they'll listen...). As a guy who did 22 years police work after a stint in the Army I can tell you there's more than one way to teach a given curriculum. I can remember more than one instructor who gave out the party line - then told you a bit about how to survive in a practical fashion (wish I had a nickel for every bit of horsefeathers some political type thought was a good idea..).

A lot of good cops leave police work every day - and that's a personal decision for each and every one of them. Don't think you're the only one who notices an absurd decision by the folks that run your agency (and the folks that run them....). I can tell you personally that veteran trainers are the soul of any department. If you ever run into an outfit where "rookies are training rookies" you can bet they're in deep trouble.

More to say but not on this forum....
 
I'm finding it funny folks are bringing caliber into the discussion. Handgun rounds are all fairly ineffective. The difference between two rounds of X or Y caliber aren't critical.

This is a software issue that unfortunately for the SFPD guys are mandated by a crippling policy.
 
First thing I though of was Newhall. Bad policy -> leads to bad training -> leads to law enforcement fatalities.

Pity the poor fool that actually gets a little jacked up on adrenaline when her life is threatened, and shoots assailant thrice instead of twice. Baltimore has proven that a mere policy violation can get you charged with murder.
 
21 rounds hit the deceased, two in the head, six in the back, by five officers. So far no round count by the coroner I can find stating the number of hits after the deceased was on the ground.

A copy of the training program would clear up whether officers are being retrained to shoot two round and reholster. Even so, in this case it would likely have been excessive - that adds up to ten shots total.

I appreciate that officers have a tough job. I also understand that in some districts there is a tendency to have uncontrolled response. IE the NYPD shooting of a homeless man who didn't respond to commands, which resulted in three bystanders being hit by the volley fire of a large number of LEO's.

The public is questioning whether there is even a policy in effect when this happens. Doesn't seem to be, nobody is taking the role of lead officer on the scene and we get volley fire with execution. The trial is being conducted posthumously.

There are bigger problems here and complaining about a PR release to soothe the local voters doesn't mean the training is now "shoot two rounds and holster." The real change will be having the lead officer exert control over the scene and then getting his buddies to actually obey his directives on how to handle things.

Obviously some major departments haven't worked that out.
 
Tirod said:
The public is questioning whether there is even a policy in effect when this happens. Doesn't seem to be, nobody is taking the role of lead officer on the scene and we get volley fire with execution.
Click to expand...

A group of random officers responding to an incident is not a rifle squad with a squad leader and an SOP to control rate and distribution of fire. You have officers arriving at various times in the incident and they are most likely going to react to the situation as they see it in an independent manner.

The responding officers may not be from the same precinct, district, beat, whatever you are going to call it and in some locations might not even be members of the same department. In most cases no one meets the officers as they arrive on the scene and says "I'm in charge, set up over there and fire only on my command."

So when you get a bunch of officers arriving on the scene of a hot call, and the criminal takes an action that prompts a shooting response, most of the officers present are going to fire.

There are bigger problems here and complaining about a PR release to soothe the local voters doesn't mean the training is now "shoot two rounds and holster."
Click to expand...

That is exactly what will happen on the range. That's how it used to be when the training guidance was "two rounds and assess". Even after "checking for additional threats" was added to try to slow things down, officers had a tendency to look right, left and glace over their shoulder without actually seeing anything it became an unthinking part of training. I added a command "target on the right/left is a threat!" randomly during the assess portion and many of the officers were engaging the new threat from the holster. They were already holstered and ready for the next stage. Shoot two rounds and holster may not be the intent, but it's what happens in real life. Nobody wants to be "that guy" on the firing line who holds up everyone's training.

The real change will be having the lead officer exert control over the scene and then getting his buddies to actually obey his directives on how to handle things.
Click to expand...

How do you propose that is handled? Designate shooters? Perhaps at roll call, "If we get into a situation where we have to shoot tonight and the whole beat is there, Smith and Jones will shoot." :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You will have time to coordinate a response in a stand off type situation but in something that goes down fast, especially as additional officers are arriving on the scene, I don't see any good way to avoid multiple officers engaging the suspect.
 
Jeff White said:
That is exactly what will happen on the range. That's how it used to be when the training guidance was "two rounds and assess". Even after "checking for additional threats" was added to try to slow things down, officers had a tendency to look right, left and glace over their shoulder without actually seeing anything it became an unthinking part of training.
Click to expand...

Lol, you just caused a training flashback. The drill of doing two shots, asses and a followup if needed ended up being: BANG BANG BANG with no noticeable pause. So then it evolved into a funky chicken dance where you got BANG BANG *officers doing 360 scans* Bang... with the inevitable guy still going BANG BANG BANG. Then always devolved into a debate about why he's looking around for more targets when he's got a perfectly good one right in front of him that he's just going to put the third round into anyways... while everyone else is mindlessly doing torso stretching exercises every two rounds.

No one really noticed they had all been trained to fire a grand total of three rounds and do some calisthenics.

Don't even get me stared on a really bad class that accidentally taught everyone to do reloads with retention every third round.
 
Public mistrust in and anger at Government continues to increase and towards LEO's as they are the representatives of the Government the public sees everyday and interact with which most of the time is in a negative fashion.

The Police claim to serve the public yet they, as a whole, strongly opposed citizen oversight.

Cameras are bringing a new level of oversight to LEO's which often supports the police version of events. Yet black men are killed by the police at a much higher rate than white males.

Firearms training is often at the bottom of department training. Officers emptying their guns is a result of this lack of training.

Shoot two then assess is a good policy. My personal training standard is fire first round double action and shots 2 & 3 single action. With revolver all are double action.

The public are questioning the reason for 15+ shots. If these leads to better firearms training then everyone is safer.
 
BSA1 said:
The public are questioning the reason for 15+ shots.
Click to expand...

Then the department leadership needs to explain the dynamics of deadly force encounters involving multiple officers.

BSA1 said:
If these leads to better firearms training then everyone is safer.
Click to expand...

It will lead to poorer training, no one will be any safer but everyone will be politically correct. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
In January 1979, a woman named Eula Love was shot and killed in front of her home. After a long dispute with the Gas Company about a bill, two LAPD officers went to her home. Love came to the door with a kitchen knife in her hand and convinced the officers she was going to throw the knife at them. The Officers responded, not surprisingly, to what appeared to be a lethal threat and shot her. Eight times.

There was a lot of hoopla, probably to no one's shock. The officers were not indicted.

The officers were armed with double-action revolvers in .38 Special. THEIR TRAINING consisted of several different versions of standing and firing all the rounds in their gun at a target.

The reason Love was shot eight times was the officers - reverting to training - fired all six rounds without stopping from the 'go' signal. (They only missed four times, that's 66%.)

All arguments of excessive force or panic or improper caliber aside, they did exactly as they were trained.

Time marches on.

In an effort to avoid perceptions of excessive force (and some questionable attitudes in government), now various agencies seek to mitigate the problem (perceived problem, perhaps) by 'training'.

As most observant lawmen (lawwomen) - and honest administrators - will attest, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) really resent 'training' of any sort. 'Training' wastes agency time and money in that 'assets' (flatfeet) are not 'on the job'. This applies to training in vehicle operation, report writing, interview training, dealing with the public and firearms.

All agencies - the spokesmen at least - will proclaim they get the very best training for all their people as they can. I think some practice the claim in front of a mirror. The truth is, most upper management find training a drain of assets and simply non-productive time. And I doubt any of this is going to change.

So now firearms training - at least in some places - has qualifying officers fire two shoots at a time. SFPD teaches 'two and assess'. I think this is a step in the right direction, EXCEPT what "assess" really means to the people qualifying is "listen for the next command to fire". There is no real 'training' for the individual to recognize the need to fire again or not.

Troops, the 'agency' is never going to do it. First off, the upper management doesn't care, and they can always leave the individual to take the heat. Nor do the 'media' - living for a 'hot story' - ever bother with looking into the training methods or goals used by agencies. Nor, particular is it possible.

Consider my local PD in Nowhereinparticular, USA. They have about 20 sworn officers (counting sergeants and captains). They work essentially two shifts, each beginning twelve hours apart (natch). The firearms staff is composed of about four (it varies) officers who are part of the 20 sworn officers.

Imagine the time involved in pulling officers off line in order to get every one trained ONCE. Then further imagine the time involved in remedial training, and periodic training (three or four times a year.) Further understand this is AFTER a training course or syllabus is developed.

Essentially, this boils down to an individual effort problem. At some point, each individual must assume the responsibility of learning such skills. There are ways out of this, of course. Faithful union members can slack off, and depend on their shop stewards to blame management for poor training. Or one can blame the 'protestors' for the violence and stirring up of trouble. No doubt one can think of other things to blame. (Poor potty training?)

Which is not to say none of those problems exist. Agencies begrudge training (if it weren't mandated, it wouldn't happen). Agitators agitate. Officers are 'just people' and have emotions. It is all true.

However, it is the responsibility of all people to make their own decisions in all matters. Sometimes, making the right decision requires a bit of work to equip one's self to properly make such a decision.

Soap box secured. Pray carry on.
 
The short answer is 1 round or all 52 rounds (3 mags from a 9mm full size glock in this example), the supreme court decided that so long as the deadly force threat is present there is no quanta to deadly force. Getting wrapped around round count is silly. Most of us here on THR can easily fire 4 aimed shots in a second (not counting reaction time) at the 7 yard and in range and hit with them. Shoot part of our work qual is 3 rounds in 3 seconds with a draw out of a duty holster (takes about 1.75-2 seconds to draws) at the 3 yard line. For most people that'd be a gimme. So in the example a few posts above 21 rounds, 5 officers, that's only 4.2 rounds per officer. Literally a seconds worth of gun fire. If you can watch the video or listen to the audio that can tell you far more about the shooting then the rounds fired.

We spent a lot of blood in LE getting to the point of fire until the threat drops out of your sight picture in training. Why in the heck do we want to go away from that again? The fact of the matter is if the suspect presents a lethal force threat, any citizen is perfectly able to respond with lethal force. Lethal force can cause what, hint it's in the name. If 1 round is considered just as deadly as 52 rounds, then why train people to fire 2? 1 is just as deadly in the eyes of the law, and has the same standard of articulation on why you fired it as 52 rounds does. There is no reason based on current case law that says firing 2 and assessing is any less lethal then firing till the threat drops, or that says firing till the threat drops is any more lethal then firing 2 rounds and assessing. The fact of the matter is deadly force is involved. People die when deadly force is used, hence the name. It's not the goal, but it's the reasonable belief of the outcome of it's use. As a matter of fact and law, attempting to use deadly force in a less lethal capacity is a really good way to get the pants sued off your agency. Training to shoot 2 and asses has what purpose? To be less lethal? Doesn't fly. To have a better public perception of the shooting? Wont happen, they still shot him, also what if the suspect dies with 2 rounds? Back to square one. To have officers get hurt or killed because the subject was mentally committed to the fight, mentally altered, on drugs, etc; or for that matter simply the officers are poor shooters and miss and make poor hits? That will be accomplished.

-Jenrick
 
Last edited:
Tirod said:
the NYPD shooting of a homeless man who didn't respond to commands, which resulted in three bystanders being hit by the volley fire of a large number of LEO's.
Click to expand...

This is a tangent, but since Tirod mentions a person not responding to commands, I'm curious to know what happens in multicultural neighborhoods where the reason the person might not be responding is that s/he doesn't understand English? Do police have any kind of protocol for that in such neighborhoods? Do they at least know how to say things like "hands on your head" or "get on the ground" in other languages? (I don't know if this situation has ever come up in my neighborhood but I wouldn't be surprised, given that some of the stores around here have signs in as many as five languages, help wanted ads routinely request fluency in two or three languages, and more than once someone has come to my door either trying to sell something or ask directions or whatever, speaking only a language other than English.)
 
Jeff White,

Since you have such strong objections to my support of shooting 2 or 3 rounds then pausing for a moment to assess the effectiveness of the shots please post data and research you have that supports your position that "it will lead to poorer training, no one will be safer."

It seems to me that better management of ammunition in a shooting is always a good thing. Dumping a magazine at a target in a few seconds is not a good tactic. Even the Army teaches it's soldiers to use semi-automatic fire.

Being politically correct does not mean it is always bad. A LEO murders someone on the street while on duty. The Department turns turtle, conducts an investigation behind closed doors and several weeks of months later announce the shooting was justified. They refuse to release details of the shooting to the public.

Thankfully these days are coming to a end. Cell phone and other video cameras are recording events as they really happen. This is putting Police Administrators in the position of being more open with the events and investigation or having the case reviewed on the Court of Public Opinion on the 5:00 news.

I have carried a badge for 30 years so I know first hand some of the stuff that the Police cover up.
 
Last edited:
BSA1 said:
Since you have such strong objections to my support of shooting 2 or 3 rounds then pausing for a moment to assess the effectiveness of the shots please post data and research you have that supports your position that "it will lead to poorer training, no one will be safer."
Click to expand...

Do you train to stop shooting every two to three rounds in self defense situations? I want to know if this is something you apply to yourself or if you are just fostering it off on other people.



BSA1 said:
Even the Army teaches it's soldiers to use semi-automatic fire.
Click to expand...

They also teach suppressing fire, grazing fire, indirect fire and calling in artillery and air support. It's completely inapplicable to the situation to say "well, this is what the military does"... unless you really want the police to do it like the military, which I assure you, you really don't want. I mean, we all know it would be a lot easier to take care of a barricaded suspect by putting a couple of rounds from a MK.19 through the window, but that's not going to happen any time soon.. we hope.

Honestly, this conversation is only happening because it involves a police agency and it's currently hip to be distrustful of police. We all know (or should know) how the laws on self defense work. There's a reason why "pull the trigger until the threat stops" is almost universally the law of the land. and there's a very good reason why courts recognize that lethal force applications once justified are generally justified until a mental break can be made and don't expire after X seconds or Z rounds discharged. It would be a horrifying nightmare for everyone if people acting in self defense were mandated to stop using lethal force and re-evaluate the situation every second before continuing with their defense.

The Tueller drill is bad enough. Now try doing the Tueller drill with only two rounds discharged, then stop shooting until you can determine if the guy is still a threat. Shoot 2, pause, re-evaulate flies in the face of all lethal force training and everyone here should know it.
 
BSA1 said:
Since you have such strong objections to my support of shooting 2 or 3 rounds then pausing for a moment to assess the effectiveness of the shots please post data and research you have that supports your position that "it will lead to poorer training, no one will be safer."
Click to expand...

If you have worn a badge for 30 years then you know that training was EXACTLY how I described it when doctrine was fire two rounds then assess. I suggest that you look up why we moved away from that. All of the data and research is there. It led to very poor training in the past, that's why we moved away from it. The onus is on you, the advocate of moving back to it, to prove it won't be like it was.

BSA1 said:
It seems to me that better management of ammunition in a shooting is always a good thing. Dumping a magazine at a target in a few seconds is not a good tactic. Even the Army teaches it's soldiers to use semi-automatic fire.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I advocated anything more then the current doctrine which is to shoot until the suspect is down. That can be one, two or more rounds. Ammunition management? Please.....Do the police operate in denied areas in this country? Are they dependent on someone kicking a resupply out of a helicopter? There is little or no correlation between military tactics, techniques and procedures and law enforcement use of deadly force in the US.

Jenrick hit the nail squarely on the head when he said:
The short answer is 1 round or all 52 rounds (3 mags from a 9mm full size glock in this example), the supreme court decided that so long as the deadly force threat is present there is no quanta to deadly force. Getting wrapped around round count is silly.
Click to expand...

It seems like it always takes a tragedy to change LE doctrine and training. While there is some disagreement as to if the officers at Newhall died with spent cases from their revolvers in their hands or in their pocket, that loss of life is credited with starting the realization that administrative acts done in training can be carried over to the street. I can guarantee you that if we go back to training a "two rounds and assess" engagement sequence, someone will end up with his/her weapon in it's holster when they should still be in the fight on the street.

The FBI's 1986 Miami shootout is credited with bringing about changes in ammunition selection, but the real lesson is that handguns are poor fight stoppers and that fatal wounds are not necessarily immediately incapacitating. IIRC Matix was hit by four rounds that were in and of themselves, lethal hits, yet he stayed in the fight long enough to kill at least two FBI agents.

So in light of the fact that no one carries a weapon that immediately incapacitates in their holster, explain to me why it's a good idea to fire twice, stop, look the assailant over and then restart the engagement sequence again.

Then let's look at the legal implications of scoring two lethal hits on your assailant, then re-engaging when he's not down. "Officer BSA1, according to the coroner your first two shots were lethal hits. Why did you feel it necessary to shoot him again? Were you so anxious to notch your gun with a kill that you had to fire again to make sure he was dead?"

With a 30 year LE background you know that this will come up, either by an overzealous prosecutor, a plaintiff's attorney in a civil suit or a member of a civilian review board or in the press......And once it becomes the standard engagement sequence for LE, you will see it carried over into criminal prosecutions and civil suits involving private citizens using deadly force in self defense; "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant was so anxious to kill that he felt the need to shoot poor (insert "victim's" name here) 5 times. Your local police department limits officers to shooting twice and then stopping. That is a reasonable use of force. The defendant deliberately inflicted unnecessary pain and suffering on poor (insert "victim's" name here) in the last seconds of his life. Those last three shots were unnecessary and could have only served to punish the poor (insert victim's name here) for attacking the defendant. Justice demands that you find for his family and send a message to all of the others out there who seek to cloak their anger in a claim of self defense that it's the court's job to punish, not a private citizen's."

BSA1 said:
Being politically correct does not mean it is always bad. A LEO murders someone on the street while on duty. The Department turns turtle, conducts an investigation behind closed doors and several weeks of months later announce the shooting was justified. They refuse to release details of the shooting to the public.
Click to expand...

It's possible to conduct an open and fair investigation and not compromise safety by limiting an engagement to two rounds then assess. The two rounds then assess policy is most likely going to have the opposite effect as attacks occur that require more then 2 rounds to end. Now the chief or whoever is going to have to explain to a public that is looking for a reason to distrust the police and have their feelings validated, why it took more then two rounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Rookie SF police officer shoots himself to death while fooling with "unloaded" gun!
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
4K
Powderman
P
J
  • Locked
Surviving a Deadly Force Encounter - Dealing with the Police while Armed
Replies
18
Views
3K
Ryder
R
2
  • Locked
Police seek ways to avoid firing gun
Replies
2
Views
503
Nathaniel Firethorn
N
E
  • Locked
A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty - NY Times
Replies
2
Views
536
Cosmoline
C
P
  • Locked
Lessons Learned From Police Gunfights
Replies
12
Views
2K
444
4
Back
Top