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

[TwoFirstNames]

I am not in law enforcement, but I am a regulator, and decisions I make can result in illness or death, though not nearly as quickly as a shooting.
Let me add my voice to those saying this is a policy that will bite someone at some point, and, if my experience is applicable, the one getting bit won't be the guy who wrote the policy.
Policies draw a line. Beyond that line, you lose nearly every legal protection you have. That is why good policies are written in language that specifies results, rather than procedures.
Unfortunately, it is really, REALLY easy to write a bad policy.

 

[BSA1]

Well we are going to agree to disagree.

A proficient shooter can fire 15 rounds in a matter of a few seconds. Can the human body react in those few seconds?

Newhall, Miami and the best we can do is shoot until you decide the threat has stopped. Reloading and continuing shooting yet only hitting the suspect 2 or 3 times.

Cameras are changing law enforcement. The pubic is rightfully questioning the need to fire so many rounds especially when he turns out to be unarmed or a clear threat with a knife is not present.

Like it or not the Police are being held to a higher standard.

But hey I spent the last 10 years with my old agency as "Mouth Police."

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

A proficient shooter can fire 15 rounds in a matter of a few seconds. Can the human body react in those few seconds?

What's your point?

and the best we can do is shoot until you decide the threat has stopped. Reloading and continuing shooting yet only hitting the suspect 2 or 3 times.

Nope, you don't get away with that. I'm throwing the penalty flag on you. Courts have long held that reloading constitutes a significant mental pause in combat that forces a re-evaluation after which lethal force can only continue if the threat still persists. That's why people go to jail if the initial shots were justified but after reloading or changing guns more shots weren't.

Notice that the mental re-evaluation exists at a point that is necessarily part of armed combat, not an artificially created one.

Also, the number of shots that land on target doesn't create or negate justification. Lethal force is justified by the response to the illegal use of force against you or other persons, not by your marksmanship. If you have to fire fifteen rounds to stop the threat, then fifteen rounds were justified, even if only three connected.

Cameras are changing law enforcement. The pubic is rightfully questioning the need to fire so many rounds especially when he turns out to be unarmed or a clear threat with a knife is not present.

What does this have to do with the topic? If anything, it solves the problem presented and negates the need for stupid training and policies. The public is questioning the need to fire X number of rounds? Well good, we've got cameras now to show what really happened. Tah dah!

Like it or not the Police are being held to a higher standard.

Also off topic. Being held to a "Higher Standard" doesn't mean enacting bad training and policies.

 

[Jesse H]

I'm good with higher standards. I hold myself and the men and women I work with to higher standards.

The idea that anybody should train to fire two rounds, then assess is asinine and a result of poor standards that will cause training scars.

BSA1,

I urge you to take a few training classes from vetted instructors. No professionals in the tactical firearms community will agree with firing X number of rounds, then re-assessing.

 

[Plan2Live]

I'm not in law enforcement, I've never served in the military, I'm not paid to kick in doors, I don't own a pair of 511 anything, I don't press check and I don't rack my slide by gripping it forward of the ejection port so I suppose my experience and credibility here is limited but I have a question.

If my training teaches me to shoot the bad guy (or girl) to the ground depleting my magazine in the process, am I not opening myself up to harm from a second attacker while I am placing rounds on that one target and not assessing? Am I not giving another attacker the advantage while I reload? It seems to me this shoot to the ground concept could create its own training scar.

 

[Jesse H]

You present the gun and shoot until the threat stops. I've been lucky where the threat stopped immediately after my gun was drawn and compliance was given.

I have friends who ended the threat in two rounds (well placed shots from a close distance with a 12 guage) and others who spent the entire 15 round magazine, including the one in the chamber (further distance and the bad guy had cover and didn't back down).

You can't "game" deadly force encounters. You don't know how determined the bad guy is. Nobody is suggesting an X number of rounds. The threat will dictate the response. In the response you are continually assessing and scanning.

 

[strambo]

I'm not in law enforcement, I've never served in the military, I'm not paid to kick in doors, I don't own a pair of 511 anything, I don't press check and I don't rack my slide by gripping it forward of the ejection port so I suppose my experience and credibility here is limited but I have a question.

If my training teaches me to shoot the bad guy (or girl) to the ground depleting my magazine in the process, am I not opening myself up to harm from a second attacker while I am placing rounds on that one target and not assessing? Am I not giving another attacker the advantage while I reload? It seems to me this shoot to the ground concept could create its own training scar.

You shoot until the threat stops not until you empty your magazine (maybe you will, maybe they stop in 1-2 rounds, or run).

How about the counter to your questions: does it make sense to stop shooting for any period of time leaving the one deadly threat you know about still in the fight because you are worried about reloading and there being a 2nd threat that may not even exist?

You know about the first threat, you better finish them before they finish you or any others will be moot.

Another point: most people don't train to move much (if any). They stand flat-footed or take a step maybe. Good movement will have you running offline while shooting making you a harder target and changing the angles and your perspective allowing you to see more of the environment.

Finally, does anyone think the shoot 2 and assess person isn't going to be just as tunnel-vision focused on the first threat as the "shoot to the ground" person? Since shooting and assessing takes longer ostensibly, this is more time spent on #1. Unless, by shoot and assess that means 360 scan..but that would be really dumb to take your eyes of a known deadly threat still on their feet.

Shoot (while moving-fast) until they drop out of your sight picture or run. Scan 360 (while still moving) and engage others (or move to cover, or leave) as needed.

 

[DaisyCutter]

we now have a Police Department that is subject to federal oversight.

Every year, more and more departments fall under federal oversight. The monitors, trainers, policy writers, policy implementers, policy reviewers, etc. all get paid a King's ransom of taxpayer money for their services. And they always find a reason to extend their services.

It's about money and control. Think it's bad now?

Once all the police agencies are federally controlled, what do you have?

A National Police Force.




The days of a Sheriff refusing to comply with a federal directive he/she sees as unconstitutional will be gone. The Fed is systematically taking control of police departments in order to ensure the police don't push back against the Fed on behalf of the citizenry.

Some people are falling for the "police vs citizen", "us vs them", veil thats been carefully crafted to distract them from the Fed's power play.

I'm watching it happen, powerless.

 

[Plan2Live]

Well, if all you have is a 9mm

Let me guess, any self respecting pistol caliber must start with a 4 and all discussions always come down to caliber chest thumping. Maybe one day we can stop kicking that poor horse.

 

[Sentryau2]

I don't care for cops, I don't care for what role they have started to play. Passing out tickets for alot of arbitrary laws that don't contribute anything to society. Its silly to have a certified revenue generator for the state.
Decriminalize drugs, legalize their possession and sale. Violence related to these things SHOULD decrease. Atleast get rid of the searches and pat downs related to traffic stops. Cesar julious maximums the 3rd isn't going to start a violent confrontation with a law officer or get into a highspeed chase if he knows all thats going to happen is hes gonna have to pay a 10$ seatbelt ticket instead of being removed from the vehicle and an officer finding the large amount of weed in the trunk.
What caused the policy change? Public views? In a way yes, but what caused that? Police shootings both justified, unjustified and questionable. What caused those shootings to come about? I know this seems off topic but its really not.
I feel we should eliminate a factor that helps contribute to shootings taking place. (see stop prosecuting victimless crimes)

 

[Old Dog]

Cesar julious maximums the 3rd isn't going to start a violent confrontation with a law officer or get into a highspeed chase if he knows all thats going to happen is hes gonna have to pay a 10$ seatbelt ticket instead of being removed from the vehicle and an officer finding the large amount of weed in the trunk.

Apparently, you have about zero experience when it comes to dealing with the criminal element in our society.

 

[2zulu1]

Part of this new SFPD training should have a goal of assessing situations every 0.2 seconds; that and bring back the 41mag, a former SFPD issue caliber.

 

[Plan2Live]

I'm not copying Strambo's response to my post because those threads get too long and it is right above if anyone wants to review it but my response is as follows.

My signature doesn't state my credentials but I am a NRA Certifiied Instructor too and a State Certified CWP Instructor. Yes I have taken force on force classes and realize that moving off line and placing rounds on target is great advice and not always easy to remember when rounds are coming at you, even non-lethal rounds. With that said, I think you missed my point that either training method can cause training scars that could prove deadly to you in a real gunfight. Real gunfights are unpredictable and fluid. Just ask the guy in Las Vegas that tried to engage the male shooter that shot the two cops in CiCi's pizza. He was focused on the known threat and it cost him his life.

I have cop friends and have talked to them about their traing and from what they have told me, the training they are getting that encourages them to shoot multiple rounds as fast as they can, often missing as fast as they can, could lead to unintended consequences on the street. Look up the video of the Clover, SC cop engaging the old man that got out of his truck and grabbed his cane from the back of the truck. The old guy shouldn't have done either but the deputy fired 6 rounds in under 2 seconds. Thankfully he missed the guy 5 times or the old man probably wouldn't have survived. If he has been following the shoot to the ground approach, and it appears he was doing something similar, a case of misidentification, while legitimate, becomes a life ending event.

It's a fine line and a slippery slope all at the same time.

 

[strambo]

Plan2live, I'm not sure what you at getting at? You give an example of someone who shoots 6 rds in a couple seconds, misses 5, gets lucky because the guy lives and it was poor threat ID and that is an example of why shooting them to the ground isn't a good training method?

So, shooting 2 and assessing would be better in that case of poor threat ID?

Anytime you train there should be specific training objectives, sometimes that should be threat id and decision making. All training shouldn't end in shooting, sometimes no shoot needs to be the proper trained response. That one needs to positively ID a deadly threat has nothing to do with the best way to deal with a determined deadly threat that has been identified.

 

[Plan2Live]

Well my response will have to wait until later. I just typed out a well articulated response on my cellphone keyboard as I am traveling and as I feared, I timed out before I could hit send so my well articulated response is lost somewhere in cyber space and I'm not repeating that process without a full sized keyboard.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Good grief, we finally get past the dangerous repetitive training methodology of "Draw, fire two round, assess" and a major metropolitan police department makes it policy...:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/02/18/sf-police-told-to-shoot-twice-stop.htm



This is applicable to us because policy from major law enforcement agencies is often cited and referred to in criminal and civil court actions involving the private citizen's use of force. How long will it be before we see; Two rounds is enough for San Fransisco PD, and the accused felt the need to fire his whole magazine to stop the attack?

This is just an insane response to a lawsuit.

It would be unreasonable to expect that level of discipline for enlisted in the field. The idea that civilians with minimal training and weapons fire a secondary consideration is just foolish.

 

[Jeff White]

It would be unreasonable to expect that level of discipline for enlisted in the field.

When I was a rifle squad leader, rifle platoon sergeant and First Sergeant, I not only expected that level of fire discipline, I required it. There were SOPs regarding rate and distribution of fire and we trained to that standard.

The idea that civilians with minimal training and weapons fire a secondary consideration is just foolish.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Please elaborate.