How fast can you make a shoot/no shoot decision?

[Jeff White]

This video is of a controversial Chicago Police shooting. Comments about the police and what might have led to the shooting are off topic in this thread. They are not relevant to a private citizen's use of deadly force which is the focus of this subforum. What is relevant is how fast real life situations change. 838 milliseconds elapsed between the subject being armed and the subject ditching his weapon.



The video contains strong language and shows a 13 year old getting shot. Don't watch if those images will bother you.

Legally armed citizens don't wear body cameras, (none that I know of anyway) so if you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a shooting you likely won't have video like this to back up your story.

We have a lot of discussions about decision making. How many of us (not including current and former LE) have had any real training on shoot/no shoot decision making? How many think that they can recognize that it's become a no shoot situation fast enough not to shoot?

 

[Ethan Verity]

I have had some training on shoot/no shoot in the past, using a wall projector simulation and a laser gun with CO2 blowback. The different scenarios are dynamic, since someone who is observing your actions can pick different program outcomes in real time. It was very helpful for developing and practicing the correct mindset.

Though in the specific incident in that video, I likely would have shot as well! In that moment I would be convinced he was drawing the gun on me.

 

[The Night Rider]

I've had shoot/ no shoot training provided by my employer.

According to another video I saw regarding this shooting the elapsed time between the gun appearing in the kid's hand and his hands coming up empty was 8/10 of a second. Less time than it takes for the human brain to process the information.

Which means NO ONE (except maybe Chuck Norris) could have processed the information quick enough not to shoot.

As a security guard I might find myself in the same situation as the cop but as a retiree? I don't think so.

I think shoot/no shoot and stress inoculation training are very important for anyone who carries a gun.

BUT realistically I'm twice as likely to be killed by a bee or a hornet (1 in 59,000) than I am to have to use my gun in self defense (1 in 100,000).

I'm certainly not going to be chasing 13 YO thugs down alleys or attempting to take them into custody or ordering them to drop their weapon. At most I might order someone not to approach any closer to me.

I've never been in a self defense situation (really even at work) where the trouble didn't come to me. I've also never been in a self defense situation in which I was the aggressor.

I won't say "never" but I'm not going going to spend a whole bunch of time worrying about it.

 

[FL-NC]

How fast? The rest of my life.

 

[Old Dog]

How many think that they can recognize that it's become a no shoot situation fast enough not to shoot?

Well, this is a valid question, but I submit those who've never trained in shoot/don't shoot situations or simulators cannot provide a meaningful answer. Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple incidents where cops have either been seriously injured or lost their lives due to hesitating to shoot -- a couple of know if involved knives, not guns, wielded by the suspects. And in the current climate (I don't believe I need to elaborate or clarify here), one can be sure that more and more cops will be taking that additional split second -- or seconds -- attempting to ID possible weapons or intent.

 

[film495]

My guess is a good number of civilians would freeze in a situation where they needed to fire, some percentage would get jumpy and put themselves in a situation where they are going to have a tough time in court. I didn't listen to the audio, but just watching the video, the outcome is less than ideal, but - I had to watch it several times to figure out the kid wasn't turning to open fire. So, that is what the guy saw, and don't think he was in the wrong.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Everyone has a plan until things get real.

All we can do is train and plan.

Debating videos where fractions of a second made the difference in the outcome aren't really worth arguing about. There comes a point where, depending on your outlook on life, either luck or God comes into play.

That is NOT meant to downplay training or other proactive measures. Everyone should definitely do that.

I've got a similar video along the same line that I'm going to start a thread on, just to illustrate the speed at which things can happen, just as this video does.

 

[The Night Rider]

I think it's also worth mentioning that the officer involved in the shooting was never charged with any criminal wrongdoing

 

[.455_Hunter]

When I was accosted by knife wielding individual, my focus was on breaking contact, even though all criteria for lethal force had been met. It is a response of last resort, not just an automatic threshold. I made that decision as soon as I saw his weapon.

 

[lemaymiami]

In that real life, once in a heart stopping moment... your decisions are never fast enough in my opinion. That's why situational awareness, good training and practice, as well as keeping your distance from any possible opponent is so important. In 22 years on the street I got in more than one scrape that some, or all, of those factors I've listed saved me from a very bad outcome (which is worse - being injured yourself - or making a bad decision, hurting or killing someone - and having to live with the consequences?).

I'll stop here, no war stories this time out - but, the questions I've just raised should be important to any citizen who chooses to go armed...

 

[25-5]

Though I do not have the practical experience of lemaymiami, it is the way I have thought of such a situation.
Situational awareness can keep the civilian out of such trouble.

 

[sequins]

There are a lot of factors that go into one of these situations. This particular case has a lot of factors that just aren't relevant and some of the biggest reasons why this isn't interesting to discuss are below,

1. Our shooter is approaching the decedent; It's almost inconceivable for a self defense shooter to go on offense
2. Our shooter perceives himself to be in a high threat situation and approaches the situation with a fighting mindset; A self defense shooter is not going to be prepared for imminent violence the same way a professional fighter launching an attack against an enemy position is
3. Speculatively, our shooter does this a lot and his risk tolerance is necessarily lower as he plans to roll the dice like this every day for the rest of his career; A self defense shooter isn't going to ever be in another shooting, on average, and will not have past experience to draw from nor will the experience inform future shootings

It's difficult to imagine myself as the person in control of the situation, moving in on someone; If I could do that I could shelter and call 911. 100% of my training is oriented around avoidance and reacting at the last minute. However, were I in that situation the way I train that kid would probably have gotten a shot on me, to be honest; or he would have been allowed to surrender and live. I would need the gun to be pointed basically right at me at least once before I'd shoot him with my current mind set. I imagine if I had been involved in multiple shootings and had seen friends killed or maimed as a result of a slow draw, I might shoot first and that's why I speculate on point #3.

I don't think this officer should face any repercussions and it was a "good" shoot in the sense that I don't think he broke any laws or regulations, technically that kid did have a gun and that puts this inside the regs, but a gun idly in one's hand is not a lethal threat and when he raised his hands the gun wasn't in them so from a moral perspective the conditions of "he's about to shoot me" were not sufficiently met for me to have made that shot. Ideally this officer wouldn't be so afraid and overworked that he takes his shot as soon as it's "allowed" though.

This whole scenario is a cop-only scenario there's just nothing to draw here as a civilian IMO except don't go on offense, and I hope we all knew that already.

ED: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...cer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532

A related example of a cop who shot someone that had a gun but didn't point it at him, because he showed up and saw a guy with a gun so he shot him. Oops. It does minimize the risk of you getting shot, as an officer, to shoot anyone with a gun the second you see it, but you shoot a lot of extra people that way in my opinion and SELF DEFENSE shooters don't have the same legal protection.

 

[Jeff White]

There are a lot of factors that go into one of these situations. This particular case has a lot of factors that just aren't relevant and some of the biggest reasons why this isn't interesting to discuss are below,

An armed citizen who has had no force on force or shoot/don't shoot training doesn't need an example of how fast these situations happen? Ok......sorry you wasted your time with the thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think it's also worth mentioning that the officer involved in the shooting was never charged with any criminal wrongdoing

There is no statute of limitations.

A self defense shooter isn't going to ever be in another shooting, on average, and will not have past experience to draw from nor will the experience inform future shootings

Neither will most sworn officers. That's why we have training.

a gun idly in one's hand is not a lethal threat

That's absurd.

It's difficult to imagine myself as the person in control of the situation, moving in on someone; If I could do that I could shelter and call 911.

That is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[sequins]

An armed citizen who has had no force on force or shoot/don't shoot training doesn't need an example of how fast these situations happen? Ok......sorry you wasted your time with the thread.

What is the lesson to learn here? This situation isn't possible to occur for a self defense shooter, and if it did as shown on the Axon and it were me shooting I'd be a murderer.

I failed to retreat and I wasn't imminently in fear of my life. The guy maybe drew a gun, but his hands were empty. For any but an LEO thats a bad shoot. Not sure you can run up on someone even in a stand your ground state...

The only possible lesson for a civilian to learn here is that its impossible to make a shoot decision in .838 miliseconds and you need to wait longer as a civilian.

I posted here because as a moderator posting that video some might assume "good shoot", and it wasn't all good and a civilian shouldn't try to learn anything from this one. It's completely LEO-Only subject matter and you highlighted the civilian aspect.

 

[Kleanbore]

What is the lesson to learn here?

The obvious lesson is that a situation can change from shoot to no shoot in less time than a peron can realize that and act on it. The reverse is true, also.

The only possible lesson for a civilian to learn here is that its impossible to make a shoot decision...

What do uou mean by that?

....and you need to wait to see it pointed at you.

That is a sure way to get shot. If you carry for personal protection, you have a lot of learning to do.

a civilian shouldn't try to learn anything from this one

I have explained that

 

[Jeff White]

The only possible lesson for a civilian to learn here is that its impossible to make a shoot decision in .838 miliseconds and you need to wait longer as a civilian.

That was the purpose of the thread, to illustrate how fast things happen. Few private citizens have any kind of training in actually making the split second decision through either force on force training or a realistic simulator. The video is a good example of how fast things happen and the thread will hopefully motivate someone to seek out the appropriate training.

 

[sequins]

That was the purpose of the thread, to illustrate how fast things happen. Few private citizens have any kind of training in actually making the split second decision through either force on force training or a realistic simulator. The video is a good example of how fast things happen and the thread will hopefully motivate someone to seek out the appropriate training.

I don't think civilians should be training on how to approach and take down an armed defender who is holding their ground. We shouldn't train for it and we shouldn't do it. He only had to make such a quick decision because he was an LEO and was tasked with moving in on that guy.

A civilian self defender actually was involved in this incident. He retreated, called 911, and never fired a shot. That is the correct course of action in the video shown and the reason I have a stick inside of me over this is because we're focusing on the LEO reaction time during an offensive maneuver that we as civilian self defenders will never need to consider. Until the armed defender was aggressed upon he was presumably loitering a lot longer than .838 miliseconds, long enough for that person who called 911 to determine he didn't need to shoot him and that he could retreat and call the cops.

The officer moving in created the circumstances that led to the contrived. 838 milisecond response time scenario. That could ONLY happen to a cop or to a Rambo guy.

 

[The Night Rider]

I don't think civilians should be training on how to approach and take down an armed defender who is holding their ground.

But a Citizen Defender should be trained on Shoot/No Shoot.

That was the point of the discussion.

I do agree a better example could have been chosen

 

[Jeff White]

I don't think civilians should be training on how to approach and take down an armed defender who is holding their ground. We shouldn't train for it and we shouldn't do it. He only had to make such a quick decision because he was an LEO and was tasked with moving in on that guy.

Again, if you read the opening post I stated it was an illustration of how fast things happen. That was it.

Every person who carry’s a gun needs to be aware of how fast things move in an armed encounter.

 

[aaaaa]

Everyone has a plan until things get real.

Wow, that is applicable to so many areas of life.

 

[sequins]

Again, if you read the opening post I stated it was an illustration of how fast things happen. That was it.

Every person who carry’s a gun needs to be aware of how fast things move in an armed encounter.

Well there we agree. The situation in a lethal force scenario will be extremely fluid and doing your best to make the best decision quickly is something we should all strive for.

However, as we focus on the rapidly evolving circumstances for the combatants, we should remember that the person we resemble most as civilian self defenders is neither the officer nor the decedent, but the 911 caller who was uninvolved except for observing, retreating, and reporting.

We're not cops and we're not criminals, our role model in this story is the 911 caller.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

It's difficult to imagine myself as the person in control of the situation, moving in on someone; If I could do that I could shelter and call 911. 100% of my training is oriented around avoidance and reacting at the last minute. However, were I in that situation the way I train that kid would probably have gotten a shot on me, to be honest; or he would have been allowed to surrender and live. I would need the gun to be pointed basically right at me at least once before I'd shoot him with my current mind set. I imagine if I had been involved in multiple shootings and had seen friends killed or maimed as a result of a slow draw, I might shoot first and that's why I speculate on point #3.

I don't think this officer should face any repercussions and it was a "good" shoot in the sense that I don't think he broke any laws or regulations, technically that kid did have a gun and that puts this inside the regs, but a gun idly in one's hand is not a lethal threat and when he raised his hands the gun wasn't in them so from a moral perspective the conditions of "he's about to shoot me" were not sufficiently met for me to have made that shot. Ideally this officer wouldn't be so afraid and overworked that he takes his shot as soon as it's "allowed" though.

From a practical perspective if you wait to see the gun pointed at you, you are waiting to see what comes out of it. If you wait to shoot until your assailant is ready to shoot, you're going to be extremely behind the power curve.

But I can understand and agree with the idea that we should be looking at what we must do in terms of use of force to preserve our own lives or the lives of someone innocent, and not simply what we can do in terms of using force that is legally justifiable.

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't think civilians should be training on how to approach and take down an armed defender who is holding their ground. We shouldn't train for it and we shouldn't do it

True. A civilian does not have a duty to pursue and apprehend a suspect. Also, it would likely make the civilian the initial aggressor, w ich would negate a legal defense of self defense for a civilian.

He only had to make such a quick decision because he was an LEO and was tasked with moving in on that guy.

Well, the shooting in the example did occur after a police pursuit, but a civilian defender who is threatened by an armed attacker will face exactly the same situation and will be forced to make a very quick decision.

...we're focusing on the LEO reaction time during an offensive maneuver that we as civilian self defenders will never need to consider.

No, no, no. The pursuit was an "offensive maneuver", but the reaction time occurred afterward and involved a shoot no shoot decision associated with an armed suspect. who had stopped and turned. The sworn officer may only employ deadly force only in the defense of himself or a third party, and that is the same for the civilian. Read that twice and reflect upon it.
Got it?\

we should remember that the person we resemble most as civilian self defenders is neither the officer nor the decedent, but the 911 caller who was uninvolved except for observing, retreating, and reporting.

That's great if one can call 911, b t if someone is immediately threatened by a person with a gun, or who reasonably appears to have a gun, that someone will "resemble" that officer very much.

We're not cops and we're not criminals, our role model in this story is the 911 caller

Try calling 911 when you are threatened in a deadly force situation and see how it works.

 

[aaaaa]

Try calling 911 when you are threatened in a deadly force situation and see how it works.