A story all CPL holders should read & why you need plenty of ammo

[DocCasualty]

I honestly think this tragic story has little in the way of education for CPL holders. I will leave it to the LEOs to decide what it has for them but think there's plenty to take home from someone who was in that situation. I could not for one minute be critical of the officer and how he handled it. I laud him for his critical post-event self-analysis and mission to spread the word about what he learned from it.

The one thing I think he is trying to teach is how important having back-up ammunition is for off-duty LEOs. As I am not and have never been a LEO, I really don't know how to judge his handling of this situation. I would guess his mental preparation should have been better in contemplating the possibility of a second shooter/accomplice to the BG that confronted him, which he did not begin to contemplate until he had spent his mag + 1, however, I'm not sure the best of training prepares for all eventualities as he noted.

For those who think his "10 + 1" either signifies poor 9mm performance, poor marksmanship, a "spray and pray" philosophy or any other reason than what actually occured, I think you need to reassess the reality of this shooting and any shooting you hopefully will never be involved in. Once he decided to shoot, I think he did exactly what his training taught him: to keep firing at COM until the threat was neutralized. I don't see that whether he had a 6-shot .357 Mag or a 10mm semi-auto that his response would have likely been any different. For those who think their Mozambique drill training will result in three and only three shots being fired, I hope you never have to find out. However, I'd bet on 10 hits out of 11 shots fired COM at 15-20 yards any day.

I recently found this and thought it was very interesting and applicable here. Obviously someone has tried to take a more objective look at the core issue of number of shots fired here:



“Excessive” shots and falling assailants: A fresh look at OIS subtleties

On average, additional findings show, officers may “reasonably” fire 6 rounds or more into suspects who initially are standing and then begin falling and who, in fact, may already be mortally wounded. And that’s 6 rounds per officer involved in the confrontation.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2010/03/force-science-news-144-%E2%80%9Cexcessive%E2%80%9D-shots-and-falling-assailants-a-fresh-look-at-ois-subtleties/

 

[jfruser]

One other thing...

Though I give the LEO in this case the benefit of the doubt, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing his performance and/or decisions.

We do the same with non-LEOs in situations that don't end up with dead children as part of the consequences of their actions. To refrain because the good guy in this situation is a LEO is ludicrous.

LEOs are not anything special relative to other citizens(1). Both LEOs and non-LEO/non-military folks are civilians. I have had at least two jobs with higher OTJ injury & death rates and where quick decision-making under threat of death and/or injury was common, so that doesn't impress me much as an excuse. If my actions had helped get a child killed, I would not have had limited sovereign immunity and a ready-to-order fan club for my occupation to jump to my defense.

Criticize away. That is how we might learn something from the incident. Most folks can sift the unreasonable from the reasonable criticism.



(1) Sadly, our gov't has chosen to treat them differently vis a vis the law and consequences for actions while performing their duty.

 

[dnr1128]

What I take away from this story is simple: my first priority, as an armed citizen, is remove myself and my family from the situation. I am not responsible for stopping the crime, or even protecting anyone else. Just because I have made the conscious choice to carry a weapon for personal defense does not obligate me to protect anyone else. Having said that, if I could protect someone else without endangering my family or other innocents, I would try. But first priority is the safety of my family.

 

[Powderman]

Sadly, our gov't has chosen to treat them differently vis a vis the law and consequences for actions while performing their duty.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it?

The cop who posted said that the reason was to encourage carrying more ammunition.

From reading his post, I believe that it is something else. It's a thing called the "mark of Cain"--the deep, psychological reaction of someone who has had to take a human life.

This post is his way of doing penance for something that was not his doing.

And for those who say that they have a right to criticize this man for his actions--all I can say is this--only if you've been there. Those who HAVE been there will know what I'm saying. Those who have not will miss the point.

And, to the last poster--I, and ALL of the other LEO who post on this board have said time and time again that everyone needs to take a good, long look at the reality:

In days past, cops might have had a 'bye' considering the severity of the incident, their department, etc. Nowadays this is NOT the case.

Unless you have the misfortune of being in a secluded area where the ENTIRE department is corrupt (and yes, I acknowledge that this does had has happen) police officers are held to a MUCH HIGHER STANDARD concerning the use of deadly force.

While some of you criticize and second guess, remember this:

When we assume our duties as police officers, we are required to SWEAR, to take an oath and PROMISE, upon our honor, to serve and protect, to uphold the law, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This oath is not taken lightly.

Remember that you can make the decision to run AWAY from a deadly threat. When you do, please run to the side. We'll be the ones running TOWARD the threat.

And if you happen to get in a tight spot, please try to tolerate the person who steps in--sometimes on their time off--to do something that may or may not alter the rest of their lives to protect YOU.

Criticize all you want. But I'll say again--unless you have been there, you don't have the experience or the right to do it.

 

[larryh1108]

Second guessing is one thing. Analyzing and trying to learn how to do it better is another. I don't believe anyone here has the right to second guess because we were not there. Split second decisions made by a veteran officer did cost a life but it was not his doing as he was doing what he was trained to do.

I have no doubt that the officer involved has replayed the scenario thousands of times in his head, wondering how he should have done it differently so a little girl would not have died. I'd bet that, initially, he saw the little girl's face a thousand times a day and probably blamed himself. I cannot imagine the grief and guilt he felt and still feels because an innocent life was lost. If no one but the gunman died he may or may not have these feelings of regret but as time has moved on I'd still bet that a day does not go by where he doesn't replay the scenario and seeing that little girl. I am sure it is eating him up a little bit each and every day.

This officer was a well trained vet who had SWAT background as well as teaching credentials. If a pro reacts in this manner what would a civilian do if he jumped in to try to help?

The cop involved has beaten himself up for 15 years now. I do not feel he deserves to be beaten up by any non-LEO person for his actions. He did it the only way he knew how and was trained. We cannot ask for more from any LEO who is there defending our lives while he puts his life in front of the bad guy. Critique? I guess so. Criticize? No way.

 

[WANT A LCR 22LR]

"" jfruser "" LEOs are not anything special relative to other citizens(1). Both LEOs and non-LEO/non-military folks are civilians. I have had at least two jobs with higher OTJ injury & death rates and where quick decision-making under threat of death and/or injury was common, so that doesn't impress me much as an excuse.

There is a difference between a somewhat predictable dangerous job and a unexpected unpredictable criminal activity unfolding in real time at a unfamiliar location.

With a dangerous job like oil drilling , high steel, mining or tower work, normal events follow a pretty well defined script. When something occurs that needs quick correct action, the tools / knowledge / extra skilled people are readily at hand.

Most importantly, the worker in a dangerous job knows they have to be on their game from the time they clock in and have time to ramp things up before they arrive. If any of these workers were randomly dumped in to their job specialty at a unfamiliar location with zero skilled people to help, the decisions / actions they make / take won't be as elegant as the ones they make at their more familiar workplace.

If the off duty cop had run away with family in tow, how do you think that would have played out in the media / public eye? Would it not empower criminals to be more bold if a uniform isn't present?

Lastly, I'm still not convinced the story was written by the actual cop on the scene, it just has the feel of a Internet "story". ( I'm not disputing the basic facts of the actual event)

 

[jfruser]

Sadly, our gov't has chosen to treat them differently vis a vis the law and consequences for actions while performing their duty.

And that's what it's all about, isn't it?

Actually, no. It is about the incident recounted in the OP and any possible lessons to be learned from it.

Part of that process must take into account the legal caste system(1) that includes sovereign immunity for some, limited sovereign immunity for others, and nothing of the sort for most.

And for those who say that they have a right to criticize this man for his actions--all I can say is this--only if you've been there.

Repeating it makes it no more valid than the first time. Call it criticism, critique, analysis, whatever, it amounts to roughly the same thing. It is part of why this sub-forum exists. Unless the forum owner declares LEO-involved incidents as off-limits WRT analysis, it is legitimate. Some analysis will be good and germane, Some not so much.

In days past, cops might have had a 'bye' considering the severity of the incident, their department, etc. Nowadays this is NOT the case.

Unless you have the misfortune of being in a secluded area where the ENTIRE department is corrupt (and yes, I acknowledge that this does had has happen) police officers are held to a MUCH HIGHER STANDARD concerning the use of deadly force.

If you are referring to employer administrative action for violating employer policy, yes, any LEO is much more likely to face administrative disciplinary action by their employer in the wake of a deadly force incident.

I liken this to conditions of employment...because they are conditions of employment, not law. Follow employer policies or face discipline up to and including termination. As the LEO is free to quit at any time and not bound by law to continue employment by that particular level of government (as are military personnel) I am sympathetic. But not overly so. Non-LEOs who don't like their employers' policy vis a vis CCW or any other topic are free to find other employment, too.

If you are referring to legal standards for use of force, that is a state-by-state issue, but it is not all that different in most. For instance, a neighboring state's LEOs have the same legal standard for use of deadly force as any citizen, with the additional authority to arrest for misdemeanors.

The real difference lies in what I posted above WRT sovereign immunity and practices not codified, but exercised nonetheless. One significant practice being prosecutorial discretion.

When we assume our duties as police officers, we are required to SWEAR, to take an oath and PROMISE, upon our honor, to serve and protect, to uphold the law, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This oath is not taken lightly.

LEOs are not the only one to take such oaths.

Of course, this has very little to do with analysis of the incident in the OP, as I cannot recall anyone suggesting the officer violated his oath or was dishonorable in any fashion.

---------------------

There is a difference between a somewhat predictable dangerous job and a unexpected unpredictable criminal activity unfolding in real time at a unfamiliar location.

With a dangerous job like oil drilling , high steel, mining or tower work, normal events follow a pretty well defined script. When something occurs that needs quick correct action, the tools / knowledge / extra skilled people are readily at hand.

True, past occupations of mine (Infantry & such, tree felling, construction, & others) are not identical to LEO work.

There were plenty of times it was just me or me and another guy. No script, nobody at hand to turn a pear-shaped situation into something happy.

Most importantly, the worker in a dangerous job knows they have to be on their game from the time they clock in and have time to ramp things up before they arrive. If any of these workers were randomly dumped in to their job specialty at a unfamiliar location with zero skilled people to help, the decisions / actions they make / take won't be as elegant as the ones they make at their more familiar workplace.

Some jobs, you're always on the job, and can be called to go someplace on 3 hours notice. Or 30 minutes notice, in the case when I took my pay from Uncle Sam.

I will concedeyour basic point is sound: there is no occupation perfectly comparable to law enforcement. There are, however, many other occupations as dangerous and that have similar stress levels.





(1) It is somewhat off topic, but my opinion WRT sovereign immunity, limited or otherwise, is not favorable. We did away with titles and a class system in the COTUS, I don't think it wise to re-create them. And let there be no doubt, sovereign immunity, enhanced/different sentencing guidelines based on victim identity/occupation rather than perpetrator action is such a critter. All ought to be equal under the law and be responsible for their actions.

 

[dnr1128]

@Powderman

I, for one, am not knocking the officer in the OP. From the narrative posted, I think he acted in a reasonable manner; he sought to place his loved ones out of the line of fire, he tried to have people leave the building calmly prior to it turning into a shoot-out. The death of the young girl is a sad, terrible, tragedy. But it was unforseen by him and, from the story as written, I don't see how he could have avoided it.

With a dangerous job like oil drilling , high steel, mining or tower work, normal events follow a pretty well defined script. When something occurs that needs quick correct action, the tools / knowledge / extra skilled people are readily at hand.

I can certify from personal experience that in the drilling industry, there is no script. There are proscribed responses to certain problems, but that doesn't guarantee that things will happen in the way that you expect them to. When a cable snapped and a piece of well casing dropped out of the derrick landing just a few feet away from me, that wasn't scripted. When a hose blew off of the bop stack by a couple of my coworkers after a check valve failed, that wasn't scripted either. Anytime there is the prospect for things going wrong and the situation getting hairy quickly, those involved must be alert and keep their minds on the job at hand. That goes for any job.

 

[Kmar40]

The stupidity in this thread is stunning.

 

[Capt. Charlie]

Looks like this thread has outlived its usefulness. It's gone from tactical / training issues to whether or not cops get a free ride.

We should ALL be working to narrow the gap, not widen it.

This one's done. Closed.