If you are a trainer, you may be a sitting duck for a wrongful death or injury lawsuit brought against you on behalf of one of your students who is injured or killed in a close quarters (CQ), armed encounter, or on behalf of a person they injure or kill.
If you are a student, you should be concerned as you may be on the same hook.
Here is why.
Almost all students are trained in and tested on traditional CQ shooting methods of applying deadly force, and almost all of those shooting methods employ the use of one or both sights when shooting. There may be exceptions, but they are rare.
On the surface, there appears to be nothing amiss. However, those methods of shooting ARE NOT used in real gunfights. PlusP has said in prior threads, that based on a review of 900+ videos of real shootouts, sighted shooting does not occur in then. He also has said that he himself has been in one or more gunfights as a LEO, so he qualifies as having been there and done that. And he has a company that specializes in the training and application of lethal force.
I believe him. I have reviewed many gunfight videos myself, all of which support his statement. I came to that conclusion about three years ago and have been beating the drum about it since then. I even filed a patent for a device that grew out that conclusion. It can assist one in shooting accurately in shootouts, and it has recently been granted.
Further, in real gunfights, four out of every five bullets shot by police, who are trained and tested on those same shooting methods, miss and may injure or kill others. The accuracy number comes from a statment made by a former training supervisor of the FBI Academy. I think he said it was less than 18 percent. Suffice it to say that real gunfight accuracy sucks.
Further yet, police casualty rates are atrocious, one dead every seven days for the last ten years, and thousands and thousands injured during that time using current shooting methods. All the dead were feloniously shot with handguns, and with handguns other than their own. That info comes from FBI UCR stats.
Lastly, DOJ stats show that the police casualties cost us taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars in terms of replacement costs, medical costs, disability and widows and childrens pensions, legal costs, etc.. And guess what, unless something changes, you can expect the same for the next ten years.
The statements made about the use of sighted shooting in gunfights have been disputed with honest recollections, but no one to date has presented any real evidence that refutes them.
So what does it all mean Dean? (ala The Choirboys)
Simply said, it means that current training programs do not teach methods of applying deadly force that occur in real time CQ encounters.
So in light of the above, if you are a trainer, ask your attorney and insurer if they have any injury or wrongful death liability concerns about you training people to use methods of applying deadly force that really are not used in CQ encounters in which your trainees will stand a real chance of being shot and killed.
What they should respond with is, "Say what?" And they should also look at you as if you have a screw or bolt loose somewhere. What they will probably do, is look directly at you and calmly and say in a friendly voice, "Good question. Let me check that out and get back to you. OK?"
Then ask them if they have any injury or wrongful death liability concerns about the fact that since you give your trainees the same type of training as police professionals get, and in shootouts police accuracy is less than 20 percent, if push ever comes to shove with your trainees, four out of every five of the bullets they shoot will most likely miss and may hit or kill someone other than their target.
They will probably squint a bit, and say with a smile: "You are just full of good questions today aren't you.... Let me look into that too."
Now if you are the trainee/shooter, you also should be concerned, because if you are involved in a CQ shooting and survive by some quirk of fate, it is YOU who will be sliced up and put under the microscope of a shooting investigation, or a civil trial, or criminal trail, or all three depending on whether you are lucky or unlucky enough to have shot someone.
I understand that FOP's (Fraternal Order of Police), supply their members with insurance that covers shooting defense costs for free or for a nominal fee.
How about bullseye or sight shooting schools?
How about the NRA?
And if not, why not?
Also, since this thread is about gun use, any suggestions on an alternate shooting method to employ in real CQ encounters since traditional site shooting methods are seen in real time to come up empty when the chips are down.
Let me know if my trolley is off its track on this. I am sure you will.
If you are a student, you should be concerned as you may be on the same hook.
Here is why.
Almost all students are trained in and tested on traditional CQ shooting methods of applying deadly force, and almost all of those shooting methods employ the use of one or both sights when shooting. There may be exceptions, but they are rare.
On the surface, there appears to be nothing amiss. However, those methods of shooting ARE NOT used in real gunfights. PlusP has said in prior threads, that based on a review of 900+ videos of real shootouts, sighted shooting does not occur in then. He also has said that he himself has been in one or more gunfights as a LEO, so he qualifies as having been there and done that. And he has a company that specializes in the training and application of lethal force.
I believe him. I have reviewed many gunfight videos myself, all of which support his statement. I came to that conclusion about three years ago and have been beating the drum about it since then. I even filed a patent for a device that grew out that conclusion. It can assist one in shooting accurately in shootouts, and it has recently been granted.
Further, in real gunfights, four out of every five bullets shot by police, who are trained and tested on those same shooting methods, miss and may injure or kill others. The accuracy number comes from a statment made by a former training supervisor of the FBI Academy. I think he said it was less than 18 percent. Suffice it to say that real gunfight accuracy sucks.
Further yet, police casualty rates are atrocious, one dead every seven days for the last ten years, and thousands and thousands injured during that time using current shooting methods. All the dead were feloniously shot with handguns, and with handguns other than their own. That info comes from FBI UCR stats.
Lastly, DOJ stats show that the police casualties cost us taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars in terms of replacement costs, medical costs, disability and widows and childrens pensions, legal costs, etc.. And guess what, unless something changes, you can expect the same for the next ten years.
The statements made about the use of sighted shooting in gunfights have been disputed with honest recollections, but no one to date has presented any real evidence that refutes them.
So what does it all mean Dean? (ala The Choirboys)
Simply said, it means that current training programs do not teach methods of applying deadly force that occur in real time CQ encounters.
So in light of the above, if you are a trainer, ask your attorney and insurer if they have any injury or wrongful death liability concerns about you training people to use methods of applying deadly force that really are not used in CQ encounters in which your trainees will stand a real chance of being shot and killed.
What they should respond with is, "Say what?" And they should also look at you as if you have a screw or bolt loose somewhere. What they will probably do, is look directly at you and calmly and say in a friendly voice, "Good question. Let me check that out and get back to you. OK?"
Then ask them if they have any injury or wrongful death liability concerns about the fact that since you give your trainees the same type of training as police professionals get, and in shootouts police accuracy is less than 20 percent, if push ever comes to shove with your trainees, four out of every five of the bullets they shoot will most likely miss and may hit or kill someone other than their target.
They will probably squint a bit, and say with a smile: "You are just full of good questions today aren't you.... Let me look into that too."
Now if you are the trainee/shooter, you also should be concerned, because if you are involved in a CQ shooting and survive by some quirk of fate, it is YOU who will be sliced up and put under the microscope of a shooting investigation, or a civil trial, or criminal trail, or all three depending on whether you are lucky or unlucky enough to have shot someone.
I understand that FOP's (Fraternal Order of Police), supply their members with insurance that covers shooting defense costs for free or for a nominal fee.
How about bullseye or sight shooting schools?
How about the NRA?
And if not, why not?
Also, since this thread is about gun use, any suggestions on an alternate shooting method to employ in real CQ encounters since traditional site shooting methods are seen in real time to come up empty when the chips are down.
Let me know if my trolley is off its track on this. I am sure you will.
Inquiring minds want to know. And is it designed for the the "untrained" or the "trained" individual, or both.
