Are You A Sitting Duck For A Shooting Lawsuit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If someone knows that something is not found to occur in life and death situations <snip>[/quote]

Until you can get the majority of recognized experts to agree that yours/Mr. Ps techniques are in fact true, and when they will testify that all other techniques are inferior, and infact, dangerous than I don't think any trainers have a thing to worry about.

Now, You & Mr. P could become "Expert" Witness on behalf of people who have been hit by stray bullets. This should help both further his School and your Product. Oh... does he carry your P&S in his "Pro Shop"?

An observation - If you really believe in this and want to market it I would suggest you take the photo of Ruby off your website. I could see how HCI would jump on this to get your devise banned because "It allows someone who never used a gun before to be deadly accruate with it."

I am outta here! as I feel my BP raising to dangerous levels with this topic. :o

------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
okjoe, I visited your website and looked at your device. Well, tried to look at it. The one picture I saw was so blurry that it was not worth looking at. I understand the concept, but see some limitations. Assuming your device can do what you claim, here are some points to consider:
1)How do you holster a weapon with your device attached? The horizonal projection of the device renders a traditional holster useless. IWB carry is also out, as you add at least 1/2" to the width of the firearm.

2)Left handers will not be able to use the device, as it's attachment to the left side of the pistol frame will interfere with the manipulation of the slide release on most automatics (the P7M8 being an exception).

3)How does one hold the pistol (equipped with your device)in a "ready" position with no finger inside the trigger guard? Using your device, only the thumb, ring and pinky fingers would hold the butt of the pistol, while the index and middle finger would have to be up alonside the frame. I just tried this with my pistol and found the resulting grip to be too insecure for my tastes. In case of a retention struggle, I want to be able to curl all my fingers around the butt to aid in retention. Not only does your device loosen the basic pistol grasping strength of the hand (3 fingers gripping are always weaker than 4), it places the index finger in an extended position, pinned against the side of the frame. Massad Ayoob details the problems with this in his book "The Semiautomatic Pistol in Police Service and Self Defense". Basically, the index finger is going to get broken if a retention struggle occurs.

I think you should drop the whole lawsuit marketing angle. People have been using their index finger on the trigger for a lot of years, and no lawyer has won a case yet because the cops were not trained on instinctive point shooting.

IMHO, people miss shots in a gunfight because they fire without having the gun in their line of sight. Whether the shooter suffers from tunnel vision or just wants to get the first shot off, the cure is to train people to get the first AIMED shot off.
 
Also. bear in mind that the grip on most pistols is set up so that the pistol 'points' using the index finger.

If you rest the index finger on the slide, you will have to crawl your grip up, otherwise the pistol will point below the target.

You can try this at home. Unload a pistol and take the grip suggested. Point the index finger at the target and (without moving the pistol) look through the sights and see where it's acually pointing.

On my pistols at home, when I'm pointing center of mass with my index finger, the pistol is aimed somewhere in the vicinity of the targets kneecaps.

I'm sure y'all can see the problem here.

Plus, if you crawl the grip high enough so that the pistol aims where you point, you're gonna get a nasty hammerbite.

Let's try to avoid those in a firefight.

LawDog

------------------
"Go ahead, rely on Windows Sniper 4.0, if you want to, but I prefer not to need software patches when I'm in a firefight."
-Wolfgang Kies
 
I am not saying that P&S is the way to go or even if it works. It does. And yes modifications to grips or frames of many pistols would be required to employ a P&S Index Finger Rest. And yes it would work better for right handers than left handers, and so forth and so on. If that's the way you want to go, you experts can figure out how best to do it.

But that is not the point of this thread.

The point is that the currently taught methods of applying deadly force are not found to occur in CQ gunfights. To me that is very simple and apparent. It is up to you trainers and experts to come up with a method that will be found to occur.

To put it in different words, the hit rate of finding currently taught methods of applying deadly force in gunfights, is zero. As such, you really should consider adjusting your sites a bit and teach something that can be learned and applied by your average cop in a CQ situation as verified by car cams of those police in action.

A ready and waiting test vehicle is available. Current car cams can easily and readily serve as the testing platform. All you need is a few good ideas and a few good volunter test agencies. As things now stand, they would have little if anything to lose and much to gain by participating.

Got suggestions?
 
Cute, someone thinks the OPINION of a "majority" of experts counts? THEIR system has produced a 92% miss rate. That kinda got left out from what I just saw posted. Since when does it become a democracy and a vote is required to figure out if something works?
I dont' think Bell, Edison, or Pasteur had a majority vote. In fact each had to fight the in crowd to get their ideas over.
When we claim training works, why isn't that training showing up. I had an Airforce training person in class today and his group is baffled how to train Air Police. We just can't find something that works because we cling to OLDE systems that don't, but we think more of it will work. Nobody has posted what kind of training or how much will work. I have a class coming up with 8 NEW shooters. I get one day with them. What do you teach them? We can't have 90 day training schools or even one week is a stretch.
As for suing I have a case in front of me now and we are going after the police for "training." We will eat their lunch as it was caught on video (no wonder cops hate videos of real stuff) and they will pay and we will go after their training staff and those that trained them. My insurance as a training officer has had five straight annual increases because of legal actions going against training officers.
If anyone wants to stick their chest out on their training methods, lets go BACK to scores, not "pass/fail." Let's put a quantitive number on it that a person is 80% or 90% in shooting skills. Let's not dodge the responsibility with the "pass/fail" crap. Let's put OUR training skills on the line. Even in the pass/fail school, they LOWER the pass criteria. Wow, that's confidence in the system that is on line now.
C'mon boys and girls. Do you do "pass/fail" or score? We are switching BACK to scoring and let the chips fall where they may. If you don't make it to a MINIMUM you don't pass and if you want to stay out of legal soup you better be in the UPPER score range. As a trainer I have my own criteria and it won't be 70% to pass my course. It will be 90% and I'll work with a student until they achieve that level of performance. It's called putting your money where your talking device is at, instead of dodging the responsibility.
Training today does everything it can to dodge responsibility and dumb down the skills needed to shoot straight. I'll gladly put my work on MY back and defend it. I'm not looking for loopholes to avoid legal actions. Enough of the "your mileage may vary" thinking. If you don't believe in what you do, don't do it or ask others to do it.
When I finish with a student even first time ones I smother them with support on legal issues and continued opportunity for training, much of which is FREE. They can't claim they didn't know or didn't have access to our instruction. In fact, we send them home with total backup for the future. In fact grads have PRIORITY on future classes for a place in class so they can keep their skills up.
Today most training is designed to protect the employer from liability. BULL, it has to protect the student/shooter. There is trouble enough staying alive without having to die or get killed for a buck or two. I can always tackle a financial concern. I can't come back from the dead. We lost our focus a long time ago.
If you think that is irresponsible, so be it. But I sleep well each night knowing I did the right thing and have full confidence in my students also waking up in the morning. So far there are a few thugs taking dirt naps from that concept. I like it that way.
 
I've seen quite a number of "point shooters" show up for training. Practice always starts at very close distances, and moves back a little at a time. While the instructors are trying to get it through their heads that they MUST hard focus on the front sight to guarantee their hits under stress, they continue to point shoot. Many of them have decent accuracy out to about 5 yards. At 7 yards, they start getting marginal hits. Past ten yards, they are lucky to hit the target. Under the simulated stress of the "fun house", they fail miserably even at point blank ranges. They are dumbfounded. They thought that they were going to show us a thing or two. By the end of the course, the instructors have managed to instill a reasonable degree of dependable skill into their routine, and they (the students) are wishing that they had went with the program from the start. They ALWAYS come back for more training.

Sure, I point shoot at close distances. Only because after thousands of repititions hard focusing on the front sight, MUSCLE MEMORY puts that front sight right where it's supposed to be without having to visually verify it. FACT

------------------
The Bible is my lawbook. I turn the other cheek when applicable, and spend the rest of my days resisting evil at every front, until I have breathed my last breath.
 
Mr. Forty. I with limited experience have no difficulty keeping all shots in center mass at 50 feet in low light or darkness. Most can do so, but they shant look at the firearm. It is not difficult even for folks with limited experience. I have seen first time shooters score 90% at 75 feet in lighting so low you can't see more than an outline. If is very simple and easy to do so. But doubters shall remain so. I'm basking in the Arizona sun.
 
I'm not saying that point shooting doesn't work at close range. It is when you get @ longer ranges (> 7 yards) where it falls apart.

Yes I practice speed rocking which is in fact point shooting. Key word here being practice. Yes, Bob Munden can hit at extended ranges with point shooting... but he practices just a tad more then normal people and a hell of alot more then the majority of LEOs. Anyone could point shoot as well as Bob Munden - Given enough practice (which I'm sure is 1000s of rounds a week) but few people that the time, money or will to do that.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>someone thinks the OPINION of a "majority" of experts counts? THEIR system has produced a 92% miss rate. That kinda got left out from what I just saw posted. [/quote]

Think of it akin to the medical standard of care Mr. P. I'm sure there are many examples of Care Givers that have been brought "on the carpet" to determine if the procedure/care they provided was excetable to that standard.

I would think (my opinion) that the same would hold true in a legal case against a trainer/shooter. If I was hit erroniously by someone that had been taught not to use their sights (or had a P&S on their gun) I'd sure as hell be bring forth expert (LE CERT, SEAL, & (are you sitting down?) even Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Etc Instructors) witnesses to refute point shooting and the P&S. Then I would have my lawyer follow their lead that to effectly point shoot take alot of practice. If the defendant couldn't prove that he shot in practice (hundreds or probably thousands per week) then I would think the jury would all agree in my favor.

The bottom line is practice! If you practice something enough you become proficient in it... be it sighted or point shooting. However, point shooting takes more practice as you are not using the universal accepted aid (SIGHTS) to hit your target.

Their system does NOT PRODUCE 92% miss rate. The Failure of their students to practice the skills taught produces that. It is not a failure of the Instructors or the Techniques but a failure on the students part!!!

And I'm all for scores. When I was giving classes for CCW I required a higher score then did the State. And yes, I'd work with any student that couldn't achieve my score until they could. I also preached weekly Practice. I'm sure you will agree that people that practice any skill will perform to a higher level then those that don't (given whichever technique they use). That being the case how on earth can you condemn the recoginised standards/techniques because of failure on a students part? Unless of course it is for personal gain.

I'm teaching my daughter to drive right now. I can show her in one day all the skills needed to drive a car. Will she then, the next day, go down and take a driving test and pass. NO! There is a reason that there is a Learners Permit. That reason is PRACTICE! The more you practice the better honed your skills become.

No "device" outside of bullets like whats his name used in Roger Rabbit (smart bullets) will take the place of PRACTICE.

I, and the majority of trainers, can not say it enough times....

PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sounds like we're in violent agreement here, as least as far as practicing goes. I agree that point shooting is a close range technique.

Keystone, in reference to what the article said, it was that in a high stress situation, the pupil dialates, making it hard to focus well, it made no reference to the number of eyeballs in use. (FWIW, it's in the May 2000 Combat Hanguns, titled "survival Shooting" by Ed Lovette, citing a report done in 1998 by Bruce Siddle regarding phsiological factors that support point shooting in very specific situations. The Siddle report was titled "Scientific and Test Data Validating the Isosoceles and Single Handed Point Shootinf Techniques". I though a lot of what Siddle said made sense, but I've never been in a gun fight, so I have no first-hand experience. In my own experience with a cheap stop watch, I get shots off faster and on targer at close range practicing point shooting. At longer ranges, not using sights is a waste of ammo for me. None of it mater w/o practice.
Best regards, M2
 
On the subject of lawsuits:

If one gets sued for hitting his target, training methods are moot.

If one gets sued for missing his target, what looks worse? "I train to line up the front sight and squeeze" or "I train that the bullet will go wherever my finger points."?

By definition, point shooting can never be as accurate as sighted fire. So, what's at issue here is the question of whether students can be trained to acquire the front sight in battle. Those who've researched videos say "no"; those who have been there say "yes". Where's the discrepancy? I suggest it's in the fact that, if you won't train, you just won't train. Slogans, gimmicks and devices will never make up for this deficiency.

BTW plusp, of your 900 shooting videos, what does the survey show of the training these men received? Were none of them point shooters? If so, what were their miss rates? If not, are we to conclude that point shooters don't miss? You propagate a statistical fallacy when you draw conclusions about two subgroups by attributing all the negative results only to one....you prove no point whatsoever, other than the fact that the data has yet to be analyzed in a critical manner.

Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited March 18, 2000).]
 
I appreciate your persistance with this p&s and your device, but give it a rest. I tried the method and it has merit for some applications, but not all, nor with all pistols (at least with my 1911). Now the law can be very confusing, I grant you. But one thing is very clear- if you deviate from custom, tradition, and pratice, you leave yourself at as vulnerable or more so, by employing new methods. Hell, that is what a good portion of the law is based on. A good lawyer will turn you insideout with your own deviations from standard practice. Simply put, there is no fool proof defense for a shooting. If you push alternative training styles against accepted "time tested" methods, you put yourself not only against the lawyer, but all the so called "experts" in the field (and we all know the definition of ex-spurt). God help you if you miss, because you will be defending not only yourself, but your method and unless you are combat veteran with a proven track record, you are meat for a any half-*ssed legal shark.
 
Since close quarters (CQ), shooting methods that have been taught to millions and millions, and which are now being taught to additional millions have never been proven to be used in a close quarters gunfight, I get a bit upset when people blame those who are shot or killed for being shot or killed.

I thought that gun folk were big on taking responsibility for their actions, and that includes gun trainers. Saying that its the students that don't train enough so it's their fault if they get shot in a CQ situation, or its the students fault for not doing this or that, or implying that if they got shot, they must have screwed up, or words to that effect, is pathetic.

What has been asked for here, is suggestions of what may/will/won't work in CQ situations, because what is now taught does not happen.

A rehash of which is better Sight Shooting or Point Shooting, adds nothing new. But it is a good strawman that one can flail at and attack with great abandon. The Sight Shooting issue is moot because it just does not happen in CQ situations. And Point Shooting may happen, but if it does, it turns into Point and Blast and accuracy sucks.

We also are not here to discuss P&S which is AIMED shooting, and distinclty different from the other two methods. However, because it seems that based on comments made here, I have not been able to get across to some of you just what P&S is, and that it is distinctly different from the other two methods; let me say I am sorry about that, and go over it one more time.

P&S is AIMED shooting that utilizes the natural and instinctive tool that we all have that allows us to aim fast, automatically, and accurately at stuff, people, or whatever. That tool is our index finger. It can be used to aim a gun fast, automatically, and accurately at a target. To P&S, you place your index finger along the side of a gun, point it at a target, and pull the trigger. Just point and pull. No more, no less. It is a no brainer, and it works because the gun barrel becomes a slave to the finger. It is instinctive and can be applied in instinctive situations.

You don't need to buy anthing to try P&S. It may save your life sometime, or keep you from accidentally shooting someone. And no thanks is needed or expected, as it is neither new or my idea. I was told to use it way back in 1954, when shooting a greese gun from the hip. It is in the public domain and there for you to use at your own risk.

Does it work in a real CQ situation? Don't know. The other two methods don't. One is all smoke and mirrors and the other sucks. We know that for sure. Would I bet my life on it? If I toted a gun around, sure. What would I have to lose?

Here is a shooting suggestion in terms of what may/will/won't work.

I am not for locking one or both elbows when shooting in CQ situations. First, it seems to be cognitive rather than fully natural. It also does not seem to be a technique that is practical for use in a wide variety of circumstances such as in a very constricted space, or a space filled with obstructions, or heavy brush, etc.. It also may limit flexibility in moving about. Keeping the elbow or elbows flexible allows one to aquire a target very quicky, absorb recoil, and again very quickly aquire the target even if it has moved or a different target has appeared. Locking the elbow or elbows may be unnecessary.

For example, when I made a test of P&S back in 9/98, I had not shot a gun in over 40 years so I did not know what I was supposed to do. I had never seen or held a 9mm S&W 5906 before, which was the gun I selected to use. I just held the gun up and pointed my index finger at the target. When I pulled the trigger the first time, I got quite a shock. I may even have said WOW, or something like that in response to the noise and the very significant recoil. As I was holding the gun with both hands it did not jump out of my hand. If my arms were locked out straight, they probably would have swung up and served as a lever to dump me on my butt, or wrench one of my shoulders. Just kidding about that last statement, but I did not lock either elbow during the test, and I shot excellently if I may say so.

Having said all that, locking the elbows may also be learnable, doable, and valuable in CQ situations. I am for whatever works.

Well, what have you experts got to put in the pot.
 
I don't have anything new to add, but I would like to second an oft stated position.

How about tougher standards for LEO's?

70%? Too pass and carry? Thats not good enough.

Particularly when you consider the course of fire, ie; static position, target facing and un-obstructed, well lit range. Yawn.

I don't know what the other LEO's on TFL think but, for speaking for myself and a lot of guy's I know.., Its time to raise the standards and demand more.

------------------
"JKD is about...discovering the cause of your own ignorance"
 
Ok,ok. Benifit of the doubt. Just unloaded my Sig, tried "P&S", or whatever. Now, my index finger being alongside the frame, just under the slide feels real natural, cuz that's where it is most of the time anyway. But the middle finger inside the triggergaurd???? Gotta be the hokiest thing I've ever felt, but again, benefit of the doubt. So I look over my shoulder, there's wifey's little foo-foo thing that I hate sitting on the fireplace mantle. I point at it with my index finger. Had to move my head (a lot) to check the sight alignment. WOW!!! It's dead on, 25 feet away! Tried it in different directions, without turning my body first. Amazing, it's always dead on!! Disbelif. Ok, comparison time...just how much better is it? Back to the time proven index finger on the trigger method. Guess what... same results. Why try to fix something that ain't broke? Also, I gave it a pretty good chance, but trigger control with the social digit just don't happen, sights are moving all over the place as I squeeze. (And I've GOT the scientific PROOF that my fine finger dexterity is in the top 0.009% of the population.)

If it works for you, GREAT, I'm happy for you. But the ONLY way that ANYONE can GUARANTEE a hit (especially under stress and when one's life depends on it) is to HARD FOCUS ON THE FRONT SIGHT. How possible that is for any individual depends on how much he/she has prepared him/herself.

I'm ok, you're ok. I'm gonna bet my life only on a sure thing, the infalible front sight.

Oh, PS: Topic. During cross examination, I'd swear that I was looking at the front sight, and blame the miss on darkeness, fear, or movement (bowel or otherwise :D ) before I'd admit to hip shooting an innocent bystander.


[This message has been edited by fastforty (edited March 19, 2000).]
 
Their system does NOT PRODUCE 92% miss rate. The Failure of their students to practice the skills taught produces that. It is not a failure of the Instructors or the Techniques but a failure on the students part!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Finally someone admits it. But if the student does good the instructor takes the credit. Great work if you can find it. NO, the student is not to blame. When a team loses they fire the coach. With a 92% miss rate that is a lot of bad students. It takes guts to make the claim it is the students fault. I thought we resort to our training? Which is it? You painted yourself into a total corner.
Also you say you do, "speed rock which is point shooting." Why not call it POINT SHOOTING? More buzzwords. Thanks for clearing up what happened to all the dead cops and lawful self-defense shooters. It was THEIR fault.
 
Mr. P

>I thought we resort to our training? Which is it? You painted yourself into a total corner.<

Please re-read my post because I think you failed to comprehend the overall jest of it. It is a simple concept I was trying to convey. It's called

P R A C T I C E ! ! !

Lets both stay in the room here, unlike other topics, where when you have been backed into a cornor, you go out the window and (addmitently) skillfully change the debate.
 
Let's keep the train on the track. A little hit and hit back is expected, but this is not a boxing match. Got ideas???

Guess what? The middle finger is the superior digit mechanically when it comes to pulling the trigger of a handgun. It has to do with the way the muscles and tendons of arm, hand, and fingers work together, and the pivot points in the fingers that are used as the fingers curl and uncurl. It also can better compensate for the different trigger pull amounts experienced with double action and single action which can affect accuracy. Rather than detail that here, a digest of a scientific paper which was written by the past lead instructor of the VSP, and which covers that in detail, is available on my web page http://members.aol.com/okjoe/ps.htm.

More than 150 years ago when the current and CUTTING EDGE edge revolver design was developed and patented, and over 100 years ago when the current and CUTTING EDGE edge pistol design was patented (The 1911 was pattented in 1898), I don't think Colt or Browning delved to much in hand mechanics and stuff like that. Hey, they didn't even have freeways or TV then.

However, since they were clever enough to come up with those designs over 100 years ago, and given that at least some advances have been made in medicine in the past 100 years, it would seem to be a small matter to have gun types and doctor types team up and come up with a better grip design that takes advantage of any advances in the past 100 years that are applicable, helpful, and pratical.

Again, there is a ready and awaiting testing platform in the form of thousands of car cams which can provide real time feedback on what works and what doesn't. What the police and gun community have is a real time testing ground that they can use for their benefit. To me its appears like a goose ready and waiting to lay golden eggs.

I remember reading and hearing about how the Germans went into Spain to aid one side or the other in the civil war there, in the years just before WWII (The Big One). I have always thought that the reason they did that was to gather real time data on how there equipment and tactics worked, as they had big plans for the upcoming years.

Edited 07:37 PST


[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 19, 2000).]
 
PlusP-
With all due respect, We're setting up straw men? I find this rather comical. You engage in a debate about the benefits of Point Shooting from the jump off position that it's not taught....therefore every miss is the result of bad training in sighted fire.

Common sense dictates that nothing could be further from the truth.Point Shooting in CQB situations is very common training. Your continuous harping that, if only people would point shoot, we wouldn't have as many misses is like a mantra promising the way to a better life. Unfortunately, repeating it, ad nauseum, doesn't validate a fallacious conclusion when the original premise is absurd.

What's isn't comical, but is dangerous, is the conclusion that training is less important than method. Have we learned nothing from the endless "my martial art is the best" debates? There are no short cuts

okjoe-
As for your device, I too have tried the demo. I find it cumbersome and gimmicky. From the moment we invented the opposable thumb, the index finger became the instinctive digit of primary use, especially where precision was required.

Interesting that one can argue that students can't be taught to see their front sight in a fight, but they can be taught to ignore generations of instinctive motor movement.

You'll note that, in a normal firing grip, the index finger is generally pointing downward of the bullet impact. It would then follow that, if your theory is correct, most misses should be over the target's head. Seen any evidence of that in real life?
Rich
 
I thought we resort to our training? Which is it? You painted yourself into a total
corner.<
Please re-read my post because I think you failed to comprehend the overall jest of it. It is a simple concept I was trying to convey. It's called
P R A C T I C E ! ! !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you found a study or scientific support that range scores or bulk of training increases surviveability. Please fill us in. Also you say "practice" but fail to note what kind and how much. That is called going out the window and not looking back. You didn't leave us with much but a broken window.
If your concept that we resort to that training is true then we have to blame it for the 92% or whatever miss rate. Fred Astaire would be happy with the tap dance.
Please explain the DOJ study showing a HIT rate of 91% by thugs who have little or no training. Doesn't sound like a fight I want to get into.Excuses and reasons are not related.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top