Not at all. Do you think someone can (or should) stop assessing during (between) trigger pulls? If the skilled and experienced driver of a motor vehicle can be trained to continually react to evolving circumstances in an emergency situation, isn't that better than a minimally skilled and experienced driver just slamming on the brakes or the accelerator, or twisting the wheel, and hoping that's the right decision as the emergency unfolds?
It sort of sounds like you're looking for a 1-size-fits-all "technique" & skillset answer to a question that involves knowledge, multi-tasking and the ability to think fast and make good decisions on the part of a hypothetical victim/shooter.
As the particular dynamics of a situation may change, moment by moment, the "answer" to what's lawful and reasonable may change along with them ... along with what's tactically sound and has the best chance of being "effective" for the circumstances.
The changing dynamics of a situation may well change the appropriateness of the tactics needed to deal with it, too. How much do you want to risk limiting your ability to correctly and effectively respond?
Trying to create rigid and limited training responses to dynamic situations can become problematic, and risky. Skill-based training objectives are all well and good, but those skills must be used within the constraints of both law and what's reasonable for the particular circumstances (and within policy, for LE). Multi-tasking under stress, meaning being able to successfully make fast, accurate and sound decisions in the midst of unexpected activity is more than just relying upon a simple set of physical skills of the "If this happens, do that" variety.
Learning how to identify and prioritize skills to provide an effective (and lawful) response to an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death being offered by more than 1 attacker? Situational context. The tactics will probably have to be determined by the specific circumstances, and those circumstances may be unique to the situation. You don't want zig when it turned out to be better to have zagged ... legally, technically or tactically.
In other words, the time you waste trying to fire a pre-set number of rounds at each attacker may cause you to run out of time before effectively dealing with the "next" attacker (and which may be before you run out of rounds in whatever favorite flavor-of-the-moment hi-cap pistol is chosen). Ditto starting out by not effectively prioritizing which attacker to deal with 'first'.
No, it's not an easy set of answers like teaching someone the steps of a dance. It's not the Cha Cha (1, 2, 3, etc).
An ordinary citizen can find him/herself a victim one moment, but then become a suspect when the wrong decision is made at the wrong moment a couple of heartbeats later. Hoping to be "lucky" in trying to make the right decision isn't exactly a sound tactic. Probably best to develop some knowledge and try to learn what may be involved.
There's a fair amount of reading material that can be found online which might lead to new and better questions. You might find some interesting articles at Force Science Institute. http://www.forcescience.org/
If this was an easy question to answer, we wouldn't have to use so much classroom and range time, discussing the laws (including legal updates, and policies for LE training) and devising training/qual scenarios which include assessing different threat conditions, as well as "No-Shoot" situations. Testing and assessing not only a skillset, but the ability to think, multitask and recognize how, why and when to apply aspects of that skillset in varying situations.
Yes, it's dismaying when someone shoots a No-Shoot "target" in some fast-paced course-of-fire, either because they didn't actually see (recognize & process) what was in front of them, or they simply expected to keep "servicing targets" since it's a shooting course of fire. Easy (but potentially costly) mistake of judgment for someone to rush to make, to keep pressing a trigger when they think they see a threat, than to take the moment needed to recognize what's actually in front of them at the moment, and/or what might have changed. On the range we can re-mediate and discuss incorrect reactions and decisions. Off the range? People can lose jobs, careers, their freedom and their financial futures (and that of their families), etc.
Last edited: