El-Presidente (Shooting Stage/Level - Is it applicable in Real Life".
- Thread starter stdalire
- Start date
- Status
What!!??? You mean my Gold-braided NRA hat, my $300 eye protection, my $500 muffs, and my
Glock Perfection T-shirt has not qualified me as an expert pistoleer?!?
------------------
o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok
o If you have to shoot a man, shoot him in the guts... Wild Bill Hickok
o 45 ACP: Give 'em a new navel! BigG
o It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. Justice Robert H. Jackson
o It is error alone that needs government support; truth can stand by itself. Tom Jefferson
o When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up. BigG
Glock Perfection T-shirt has not qualified me as an expert pistoleer?!?
------------------
o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok
o If you have to shoot a man, shoot him in the guts... Wild Bill Hickok
o 45 ACP: Give 'em a new navel! BigG
o It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. Justice Robert H. Jackson
o It is error alone that needs government support; truth can stand by itself. Tom Jefferson
o When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up. BigG
Chuck Ames
New member
Sorry PlusPinc,
I have to second Red Bull. I can't find anything, which says you won't react as you've trained. First of all, most cops kind of suck at shooting. Second of all, most soldiers do, too. I know, because I'm both. Lastly, most "training" is static and caters to lowest common denominators. By that I mean, let's train these guys and gals to a minimum standard.
Muscle memory doesn't work? Well, my own anecdotal experiences are surely not scientific, but my "conditioned response" to a surprise threat is instantaneous. My right hand comes to my "retention position" and prepares to either draw my weapon or strike, while my left hand moves to a fending position. The above is not a natural reaction and hasn't always been my standard reaction, I have simply trained that way. Remember fight or flight doesn't vary, the intensity of the reaction does. Every time I've had the crap scared out of me, the reaction has been the same. Plus, it let's me prepare for and assess a situation without striking or pulling a gun on a kid, like the one who jumped out and scared the crap out of me at church the other day, and I'm ready to both if the situation requires it.
If most shooters don't train hard, then what is the likelihood of finding video of a well trained shooter in a gunfight. When you speak of training, it seems that you have extrapolated a theory from some questionable sources, and applied it to the vast majority of shooters, giving yourself your own "hook" in the firearms training business. Genetics may influence a poor shot/miss ratio, but a lack of training certainly seems to determine the outcomes.
The medical literature does back up MM. It doesn't necessarily use the same words, but a conditioned responses is potentially nothing more. Life is a series of muscle memories. Do you really need to look at the numbers to dial certain phone numbers. If you know how to type, do you need to think about which keys you are hitting? If you have trained properly, do you really think you are going to miss? If so, get some better training, because certain units take non-shooters and raise them to a world class level.
Training should rigorously include the physical skills, but doesn't stop there. Simulations (FATS and Simunitions) are great ways to emotionally acclimatize shooters to stress and a gunfight.
My psychology professor told us that the SEALS had a problem when they were training divers to perform some work underwater. They did well on land, where they had trained, but they couldn't perform the tasks underwater. It was primarily because the environment had changed. Once they started teaching them the task while underwater, things went fine. Point: Genetics wasn't the reason that they couldn't complete their tasks underwater, but the training method was. The mind associated certain things with the environment in which it is learned. If you want to train something, then do it in the same environment as the mission calls for. We don't all have access to shooting houses, simunition, or a FATS simulator, which is why visualization can be an extremely important tool. The mind can deal with something much better, if it has experienced it before, and the brain doesn't distinguish between fantasy and reality. (Not to be crude, but that is why men can have "wet dreams" or the fight/flight reflex is evoked by a nightmare) One veteran of combat, told me the first time he was shot at, he just wanted to hold on to his squad leaders leg. The next time was better. Why? The first time he experienced people trying to kill him, it was new, but the next time, it was "I've been here before." If we want to be effective in combat, then we have to go there through simulation or visualization. Jim Cirillo was terrified during his first gunfight, but after that it got better. He had been there before.
Train hard!
Chuck
I have to second Red Bull. I can't find anything, which says you won't react as you've trained. First of all, most cops kind of suck at shooting. Second of all, most soldiers do, too. I know, because I'm both. Lastly, most "training" is static and caters to lowest common denominators. By that I mean, let's train these guys and gals to a minimum standard.
Muscle memory doesn't work? Well, my own anecdotal experiences are surely not scientific, but my "conditioned response" to a surprise threat is instantaneous. My right hand comes to my "retention position" and prepares to either draw my weapon or strike, while my left hand moves to a fending position. The above is not a natural reaction and hasn't always been my standard reaction, I have simply trained that way. Remember fight or flight doesn't vary, the intensity of the reaction does. Every time I've had the crap scared out of me, the reaction has been the same. Plus, it let's me prepare for and assess a situation without striking or pulling a gun on a kid, like the one who jumped out and scared the crap out of me at church the other day, and I'm ready to both if the situation requires it.
If most shooters don't train hard, then what is the likelihood of finding video of a well trained shooter in a gunfight. When you speak of training, it seems that you have extrapolated a theory from some questionable sources, and applied it to the vast majority of shooters, giving yourself your own "hook" in the firearms training business. Genetics may influence a poor shot/miss ratio, but a lack of training certainly seems to determine the outcomes.
The medical literature does back up MM. It doesn't necessarily use the same words, but a conditioned responses is potentially nothing more. Life is a series of muscle memories. Do you really need to look at the numbers to dial certain phone numbers. If you know how to type, do you need to think about which keys you are hitting? If you have trained properly, do you really think you are going to miss? If so, get some better training, because certain units take non-shooters and raise them to a world class level.
Training should rigorously include the physical skills, but doesn't stop there. Simulations (FATS and Simunitions) are great ways to emotionally acclimatize shooters to stress and a gunfight.
My psychology professor told us that the SEALS had a problem when they were training divers to perform some work underwater. They did well on land, where they had trained, but they couldn't perform the tasks underwater. It was primarily because the environment had changed. Once they started teaching them the task while underwater, things went fine. Point: Genetics wasn't the reason that they couldn't complete their tasks underwater, but the training method was. The mind associated certain things with the environment in which it is learned. If you want to train something, then do it in the same environment as the mission calls for. We don't all have access to shooting houses, simunition, or a FATS simulator, which is why visualization can be an extremely important tool. The mind can deal with something much better, if it has experienced it before, and the brain doesn't distinguish between fantasy and reality. (Not to be crude, but that is why men can have "wet dreams" or the fight/flight reflex is evoked by a nightmare) One veteran of combat, told me the first time he was shot at, he just wanted to hold on to his squad leaders leg. The next time was better. Why? The first time he experienced people trying to kill him, it was new, but the next time, it was "I've been here before." If we want to be effective in combat, then we have to go there through simulation or visualization. Jim Cirillo was terrified during his first gunfight, but after that it got better. He had been there before.
Train hard!
Chuck
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Pluspinc: I agree that training is of little utility when one panics. Learning to control what could become panic is quite possible; Chuck Ames' comments are well taken. I've watched peopole get into a panic-state just because of the time-pressure of an IPSC match. After a few matches--they'd "been there"--their behavior showed far more self-control.
The first times I spun or rolled a race car, I was a little shook. After getting used to the idea, I merely tried to keep the engine going, find the right gear, and control the beast until it was pointed in the right direction. Later, I found that car-racing wasn't near as scary as driving a lousy-brakes dumptruck on steep, mountain grades. What the hey, maybe I'm just getting too blase for my own good. Knives and guns are indeed causes for proper concern, but certainly not for panic--they are just problems to be solved.
I think it would be helpful to all of us if we could just agree that what is called "muscle memory" is roughly the same thing as "conditioned response", and just quit worrying about it. For a lot of beginners the term "muscle memory" is understandable and they are comfortable with it. A newbie has enough to assimilate in learning how to be effective with a weapon; I don't propose to add to his load with a short course in Bio-Psych 101.
As usual, Art
The first times I spun or rolled a race car, I was a little shook. After getting used to the idea, I merely tried to keep the engine going, find the right gear, and control the beast until it was pointed in the right direction. Later, I found that car-racing wasn't near as scary as driving a lousy-brakes dumptruck on steep, mountain grades. What the hey, maybe I'm just getting too blase for my own good. Knives and guns are indeed causes for proper concern, but certainly not for panic--they are just problems to be solved.
I think it would be helpful to all of us if we could just agree that what is called "muscle memory" is roughly the same thing as "conditioned response", and just quit worrying about it. For a lot of beginners the term "muscle memory" is understandable and they are comfortable with it. A newbie has enough to assimilate in learning how to be effective with a weapon; I don't propose to add to his load with a short course in Bio-Psych 101.
As usual, Art
I encourage everyone to just read the threads I linked rather than rehash it here, they are quite complete. Just like Art's fine examples above, there are inumerable examples of people in life threatening situation from having a parachute fail, to having a motorcycle go out of control, where people's prior training took over without them even thinking and it saved their lives. Training works. Pluspinc apparently hasn't read the threads linked above because he is still regurgitating the same bumper sticker slogans he was using in them about "find me a scientific source that mentions MMR". That is addressed fully in the thread, it is just a slang term rather than a scientific term, but he can't seem to grasp that.
Thanks for the backup Chuck and Art. Most people here agree with you but it has grown old arguing the Pluspinc because as you can see above, all he does is repeat the same mantra and avoid the argument.
Thanks for the backup Chuck and Art. Most people here agree with you but it has grown old arguing the Pluspinc because as you can see above, all he does is repeat the same mantra and avoid the argument.
What a great exchanges of opinions and comments, back up by actual/simulation experiences.
Redbull said: "Just like Art's fine examples above, there are inumerable examples of people in life threatening situation from having a parachute fail, to having a motorcycle go out of control, where people's prior training took over without them even thinking and it saved their lives. Training works".
- That is what I have said to my other threads, that our training when we are in actual combat will just come out simultaneously for we are trained and conditioned to be in that situation plus our common sense. Of course, without training how would we expect performer to do what he should rightly or perfectly do it.
Art said: Knives and guns are indeed causes for proper concern, but certainly not for panic--they are just problems to be solved.
- I affirm to this premise. That is why we keep exploring the avenues on how effectively we use these weapons against an enemy, and at the same time to learn how we can apply defense when use against us. I agreed, that knives and guns are not just easy to handle in actual situation as we do in simulation practice as we are shooting a target with a lifeless and no motornerve to react, that is why we do so much training to be conditioned.
Chuck Ames said: .....It was primarily because the environment had changed...........The mind associated certain things with the environment in which it is learned. If you want to train something, then do it in the same environment as the mission calls for.
- It is really necessary to consider the environment. Like your military training, if you will be assigned in 3rd world countries with Jungles and Guerilla Warfare, then you must do all the training at least in a Forested or Jungle areas as simulation. (Remember Vietnam) many have discounted the importance of Jungle training and look down the 3rd class military training of the VC's so what had happened?
- If in the wide desert like desert storm, training should be done in in dessert areas to see the things that needs to be corrected or augmented.
- Remember the several rescue helicopters during the the hostages drama in Iran. Perhaps they have mislook the effect of sand storm that may caused the the inoperability of the choppers. So what had happened?
Well everybody knows what I am talking. Thus environment count alot also in our training and I agree to that.
Thank you,
Redbull said: "Just like Art's fine examples above, there are inumerable examples of people in life threatening situation from having a parachute fail, to having a motorcycle go out of control, where people's prior training took over without them even thinking and it saved their lives. Training works".
- That is what I have said to my other threads, that our training when we are in actual combat will just come out simultaneously for we are trained and conditioned to be in that situation plus our common sense. Of course, without training how would we expect performer to do what he should rightly or perfectly do it.
Art said: Knives and guns are indeed causes for proper concern, but certainly not for panic--they are just problems to be solved.
- I affirm to this premise. That is why we keep exploring the avenues on how effectively we use these weapons against an enemy, and at the same time to learn how we can apply defense when use against us. I agreed, that knives and guns are not just easy to handle in actual situation as we do in simulation practice as we are shooting a target with a lifeless and no motornerve to react, that is why we do so much training to be conditioned.
Chuck Ames said: .....It was primarily because the environment had changed...........The mind associated certain things with the environment in which it is learned. If you want to train something, then do it in the same environment as the mission calls for.
- It is really necessary to consider the environment. Like your military training, if you will be assigned in 3rd world countries with Jungles and Guerilla Warfare, then you must do all the training at least in a Forested or Jungle areas as simulation. (Remember Vietnam) many have discounted the importance of Jungle training and look down the 3rd class military training of the VC's so what had happened?
- If in the wide desert like desert storm, training should be done in in dessert areas to see the things that needs to be corrected or augmented.
- Remember the several rescue helicopters during the the hostages drama in Iran. Perhaps they have mislook the effect of sand storm that may caused the the inoperability of the choppers. So what had happened?
Well everybody knows what I am talking. Thus environment count alot also in our training and I agree to that.
Thank you,
VictorLouis
New member
I will come to +p's defense on this one. I've been doing some research on this since I joined this BB at the new year. My own backround contains former LE experience, including time as a firearms instructor.
What +p doesn't always point out is that he DOES NOT discount the value of training. He just differs with most of today's gunzine writers and instructors as to what it should entail. I truly belive that he wants to see more folks and LEO's survive their lethal confrontations. There is no hidden agenda.
For instance: If you were tasked to teach an auditorium full of students about basic auto repair, what would you concentrate on? Would it be fuel injection systems, diagnostic engine analysis, or engine timing/tuning? Of course not. It would be tire,oil, plug and belt changes. This is a BASIC level of learning that covers 99% of our real world experiences. Most LEO's and others are never taught at that level. Instead, I and others have propagated multiple targets, tactical reloads, weak handed shooting, and others. Yes, Yes, such has its place, just AFTER the mastery of BASICS. You know what those are, if you read more than a couple of his posts.
There is a difference 'tween fear and FRIGHT. Most LEO's rarely experience fear, and when they do, training still "sticks". It's when fright kicks in that it gets interesting. Many have brought up parachutists w/chute failure as an example, or the pilot who ejects as a last desperate act of survival. Talk about being in the grip of fright!
Now consider the steps involved in in those acts
chutist) see the failure, reach across chest, grab reserve, PULL!
(pilot) realize the failure, reach down and grab the lever, tuck chin, PULL! Just four, at best. We can handle that! The way lethat force response was taught to me was FAR MORE complicated. It's no wonder we have the real world failures that we do.
Yes, the fright level is different for all. Some folks just don't scare easy. But evaluate it for yourself, as I did, and you too may find yourself struggling with a glaring reality that "they" didn't equip you for!
What +p doesn't always point out is that he DOES NOT discount the value of training. He just differs with most of today's gunzine writers and instructors as to what it should entail. I truly belive that he wants to see more folks and LEO's survive their lethal confrontations. There is no hidden agenda.
For instance: If you were tasked to teach an auditorium full of students about basic auto repair, what would you concentrate on? Would it be fuel injection systems, diagnostic engine analysis, or engine timing/tuning? Of course not. It would be tire,oil, plug and belt changes. This is a BASIC level of learning that covers 99% of our real world experiences. Most LEO's and others are never taught at that level. Instead, I and others have propagated multiple targets, tactical reloads, weak handed shooting, and others. Yes, Yes, such has its place, just AFTER the mastery of BASICS. You know what those are, if you read more than a couple of his posts.
There is a difference 'tween fear and FRIGHT. Most LEO's rarely experience fear, and when they do, training still "sticks". It's when fright kicks in that it gets interesting. Many have brought up parachutists w/chute failure as an example, or the pilot who ejects as a last desperate act of survival. Talk about being in the grip of fright!
Now consider the steps involved in in those acts
chutist) see the failure, reach across chest, grab reserve, PULL!(pilot) realize the failure, reach down and grab the lever, tuck chin, PULL! Just four, at best. We can handle that! The way lethat force response was taught to me was FAR MORE complicated. It's no wonder we have the real world failures that we do.
Yes, the fright level is different for all. Some folks just don't scare easy. But evaluate it for yourself, as I did, and you too may find yourself struggling with a glaring reality that "they" didn't equip you for!
six 4 sure
New member
I have to agree with Chuck, Art, and Red Bull.
I guess plusp thinks if you shout something loud enough long enough people will start to believe you. I normally call those people democrats. But, that's just me.
Stdalire, I don't think practicing that technique will harm you in any way. Will a real life suitation arise where you might need this kind of training, probably not, but life is uncertain.
I've never run across a pissed off armed soda can either, but I've shot many of them using various techniques, and I think I'm better for it.
------------------
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a free man and a slave." Andrew Fletcher, 1695 Discourse on Government
[This message has been edited by six 4 sure (edited February 23, 2000).]
I guess plusp thinks if you shout something loud enough long enough people will start to believe you. I normally call those people democrats. But, that's just me.
Stdalire, I don't think practicing that technique will harm you in any way. Will a real life suitation arise where you might need this kind of training, probably not, but life is uncertain.
I've never run across a pissed off armed soda can either, but I've shot many of them using various techniques, and I think I'm better for it.
------------------
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a free man and a slave." Andrew Fletcher, 1695 Discourse on Government
[This message has been edited by six 4 sure (edited February 23, 2000).]
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
One thing we've all got to remember in these posts: "It is not your duty to understand me. It is MY duty to make myself understood." There IS a difference.
We don't have body language nor facial expressions to help us make our points. That's why the fundamental deal here is "Think twice; post once." I'll add: "Read twice; think about it; THEN answer."
, Art
We don't have body language nor facial expressions to help us make our points. That's why the fundamental deal here is "Think twice; post once." I'll add: "Read twice; think about it; THEN answer."
, ArtI think PlusP's data is great and I highly respect his knowledge in an area where very few know anything. I also believe him to be honorable and not one to create data.
That said, the data PlusP cites is statistical, like "92% of police officers shooting miss the target." What this means to me, and should to you, is that statistics are useful in that they can predict what will happen over a large number of occurrences of some event. It cannot, however, predict what will happen in an individual circumstance.
A dedicated individual could definitely protect himself from some slimeball, but to do so must cross the line from waiting to be attacked and then responding to initiating a pre-emptive strike. If there are no witnesses, it can be said that it never happened. However if there are, it will be called premeditated murder.
I believe what PlusP is saying is, in effect, "If you are one of the good guys, you do not have the luxury of doing the pre-emptive strike."
All the "gunfighter training" in the world, with unrealistic weapons and positions, will not win a surprise gunfight at bad breath range. Only your underlying reflexes (perhaps "guts") will either pull you thru or leave you high and dry. Each of us on this forum may have that little spark of biological greatness that may result in cobra-like deadliness when suddenly attacked. I hope so!
PlusP's is not being personal, he is citing what happens most of the time in actual situations.
------------------
o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok
o If you have to shoot a man, shoot him in the guts... Wild Bill Hickok
o 45 ACP: Give 'em a new navel! BigG
o It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. Justice Robert H. Jackson
o It is error alone that needs government support; truth can stand by itself. Tom Jefferson
o When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up. BigG
That said, the data PlusP cites is statistical, like "92% of police officers shooting miss the target." What this means to me, and should to you, is that statistics are useful in that they can predict what will happen over a large number of occurrences of some event. It cannot, however, predict what will happen in an individual circumstance.
A dedicated individual could definitely protect himself from some slimeball, but to do so must cross the line from waiting to be attacked and then responding to initiating a pre-emptive strike. If there are no witnesses, it can be said that it never happened. However if there are, it will be called premeditated murder.
I believe what PlusP is saying is, in effect, "If you are one of the good guys, you do not have the luxury of doing the pre-emptive strike."
All the "gunfighter training" in the world, with unrealistic weapons and positions, will not win a surprise gunfight at bad breath range. Only your underlying reflexes (perhaps "guts") will either pull you thru or leave you high and dry. Each of us on this forum may have that little spark of biological greatness that may result in cobra-like deadliness when suddenly attacked. I hope so!
PlusP's is not being personal, he is citing what happens most of the time in actual situations.
------------------
o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok
o If you have to shoot a man, shoot him in the guts... Wild Bill Hickok
o 45 ACP: Give 'em a new navel! BigG
o It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. Justice Robert H. Jackson
o It is error alone that needs government support; truth can stand by itself. Tom Jefferson
o When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up. BigG
Gabe Suarez
New member
Interesting topic. I disagree with the idea mentioned that there is no such thing as conditioning through training. This is the method that has been used for centuries in the training of warriors. Man has not changed that much that, now, we are above doing what our ancestors did.
I will say that if do not train anything, or only train it very superficially (as most police officers, military, and civilians), you will do nothing or do it poorly in a real fight. If you train a solid conditioned response (via extensive repetition of a basic skill), you absolutely WILL respond physically as you've trained.
I've experienced this first-hand, and so have several men I've trained. Simply because someone shot a video of a marginally trained operator going to pieces does not mean that it is inevitable that we will all do likewise.
The most important thing to train is the basics. train them until you are sick of them and until you can visualize a perfect sight picture in your sleep! Then develop your killer instinct. Yes, killer instinct.
Aggression will counter "fright". This doesn't mean that we are going to preemptively shoot those whom we suspect might harm us. It is as simple as responding with a counter-punch as opposed to a block. Imagine getting into a fight and only blocking?! Hardly. Defense means we didn't start it. Once it starts, to win, you must be aggressive and violent...until you need to stop.
Its a matter of attitude. Program yourself to attack back, not to cower. This, coupled with conditioned basics, will work wonders.
Gabe Suarez
HALO Group http://www.thehalogroup.com
I will say that if do not train anything, or only train it very superficially (as most police officers, military, and civilians), you will do nothing or do it poorly in a real fight. If you train a solid conditioned response (via extensive repetition of a basic skill), you absolutely WILL respond physically as you've trained.
I've experienced this first-hand, and so have several men I've trained. Simply because someone shot a video of a marginally trained operator going to pieces does not mean that it is inevitable that we will all do likewise.
The most important thing to train is the basics. train them until you are sick of them and until you can visualize a perfect sight picture in your sleep! Then develop your killer instinct. Yes, killer instinct.
Aggression will counter "fright". This doesn't mean that we are going to preemptively shoot those whom we suspect might harm us. It is as simple as responding with a counter-punch as opposed to a block. Imagine getting into a fight and only blocking?! Hardly. Defense means we didn't start it. Once it starts, to win, you must be aggressive and violent...until you need to stop.
Its a matter of attitude. Program yourself to attack back, not to cower. This, coupled with conditioned basics, will work wonders.
Gabe Suarez
HALO Group http://www.thehalogroup.com
If you train a solid conditioned response (via extensive repetition of a basic skill), you absolutely WILL respond physically as you've trained. I've experienced this first-hand, and so have several men I've trained.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are trying to avoid the term, "muscle memory reflex" as well as you should since it is a bogus term on its face. However, repetition doesn't always work and in fact often and does fail as seen on real videos which are common. It CAN work in some basic situations where we only move to a level of fear which can be managed. FRIGHT can not be managed and no amount of repetative anything will work in that state of mind.
Simply because someone shot a video of a marginally trained operator going to pieces does not mean that it is inevitable that we will all do likewise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not "a video"....HUNDREDS of them. And to the last one they do not show pristine nor organized and formal efforts. In fact we've converted the figures to stick figures and ran them through a program to a robotic arm and the arm movements are spastic and disorganized at best. This technology is used in sports all the time to improve sports performance.
The constant high miss rate at any figure and the failure of officers to perform when faced with obvious danger is pretty confirming. If you watch the Rodney King video you see clearly the total collapse of training and they weren't even facing a threat of substance. Swinging a PR-24 or similar device like a baseball bat is more Neanderthal that classroom. It wasn't one officer but ALL of them.
Had just one officer made one good and proper hit as they were trained to do, the matter would have been rather boring on video. Most (if you listen to the sound track) hit the pavement.
Such cases are common and not hard to find. May 8th, 1999 on Dateline the LAPD officer in charge of training for high speed pursuits said it best. " When it gets hot they FORGET their training." Maybe the driving school should wander over to the range and give them a few pointers on such matters.
In pursuits officers jump out of the car, fail to put it in park, fail to turn off sirens, and yell and scream on the radio and never let up on the mike button for a few.
Shootings are no different. We are talking the masses not a select few stars. All men weren't created equal, nor can we create a trained product that is equal.
Until we address the highly limited ability of a human to THINK in a state of fright we will continue to put holes in everything but what we shoot at and most cops will die with their gun IN the holster as we see happening all the time.
Today training programs are so complex, that officers grasp little of what they are shown. In fact, in ANY training we only retain about 15% of it and it decays rapidly.
You are also leaving out the effects of chemicals like Cortisol which with very low grade stress will cause severe memory problems and the ability to recall what we
have learned. A trip or two to the range each year won't cut it. In fact, a trip each month won't do it.
Actual shootings by police are so rare most depts give such training a very low priority and will focus on such matters as community policing, diversity, and social work efforts.
We have also kept lowering standards to boot and few can argue that. Today, Ray Charles has a chance to qualify.
Time to start from scratch based on the performance in the streets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are trying to avoid the term, "muscle memory reflex" as well as you should since it is a bogus term on its face. However, repetition doesn't always work and in fact often and does fail as seen on real videos which are common. It CAN work in some basic situations where we only move to a level of fear which can be managed. FRIGHT can not be managed and no amount of repetative anything will work in that state of mind.
Simply because someone shot a video of a marginally trained operator going to pieces does not mean that it is inevitable that we will all do likewise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not "a video"....HUNDREDS of them. And to the last one they do not show pristine nor organized and formal efforts. In fact we've converted the figures to stick figures and ran them through a program to a robotic arm and the arm movements are spastic and disorganized at best. This technology is used in sports all the time to improve sports performance.
The constant high miss rate at any figure and the failure of officers to perform when faced with obvious danger is pretty confirming. If you watch the Rodney King video you see clearly the total collapse of training and they weren't even facing a threat of substance. Swinging a PR-24 or similar device like a baseball bat is more Neanderthal that classroom. It wasn't one officer but ALL of them.
Had just one officer made one good and proper hit as they were trained to do, the matter would have been rather boring on video. Most (if you listen to the sound track) hit the pavement.
Such cases are common and not hard to find. May 8th, 1999 on Dateline the LAPD officer in charge of training for high speed pursuits said it best. " When it gets hot they FORGET their training." Maybe the driving school should wander over to the range and give them a few pointers on such matters.
In pursuits officers jump out of the car, fail to put it in park, fail to turn off sirens, and yell and scream on the radio and never let up on the mike button for a few.
Shootings are no different. We are talking the masses not a select few stars. All men weren't created equal, nor can we create a trained product that is equal.
Until we address the highly limited ability of a human to THINK in a state of fright we will continue to put holes in everything but what we shoot at and most cops will die with their gun IN the holster as we see happening all the time.
Today training programs are so complex, that officers grasp little of what they are shown. In fact, in ANY training we only retain about 15% of it and it decays rapidly.
You are also leaving out the effects of chemicals like Cortisol which with very low grade stress will cause severe memory problems and the ability to recall what we
have learned. A trip or two to the range each year won't cut it. In fact, a trip each month won't do it.
Actual shootings by police are so rare most depts give such training a very low priority and will focus on such matters as community policing, diversity, and social work efforts.
We have also kept lowering standards to boot and few can argue that. Today, Ray Charles has a chance to qualify.
Time to start from scratch based on the performance in the streets.
Just because I'll be running for cover, screaming at the top of my lungs, does NOT mean I've panicked.
It's part of my defense strategy.
Oh, did I mention I will have a gun in my hand?
Do we know what we will do unless we've already done it?
I'm not embarrassed to say that my three armed encounters did not go as I would have liked, but I didn't have to shoot, either. Or run.
But I had to draw really really fast.
------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
It's part of my defense strategy.
Oh, did I mention I will have a gun in my hand?
Do we know what we will do unless we've already done it?
I'm not embarrassed to say that my three armed encounters did not go as I would have liked, but I didn't have to shoot, either. Or run.
But I had to draw really really fast.
------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
Do we know what we will do unless we've already done it? I'm not embarrassed to say that my three armed encounters did not go as I would have liked, but I didn't have to shoot, either. Or run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Beware the person that claims they responded in text book fashion. Often that book is written on the spot and has co-authors. You and the bad guys. The idea is to be the one to collect the royalties.
When I look back I made a ton of errors in each case. You just try to make enough right decisions that you win. I recall as a kid the old saying, " he who runs away lives to fight another day." With the anti gun climates and cost of lawyers, running is a cheap option if you can take it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Beware the person that claims they responded in text book fashion. Often that book is written on the spot and has co-authors. You and the bad guys. The idea is to be the one to collect the royalties.
When I look back I made a ton of errors in each case. You just try to make enough right decisions that you win. I recall as a kid the old saying, " he who runs away lives to fight another day." With the anti gun climates and cost of lawyers, running is a cheap option if you can take it.
Conditioning and conditioned responses belong to basics of psychology. Theory of classical conditioning was found using dogs (by Pavlov), but it does work with people also. Not always the best way to teach people, but works to learn to perform simple tasks immediately.
Conditioning is used for example in military training around the world and that has saved lives, that's a fact. For example, if you hear an arty/mortar round whistle you go down first, don't stop thinking what to do or you die.
The fact that conditioned responces do not always "work" does not mean there is something wrong in that theory. There is no theory that explains every individual variation in human behavior.
If there has not been enough training the conditioning has not happened so there cannot be a conditioned responce. Also, conditioning can (and to my opinion should) be supported by cognitive learning (to understand why, not just act) so that the conditioned responce is not contradicted by cognitive responce.
Can conditioning for example to double taps be a problem? Probably it can, if a person learns it is the only way to act, and never trains anything else. To my opinion, a more realistic training than in many IPSC scenarios would be better for real life situations, but any kind of training is better than no training at all when we speak about shooting.
Ossi
Conditioning is used for example in military training around the world and that has saved lives, that's a fact. For example, if you hear an arty/mortar round whistle you go down first, don't stop thinking what to do or you die.
The fact that conditioned responces do not always "work" does not mean there is something wrong in that theory. There is no theory that explains every individual variation in human behavior.
If there has not been enough training the conditioning has not happened so there cannot be a conditioned responce. Also, conditioning can (and to my opinion should) be supported by cognitive learning (to understand why, not just act) so that the conditioned responce is not contradicted by cognitive responce.
Can conditioning for example to double taps be a problem? Probably it can, if a person learns it is the only way to act, and never trains anything else. To my opinion, a more realistic training than in many IPSC scenarios would be better for real life situations, but any kind of training is better than no training at all when we speak about shooting.
Ossi
Gabe Suarez
New member
Plusp seems to be aggitated that everyone doesn't see things his way. He writes that anyone who says they "responded in textbook fashion is lying".
Please! I'll be happy to show you photos of shot placement as well as the DR numbers, and witness statements. Or maybe they are lying too?
Just because he, or someone he saw, went to pieces in a fight doesn't mean that everyone will act the same way! If you train your physical skill and your mental outlook thoroughly you, and anyone else, will react as they've trained.
He mentions the fact that you cannot control fright. I choose to call it a startle. Fright is connected to fear, and fear takes time to build. A startle is instantaneous. True, you cannot control the fact you've been startled, but you CAN condition your response to it. Whether you flinch and cringe, or move and draw is a matter of conditioning.
He's seen hundreds of times when conditioning has failed, and I've seen hundreds of times when its worked. Pick your method and place your faith.
He brings up the Rodney King issue. The LAPD is a very political organization and severely limited their officers to minimal response. If you've ever hit a huge aggitated man (like Rodney, an Altadena Block Crip with a rap sheet as long as your...arm) with PR-24, you know its not very effective as he says. Neither are guns,for that matter. That's why they hold multiple rounds, and we practice failures to stop, and things like that.
Those sacrificial officers acted as they were trained, and within the limits imposed on them by their agency...regardless of what the brass said later.
Regarding the inability to think analytically - I couldn't agree with you more. If you train a good response, you won't have to think.
Don't confuse Lowest Common Denominator police academy training with the ultimate effectiveness in combat. This is like comparing a private in boot camp to a SOCOM operator. Police academy training is rife with political mandates and requirements. The stuff force-fed to the masses is not (or should not be) the deciding factor on the training and efficiency of the individual operator.
I don't base my training doctrine on the LCD. I am not tasked with checking off boxes or pronouncing so many candidates "combat ready" to keep my job. I base my doctrine on what will allow you win (not just survive) a fight. To do that you have to condition the correct procedures into your brain, as well as condition the proper mental attitudes.
If you want to win by design, the way is in training. Any other way is based on luck.
Gabe Suarez
HALO Group http://www.thehalogroup.com
Please! I'll be happy to show you photos of shot placement as well as the DR numbers, and witness statements. Or maybe they are lying too?
Just because he, or someone he saw, went to pieces in a fight doesn't mean that everyone will act the same way! If you train your physical skill and your mental outlook thoroughly you, and anyone else, will react as they've trained.
He mentions the fact that you cannot control fright. I choose to call it a startle. Fright is connected to fear, and fear takes time to build. A startle is instantaneous. True, you cannot control the fact you've been startled, but you CAN condition your response to it. Whether you flinch and cringe, or move and draw is a matter of conditioning.
He's seen hundreds of times when conditioning has failed, and I've seen hundreds of times when its worked. Pick your method and place your faith.
He brings up the Rodney King issue. The LAPD is a very political organization and severely limited their officers to minimal response. If you've ever hit a huge aggitated man (like Rodney, an Altadena Block Crip with a rap sheet as long as your...arm) with PR-24, you know its not very effective as he says. Neither are guns,for that matter. That's why they hold multiple rounds, and we practice failures to stop, and things like that.
Those sacrificial officers acted as they were trained, and within the limits imposed on them by their agency...regardless of what the brass said later.
Regarding the inability to think analytically - I couldn't agree with you more. If you train a good response, you won't have to think.
Don't confuse Lowest Common Denominator police academy training with the ultimate effectiveness in combat. This is like comparing a private in boot camp to a SOCOM operator. Police academy training is rife with political mandates and requirements. The stuff force-fed to the masses is not (or should not be) the deciding factor on the training and efficiency of the individual operator.
I don't base my training doctrine on the LCD. I am not tasked with checking off boxes or pronouncing so many candidates "combat ready" to keep my job. I base my doctrine on what will allow you win (not just survive) a fight. To do that you have to condition the correct procedures into your brain, as well as condition the proper mental attitudes.
If you want to win by design, the way is in training. Any other way is based on luck.
Gabe Suarez
HALO Group http://www.thehalogroup.com
El Presidente teaches valuable techniques, pivoting to engage a target behind you and rapidly engaging multiple targets. That said, if the situation occured in real life the Classic IPSC response would probably get you killed.
Gabe Suarez is right. When people are shooting real bullets at you, you are going to revert the techniques you have practiced.
That's why you want to be VERY sure you are practicing the right tactics and techniques.
Gabe Suarez is right. When people are shooting real bullets at you, you are going to revert the techniques you have practiced.
That's why you want to be VERY sure you are practicing the right tactics and techniques.
Gabe, you keep trying to ignore the videos in lieu of "witness statements." May I remind you of the faulty nature of such statements. A recent Texas shooting shows a video of a trooper aproaching a car and shooting a driver who has a gun. The trooper said the motorist fired first. The video shows that not to be true, and the gun was found and not fired. The Trooper PASSED a lie detector test. This is not uncommon. Any cop knows the weakness and peril of eye witness testimony. May I refer to you Prof. E. Loftus books on this subject. Known as "false memory syndrome" it is well documented and common. In fact it is rare NOT to find it.
May I quote from Prof Loftus's book.
" In July 1977 Flying magazine reported the fatal crash of a small plane that killed all eight people aboard and one person who was on the ground. Sixty eyewitnesses were
interviewed, and two eyewitnesses who had actually seen the airplane just before the
impact testified at a hearing to investigate the accident. The plane, one of the eyewitnesses explained, "was heading right toward the ground--straight down." This witness apparently did not know that several photographs clearly showed that the airplane hit flat and at a low-enough angle to skid for almost one thousand feet.
To be mistaken about details is not the result of a bad memory but of the normal
functioning of human memory. When we want to remember something, we don't simply
pluck a whole memory intact from a "memory store." The memory is actually constructed
from stored and available bits of information; we unconsciously fill in any gaps in the information with inferences. When all the fragments are integrated into a whole that makes sense, they form what we call a memory.
Still other factors affect the accurate perception, and therefore recollection, or an event.
Was there violence? How much? Was it light or dark? Did the eyewitness have any prior
expectations or interests? A tragic real-life case illustrates the potential problems
surrounding an initial perception of an event.
from
Witness For the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory On Trial
by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham
St. Martin's Press, 1991
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To put much stock in eye witness testimony or even our OWN testimony is risky business in this day and age.
At one time an eyewitness testimony was a slam dunk for convictions and seen as gospel in court. Not so today.
Today, we know officers are not accurate on the events of their shootings, including the number of shots fired, and other events. Unless we can back it up with video which is very common in this day and age, all such reports are anecdotal and suspect.
In fact I became suspect of police shooting reports when we started investigating them and finding major errors and flaws. It is not a case of lying but a case of normal human response to such an event.
Thus, much of the information we got from officer interviews is suspect and faulty.
That is why we ONLY went with video (there are plenty to choose from) and THEN officer statements to harvest information.
I have found in my own recall of events in a few shootings to be faulty in regards to distance, timing etc.
At one time we put a lot of stock in officer statements, but now we can go to videos in many cases and should. I hope you put such eyewitness comments into proper perspective.
I think I will stick with the science on this one.
May I quote from Prof Loftus's book.
" In July 1977 Flying magazine reported the fatal crash of a small plane that killed all eight people aboard and one person who was on the ground. Sixty eyewitnesses were
interviewed, and two eyewitnesses who had actually seen the airplane just before the
impact testified at a hearing to investigate the accident. The plane, one of the eyewitnesses explained, "was heading right toward the ground--straight down." This witness apparently did not know that several photographs clearly showed that the airplane hit flat and at a low-enough angle to skid for almost one thousand feet.
To be mistaken about details is not the result of a bad memory but of the normal
functioning of human memory. When we want to remember something, we don't simply
pluck a whole memory intact from a "memory store." The memory is actually constructed
from stored and available bits of information; we unconsciously fill in any gaps in the information with inferences. When all the fragments are integrated into a whole that makes sense, they form what we call a memory.
Still other factors affect the accurate perception, and therefore recollection, or an event.
Was there violence? How much? Was it light or dark? Did the eyewitness have any prior
expectations or interests? A tragic real-life case illustrates the potential problems
surrounding an initial perception of an event.
from
Witness For the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory On Trial
by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham
St. Martin's Press, 1991
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To put much stock in eye witness testimony or even our OWN testimony is risky business in this day and age.
At one time an eyewitness testimony was a slam dunk for convictions and seen as gospel in court. Not so today.
Today, we know officers are not accurate on the events of their shootings, including the number of shots fired, and other events. Unless we can back it up with video which is very common in this day and age, all such reports are anecdotal and suspect.
In fact I became suspect of police shooting reports when we started investigating them and finding major errors and flaws. It is not a case of lying but a case of normal human response to such an event.
Thus, much of the information we got from officer interviews is suspect and faulty.
That is why we ONLY went with video (there are plenty to choose from) and THEN officer statements to harvest information.
I have found in my own recall of events in a few shootings to be faulty in regards to distance, timing etc.
At one time we put a lot of stock in officer statements, but now we can go to videos in many cases and should. I hope you put such eyewitness comments into proper perspective.
I think I will stick with the science on this one.
- Status