Officer Shooting - 14 hits and attacker still fighting

I would come down on the side that says he was successful because of what he did, not in spite of it. The problem is judging based on the wrong criteria. You can't make the judgement based on the number of shots fired but rather on the outcome. That's how you measure the efficiency of his actions.

He might do something different the next time, to be sure, but that's because he got through this one okay.
 
Hook686 said:
I smile when folks over-analyze and talk of it coming out better as the justification. The guy survived a gun fight. Does it get any better ?
The justification for analyzing these incidents is to learn from them. Improvements in training and doctrine have come from such exercises.
 
I smile when folks over-analyze and talk of it coming out better as the justification. The guy survived a gun fight. Does it get any better ?

Better? Were did all the bullets that missed go? Now if one of them had hit some bystander what would you say then? Ops?

And that is why we try to find methods to shoot strait under pressure. Analyzing shootings helps at that.

Deaf
 
Gentelmen, I would like to make two points:

1. The hits were scored after he focused on the front sight. My "rule" of IPSC is "The steel plate always falls to the first shot AFTER the unnecessary reload" - shooters miss, and switch to just blasting, rather than taking a second to settle on the front sight and HITTING the target.

2. I know this is a gun forum, but when I was training our agents, I kept teaching them to remember "the big peddle on the right". If the outlaw gets out shooting, use the big peddle and make him a hood orniment! Or, reverse and exit the kill zone.

We need to use all the weapons at our disposal, not just guns. Few guns, if any, have more 'stopping power' than a car at 25-30 MPH. Lets use our brains - not every problem is best solved with a gun!
 
Were did all the bullets that missed go? Now if one of them had hit some bystander what would you say then? Ops?

Deaf, you make a good point but I hope that is the last thing on my mind if I am in a life and death situation because those that think instead of react usually falter.
 
The best analysis I can think of to determine what actions can be learned from would involve the actual actor in the scenario. Everybody else is just guessing and offering their personal filters on what should be done.

The best I have heard is shoot until the threat ceases. Simply put if moving left was a good idea, or dropping and lining up the sights, or firing four quick ones while running to right for cover, or .... It will never be the exact same again. Any one of these particular actions might get you killed the next time.

Bottom line is I am not a LEO and will not be chasing any bank robbers, thiefs, or any other low life creature. Those that put themselves in harms way might benefit from such analysis, but it seems to me that can very confusing as one time a particular tactic was successful, the next time it might get you killed. A guy answered his door recently with his hand gun and was killed by the police that had come a knocking.
 
Last edited:
Deaf, you make a good point but I hope that is the last thing on my mind if I am in a life and death situation because those that think instead of react usually falter.

Then practice well and often and when the chips are down... AIM.

Deaf
 
"Things happen fast. When the worst happens, we fall back on our training."

That's what my CHL instructor drilled into us. He was a DEA agent in South America for 25 years, and has been in more than his share of gunfights. He says that under the crushing, heart-stopping, breath-stopping, paralyzing stress of a face to face gunfight, you will NOT think about "the right shot to make" or "the right thing to do." What you will do is follow your training, whatever that may be.

For many police officers, their "training" means standing in an indoor range, slowly drawing the pistol, clicking off the safety, firing a shot into center mass, and reholstering. And in a real gunfight, that's what they'll do, and they will die.

Or miss. And miss, and miss, and miss, and miss. I read a story once of 4 street cops who opened fire at a crazed gunman at a range of 15 feet, emptying their semiautos. The bad guy killed two of them. Not a single one of their shots hit the target? Why? They were following their training: draw, safety off, fire, reholster.

Decide what your instant, non-thinking response will be to a close range gun encounter. E.g., a double fail (two quick unaimed shots to center mass, an aimed shot to the head), or acquire the front sight, or whistle the National Anthem backwards, or whatever you like.

Then practice it over and over until you can instantly draw and perform it instantly, in a blur, without thinking. In front of you, to your left, to your right, behind you, while sitting down, while lying face down on ground, while walking different directions, and so on, until it is as natural as breathing.

Because whatever you do in your training, that's what you'll do when the lead's coming your way.
 
Without commenting on the officer doing the shooting, I think it's important to acknowledge a few things.

1. We don't know how we will/would react in actual combat.

2. Suppressive fire, keeping the enemy(s) head down to maneuver to a better position, is standard Army doctrine.

3. The enemy may be on drugs or something that makes him super strong.

I was a fighter pilot in Vietnam. Lots of AAA firing at me while I was on dive bomb passes. I learned pretty early that I could take another second or two to get the sight picture right and score a good hit. When I didn't get the sight picture right, I had to go in again to face the same AAA. Doing it twice (or more) exposed me for more time than if I did it right the first time.

Now dive bombing is not a close encounter like the officer had. But there are parallels. I don't fault him. I'm just saying if you can keep your wits about you, you have time to shoot well so long as you have an opponent who is a bit shaken and doesn't keep his wits about him.

So the officer may have used the correct suppressive shooting. He may not have. We have no way other than guessing to know.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Why is that relevant? Are those the only people who can offer any useful thoughts on this subject?

The short answer is... YES.

The whole point of analyzing such scenarios is not to criticize the heroism of the people involved; but to learn from their mistakes. Another useful outcome of these discussions is to think about possible decision-making problems now and develop a response in the nice, calm, comfort of the glowing computer monitor, rather than try to think up the correct response in a fraction of a second while someone shoots at you.

I agree, but I see alot of threads like this, and alot of posts berating the actions of those who were involved.
Responses such as...."How many rounds did he waste firing the 'barrage' instead of using the front sight in the first place?"......don't teach anyone anything.
 
5. The officer had a 50% hit rate - way above average for police shootings; but only 5 of his 17 hits (33%)

Is this why in the UK they carry submachine guns?

images


images


images
 
For many police officers, their "training" means standing in an indoor range, slowly drawing the pistol, clicking off the safety, firing a shot into center mass, and reholstering. And in a real gunfight, that's what they'll do, and they will die.

Or miss. And miss, and miss, and miss, and miss. I read a story once of 4 street cops who opened fire at a crazed gunman at a range of 15 feet, emptying their semiautos. The bad guy killed two of them. Not a single one of their shots hit the target? Why? They were following their training: draw, safety off, fire, reholster.

Really? What department is this? We had turning targets and at 7 yards you have 2 seconds to draw and score 3 hits on one stage. Any body getting shot at tends to miss shots. If you have a link I would like to read the story.
 
I too would like to know what agency follows the 'slow draw, fire one, reholster' policy. Perhaps 50 years ago, before the bosses learned about vicarious liability and 'failure to train' lawsuits.

and 9mm, those are semi-auto H&K,s not full auto. I checked when I was over there. Think of them as large, clumsy, very high capacity pistols.
 
One thing that surprised me is that he chose to go prone in a highly mobile fight like that. When I read that, I was reminded of the Mark Wilson Tyler shooting as well where he comes around the car and shoots Wilson as he is prone.

I am not sure that Mark Wilson intentionally was prone at that point. He was already shot at that moment. If he did go prone intentionally, it apparently wasn't to fight. Witnesses watched Wilson exchange shots with Arroyo over the hood of Arroyo's truck. Wilson got hit, faultered, and collapsed face down behind the truck. He apparently was out of the fight, possibly didn't think he could move, and if intentional was making himself less of a target. That was when Arroyo walked around the truck and shot Wilson on the ground.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm
http://archery.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1055926
 
This is why I as a Civilian has taken 5 "Gun Fighting Classes" in the last 2.5 years to learn how to kill the BG when it counts while CCW because I cannot carry a Policeman with me when needed. What I have learned is not taught in their "Qualification Courses". One of the courses included Force on Force using Air Soft with an opponent that shoots back. I consider myself a few steps above most Police Officers on street duty. There are a few S.W.A.T. guys that can school me in some tactics.
 
This is why I as a Civilian has taken 5 "Gun Fighting Classes" in the last 2.5 years to learn how to kill the BG when it counts while CCW because I cannot carry a Policeman with me when needed. What I have learned is not taught in their "Qualification Courses". One of the courses included Force on Force using Air Soft with an opponent that shoots back. I consider myself a few steps above most Police Officers on street duty.

This depends on the courses you attended and the instructors. Most larger PD's these days have a little more progressive training than you may think. You may consider yourself good, but the cop can call the Calvary, and it will come.
 
I consider myself a few steps above most Police Officers on street duty. There are a few S.W.A.T. guys that can school me in some tactics.

Careful, a wise man once said, "Arrogance often does more harm than ignorance."

Just an observation;)
 
I have found that cops have a broad spectrum of shooters in the ranks. Some very good, some not so much.

Without fail however, I have seen cops much better at producing the weapons, clearing failures, and reloads under pressure than your average gun owner.

That's not bashing anyone, just my personal experience from 16 years in LE and my time in the military. The vast majority of gun owners I see at my gun club and at public ranges may shoot the center out of the target, but when the gun goes click, they stare at it for the count of 5, then attempt reload. When it fails, they stare at it longer and then attempt to clear it. The cops I know clear the weapon or reload imediately. Just my .02 cents.
 
Quote:
This is why I as a Civilian has taken 5 "Gun Fighting Classes" in the last 2.5 years to learn how to kill the BG when it counts while CCW because I cannot carry a Policeman with me when needed. What I have learned is not taught in their "Qualification Courses". One of the courses included Force on Force using Air Soft with an opponent that shoots back. I consider myself a few steps above most Police Officers on street duty.

This depends on the courses you attended and the instructors. Most larger PD's these days have a little more progressive training than you may think. You may consider yourself good, but the cop can call the Calvary, and it will come.

more importantly, who cares? Unless you're duking it out with cops (which is wrong on so many levels) it has nothing to do with how good you are vs. you're average cop. Its how good you are vs. your average BG that counts.
 
zincwarrior said:
more importantly, who cares? Unless you're duking it out with cops (which is wrong on so many levels) it has nothing to do with how good you are vs. you're average cop. Its how good you are vs. your average BG that counts.
How good is the average BG? How do you know? How do you know that the BG you might some day meet up with will be the average BG? Could he turn out to be as good as the BGs in the Miami Shootout? Could he turn out to be as good as the BGs in the North Hollywood Shootout?

You can't know until you get there. And if your skills at the time aren't up to the task, you'll be very unhappy with how things turn out.
 
Back
Top