You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Stay Muddy", Two officers open fire on idiot
- Thread starter DennRN
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
dakota.potts
New member
I was very impressed by the male officer's draw. Very smooth draw and it seems like the gun is firing before it even hits full extension, but still very controlled.
I've been told that he's using a shooting drill known as the "zipper". First shot in the drill is expected center mass within a second of your draw and then climb each shot upwards until the target stops.
Whatever he drilled, he did it well.
Had it been a real gun, I think this officer would have handled it well, but I worry for how the other officer in the video would have fared against a real gun.
I've been told that he's using a shooting drill known as the "zipper". First shot in the drill is expected center mass within a second of your draw and then climb each shot upwards until the target stops.
Whatever he drilled, he did it well.
Had it been a real gun, I think this officer would have handled it well, but I worry for how the other officer in the video would have fared against a real gun.
Limnophile
New member
I heard that The Zipper tactic was perfected during the Chicago gang wars of the 1970s. It was an assassination tactic using a 10-round .22 LR pistol: the first shot was aimed at the crotch, each successive shot was higher, culminating with the 10th shot in the forehead. Extremely effective.
madmo44mag
New member
How to recognize a Darwin Award Winner.
1. Bring an air soft pistol against two opponents with hi cap pistols
2. Escalate the fight when outnumbered
3. Escalate the fight when at severe tactical disadvantage
4. Escalate the fight when inebriated
1. Bring an air soft pistol against two opponents with hi cap pistols
2. Escalate the fight when outnumbered
3. Escalate the fight when at severe tactical disadvantage
4. Escalate the fight when inebriated
Cheapshooter
New member
OK, I understand all the accolades for the proffesional, tactical way the shooting went down. But, why wasn't the suspect searched, and cuffed when first taken into custody? Seems like a major fail to me. Would you not expect the officers to render the suspect incapable of atticking them before they tried to take him out of the building?
Thankfully common sense prevailed in the investigation of these officers. The average person does not realize all the sensory overload/degradation that occurs during a fast and high stress situation. Many people's brains stop recording sometime during the event, even though the individual is still actively participating. I'm sure many would look at this video and lay judgement on the officers for continuing to shoot after the perp lost control of the gun, and/or was on the ground. They have NO idea.
I used to be a professional skydiver and now I am a professional pilot. The skydiving helped me a lot to turn the high speed camera in my brain on to record several stressful and scary events. It has served me well in aviation, but I'm not sure if it would work the same in a gunfight.
The thing I found interesting was how both the officers voices went up an octave. Not making fun of them, because that is very common in a stressful situation. I remember one time when my mother and sister (who were both opposed to skydiving) watched as my brother and I both had to use our reserve parachutes when we became entangled doing CRW, if you are familiar. From the ground, it sounded like we were screaming as we "plummeted" (as the media loves to say) towards the ground. Never once did we scream in fear, but we certainly increased the speed and pitch of our conversation.
My mouthy sister made sure I knew how scary that was for her and my mother, so I told her "If you thought that was bad, you should have seen it from our point of view". It only took them a couple of weeks before they would speak to us again.
Fly
I used to be a professional skydiver and now I am a professional pilot. The skydiving helped me a lot to turn the high speed camera in my brain on to record several stressful and scary events. It has served me well in aviation, but I'm not sure if it would work the same in a gunfight.
The thing I found interesting was how both the officers voices went up an octave. Not making fun of them, because that is very common in a stressful situation. I remember one time when my mother and sister (who were both opposed to skydiving) watched as my brother and I both had to use our reserve parachutes when we became entangled doing CRW, if you are familiar. From the ground, it sounded like we were screaming as we "plummeted" (as the media loves to say) towards the ground. Never once did we scream in fear, but we certainly increased the speed and pitch of our conversation.
My mouthy sister made sure I knew how scary that was for her and my mother, so I told her "If you thought that was bad, you should have seen it from our point of view". It only took them a couple of weeks before they would speak to us again.
Fly
Double Naught Spy
New member
OK, I understand all the accolades for the proffesional, tactical way the shooting went down. But, why wasn't the suspect searched, and cuffed when first taken into custody? Seems like a major fail to me. Would you not expect the officers to render the suspect incapable of atticking them before they tried to take him out of the building?
The officers were trying to remove the guy quietly from the building with the least conflict and potential endangerment to employees and customers, disruption of business, scaring customers, etc. People often feel trapped and become more combative in such situations and are more prone to fight. So the goal is to get them outside first, away from other people if possible. Otherwise, the same situation may have erupted INSIDE the eatery, where there were more people likely to be in harm's way.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Funny thing, we were in a similar situation. Years ago, we went to Cracker Barrel. My wife was looking at the doodads and I paid the bill. Two officers come in and start to look around. They talked to the clerks. I said to my wife - We are out of here.
She said : Why.
I said - Cops. And we left. In the car, a set of patrol cars arrived and guy was carried out yelling and screaming. Later I found out that he robbed a gas station and ran down the street to hide in the CB.
I appreciate them not starting a gun fight in the store.
Note, the officer in the video pushed aside the silverware on a table. I think they did just fine.
She said : Why.
I said - Cops. And we left. In the car, a set of patrol cars arrived and guy was carried out yelling and screaming. Later I found out that he robbed a gas station and ran down the street to hide in the CB.
I appreciate them not starting a gun fight in the store.
Note, the officer in the video pushed aside the silverware on a table. I think they did just fine.
Would you not expect the officers to render the suspect incapable of atticking them before they tried to take him out of the building?
So, in Hindsight you would have preferred that shooting to have taken place in a small restroom inside a crowded restaurant?
A confined space is not a great place to attempt to restrain a suspect. It renders less effective a number of use of force options....Taser, baton, OC. All are less effective options in close quarters. Even empty hand techniques are less effective, you cant bring multiple officers into play as easily, etc.
Whenever possible i would move the contact outside as well
Dragline45
New member
This should be a wake up to those who consider the smaller, low cap guns a "primary". Consider the number of shots, and how he reacted to them.
Sgt. Green, the officer who fired the most shots, fired 9, and not saying I would have done anything differently than him, but even if he fired a few less the outcome would have been the same. The 3 other shots were fired by the female officer after he was already down. Again not saying I would have done anything differently, but I don't consider this a wake up call at all that my 8+1 shield is not adequate enough. The video in no way makes me want to carry my Glock 17 around.
1. Where did we learn it was an airsoft gun?
2. Am I the only person who was struck by that big, looping, fumbling draw? When I saw that gun come out I thought sure the female officer was about to take one in the head, but he decided to take the scenic route to deploy it, and I have no idea what direction it was pointing once he finally finished.
3. The comments about frisking him in the bathroom made sense to me a little bit, but I also agree that the restaurant patrons probably appreciate not having a dozen rounds fired in their general direction too. I am remind of Brad Pitt's character's comments in Inglorious Bastards about fighting in a basement.
2. Am I the only person who was struck by that big, looping, fumbling draw? When I saw that gun come out I thought sure the female officer was about to take one in the head, but he decided to take the scenic route to deploy it, and I have no idea what direction it was pointing once he finally finished.
3. The comments about frisking him in the bathroom made sense to me a little bit, but I also agree that the restaurant patrons probably appreciate not having a dozen rounds fired in their general direction too. I am remind of Brad Pitt's character's comments in Inglorious Bastards about fighting in a basement.
At some point maybe, but thats what sucks about pistol rounds, unless you get a CNS hit, it "could be" a good bit longer than you are usually told on the net.Sgt. Green, the officer who fired the most shots, fired 9, and not saying I would have done anything differently than him, but even if he fired a few less the outcome would have been the same.
The only realistic response, is to shoot as the officer did, and continue to do so, until the threat is down, as he did. In this case it took 9 rounds to do that (his partners three anchoring rounds aside), and if this had been your Shield, you'd have been empty at that point. With a 5 shooter, you'd have been out half way through, and in this case, likely would not yet had a positive result.
Im just asking if we are realistic in our choices, or are we just fooling ourselves into believing we have it covered, just because we have "a gun"? Have you been conditioned to believe that one or two of your magic carry rounds COM will stop it, and will you then stop and check your results, as you do in practice, or do you shoot like the officer did, rapidly and sustained, and shoot them to the ground and continue to do so, until the desired result is obtained?
Which gives you the most options and best chances to solve "most" problems? Hi or Lo?
seeker_two
New member
After watching the video again, I'm changing my opinion on the incident on my carry choice. After the fourth round hit, the perp started falling down. The LEO was firing so fast that he put four more rounds in the perp before the perp hit the ground.....four more than were needed to stop the perp. (I'm speaking in regards to efficiency and effectiveness....NOT legality. It was a good shoot regardless of the round count).
Maybe the "old timers" had something with the double-tap strategy. If two rounds don't stop the perp, aim at something else and fire two more. If it works, stop shooting and save ammo for the next threat. One trainer ('80's or '90's, IIRC) set up a cardboard target with a balloon or explosive charge on the back where the shooter couldn't see it. The shooter's job was to double- tap in different areas until the balloon/charge was hit. A lot of students wasted a lot of ammo using the "shoot them to the ground" strategy.
I think my next practice session will be more double- tap training.....
Maybe the "old timers" had something with the double-tap strategy. If two rounds don't stop the perp, aim at something else and fire two more. If it works, stop shooting and save ammo for the next threat. One trainer ('80's or '90's, IIRC) set up a cardboard target with a balloon or explosive charge on the back where the shooter couldn't see it. The shooter's job was to double- tap in different areas until the balloon/charge was hit. A lot of students wasted a lot of ammo using the "shoot them to the ground" strategy.
I think my next practice session will be more double- tap training.....
Dragline45
New member
Im just asking if we are realistic in our choices, or are we just fooling ourselves into believing we have it covered, just because we have "a gun"? Have you been conditioned to believe that one or two of your magic carry rounds COM will stop it
I think its pretty realistic to assume that my Shield with 9rds of 9mm will handle most situations I encounter as a civilian as long as I do my part. We are not LEO's actively seeking out threats. I don't feel undergunned in the least with 9rds and a reload on board. Yeah I don't think that two COM shots will automatically stop a threat, but I also don't think I will need all 15 or 17rds in my Glock either. It's amazing that for years 6 shot revolvers, 8 shot 1911's, and so on were able to get the job done, but with the introduction of 17+ rd handguns they are suddenly not enough.
I carried both of them then, simply because thats all there was. Once things started to change, and the autos made more and more sense, the capacity started to go up, and the realization that the .45 wasnt the Sword of Todd, as was the order of the day at the time (that, and the 1911's were getting fiddly and annoying), I moved on and never really looked back.It's amazing that for years 6 shot revolvers, 8 shot 1911's, and so on were able to get the job done, but with the introduction of 17+ rd handguns they are suddenly not enough.
I still shoot 1911's, and 5, 6, and 7 shot revolvers on a regular basis, and while they shoot fine, the one thing that clearly stands out is, they run empty way to quick, especially with multiple target drills.
If the guns are all about the same size, and the rounds all pretty much work the same, seems like a no brainer to me to go with the hi cap.
We have no idea as to how many were actually needed, simply that it was basically over by 9. The last three were just anchor shots that cinched things.The LEO was firing so fast that he put four more rounds in the perp before the perp hit the ground.....four more than were needed to stop the perp.
He was still on his feet and moving after round 4 too by the way, albeit, moving away. He didnt go down until 8 or 9.
If you shoot reactive targets that go down with "proper" hits, shoot them to the ground works quite nicely. If those balloons or charges were in the right places (anatomically), the results would likely be the same, and even quicker, as if you start COM with your shooting, youre normally moving right up to the head (and all points in between), with no hesitation "to see" how youre doing. You shoot, and keep shooting, until the target is down and out. You dont waste time trying to figure out why they arent.Maybe the "old timers" had something with the double-tap strategy. If two rounds don't stop the perp, aim at something else and fire two more. If it works, stop shooting and save ammo for the next threat. One trainer ('80's or '90's, IIRC) set up a cardboard target with a balloon or explosive charge on the back where the shooter couldn't see it. The shooter's job was to double- tap in different areas until the balloon/charge was hit. A lot of students wasted a lot of ammo using the "shoot them to the ground" strategy.
Double Naught Spy
New member
We have no idea as to how many were actually needed, simply that it was basically over by 9. The last three were just anchor shots that cinched things.
Right
He was still on his feet and moving after round 4 too by the way, albeit, moving away.
Several people here have noticed him moving away or being on the ground, as if those are reasons to not shoot. He ran once and turned around and pointed a gun at officers. There is no reason to assume he would not do it again.
1. Where did we learn it was an airsoft gun?
Googling the officer's (or deceased's) name will turn up multiple news stories stating that it was a "BB gun".
That's the big difference. The officers were detaining and restraining a violent man within arm's reach. Retreating or seeking cover were not options.We are not LEO's actively seeking out threats.
There's a wide gulf between a situation like that and a civilian self-defense shooting.
What would have been different here if the roles were reversed, and the bad guy was you, and the cops the bad guys?
You'd still be basically caught flat footed out in the open, no cover, no real retreating, unless in a rear guard fashion, and now with multiple assailants.
While this case was LEO vs (sorta) bad guy, what makes a similar situation with bad guys and your average Joe, any different? You dont get to pick and choose the fight, you just have to be as prepared as you can before hand, and play the hand youre dealt. Hopefully, youve done this kind of drill, or something similar before, and better yet, in FoF, so you just dont stand there fumbling for your gun.
You'd still be basically caught flat footed out in the open, no cover, no real retreating, unless in a rear guard fashion, and now with multiple assailants.
While this case was LEO vs (sorta) bad guy, what makes a similar situation with bad guys and your average Joe, any different? You dont get to pick and choose the fight, you just have to be as prepared as you can before hand, and play the hand youre dealt. Hopefully, youve done this kind of drill, or something similar before, and better yet, in FoF, so you just dont stand there fumbling for your gun.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.