There are many of these videos out there, and I thought it would be interesting to watch how one critic of police use-of-force fares when undergoing training scenarios:
Lee
Lee
Unless one has personally participated in some force-on-force training, it is extremely hard to understand the difficulty of handling these situations. Many of these scenarios take place in low-light environments. Many take place inside structures where ambush is highly probable and response time is measured in tenths of a second.
There is no perfect answer. The men and women of law enforcement routinely place their lives in jeopardy to protect our well-being. If something bad occurs to any of us (or our families, etc), they are the folks we are praying show up quickly.
Lee
I'll address a few points.
The "shoot-to-wound" philosophy goes back a long time. Taking anyone's life is undesirable. Unfortunately, shooting to STOP an attacker has proven to be the only means to end a deadly threat. In the 1970's, Dennis Tueller wrote a famous study on the time/distance relationships involved as an attacker charges you. A healthy male can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. Most officers cannot draw their firearm and shoot in that amount of time. So, you have an attacker (they armed him with a training knife for the drills) who can kill you before you can react. The 21 feet means that an attacker can present a deadly threat whenever you are in the same room together. We must also remember that handgun ammunition is not a guaranteed "stopper". Many individuals continue to function for long enough to kill you. We must also consider the under-stress marksmanship of the officer. Attempting to shoot a fast-moving target the size of a tennis ball (kneecap) is an EXTREMELY difficult task. Even a solid hit to the kneecap may not stop a drug-fueled attacker from stabbing/clubbing you to death. Shooting to center mass, the largest & slowest-moving portion of an attacker, has universally been accepted as the only means to have acceptable results in stopping deadly threats to officers. Center mass shooting presents a larger target that has less erratic movement. Where missing means you will die, would you prefer a target that you have a much better chance if hitting?
It is departmental policy for uniformed officers to wear body armor while on duty. However, many bulletproof vests do not protect against knife attacks: the contact area if the knife's tip (like a hypodermic needle) is so small in relation to the force provided that it can penetrate the vest. Prison corrections officers wear special stab-resistant vests since bladed weapons are what they need protection against.
Tasers are tools with limited usefulness. Most department stipulate that when attempting to resolve a situation with a Taser, a second officer must be present and have their firearm out as backup. Civilian tasers have an effective range of 15 feet, while police versions can reach 40 ft. The twin probes are deployed at an 8 degree angle, one of the reasons that distances are limited for taser use. The probes must successfully pierce the subject's skin, must provide a current travel path (distance between probes) within functional specification, and must remain attached during activation of the device. If the probes are too close together, insufficient current is introduced to the subject, as it prefers to "jump"'directly to the second probe rather than dispersing throughout the subject's body. So, tasers deployed when the subject is too close do not work reliably. Some models can be "pressure-deployed", meaning that you may push the non-launched probes directly against the subject's body (like a stun gun). Allowing a threatening subject ( the reason use-of-force is indicated) to come within arms' length is a deadly threat to the officer. Tasers, when fired, do not always achieve contact successfully. Thick clothing (a recent taser failure against a Carharrt work coat was in the news) can prevent good contact. Deploying the probes, only to have one probe go between the legs or under the armpit of the subject, is another cause of failure. I've seen estimates of taser effectiveness during field use at approximately 50%. The time/distance relationships previously mentioned also play against emergent use of tasers. Subjects have been known to rip the electrodes off before being incapacitated.
Once again, we arrive at the point where a lack of personal, real experience with the subject at hand produces hypothetical solutions to situations that have been carefully studied. A non-pilot could never tell a Fighter Weapons School pilot how to control his aircraft, and the same situation is at work here. The elements of real-life deadly force confrontations cannot be successfully "arm-chaired" to concoct field procedures.
I am unfortunately at the point where I now understand that all of these threads are presented to an audience who understandably has no context with the material. I'll leave this thread open for a short time to address any further questions about its contents, then close it.
Lee
Bob,
Kids may know the law (didactics) better than some police officers because they can do the reading and have the opportunity to become well-versed in the subject. Those same kids would not fare so well if they had to perform the physical confrontation aspect of the duties. That is a subject with which they have no experience. Thus, suggestions and knowledge that have a potential basis in experience are welcome. Suggestions that immediately betray no knowledge/experience of the subject have less value. I personally adapted my curriculum for training others as I learned/tried new material. Ego and rigidity have no place where people's lives are concerned.
Imagine telling our most esteemed members how to hook up their system when one doesn't have a system if their own, etc. That is a steep hill indeed.
As to your final comments about me being an "expert" and cannot be told anything, I consider that a direct insult.
Lee
Once again, we arrive at the point where a lack of personal, real experience with the subject at hand produces hypothetical solutions to situations that have been carefully studied. A non-pilot could never tell a Fighter Weapons School pilot how to control his aircraft, and the same situation is at work here. The elements of real-life deadly force confrontations cannot be successfully "arm-chaired" to concoct field procedures.
I am unfortunately at the point where I now understand that all of these threads are presented to an audience who understandably has no context with the material. I'll leave this thread open for a short time to address any further questions about its contents, then close it.
Lee
Lee,
I guess my concern is more around culture. As an example, in 2011, the entire German police force (policing a population of 80 million) fired 85 rounds; 49 of which were warning shots. In England and Wales there were no fatal police shootings in 2012 and 2013. By contrast, the Miami police used more than 100 rounds on a single traffic incident in 2011; wounding 3 innocent bystanders... I understand that there are way more guns in America, but fail to comprehend that non-Americans are any more docile or less prone to violence than Americans. Indeed, the rate of violent crime in the UK (burglary, assault, rape, etc.) is higher than in the US. Would appreciate your thoughts...
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |