If an ambush predator were to unlawfully grab hold of and restrain you, you’re going to want to have a default aggressive response to that kind of a violent problem. Perfect practice can build in this kind of trained response. While visiting, stopping, and moving about public spaces a strong bearing does have the potential to discourage some unjust criminal aggressors from choosing us as a target. Bearing has to do with how you carry yourself. Merriam-Webster in part states “a man of erect and soldierly bearing” and also; “an examination or determination of one’s position or situation.” In this post I’ll dig down, a little, regarding bearing and default aggressive responses. On my YouTube channel I recently broke down a robbery and violent head stomping with the same title as this post. You can see that video at this link:
First An Important Distinction:
Comporting yourself with a strong bearing comes before a potentially dangerous situation begins to develop. After a potential threat begins to develop if I have distance and time I’m either avoiding and/or I’m moving offline leading my adversary out to a place of disadvantage or vulnerability. Humility involves taking the lowest seat. The exercise of the virtue of humility is humiliation. Where time and distance permit I coach students to move offline with their adversary at roughly a 90° angle towards cover or concealment (some object). If the bad guy pursues then ambiguity decreases and jeopardy increases (think legal battlefield). I teach students how to use a near pass with their desired destination then pivot 90° at the apex point gaining surprise! The surprise that the innocent person of goodwill just secured cover and now they’re an exceedingly small target should this confrontation go to guns. Often posturing down rather than up has the power to lead one’s adversary out to the deep. Seeing early and moving offline early is critical to such a strategy. Where distance and time do not permit there are other tactics and strategies beyond the scope of this post.
Avoiding violent problems begins with good situational awareness. A really good analogy is defensive driving. As drivers gain experience their capability to rapidly read, understand, and act, gets better, as it relates to dealing with other incompetent, distracted, or dangerous drivers. Good defensive drivers read things a lot farther out. Situational awareness works in much the same way.
In law enforcement, bearing was also referred to as officer presence or command presence. This concept began with a squared away uniform. Fitness and strength were considered part of good officer presence. A command voice, readiness, and a resolute will as is proven out through one’s actions. So what might readiness and the body language of readiness look like? The head and eyes are up paying attention. Priority of attention is paid to understanding what it is you’re seeing, and remaining watchful without spinning up a confrontation. Before a threat exists you might use peripheral vision, obscured views through tinted windows, sunglasses, and/or reflections to subtly monitor potential threats. As threats close with or compress in on you and yours, direct focus on the hands becomes a priority. Potential threats are not easily nor quickly rationalized away – they are monitored. Potential unjust aggressors are not given a position of advantage out of some misplaced social norm or courtesy. Shoulders are typically pulled back juxtaposed to slouched or rolled forward. As you stand, walk, and move about an observer might describe what they see as seeing someone who knows where they are; and knows where they’re going, with what might be described as an air of confidence. The bottom line is you do not appear confused or uncertain. Stability and mobility come from stance. In my estimation a good stance is not having your feet exceedingly close together but more like shoulder width and offset to some degree. Overall alignment or orientation demonstrates a correct positioning facing generally towards the biggest potential threat(s) moving around you and yours.
Over the course of my life, I have heard many times from folks who did not serve in a warrior profession comment about how they could just tell a police officer was in law enforcement. The comments often are not meant as a compliment. Additional comments may include the belief that the guy is cocky or arrogant. Both good guys and bad guys often display a similar kind of air of confidence, which in part explains how both good guys and bad guys often recognize each other as they move about society. There are some other tell-tale signs whether we’re seeing a good guy or bad guy though that’s a discussion for another day. There have been times I have found myself wondering: What am I looking at here? Is this a good guy or a bad guy?
So long as you or I are willing to dominate the bad & ugly parts of our ego we can avoid some (not all) potentially violent confrontations. So long as you or I are willing to dominate the bad & ugly parts of our ego we can often stack winning principles putting ourselves in the best possible positions to decisively win a violent confrontation.
When my family is with me I’m only as fast as my slowest members and because my family is with me, it’s not about me and my escape or survival, it’s about their escape and survival. That is the coin of the realm for a husband, father, or mother. That is the coin of the realm for a brother in arms – a protector and defender of innocents. That is the coin of the realm for any sheepdog or shepherd, as it were.
Where an unjust criminal aggressor perceives or reads you as an easy victim the least expected thing will be for you to immediately move into, through, and over your unjust aggressor with surprise, speed, and violence of action. Continuing to attempt to flee when fleeing is not an option gives the bad guy a higher percentage of probability of dominating and perhaps ending your life. A default aggressive response moves that percentage of probability immediately closer to 50/50. Where it’s not possible for me to stack probabilities my way sometimes we have to accept the best odds we may have is 50/50. Part of that reality includes our will – which is the decision making faculty of our souls. Understand unless the unjust aggressor immediately incapacitates us via paralysis, unconsciousness, dying or death we still have some number of seconds to STOP the unjust aggressor. We cannot know with certainty whether the bad guy’s bullet or knife wound will or will not result in our eventual death. We might think we know and perhaps we are right but the immediate decision that must be made is; What do you do with the time you’ve been given? Perhaps it’s only thirty seven more seconds! Perhaps it’s only twelve more seconds. What – do you do – with the time? If you want any chance to live out the rest of your natural life you first must stop – the – threat! Use whatever time you have to win the fight, leaving the business of your life or death up to the good Lord.
To conclude this business isn’t merely about appearing competent, confident, and prepared. Rather it’s about being competent, confident, and prepared. It’s not about posturingup which may facilitate an early grave or a lengthy stay in your local prison. When a threat is undeterred by a strong and confident bearing it’s often a winning strategy to posture down and sandbag buying you the element of surprise. Sandbagging can cause a bad guy to underestimate you and in his own prideful overconfidence begin giving you opportunities to gain advantages in positioning, timing (think initiative), and in the will. Surprise when coupled with speed and violence of action may facilitate achieving and maintaining relative superiority to secure the win. The principles, tactics, and strategies that work do so for both the good and the bad men and women of this world. The critical moral and legal questions then come down to what was the will of each man. In the video example above the will of the unjust aggressor was domination, incapacitation, and robbery. Innocent people have the will to protect and defend against such immoral, unethical, and illegal attacks. Begin by seeking to acquire knowledge relating to fundamental principles of building a solid foundation, then seek to answer the questions; do I have a legitimate potentially violent problem, and if yes, what do I do about that problem?
As
a general rule it’s not a good idea to attempt to draw on a drawn
gun, especially at point-blank range, contact range, and all the more
when an unjust aggressor is already pointing his firearm at you. In
this blog post I’ll take a look at some
of
what it
depends upon.
I’ll dig down a bit on the question of when it may make sense to
attempt to draw on a drawn gun or from what’s been called drawing
fromthe
drop (meaning
the bad guy is pointing his firearm at you), and you remain under his
observation or peripheral vision.
Where
no good opportunity exists and a criminal demands my wallet, or my
car, by brandishing or pointing a firearm at me or mine, I’m going
to comply and hand those things over. I’m going to be a good
witness. If I decide to use legitimate defense it will be due to the
imminent
threat
of
great bodily harm, or death, not because of a loss of a material
good. Part of that decision process will include remaining watchful
for a window
of opportunity or
one of the other circumstances
listed below.
If a bad guy has a readiness, close distance, and the will to unjustly murder an innocent any sudden reaches for a concealed weapon will likely result in you experiencing great bodily harm, or death. Let’s take a look at an instance where I do not believe the bad guy had a readiness which had much to do with his expectations:
Extras – Sometimes Unjust Aggressors Get Surprised
Here is the link to a more thorough video breakdown of the incident listed above!
If an unjust criminal aggressor gives us the gift of underestimation, we ought to be grateful for that gift. We ought to exploit and take advantage of any errors or vulnerabilities to stop the unjust imminent deadly force threat! Sandbagging (taking the lowest seat – humbling oneself) facilitates an adversary’s belief that they will receive no resistance what-so-ever. That belief sometimes opens a window of opportunity! This is not a sporting event with rules, referee’s, nor paramedics standing by. These are grave matters of life and death! If an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death finds me then the last thing I want is a fair fight. I want to stack winning principles my way.
In general the closer you are to an unjust ambush criminal predator the higher the probability that a gunfight with him results in your death. The closer you are the more important it is to seize initiative and decisively win the fight. At contact range (inside 1 yard) you either comply, immobilize his weapon or him (draw and end the fight), or create distance. At this distance it’s just too easy for the bad guy to simply raise his firearm and let your head fill the backdrop of his slide, or muzzle. If you’re able to immobilize your adversary’s weapon or pin him against something facing away from you, do so. Think in terms of a brief immobilization, only long enough to draw and solve your deadly threat problem? Deadly force encounters are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Expect a moment of immobilization to be brief (like cover; which is also temporary when someone flanks or gets behind you).
Professional
training teaches students to achieve sight
alignment
and
then sight
picture.
For
those using a red dot on their weapon system like an RMR (Ruggedized
Miniature Reflex), the sight alignment is built in and one only needs
sight picture.
What about point-blank range? Point-blank range is roughly 1-3 yards. This is the distance where if he has the will to dig in and fight we ought to expect to take damage (meaning we will be shot; probably repeatedly). As we increase the distance beyond point blank range then it depends upon our adversary’s skill level. Most street level bad guys do not have professional firearms training so shooting one handed without sight alignment means as distances increase there is an increased probability of missing their target. If a bad guy holds his firearm with a proper two handed grip – that’s a clue you’re going to need a lot more distance (providing your skill levels can accommodate) or quick access to cover which means you get small behind that cover (as his target) while he remains large (as your target).
I
can’t know anyone’s will
by
merely looking at them. Posturing
is not the same thing as a person’s will.
Likewise,
sandbagging
doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have the will
to
end me or mine. The will
gets
proven out in the combat.
Some
might question if action beats reaction (and it does) then why not
engage the deadly force threat? The principle of action beating
reaction involves a very short window of time. Yes, action beats
reaction though it is measured in fractions of a second. From
studying deadly force confrontations when a person is expecting an
action I’ve observed a reaction time as low as four tenths of a
second. When a person is surprised we may see seven tenths of a
second, and often we see a reaction of flight
among
bad actors to save
oneself
and
get out of Dodge City. Initiative is critical in deadly force
confrontations. But initiative must be balanced with opportunity.
Innocents
ought to remain watchful for the best timing
to
launch a counter defense
(to strike)
with
surprise,
speed, and
violence
of action!
When
might I choose to draw on a drawn gun?
#1If
the unjust criminal aggressor goes active! Meaning
the bad guy begins actively shooting, stabbing, or clubbing me, mine,
or innocents.
This
is first in order because the time of deciding has ended and now a
new clock has started ticking. If you ignore his deadly attack
and just hope he’ll have mercy on you, very soon you will no longer
be able to stop his attack. People can, do, and have lived
after being shot or stabbed multiple times. Does that mean
you’re going to live? There are no guarantees! However,
failing to focus on stopping
the threat increases
the probability that he will end you. Don’t look for mercy
from an unjust criminal aggressor dealing out deadly blows. The only
question you must now decide is; if you only have 19 seconds left on
this earth what are you going to do with that time? Stop the
threat! How? Immediately and in as much as you can
simultaneously move,
draw, present, and shoot;
repeatedly
until the threat is eliminated or he shows clear and convincing signs
of full surrender. How do I define eliminating
a threat?
By
driving the threat bearer down into incapacitation or a physiological
stoppage. Incapacitation means he’s paralyzed, unconscious,
dying, or dead. This is about removing the unjust aggressor’s
will.
The
dying and dead part ultimately is God’s business not mine. If
the unjust criminal aggressor voluntarily decides to stop, which is
called a psychological stoppage at any point prior to the
physiological stoppage then I would stop! Full stop as fast as
is humanly possible.
#2 If I believethe unjust criminal aggressor is about to go active! Circumstances go from sketchy to terrifying all within milliseconds to just a second or two. As you are reading or perceiving the developing situation you may not be able in that moment to fully understand nor articulate why and how you just knew a failure to act decisively means probable great bodily harm or death. In Gavin de Becker’s book The Gift of Fear there is an example of a woman who reported she knew if she didn’t escape she would be murdered. Later she was able to go back through the events and do the thinking and as she recalled step by step the bad guy’s actions she realized when he shut the window and turned up the stereo those were signs he was preparing to cover any screams as he went to the kitchen to obtain a knife. She later understood and could articulate how she just knew she would be murdered if she did not escape.
There are other legal factors that will later be
challenged on the legal battlefield. Five factors include innocence,
imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness
(both objective and subjective). A high number of
unjust aggressors don’t worry so much about legal, civil, and
social battlefields. They don’t worry about moral battlefields.
They focus on the physical battlefield. The time for preparing for
all of these other battlefields is beforehand. Do the thinking (and
practice) beforehand so that in the moment you have developed a
trained response knowing where all the lines are on the moral, legal,
civil, and social battlefields. When a fight cannot be avoided you
need to focus on winning the physical battlefield.
Some people refer to this kind of belief as
following your gut. In law enforcement sometimes we’d mention
a kind of sixth sensei,
intuition, or instinct where an officer might have a bad feeling
about someone or some developing situation. Those who work, live, and
kind of soak in exceedingly dangerous areas often develop an ability
to perceive or read people and situations very quickly. Part of that
might include non-verbal cues in facial or body language,
positioning, and timing which add up to signs that we’d read
sometimes faster than we might be able to fully understand or
articulate.
I’ve written before in this Blog about my trust
in my Guardian Angel. Catholics who have studied their Faith or
listened to sound preaching will immediately get this. Catholics
believe in the existence and activity of angels both good and fallen.
Angels are messengers. If you’re Catholic and you haven’t
ever heard this a bare bones beginning is the Catechism of the
Catholic Church; #325-#354. I’m not going to dig down on explaining
this. For my part, I believe.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter how or why you
believe this person is about to go active because the context is an
unjust aggressor is presenting an imminent threat of great
bodily harm, or death via that firearm he’s reaching for, pulled,
brandished, or pointed. Once that kind of threat exists, if I believe
this guy is about to go active I’m not required to gamble even one
tenth of one percent with my life or the life of someone I purport to
love. That leads into the next reason.
#3 If the unjust criminal aggressor gives
me a blind spot!
If the unjust aggressor temporarily becomes
distracted and while the threat is active and ongoing, he turns his
back towards me giving me a blind spot OR ANY OTHER VULNERABILITY
that might be exploited. Some would say: Unfair! Unfair!
A great working definition for the word tactics is to
gain an advantage in positioning, timing, and / or over the will of
our adversary. So what kind of advantage do you
imagine we’re talking about? If you guessed an “unfair
advantage” you’d be correct. This is why I sometimes
write or coach that as part of legitimate defense one must be willing
to do that next right hard and seemingly “dirty” thing.
Seemingly is a qualifying term. It seems dirty because
it’s unfair. It’s not dirty! If you’re
an innocent person of goodwill, gaining an unfair advantage to
legitimately defend your life or the life of someone you purport to
love is good, right, and just. This ain’t no game! This is
not a sport! This is a matter of life or death. Common sense
seems to be in short supply these days. It is common sense that an
unjust criminal aggressor using the threat of death to gain his
immoral, unethical, and illegal will (meaning his desires)
has no moral, ethical, or legal rights to do so!
I have to make a distinction here. What this
does not mean is revenge or vengeance. If an unjust criminal
takes my wallet immediately, turns and begins running from the crime
scene I’m going to be a good witness. If once the threat is
inactive or no longer ongoing I take up a sound two handed shooting
grip and stance, and begin shooting down the road in the interest of
revenge then I’m going to have a moral problem with God and a legal
problem with the state.
It is quite another thing to take advantage of a
vulnerability, a poor tactic, or a bungleii,
in positioning or timing (readiness) when their will to continue the
deadly threat remains undeterred. All that is required to stop
this series of tragic events is a change in their will – a
clear and convincing sign of full reversal of their deadly force
threat! If an unjust aggressor gives me his back
or any other vulnerability this is a reason I might choose to exploit
that vulnerability. Do not wait until your adversary is quite
ready or better positioned. Where an unjust criminal aggressor
presents an active and ongoing imminent deadly force threat (ie; he’s
not fleeing the scene), innocent people of goodwill are not burdened
with gambling with their own or they’re loved one’s life.
#4 If this is a kidnapping type event!
If an unjust criminal aggressor says; Get in
the car! Walk towards the trees! Move to the back room! Drive!
The second crime scene is often a place of torture, rape, and
death. With this circumstance I may look for a natural transition
or I may attempt to create a transition by temporarily turning my
body in such a way to give me a degree of surreptitious drawing.
Transitions are inherently dangerous for everyone involved.
If you learn to recognize natural transitions these are
little windows of opportunity. Transitions are places where
Mr. Murphy sometimes shows up and creates havoc (Murphy’s
Law:if something can go wrong it will go wrong).
I might drop something and bend at the waist to pick it up to give me
a chance at a surreptitious draw. I might turn my body in such
a way as to give myself the best chance for a surreptitious draw. I
might fake a heart attack for the same reason. Whether the unjust
criminal aggressor has buy in (meaning you acquire some degree of
surprise) or not, once you go for your weapon system then
it’s speed, and violence of action until the threat is eliminated
or you enter eternity. Just like the unjust criminal aggressors of
this world every man (or woman) has to decide what they do with the
time that they’ve been given?
In conclusion, there are times where we may have
to draw on a drawn gun or even worse from the drop. As it
relates to tactics, strategy, and logistics, do the thinking
beforehand.
i
Sixth sense:
a power of perception like but not one of the five senses : a
special ability to perceive or comprehend : a keen intuitive power
iiBungle:
to do, make, perform, or handle clumsily or badly : MISHANDLE, BOTCH
A common tactic bad guys use is a near pass (often disinterested), with a 90° cut at the apex point; simultaneously clearing their cover garment with their weak hand (or just pulling it from a pocket), reaching and drawing with their strong or dominant hand, raising, pointing, and dominating their intended victim by threat or force. That pivot is a transition. There are opportunities for bad guys or good guys to make things happen during transitions. Likewise there are risks during transitions for Mr. Murphy (Murphy’s Law) to show up and wreck things for both the bad guy and the good guy. A person who understands how they may gain advantages in transitions has the potential to either make things happen or exploit their adversaries transition to their own advantage – that’s a discussion for another day. The 90° cut at an apex point is a highly effective tactic used by unjust criminal ambush predators. In my coaching I often bring up the fact that there are some tactics and skilled ambush predators that really are very good at sinking the ambush in deeply. This is one such tactic. The window of opportunity for a person of good will (officer or citizen) to avoid domination, a gunfight, or being killed, is exceedingly tight. That window gets measured in milliseconds to a second or two. Part of this tactic includes the bad guy telling you a story with their alignment (angle), disinterest, and body language. A person of good will can learn how to reverse engineer these underlying principles and learn to use some of these concepts to justly defend and protect themselves and those whom they love. In this post I’ll explore some limited aspects of this tactic. You will find my full YouTube video, the subject of this post here:
A Short Video on 90° Cut @ the Apex Point
How long do you think remained as a window of opportunity for the person seated in the vehicle?
My best educated guess is: It depends. What mindset did the presumed bad guy have as he used this tactic? Was he merely posturing with no real intention of shooting? Would he have shot reflexively or out of fear given another half second? Was he intending on shooting from the beginning? I’m not willing to gamble with my life or the lives of those I’m responsible for so I’m going to operate based on this last worst case scenario. In other words if he pulls (a firearm) I’m going to believe he’s going to use that firearm without hesitation. How long remained? I’m convinced only milliseconds remained before the window of opportunity slammed shut and this one person good guy shooting would have transformed into a gunfight at best, or a one person bad guy shooting at worst.
Obviously, most people who pass us daily are not bad guys angling to sink an ambush in deeply. There are a number of other considerations. For instance dangerous areas, dangerous people, at dangerous times. Check out my other videos and blog posts where I’ve commented how to begin figuring out what signs to look for in determining dangerous men. The long of the short of that is how a person dresses, comports himself, marks or adorns himself (gang and prison tattoos), or in any other verbal or non-verbal way communicates to the world: I’m a dangerous man! We ought to believe men communicating to the world they’re dangerous! They’re either a want-to-be on their way to that goal, or they’ve arrived.
When in hunt mode some bad guys begin telling us stories via non-verbal communication such as alignment (angle), disinterest, or body language. Their story may convey: I’m no threat to you. I respect you. Sometimes the story means to induce us to feel sorry for them, perhaps even to feel a bit embarrassed for them. Feeling embarrassed may encourage us to look away – to give them a blind spot to maneuver and close distance with us. These niceties are social constructs (social norms), and as it relates to keeping my people or myself safe – that’s not my problem! That is their problem! Do NOT be taken in, or fooled, by an unjust social ambush predator’s clever stories. Remain awkwardly and steadfastly watchful. As a good rule deal with potential threats like a lion deals with a potential threat – head on. If you cannot bear to look directly at a potential threat (or if there are tactical reasons you’re choosing not to) at the least use your peripheral vision, a reflection, or some other means of preserving situational awareness.
Both
unjust predator’s and trained warriors will operate with similar
tactics. There are stark and radical differences between how and why
a predator or just warrior (protector) acts preceding, during, and
after a deadly force confrontation. They will move and work in the
blind spots. When bad guys or good guys use violence of action to
solve an unjust or just problem that action will look ugly to an
immoral, weak, and corrupt generation.
Bad
guys approaching from a frontal position will often use a
disinterested near pass. They’ll give the appearance they have no
interest in you at all. If they do have an interest in a meet &
greet kind of surprise ambush (and the social skills to pull that
off) then they’ll align direct with you and use their charms.
Bad
guys approaching from the rear (since most people don’t really pay
attention), know and understand they can walk right up and do
whatever they want to you. A caveat here is most bad guys will
likewise know and understand they’ll need to use a disinterested rear
approach with law enforcement. Why? Good guys will use vehicle
mirrors to maintain situational awareness.
Awhile
back I did a video on a double shooting involving two Sheriff’s
Deputies in Compton California. A news conference revealed the
Deputies believed the suspect was simply going to pass by. How do you
think those deputies came to that belief? They read and accepted what
the bad guy was telling them through his alignment
(angle), disinterest,
or body language. Once that ambush predator arrived at
that apex point he pivoted 90°, advanced, simultaneously drawing,
readying up, pointing, and opening fire. An ambush predator who’s
graduated from a street school of violence, with honors (magna cum
laude, or cum laude) will know, understand and expect Police
Officers to have good situational awareness. See the Compton shooting
break down at:
Many
people who seek to learn something about violence did not grow up in
a high crime dangerous area, nor have they ever spent much time down
range (as a potential target) in those areas. Many people seeking to
learn have zero days attendance at a street school of violence. At
times I’ve heard people pridefully write bad guys off as dumb
primarily because of how they speak which seemingly shows forth a
lack of education. The problem with that is education in the English
language has nothing to do with education in ambush or counter-ambush
violence. If you imagine competence with the English language somehow
translates to how much schooling in violence an inner city gang
member, a motorcycle gang member, or any other member of an organized
criminal enterprise then you don’t know what you don’t know.
Many of these folks have graduated street level violence with honors
while increasingly many people of good will have not even been
to the high school equivalent of home room. Some will argue
they’ve studied a martial art. I studied a martial art from 12-15
years of age, and I’m telling you what I learned in Tae Kwon Do in
the early 1980’s, is of no advantage in understanding how to deal
with an unjust social or asocial ambush predator. I’ll stop there for
brevity. Most people of good will who lack
legitimate experience in violence are simply outclassed by a huge
margin.
Near
passes are often applied attacking
a victims flank. Why? The predator desires the intended victim see
how deeply the ambush is sinking in, which facilitates domination of
the victim by means of fear. However, if the intention is
assassination then the tactic gets applied from any angle of approach
360° around the intended victim. In downtown Portland far-left
activist Aaron “Jay” Danielson, was in front of Michael Forest
Reinoehl. Danielson was moving at an angle giving an appearance
Danielson would only continue moving away from Reinoehl. This was a
very clever story Danielson’s angle and alignment was telling Mr.
Reinoehl. Suddenly Danielson pivots 90° and begins shooting
Reinoehl. Danielson accomplished this in my estimation at a distance
outside of point-blank range. Some ambush predators will have some
fundamental firearms basic skills which means their apex point will
be at greater distance than those who don’t have those skills.
Proximity
is king. The angle of approach doesn’t matter. Acquiring the apex
point is what matters. Danielson seized the initiative, achieved and
maintained relative superiority and dealt out a lethal shot to
Reinoehl. See that video breakdown here:
So
what are better solutions? The best way to win – is don’t be there.
If you see this coming the best tactic is drive away – take a
little cruise. I’m often reminded of the song Rawhide in the
movie The Blues Brothers (1980) where they sing ♫ rollin’,
rollin’, rollin’.♫ Take a little drive and in a few minutes any
opportunistic ambush predators will have trekked through the area and
be farther down the road, then
no longer your problem.
That
said, sometimes you cannot avoid things. For instance, in my most
recent video another vehicle sits parked in front of the presumed
just defender and clearly a relationship exists between these two
parties. You’re only as fast as the slowest member of your family, or
group.
The
second solution is get out of the vehicle and face the possible
approaching threat. Why? You need to regain your mobility.
In law enforcement we understood being seated in a vehicle as a tomb.
Why would LEO’s consider a vehicle as a tomb? The long of the short
of it is you lack mobility. All things being equal a
person with mobility against someone who lacks mobility
has a potential distinct advantage in rapidly changing their
positioning. Potential sometimes does go untapped. Initiative is
critical but you must know when (timing) to use it. There are
moral, physical, and legal implications to timing.
I
recall hearing John Lovell of Warrior Poet Society once give a kind
of working definition of the word tactics: tactics
are to gain an advantage in positioning, timing, and/or psychology.
If what Mr. Lovell meant by psychology was the will of a man,
then that is an excellent working definition of that word! I’d
tweak
that definition to:gaining an advantage in timing,
positioning, and over the will of your adversary. Carl Von
Clausewitz rightly taught that part of defining the word war comes
down to the will of adversaries.
How
do I attack my adversaries will? You must make you’re adversaries
expected return on investment too costly! If I exit my vehicle and
face a potential approaching threat he is going to see his
probabilities of dominating decreasing. If he’s schooled in
violence he’ll understand the probabilities of bad consequences
like a gunfight, injury, prison, and/or death increasing. A
gunfight at point-blank range is
often 50/50 mutual destruction. Those with an intimate
knowledge of violence whether through personal experience, seeing, or
hearing how it happened to friends and family understand these
costs. By attacking the bad guy’s probabilities of success
we attack his will. By showing him through positioning and timing the
costs are too high – we attack his will. Once you’re in a physical
battle then it’s about causing discouragement, despondency
(losing hope), and ultimately despair(psychological
stoppages). When the threat is imminent and deadly then I coach
clients to orient towards a physiological stoppage which means
to remove that persons will via incapacitation. If they reach despair
(clear & convincing signs of full surrender) at any point before
incapacitation, then I’d stop dealing out lethal blows as quickly
as is humanly possible. I’d call 911 to report their attack on me
or mine, and request an ambulance if they’ve been injured via
self-defense or defense of another.
Below you’ll see a photo of me pointing a blue gun around a big old tree. Imagine if you were down range seeing your adversary has gotten really small with solid cover. Realizing you’re really large (as a target is concerned) with no cover what-so-ever! Would you like your odds? Cover – is – good.
There’s a well-known analogy involving a proverbial tactical tree and a belief that unjust ambush predators prefer low hanging fruit. But is it true? As with every tactical question you may ever ask the answer is just two words: It depends. Now we look to what it depends upon. I think it was Varg Freeborn author and instructor I first heard speak about bad guys expected return on investment. The bad guy’s return on investment is a consideration to how high he’s willing to climb in this analogous tactical tree. What are his motivations? What are the consequences of failure? How strong is ego or pride? Some predators will climb. But will they climb to the top way out on the thin branches? Why am I telling you this? Because we’re talking about an attack on the will. How do you attack or counter-attack someone’s will?
You
have to make the cost too high of a price to pay!
In
my most recent video breakdown the presumed good guy seated in the
vehicle had clearly somehow graduated from a school of violence
with the highest of honors – summa cum laude. Am I advocating
you go out and attend a street education in violence? No!
Of course not! Those who acquire
knowledge in the same ways unjust criminal aggressors do will often
suffer the same consequences as the unjust criminal aggressors –
prison or an early grave stone.
The
legitimate ways of acquiring this knowledge is experience down range
as a potential target by becoming a police officer, joining the
military (in select units), or studying violent game film and perhaps
under an experienced coach who’s himself acquired it by one or more
of these means.
May
a 90° cut be rightly and justly used by a person of good will for
just ends? Yes, absolutely! Oddly, after retiring I had occasion to
use this tactic. Again, for brevity I won’t dig down on that
incident in this post. Suffice to say one of the lessons learned was
this tactic is also effective at turning a person’s orientation
(shoulders & hips) which clears out shooting lanes – both his and
mine. Meaning had he pulled a firearm and shot at me (in my big ugly
face) my backdrop was clear of any third-party innocents. Likewise,
had
I pulled a firearm and shot him, his backdrop was clear of any
third-party innocents. That was critical (I wish I could say planned
but it was just blessing or luck), as my wife and children were
sitting in a parked vehicle nearby. That incident is a long story and
thankfully ended peacefully without any physical blows or firearms
being brought to bear.
Seizing initiative facilitates achieving and maintaining composure. Another word for composure, especially when tested by fear, is detachment. One of my friends and former coaches taught me the greatest of all warriors have faith in God. I promise you there is absolute pure gold in this truth. Holy detachment flows forth from the grace of God. Until you get serious about loving (meaning obeying) God you will stay mired down and attached to many and various things in this life. Perfect love really does cast out fear.
A
few years ago a friend taught me something about escalating
self-justification. My friend used to teach a crisis
intervention course.
The gist was before most physical attacks we can behold escalation of
insults, threats, or
challenges.
Once he painted this picture in my head, I started to reflect on how
this had played out to my or others advantage in many and various
ways during my experiences in violence, and how this need could
easily be exploited as a vulnerability to seize initiative and win
the fight. Call to mind a playground fight that begins with one
child insulting another, spinning up to insults about their mother –
thereby self-justifying a punch in the face (at least in the child’s
mind). We can extrapolate this to a couple guys in a bar posturing,
insulting, or threatening one another, then take it farther to
nations posturing warships, trading threats, or any form of
saber-rattling. A social
ambush predator
is going to include some communication with their intended victim –
that’s the social
part. An asocial
predator
is not going to say a word but rather pull, point, and repeatedly
shoot until you or yours are dead. Once
you’re down and done they may add
a few extra rounds in your dying body to ensure zero chance of
recovery and testimony at trial. In this post I’m going to take a
look at
how some social
ambush predators
have a psychological need to
feel self-justified
as part of their
spin up
before using deadly force. Their psychological hesitation ought not
be wasted as it presents a window of opportunity to
a just defender. An opportunity to
handle this deadly force encounter as a shooting
juxtaposed
to a
gunfight.
More on that later in this article.
In March of this year Metro Nashville, Tennessee Police Officer Josh Baker initiated a traffic stop on a black Camero. Long story short, the driver 31 year old Nika Nicole Holbert did not desire the officer to detain her in handcuffs as a result of Officer Baker finding suspected illegal drugs in her possession. She re-entered her vehicles driver seat. There Officer Baker attempted to taser her without any good effect. Ms. Holbert pulled first. Officer Baker demanded Ms. Holbert put her gun down and Holbert then shot Officer Baker first! Officer Baker then returned fire. Returned being the qualifying term. This had become a gunfight juxtaposed to a shooting. Duels are immoral and duels are dumb. Duels are exceedingly dumb at point blank range. Why? Each gunfighter need only raise their firearm and the torso of their adversary fills the entire backdrop of the end of their muzzle / sights. Gunfights at point-blank range often equal mutual destruction. Juxtaposed to a gunfight – shootings are smart because only one person (preferably the innocent defender) is doing all the shooting!
Those who have received proper instruction in a two-handed pistol grip and have acquired some marksmanship would benefit by pushing the fight out to greater distances. Criminal aggressors who shoot with a single-handed grip and no marksmanship skills are more vulnerable and at significant disadvantage at distances beyond point-blank ranges.
View the entire video of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department video news release.
Full Humilitas First Break Down of This Deadly Force Gunfight
Holbert is heard on the video saying “Help me, help! Help! Help! I didn’t do nothing.” Is this her sincere belief or is she prepping the legal battlefield for what she believes is (in her mind) a form of self-defense? Only she knew the answer. How have we come to a place socially where many believe we do not have to comply with legitimate authorities nor the rule of law?
The camera angle shows Holbert withdraw her hand to a place of concealment along her right side. I believe Ms. Holbert reaches down between drivers seat and center console filling her hand with a firearm then raising and brandishing that firearm. Officer Baker yells “Ma’am! Put the gun down! Put the gun down!” Holbert then shoots Officer Baker first, beginning the gunfight at point-blank range. Officer Baker is critically injured, though following surgery his status is determined to be stable and ultimately he does recover from his injuries. Ms. Holbert is not so fortunate and ultimately she dies of her gun shot wounds a short time later.
Self-justification and legal justification as defined by statutes and court precedents are radically distinct and often very different things. Legal justification is going to include legal concepts like innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness (objective & subjective). Self-justification is one’s own unique sense of justice. Self-justification may or may not properly line up with the above mentioned legal concepts. It will depend upon the disposition of the persons involved. Things like that persons upbringing, world view, ideology, education, training, experience, and other factors has been referred to as a persons filter. That filter through which we make decisions. The late Col. John Boyd gave the world the OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). Boyd purportedly believed similar criteria had an impact on the orientation stage and the orientation stage was arguably the most important stage of OODA. It is my opinion a man or woman’s filter effects how we observe or perceive, understand, decide, and act or not act.
After promotion to the rank of Sergeant I had a grace to begin to understand my promotion was not about me, and my ego. Little by little I came to understand the authority given ultimately was a responsibility. A responsibility to strive to become a craftsman and grow in competence. Authentic leadership isn’t about you! Authentic leadership is for your people. As a result of that grace one area of responsibility I began taking seriously was striving to take good notes as it related to all quality training. Why? To gain great reference material for the benefit of the people I served. Having a hand written notebook is useless if you need the information quickly, so I learned the value of transferring my hand written notes into Word documents which could be searched digitally within each file or many files as a batch in mere seconds by searching out keywords. Great note taking regarding fundamentals and timeliness became even more important as I received the added responsibility of being a Field Training Sergeant. Field Training Sergeants are part of the Department’s Field Training Program which has the primary responsibility of supervising training new police recruits and ensuring recruits are capable of performing the duties of a patrol officer. Field Training Sergeants had opportunities to attend the best schools available, which was a great blessing for which I am grateful.
On
May 12, 2008 I attended a department wide in-service training about
basic active shooter. The
following quotations were
direct
excerpts from the
instructors manual;
Advanced
Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training – Basic Active Shooter
Course I.
“Action
is Faster than Reaction – Training to respond to
threats lets first responders act, not react. This is critical
because there are inherent limitations on a person’s ability to
assess and respond to perceived threats. An individual’s reaction
is always slower than the action that prompted the response.i”
And…
“Officer must react to a
threat before it manifest into an assault.ii”
A window of opportunity opened wide at the precise moment Officer Baker see’s Ms Holbert display a firearm in her hand. A green colored timer counts up to .73 seconds. The color green is to convey this as the time for the officer to act decisively to stop this imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death. The timer resets and you see a yellow colored timer counting up to 3.07 seconds. The color yellow is to convey great caution is necessary as time is running out! The timer resets and you see a red timer counting up to 1.56 seconds. The color red is to convey the window of opportunity to engage in a shooting and avoid a gunfight has now closed! We’ve now entered a gunfight at point-blank range, which often means mutual destruction or at least mutual damage. Look at this short video showing this window of opportunity open and quickly close:
Humilitas First Commentary
Considering John Boyd’s OODA Loop, what was Officer Baker’s next Act? Officer Baker see’s a gun, understands it is a gun, decides to warn, and then yells “Ma’am!” That was his next Act; “Ma’am…. put the gun down!” In law enforcement I recall being told an officer typically takes about 1.5 seconds to react to an action. Based upon my research and study reaction time (the whole OODA loop) is often closer to, perhaps even slightly faster than .75 of a second. For a person who’s already Observed, Oriented, and Decided, the Act part of drawing, pointing, and shooting is much quicker around .25 to just over .33 of a second. Understanding these action and reaction time frames we can know with a high degree of probability Officer Baker observed the gun being raised about .75 before he yelled “Ma’am!” If a person has received training (or experience), and they know what to look for we can keep response time down to around .75 of a second. Build in a trained response via role-playing scenarios and likewise we can keep reaction time down to the bare minimum. What does one look for in a hostile confrontation? Primacy of place goes to watching the persons hands. With experience you learn to simply ignore your adversaries mean mugging intimidation game face. Game face is often merely posturing. Game face doesn’t show me the strength of your will. We’ll find out soon enough what’s what, when your will gets tested in the combat. What I need to know is where your hands are, what they’re reaching for (Waistline? Pockets?), and what weapon is being pulled? Secondarily, presuming his hands are clearly visible and they remain visible, and empty, an adversaries eyes will often give hints to what’s next. Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) often catch folks stealing a quick glance to their right or left? Often that is where they will break and run. For an intended victim (non-police) unjust aggressors will often look to the logical location where a police officer or other witnesses would approach to intervene or witness what they’re about to do. Primacy of place or priority will always defer back to his hands. Where are his hands, are they reaching for concealed areas, and what are his hands touching, pulling, holding, raising, aligning, shooting, or otherwise using a dangerous weapon?
LEO’s
learn
quickly that unjust criminal aggressors lie and deceive both in their
words and in their body language. I couldn’t care less what a
suspected unjust aggressor is
saying
verbally or non-verbally (most of communication). I care about their
actions. I learned early from experience body language ruses can
absolutely purchase surprise.
Compliance was a kind of test, as to whether force would be
necessary. So long as we had compliance we had no errors,
drips, or
runs, as
one Field Training Coach was fond of saying.
Presuming
Officer Baker does not desire a gunfight at point-blank range what
ought his next Act
be? Officer Baker ought to draw, aim, and shoot repeatedly until the
imminent threat
of great bodily harm or death (initiated
by Ms. Holbert) is eliminated. Whether Ms Holbert lives or dies
depends, in part, upon what Ms. Holbert does in the following
milliseconds or seconds. Ms. Holbert is free to do the next
right thing at
any point during this deadly force confrontation by immediately
dropping the firearm and showing her hands. How is this no longer
common sense? I call that kind of full surrender a
psychological stoppage.
It
is the place where bad guys quit or give up. If Ms. Holbert see’s
Officer Baker beginning to draw his firearm and instead she decides
to maintain retention of, display of, and a brandishing of her
firearm – well that is her choice! Officer Baker then would shoot
Ms. Holbert until she relents suffering a psychological
stoppage, or
until she suffers
a physiological stoppage. A
physiological stoppage means Officer
Baker removes herwill
from
the equation. Ms. Holbert is shot repeatedly until a point of
incapacitation;
paralyzed, unconsciousness, dying,
or
dead.
Seizing
the initiative when the window of opportunity presents itself means
gaining an advantage in timing.
Going first when it cannot be avoided! Seizing the initiative with
spin up means taking advantage of and exploiting a persons need
to
escalate via insults,
threats, or challenges.
Moving through that vulnerability to efficiently remove the imminent
threat. While the social ambush predator is striving to get you to
insult, threaten, or challenge (giving you their violent resume, as
it were) you’re
seizing
initiative,
achieving and maintainingrelative
superiority
and then once they’ve suffered a psychological
stoppage
(clear & convincing full surrender) you are then throttling back.
For
those whose will
omits of no change, you’re throttling forward swiftly dragging them
out to that deep place of vulnerability; a physiological
stoppage.
I
always have to clarify this last part as this cannot ever be about
vengeance or revenge. When innocents permit uncontrolled
anger to engage in vengeance or revenge then they have both a moral
problem with God and a legal problem with the state. The dying and
dead part is truly God’s business. It’s
about
stopping the threat
– not murdering the threat, though they may still die! Once an
Officer or any innocent person of good
will
see’s a clear
and convincing
sign of full surrender (psychological
stoppageEg;
dropping the firearm),
or upon observing the threat’s incapacitation (paralyzed,
unconscious, dying, or dead),
as soon as is humanly possible the innocent defender STOPS!
If
and when it is reasonable under totality of circumstances the
defender further separates the unjust criminal aggressor from their
firearm, and either renders aid, or facilitates paramedics response
attempting to save the unjust criminal aggressors life. They remain
on scene and contact legitimate authorities to report the criminal
attack against them or theirs. This is how an innocent person of
good
will
acts following a deadly force confrontation.
People
endowed with free will make decisions. Those tasked with the
responsibility to defend and protect (including your family)
acknowledge or affirm the decision and then the consequences play
out. This is common sense. Proposals to have innocent people of
good
will, stand
down, and permit an unjust ambush predator time
and
opportunity
to unjustly murder innocents is to engage in madness!
What happens after the deadly force confrontation, in part, (legally there’s a lot more) separates innocent persons of good will from an unjust social or asocial ambush predators. The violence part of the solution is going to look the same whether employed by the just or the unjust. Violence is ugly, but as the famous quote by John Stuart Mill said; “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things…”
How
does an unjust criminal aggressor respond after the violence?
In
all probability a social or an asocial ambush predator will continue
shooting even after clear
and convincing
signs
of a psychological or a physiological stoppage. In all probability a
social or asocial ambush predator will immediately flee the scene,
destroy or hide their weapon, and they will not call for professional
medical aid in effort to save the life of the person they just
unjustly tried to murder.
At this point some will want to rip their garments and lament: What about giving a warning?! At what cost? Officer Baker did give a warning and Ms. Holbert shot him. It is a blessing he is still among the living. A warning is often at best a gamble. Why would a reasonable and sane person desire to gamble with their life or the lives of those they purport to love by betting upon the good will of an unjust criminal aggressor? Does it make any sense to do that? No – of course not! With what percentage are you willing to gamble betting against your family or your life in the interests and in the favor of a social or asocial ambush predator? My answer is zero percent! Why? Because the actions of an ambush predator are unjust. Meaning the unjust man or woman covets something immoral, unethical, and illegal! Who is so crazy, blind, or confused that they think someone acting by threat of force, or force, to gain what they immorally, unethically, and illegally covet has any rights to do such things? Am I going to truly love my family, my brothers or sisters in arms (when active), and my life – or am I going to have a false compassion, a false love for the unjust criminal aggressors? Think clearly!
In this present case Ms. Holbert is willing to present an imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death, towards an innocent officer whilst coveting an unjust freedom (freedom – has – limits).
Ms. Holbert’s act is immoral, unethical, and illegal. In my old house warnings were only given if feasible. What considerations get weighed in determining whether a warning is feasible? First and foremost a question: Does the innocent person of good will (Officer or citizen) have time, distance, and cover? At point-blank range you have no time or distance. If you still have cover it’s about get removed via an imminent flanking movement as your unjust aggressor, closes with, or compresses in upon and around that cover. So no – a warning is not feasible! Context is another consideration. Say the context was completely different. Hypothetically say a neighbor called to report Ms. Holbert was outside in her yard intoxicated and shooting at her garden gnomes. In this hypothetical, say Ms. Holbert lives in a municipality where you cannot go outside and shoot at your garden gnomes. That’s a radically different context than what we see here. Here Ms. Holbert’s problem is Officer Baker’s will to detain her in handcuffs. Ms. Holbert presents an imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death as the solution to her problem – NO A WARNING IS NOT FEASIBLE!
Think
about these things.
iTexas
State University San Marcos in partnership between Texas State
University – San Marcos, Texas and the Hays County, Texas
Sheriff’s Office.
iiTexas
State University San Marcos in partnership between Texas State
University – San Marcos, Texas and the Hays County, Texas
Sheriff’s Office
I read a story over at Police 1 with this headline: “Ga. PD launches ‘Shoot to Incapacitate’ program.1” If you read my last post you know I agree with shooting to incapacitate, stop the threat, or cause a physiological stoppage. However, things are not always what they seem. In this post I’m going to look at a few excerpts regarding this police training and touch on how bad ideas like this may affect all innocent people of good will.
“The course is the first of its kind in Georgia and could well be a first in the nation. It is teaching officers thatin some instanceswhere they are authorized to use deadly force, they have the option to aim for the pelvic region, abdomen, legs and arms of a person posing a threat. The idea is that a gunshot to these areas, while still potentially deadly, could stop the threat while increasing the chance that the wounds will not be fatal.2”
Etymology (fancy way of saying
origin) of the word incapacitate:
“1660s in general use,“deprive of natural power,” from incapacity3”
When viewing several different definitions online for capacity it seems to me the plain meaning in our context has to do with physical ability. To incapacitate has to do with depriving of capacity or disabling – removing the bad guy’s physical ability to bring his will to bear. In Carl Von Clausewitz’s book On War, he defines war in part as having to do with the will.
“War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.4”
I
recall a Catholic priest giving a talk refer to verbal
engineering
as weasel
worded terminology or
serpentine
semantics.
Any shots that fail to incapacitate
could (as the article says) – could
influence the
bad guy to quit – to have a change in his will.
Could also
means his will
may remain the same, permitting him to finish the threat killing
innocent(s). I grow weary of seeing words redefined. Stop changing
the meaning of words!
It
seems to me this new targeting program would more appropriately be
titled; shoot
to influence.
It is my opinion, this type of targeting increases risks to innocent
officers and to all innocent citizens in the immediate area of these
negligent
tactics. Keep it simple and continue calling it; shoot
tostop
the threat. Those
are perfectly good words. There is no reason to change those words!
Back to the article:
“The pelvic area, thighs, legs and arms were green or yellow — indicating desired spots to aim. The chest, upper torso, head and neck were shaded in red — indicating areas to try to avoid.5”
YouTube grab
I’ll begin with the good; then I’ll move on to the bad, and the ugly. I do see some circumstances where targeting the pelvic area has some merit. Consider for instance a law enforcement special task force or perhaps a special military unit going after some high value target. The person would be of high value because they possess knowledge critical to mission completion. Say for instance an unjust criminal aggressor representing an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death is a member of a sex trafficking network, or they’ve kidnapped someone, and only they know where the victim(s) are being held. There is a difference between a threat and an assault. A simple way of explaining this is when the unjust criminal aggressor reaches for, puts his hand on, or pulls a firearm as a solution to his problem (you), that’s a threat. When the unjust criminal aggressor points or shoots his firearm at you – that is an assault. During the threat portion of an attack, officers may willingly volunteer to assume the higher risks associated with targeting the pelvic area to capture a high value target in hopes of acquiring the critical information necessary for completion of the mission. Good leaders would be upfront about these facts and considerations.
If
that be the case, I’d prefer to deploy a rifle juxtaposed to a
pistol. Also I’d want time,
distance,
and cover
(think
big tree). When
I was a young police officer in the early 1990’s, a
friend and Emergency Response Team (ERT) member, explained his
thoughts on the Israeli
method
of targeting the pelvic area, IN ADDITION TO, and after, first
targeting center mass, and the head. One could say; working
the spinal column,
as it were. The
gist was the pelvic area was thought to be another way of possibly
stopping
an unjust aggressor’s forward movement.
That may stop the bad guys compression of time, distance, and cover
with you or yours. May
– being a qualifying term.
I
placed my friends advice in my mental file cabinet should I ever have
trouble stopping a deadly force threat with traditional center mass
and head shot solutions.
Now
the bad;
targeting the legs or arms is bad primarily because it places a
higher priority on the life of the unjust criminal aggressor than
innocent lives like police or any person of good
will.
This is due to giving the unjust criminal aggressor the gift of
initiative.
Giving
him opportunityto
continue and finish what he’s started. This is a form of gambling
with innocent lives. Why? Time
is a precious commodity
in a deadly force confrontation. Targeting the legs or arms also
increases the probability of third party collateral damage due to an
increased likelihood of misses and / or pass through. Targeting the
legs and arms turns upside down giving priority
of life
to innocents.
Force
Science back in 2006 did a great job explaining why innocents ought
not shoot
to wound.
Below
are
a few bullet points from their article. I encourage you to read the
whole article at the following link6.
Anytime you see the word officers
mentioned,
you may instead substitute innocent
person:
“When
you impose a standard of strict necessity, you require officers
to do a whole lot of thinking in a situation where the Supreme Court
recognizes there’s not a whole lot of time to think in,” …“an
officer faced with a suspect running at him with a jagged bottle is
expected to think about getting target acquisition on an arm or a
leg, while his own life is at risk.” The hesitation it is likely
to create will only heighten his risk.7
“When
the risk of failure is death, an officer
needs the highest percentage chance of success he can get…8”
“if
your life is threatened you’re going to go for the surer thing
first and worry about your assailant’s life being saved second. If
a guy is running at me with a blade, the last thing I’m going to
be thinking is ‘I’m going to shoot him in the arm.’” Hence,
shooting for center mass may become a psychological default9.
“Successful”
shots that don’t persuade an offender to quit leave the officer
still in peril. When we know from street experience that even
multiple center-mass hits don’t always stop determined, deranged
or drugged attackers, “how many officers
would be murdered by offenders who get shot in a limb and are still
fully capable of shooting back?” Chudwin asks. Indeed, Avery
believes that shooting an offender without incapacitating
him “may just infuriate him, so he doubles his effort to kill you.
There is no dependable correlation between wounding someone and
making them stop.10”
Note: Force Science has a correct usage of the word “incapacitating.” Can you look at a person and know with certainty the strength of their will? No – you – cannot! Shooting to wound is a gamble, and the stakes are innocent life or innocent death.
The
experts we consulted agreed that advocates who push a shoot-to-wound
agenda appear to understand little about human
dynamics, ballistics, tactics, force legalities or the challengesofficers
face on the street. Chudwin has found that these critics of police
practices can often be enlightened if they are invited to experience
force decision-making scenarios on a firearms simulator. Avery has
a more dramatic, if fanciful, idea. “Put
them in a cage with a lion,”
he suggests. “Then
let’s see if they shoot to wound.11”
Pixabay.com
Force
Science provides outstanding content relating to the dynamics of
deadly force encounters and I highly recommend their website @
https://www.forcescience.org/
Now the ugly; lies are ugly. The ugly is the sophistry that shooting in the abdomen, leg, or arm has the power to immediately incapacitate. That – is – a – lie. It has the potential to influence the will, which means it also has the potential to NOT INFLUENCE THE WILL! The truth is incapacitation is about rendering an unjust criminal aggressor paralyzed, unconscious, dying, or dead. This is a hard saying! Many cannot bear to hear such words. Whether you like it or not or believe it or not does not change the reality behind it. As always, the dead part is God’s business. Once that threat is stopped men and women of good will render aid (circumstances permitting) or intervene by summoning life saving assistance in the hopes that the paralyzed, unconscious, or dying status doesn’t end in the dead status. If the unjust man or woman stops at any point by their own free will that is called a psychological stoppage. If the criminal stops – those using just legitimate defense stop.
In conclusion, why should a concealed carry guy or gal who’s just looking to protect themselves or their family care about any of this? Sophistries or lies regardless whether they’re born out of incompetence, ignorance, bad ideology, cowardice, compromise, or even malice will not cease at the feet of law enforcement. These lies will begin to impact all people of good will who rightly and legitimately defend themselves and those they love. At the end of the day who has prosecutor discretion? The county prosecutor who is an elected official. For at least a few years we’ve seen super PACs (Political Action Committees) using large amounts of money to help elect activist progressive prosecutors into States Attorney’s Offices. We see examples of prosecutors showing bias, favor, and false compassion to unjust criminal aggressors. Is it your belief that these types of prosecutors will limit their false compassion for the unjust criminal aggressor only in cases involving innocent police officers? Do you honestly imagine that same activist prosecutor will have a change of heart and then reject their false compassion for the unjust criminal thereby exercising a just discretion because you’re an innocent citizen of good will? If you believe that, you error!
For these reasons there are a number of large cities in our country I will avoid except in rare circumstances. It’s not difficult to do a little vetting to see what kind of prosecutor holds office in counties near where you live – or travel. Did this, that, or the other prosecutor receive support from super PAC’s via advertisements? It’s not difficult to research looking for promises these folks made during their campaign and following. When they begin saying they’ll refuse to prosecute a number of crimes they feel are unfair, that is a big red flag! This isn’t rocket science. You will know them by their fruits. To be forewarned, is to be forearmed.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Saint Paul:
“I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air1”
1https://www.police1.com/police-training/articles/ga-pd-launches-shoot-to-incapacitate-program-82YJIpU2MUoRvuqV/ By Brad Schrade The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
5https://www.police1.com/police-training/articles/ga-pd-launches-shoot-to-incapacitate-program-82YJIpU2MUoRvuqV/
By Brad Schrade The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
