HUMILITAS THE BLOG

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:

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. 

May God give us the grace for perfect love.

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.

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:

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 her will 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 maintaining relative 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 stoppage Eg; 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 that in some instances where 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 to stop 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”

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 opportunity to 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 challenges officers 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”

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

2https://www.police1.com/police-training/articles/ga-pd-launches-shoot-to-incapacitate-program-82YJIpU2MUoRvuqV/ By Brad Schrade The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

3https://www.etymonline.com/word/incapacitate

4Carl Von Clausewitz – On War

5https://www.police1.com/police-training/articles/ga-pd-launches-shoot-to-incapacitate-program-82YJIpU2MUoRvuqV/ By Brad Schrade The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

6https://www.forcescience.org/2006/03/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/

7Why Shooting To Wound Doesn’t Make Sense Scientifically, Legally, Or Tactically By Chuck Remsberg

8Why Shooting To Wound Doesn’t Make Sense Scientifically, Legally, Or Tactically By Chuck Remsberg

9Why Shooting To Wound Doesn’t Make Sense Scientifically, Legally, Or Tactically By Chuck Remsberg

10Why Shooting To Wound Doesn’t Make Sense Scientifically, Legally, Or Tactically By Chuck Remsberg

11Why Shooting To Wound Doesn’t Make Sense Scientifically, Legally, Or Tactically By Chuck Remsberg

12Douay Rheims 1 Corinthians chapter 9 verse 26

I read a story over at Fox News by David Rutz, about recent comments made involving the Ma’Khai Bryant police shooting in Columbus, Ohio. During my police career (1991-2017) officers received training to stop deadly force threats.  In this post I’ll take a look at some of the reasons protectors stop threats as efficiently as is possible. I’ll include a few excerpts from Rutz article along with some thoughts.

“The View” Joy Behar wondered why the officer who killed Bryant didn’t “…Shoot the gun in the air, warning, tase a person, shoot them in the leg, shoot them in the behind. Stop them somehow. But if the only solution is to kill a teenager, there’s something wrong with this.^1“

Warning shots were prohibited by Department policy. Police are responsible for every round they fire. That responsibility extends to unintended consequences and the potential for collateral damage. That is why protectors should not use warning shots under tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving violent confrontations. Are there any agencies in the United States that even allow warning shots in 2021?

Shooting someone in the leg or“behind,” juxtaposed to immediately stopping the threat, may still result in death via damage to major arteries (Eg; femoral artery), a bullet deflecting, shattering, or splintering bones, all of which could still end up damaging major arteries or a vital organ. But the real reason police don’t shoot to wound has to do with efficiently stopping the threat. If bullets need sent then the only direction to send them is into the person presenting an unjust imminent threat of great bodily harm (Illinois statute), or death. Unjust is a qualifying term. Words matter.

Men and women of good will who would take up arms to defend need to understand what Carl Von Clausewitz wrote in his book On War;

“War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.²”

How do you know the strength of a man’s will? In my professional experience I could make probable guesses on a man’s physical strength but occasionally I would be surprised. Once I physically locked up with a man, I knew immediately his strength, speed, and agility juxtaposed to my strength, speed, and agility. But the will is a different animal altogether. We come to know a man’s will as it is proven out in the combat.

Unjust criminal aggressors have no legitimate moral, ethical, or legal rights to threaten great bodily harm, or death, as a means of achieving their covetous desires for your material goods, your body (pleasure or ego), or your life. They have no moral or legal rights to rob, rape, or murder an innocent. Innocent is a qualifying term. Innocent police and innocent citizens absolutely have moral and legal rights to stop their unjust criminal aggressors from causing them great bodily harm, or death.

To understand something you often have to go back to the beginning. Humanity seems to have a problem with remembering her history. We ought to strive to see our Constitutional rights through our unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.³”

As Americans, we have an unalienable right endowed by God to life. I would argue implicit in that right to life, is a right to the means of defending our life (think 2^nd Amendment). The Declaration of Independence (1776) preceded the United States Constitution (1787). Throughout our history, had our nation remembered and used these truths to illumine decision making as it relates to Constitutional types of questions, we wouldn’t have made as many major errors. For instance, slavery could have been rightly eradicated earlier in our history, as the word liberty means freedom. Likewise, had our nation remembered these unalienable truths in the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe V Wade, we would not have the evil of abortion, an unjust law, in the land of the free and home of the brave.

As it relates to the things of God we could go back to the Psalms:

Psalm 82: 2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? [Selah] 3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

There really is nothing new under the sun. In this republic based upon the rule of law – life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness have both moral and legal limits. A citizen can lose their right to pursue happiness, and liberty, by choosing the criminal life. This is why we rightly build prisons. Likewise, those who present an unjust imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death to an innocent can lose their right to life. God certainly recognizes legitimate defense of others and self. As a Catholic, the Church teaches in part: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.⁴” In the case of a police officer this includes all innocent citizens, brothers and sisters in arms, and a right to protect one’s own innocent life. For a husband and father or mother and wife that includes one’s spouse and children. Self-defense is a well established legal term. The laws of all fifty States recognize to one degree or another this legal concept of self-defense. In the state of Illinois you find statutory language covering these things under 720 ILCS 5/ Article 7 Justified Use of Force; Exoneration.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=9900000

Less lethal options such as a taser or bean bag shotgun apply when the unjust criminal aggressor does not yet represent an imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death, to an innocent. Seeing and acting early provides the opportunity for less lethal options which ought not be wasted with a goofy loop (search this site to learn more about goofy loops).

If we’re going to look for solutions we have to reason back from the effect to the cause. I recall hearing Catholic Priest and exorcist Father Chad Ripperger recently say in an interview:

“The effect is never greater than the cause. The cause is always greater than the effect that’s the first principle of metaphysics.⁵”

What’s the effect?  Officers shoot an unjust criminal aggressor in defense of self or another innocent person. What’s the cause? The unjust threat of great bodily harm, or death is the cause for the immediate action required to stop that threat. Unjust desire alone isn’t enough! If a bad guy is killing me with his eyes that’s not an imminent deadly force threat. When his behaviors or actions reasonably add up to an imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death, that’s the underlying cause or problem that demands a decision and commensurate action. The unjust imminent deadly threat is the cause.

Police officers train to stop the threat. It is not mere semantics to say police seek to stop the threat, while paradoxically having a willingness to deliver lethal blow(s).  Police officers secure suspects, render aid, and facilitate life saving help via paramedics.  Police cease firing as soon as is humanly possible. In other words police stop as soon as they eliminate the threat. Stopping the threat is a radical distinction from how a soldier on a foreign battlefield might resolve the problem of a threat of great bodily harm, or death.

How are threats eliminated? The first and preferable way is through voluntarily compliance by the unjust aggressor. I call that a psychological stoppage. Police and all people of good will, should remain watchful for clear and convincing signs of surrender once an imminent deadly force threat exists. With a psychological stoppage we see a 180° turn or change in the unjust criminal aggressor’s will. He fully abandons his threat of great bodily harm, or death, towards the innocent officer, man, woman, or child. This is where the unjust aggressor drops the gun, knife, or bludgeon. He ceases advancing. He ceases compressing time, distance, and cover with his perceived innocent victim. He stops reaching for the gun and shows his hands. If he’s been shot he asks for medical assistance. In other words, he immediately, voluntarily, and fully withdraws the unjust imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death.

What priority of life would you suggest police adopt in a republic under the rule of law? If I were chief for a day, here’s how I would order priority of life:

1. All innocents
2. Self
3. Unjust criminal aggressors (last)

As a Catholic my Faith teaches in part: “…it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.⁶” Are you willing to gamble with your people, or your own life? When time is of the essence, and the underlying cause is an unjust imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death, I would hope a good guy with a gun would not attempt to influence the unjust aggressor, but rather do their best to stop him, or her.

The difference between life and death in deadly force confrontations is often measured in milliseconds to just a few seconds. Therefore, a police officer or innocent citizen of good will defending must act as efficiently as is humanly possible in eliminating deadly force threats. How is this not common sense? The answer lay in Deuteronomy chapter 28 verses 15 and 28, which talks about madness, blindness, and confusion of mind. A part of the answer lay in a false compassion for the unjust criminal aggressors and increasingly a confusion between justice and vengeance. In part justice means:

“As a virtue, it is the constant and permanent determination to give everyone his or her rightful due.⁷”

For the unjust aggressor who maintains an imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death, with no clear and convincing signs of a change in his will, we come to the second way of eliminating the threat. I call this second way a physiological stoppage.

In short a physiological stoppage involves delivering lethal blow(s) to efficiently stop the threat.  In Law Enforcement (L.E.) training we learned traditional means such as the failure drill. The failure drill was purportedly named the Mozambique Drill by the late Col. Jeff Cooper based upon the country from which this lesson originated⁸. For a single threat this drill consisted of targeting two rounds center mass with one round targeting the head. When dealing with multiple threats we were taught something different than the failure drill. In L.E. we were taught about the “T” intersection and expected physiological effects of sending a round into this area. In 2015, we learned a narrower and higher targeting called the thoracic area. This was a departure from the traditional targets of the bread box, as it were, which anatomically included the intestines.

Anatomically we know the thoracic area begins with the heart extending upwards including the spine, brain stem, and brain.  If you want more knowledge reach out via my email on the contact or training page and after a free consultation, I provide a custom tailored course for your specific needs.  I’m not giving away any great secrets as most unjust criminal aggressors already know what works as part of the criminal life and time spent in prison. Gang members have revealed through interviews what sources they look to in becoming more efficient killers and among those sources is the study of anatomy.

In general, a physiological stoppage efficiently stops the threat via incapacitation of the unjust criminal aggressor. Physiologically, a persons unjust will no longer matters when they’re paralyzed and unable to raise their arm and shoot, stab, or club you. Physiologically, a persons unjust will no longer matters when they’re unconscious, dying, or dead. When the heart, spine, or brain starts having a problem functioning properly a persons will doesn’t work so well.

Paraphrasing Clausewitz; all combat comes down to the will.  In a deadly force encounter, how do we target a man’s will? We seek to efficiently remove that unjust will. Ultimately, the outcome on whether the unjust man or woman live or die is God’s business. An unjust aggressor remains free to choose the psychological stoppage at any point in a deadly force confrontation. People of good will must not engage in vengeance or revenge. To engage in vengeance or revenge is to give uncontrolled anger primacy of place. In antiquity the word meekness meant controlled strength.  We must control our anger. God’s Word tells us vengeance is God’s business, not mans business. If we reject that truth and engage in vengeance we will have both a moral problem with God, and a legal problem with the state.

Why exactly must an unjust imminent threat of great bodily harm be stopped so efficiently? Time is a precious commodity in any deadly force confrontation. How long does it take an unjust criminal aggressor to pull, raise, and get to first shot with a firearm? At best, a quarter to a third of a second. How long at arms reach might an unjust aggressor deliver a lethal blunt or edged blow? At best, a quarter to a third of a second. A just defender who hesitates due to any number of legal, civil, or social fears (politics) or due to misguided deescalation training, abdicates his grave moral duty to protect innocent life and the initiative to win the fight over to the unjust criminal aggressor. Initiative is important to winning.

On my YouTube channel I breakdown deadly force encounters with first strikes often measured in milliseconds. The difference between winning and losing, living and dying, is often defined forever in just a few seconds. Windows of opportunity to win and live open and close quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCluv2DStx7Y5PxEUiwzkO6Q/videos

Action beats reaction: A person reacting has to observe (stimulus), orient, decide, and act (John Boyd’s OODA Loop). That involves reaction time. Reaction time when breaking down videos is often around three-quarters of a second. Professionally, L.E. training estimated officer response times averaging 1.5 seconds. This is why officers respond to the unjust imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death. Waiting for the assault (Eg; pointing his firearm directly at you) means giving away initiative.

Deescalation is big buzzword these days. The time for deescalation comes before an imminent threat of great bodily harm, or death exists. Once that threat exists, the only choice is to stop the threat! This presumes a window of opportunity is open for the defender. It’s unwise to try draw on a drawn firearm. If a would-be robber is pointing a firearm at me I’m going to comply, hand him my wallet and be a good witness. If he remains an unjust deadly force threat and a window of opportunity opens, that opportunity may result in a different action for my part. Again, I’m not talking about vengeance I’m talking about rightly responding to an imminent deadly force threat.

Back to the article; Mr. Rutz writes:

“Earlier in the week, a reporter asked Columbus Police Chief Michael Woods whether an officer could shoot a limb rather than to kill. “Can an officer shoot the leg, can they shoot somewhere that would not result in a fatal wound?” asked the unidentified reporter, noting that observers have asked the same question. “We don’t train to shoot the leg because that’s a small target,” Woods said. “We train to shoot center mass, what is available to stop that threat … There was a deadly force threat that was going on, so the officer is trained to shoot center mass.⁹”

I would add, if anatomy showed the heart, brain, or brain stem located in the upper leg area police would begin aiming for the upper leg area. Why? To efficiently as is possible stop the unjust threat of great bodily harm, or death to an innocent.

In conclusion, I understand the political reasons those who sit in leadership seats would want to avoid hard sayings. Hard sayings in 2021, are inconvenient and very much out of season. We will never build any real trust or relationships so long as we continue avoiding truth. Men sitting in leadership seats who play stump the chump or suppress the truth with their people do no one any good service. We waste our time with feel good buzzwords (community policing, accountability, transparency, et al), and things continue to go from bad to worse. A spiritual principle applies here: the truth will make you free (John 8: 32). Jesus is Truth. All truth that truly is; subsists in He Who is Truth. Time is precious in deadly force confrontation. Things like initiative, timeliness, & efficiently stopping threats must be considered when we talk about tactics for all people of good will. Innocent citizens have a right to life in these United States that goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence.

Think about these things.

1Columbus police shooting prompts media pundits to offer ‘TV-inspired nonsense’ on police tactics By David Rutz https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbus-shooting-media-repeating-discredited-officers-legs

2On War, Carl Von Clausewitz

3Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

4Excerpt from #2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

5Fr Chad Ripperger and Dr Taylor Marshall Talk about Latin Mass, Latin, Exorcisms, Books, Prayer – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUpsrW90uGQ

6Excerpt from #2264 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

7Justice – Modern Catholic Dictionary Fr. John A Hardon, S.J.

8https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2017/5/18/the-mozambique-drill-a-history-and-how-to/

9Columbus police shooting prompts media pundits to offer ‘TV-inspired nonsense’ on police tactics By David Rutz https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbus-shooting-media-repeating-discredited-officers-legs