Photo courtesy of Lewisha Jones

In a unique production assisted by the Force Science Institute, law enforcement authorities in an Oregon county have created an online video that explains to civilians the realities of officer-involved shootings and counters prevalent myths fostered by Hollywood fantasies.

In 17 minutes, the program ranges from addressing why officers don’t try to shoot knives out of the hands of attackers to how cell phone and dash-cam recordings can significantly distort impressions of deadly force encounters. In all, the production tackles 7 persistent misconceptions that often lead to unjust accusations of wrongdoing regarding police use of force and provides scientific insights into the true dynamics of life-or-death confrontations.

The video, called “Hollywood vs. Reality: Officer-Involved Shootings,” can be viewed online by clicking here. (DVD copies are also available. See below.)Officials who posted it for public viewing are willing to share it with other agencies as a valuable educational tool.

BACKSTORY. Several years ago, after a series of hotly protested police shootings in Portland, the state’s major metropolitan area, the Oregon legislature mandated that each county devise a “more standardized and transparent” system for “managing” OISs. Included was a directive that each county conduct annual “community outreach and education” on law enforcement’s use of deadly force.

Lane County, whose seat is the city of Eugene, was “among the first to respond with a protocol,” according to DA Alex Gardner. Among other things, law enforcement agencies in the county, plus the Oregon State Police, organized an Interagency Deadly Force Investigative Team to probe each OIS and forward evidence gathered to the DA’s office for assessment.

To fulfill the public education requirement, the county launched a series of high-profile events, beginning with daylong instruction and exercises that involved exposing local reporters and politicians to shoot/don’t shoot scenario training.

“Running civilians through scenarios is expensive, and in this area there’s considerable turnover among news reporters, so the effective benefit is not always lasting,” says Melinda McLaughlin Kletzok, the PIO for Eugene PD and a reserve deputy for the Lane County SO.

For 2011′s community education, she told Force Science News, it was decided to produce a video that “could always be online” for public access–”something that would counter the kind of misinformation that seems to commonly arise after any OIS.” This, she says, would allow basic facts about deadly force to be communicated even when officials couldn’t comment publicly on the specifics of an ongoing investigation.

Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, was in Eugene last January for a 2-day Force Science training seminar and agreed to appear on camera to deliver pertinent findings emerging from FSI research. At about the same time, Dr. Alexis Artwohl, a Force Science board advisor and certification course faculty member known for her work in police behavioral science, was participating in a training program elsewhere in the state. She joined in the video production also. Kletzok coordinated the project, which was filmed and edited by the professional production company Attic Media.

In the finished program, other contributors–Eugene Ofcr. Joe Kidd, Oregon State Police Sgt. Alan Gilbert, and DA Gardner–offer their particular perspectives on OISs. But the most extensive content comes from Lewinski and Artwohl.

HOLLYWOOD BRAINWASHING. In the opening minutes, Artwohl points out 3 ironies about the public perception of OISs:

• civilians commonly expect “these events to defy the laws of physics”;
• officers are expected “to defy the limits of human performance” by having “perfect memories and perfect decision-making, when research clearly shows” that to be impossible;
• “the judgment of police officers is often based on myths, assumptions, and personal opinions that may not necessarily be true.”

Gardner then suggests that these critical misconceptions stem in large part from brainwashing of the public mind by Hollywood. Our “video culture” conveys “a tremendous amount of misinformation” about police operations and behavior, he says. “The extent to which the public relies on what they see on TV and in the movies,” often without being fully aware of it, “makes it very difficult for people to evaluate whether an officer has behaved appropriately in a use-of-force application.”

MYTH-BUSTING. The bulk of the video, then focuses on myths about OISs, phrased in the form of naive but potentially inflammatory questions that Kletzok and Gardner say frequently arise from the media and community activists after offenders are shot by police.

Here’s an abridged sampling. In some cases, the online video includes real-life dash-cam footage to help illustrate the problems discussed.

“Why didn’t the police talk the aggressor down?”

Most of the time, officers do talk people down, using their communication and persuasion skills, Artwohl points out. Research shows that “only about 1% of all calls for service result in any use of force, and only a very small percentage of those result in use of deadly force….

“Not all offenders can be talked out of what they’re getting ready to do. At that point, the only thing an officer can do is use force to protect his life and protect the public.”

Sometimes because of chemical, emotional, or other issues, subjects are “unable to listen to anything,” Lewinski adds. “That means they are in control of the situation. The officer is the reactor and has to respond to what the person is doing.

“It’s not the officer’s choice, usually, to avoid using verbal skills. It’s the person being unable to listen or attend or being unwilling to do what the officer is saying….”

“It was just a knife and the officer had a gun. Why didn’t the officer just disarm the subject?”

“Some people think an individual armed with a knife is not a dangerous threat to an officer,” Lewinski says. “From our research and the research of others, we know that not to be true. Knives can actually be more dangerous than a gun….

Force Science studies show that “a young person in reasonably good shape can cover as much as 31 feet in the time it takes an officer to draw his gun, point, and fire 1 round. If a person is 7 feet away, the officer could even have his gun in the low-ready position, and by the time he raises the gun and fires even once, he could be stabbed.

“A stab from a knife or a stab and upward cut can be extremely quick. Each cut or slash can occur at less than one-quarter second, and any one could be lethal for the officer….”

“Why not shoot the gun or knife out of their hand? Why not shoot to wound the subject? “

Lewinski recalls TV and movie westerns in which the hero defeats an attacker with this kind of precision shooting. “It’s one of those Hollywood myths,” he says. “It looks good on film but doesn’t work in the real world. Officers do not have the ability to fire and hit that accurately in a dynamic encounter.”

Even if officers aim for center mass, they “tend not to be as accurate as they might be on the range because the dynamics by which people move in a real-world encounter are such that center mass is a constantly changing target….”

To stop the threat, the goal of police deadly force, “the best place an officer can aim for is center mass,” Lewinski explains. “Even then it’s not a guarantee,” but it’s more realistic than the extraordinary challenge of intentionally hitting only an arm or a leg.

“Why were they shot in the back?”

In framing an answer to this nettlesome question, Lewinski describes a shooting in which he served as an expert witness. When the officer made the decision to shoot, the threatening suspect was facing him full-on. Yet when the smoke cleared, the officer’s rounds were found to have struck in the suspect’s side and back, making it appear that the officer had not been in jeopardy when he fired.

“By the time I can say ’1,000-and,’ the officer had fired 4 rounds,” discharging a bullet every quarter-second, “shooting to save his life,” Lewinski says. In that eye-blink, the suspect had begun to turn away, a movement the officer would not have had time to detect and react to. Inevitably, the subject’s side and back were exposed in the process to the line of fire.

“Very true, shots did go into the back,” Lewinski says. But in the time span involved, “there was nothing the officer could have done to stop from shooting the subject in the back.” In the video, Lewinski demonstrates the twisting-and-turning movement involved.

“Doesn’t a video of an event tell the whole story?”

In a word, No. A video camera, Lewinski explains, records action “from a particular perspective,” and that’s “very limiting in its ability” to tell the full story. “Look at the number of cameras necessary for referees to look at during a football game” in attempting to “accurately and completely” judge an action under scrutiny, he says.

In a video recording, which “people tend to think is an accurate reporter of any particular incident,” some action may be missing entirely, and what’s shown can be significantly skewed. Lewinski references a camera some officers now wear that sits just in front of an officer’s ear.

“This reportedly has the view of the officer, but it does not. If you close your left eye, for instance, you will see what your right eye sees. Your right eye sees a different field of view than your left eye. Now imagine a camera far behind your right eye. What does that see? No camera records things as an officer’s eyes and brain record it.”

OIS PROCEDURES. After the myth-busting segments, which also include reaction-time realities and less-lethal devices, the video concentrates on a walk-through of investigative procedures, given by Gardner and Gilbert. Among other things, they explain how the deadly force investigative team operates and why investigations sometimes take months to complete.

Gilbert expresses empathy “with the public and media being frustrated because a lot of information isn’t released immediately. It’s frustrating for the police, too. We want to get the story out, especially when an officer has done something heroic. But we need to wait so as not to taint the investigation.”

Artwohl notes in conclusion, “Most officers will tell you that by far the most stressful part of the event is what happens afterwards. We need to refrain from a rush to judgment. The least we can do is provide officers the benefit of the doubt while the investigation is going on.”

COPIES AVAILABLE. Public feedback on the video has been “very positive,” Gardner says, “but where we’ll get the most is on the heels of the next shooting.” Meanwhile, he and Kletzok encourage other policing agencies to benefit from the production, which Gardner describes as “a lasting tool to help educate people who are unfamiliar with law enforcement use of deadly force and how it is investigated. Officers deserve that community understanding. They’ve earned it.”

Kletzok agrees. The video, with its expert observations on the subtleties of OISs, can be accessible “for years to come, whenever questions come up about shootings,” she says. “At times when an agency might be unable to comment directly on a lethal force event, the video can speak for the agency about controversial or misunderstood issues.”

If you’d like a copy in DVD format, contact Gardner at: alex.gardner@co.lane.or.us and reference Force Science News.

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provided free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

Initially, the new gun will come with the DAK trigger, which has a very smooth double action only pull.  SIG states a DA/SA pistol will be available later.  The gun should be at the 2012 SHOT Show, and we will get some video and more information on it then.

If you already have a weapon-mounted flashlight, then by default you possess a quick firearm aiming device…if you do a bit of homework!

Laser sights are all the rage and I confess to having purchased a couple. But they are not always financially justifiable or even allowed by policy for many coppers. At half the price, a tactical light can give you a similar service in a very close combat situation.

During night fire sessions at the range, some of our shooters began to notice that they were getting a flash sight picture from their handgun-mounted lights. At distances of five yards or less, the flashlights were illuminating center of mass on the targets and approximating point of impact.

A simple test is to unload and safety check your duty gun. Look over the sights at a wall at distances from one to seven yards. Turn on the light. If your sights are properly adjusted, the beam of your flashlight will give you a general aiming point.

For me, the Streamlight TLR-1 on my SIG SAUER P226R projects a circle of light where my bullet’s point of impact is near 12 o’clock in the beam’s hotspot. I have shot many groups at the range and trust this orientation out to five yards.

The Surefire lights on my H-K MP-5 and Remington 870 were also “minute-of-man” at close range during actual shooting drills.

Where is this important? At CQB distances in room clearing, I am confident that, with the light on, punching out at the target and sending rounds into the beam’s focal point will give me center of mass hits.

I am not advocating this as a primary sighting method over either sighted fire or instinctive shooting. I am just observing that in a critical incident and under stress, knowing where your bullets impact in the target illumination can be an advantage, because that is where your visual focus will be.

In addition, knowing this can help you pick up your sights quicker in low or no light scenarios, where it can be difficult or impossible to find gunsights that lack tritium or fiber optic tubes.

When we do high risk building clearing or search work in the dark, we naturally look where we are lighting, but not necessarily with a full sight picture. I feel that using the flashlight as an aiming guide brings me on target faster.

Most of the current LED tactical lights I have encountered have a beam that gives you a spotlight in the center and floodlight in its periphery. The size and intensity of the spot vary with the type of light.

Even the older incandescent bulbs throw a nice fixed point of light close up. An ancient Surefire is affixed to my issued 870. Since the shotgun has only the bead for a sight, knowing my 00 buck patterns hit right down the center of the light’s beam under ten yards is a bonus.

I started out by comparing the flashlight to a laser. And I’ll continue this by saying one is a hammer and one is a scalpel, as tools go. The tactical flashlight can assist you in getting rounds on a target. A well-adjusted laser surgically pinpoints your rounds on a target.

Next trip you have to the range for low light practice, try a few snap shoot drills at close quarters battle with the tactical flashlight. I hope it is useful for you.

Using the weapon light to aim the gun at one yard.

Distance to the target: 2.5 yards.

Using the weapon light to aim at five yards.

Streamlight TLR-1 weapon light mounted on a SIG SAUER P226

Randall is a twenty-four year veteran officer of a mid-size Florida police department. He served as a SWAT team officer for over 21 years, to include 12 years as a Team Leader. He is currently the K9 Unit Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

A jury should have been allowed to decide if her mistake was reasonable, the 9th circuit appellate judges said in overturning a district judge’s decision and remanding the case for fresh action.

“Whatever the ultimate outcome, this case bears watching and studying because of the critical issues it raises regarding training, weapons placement, personal responsibility, and decision-making,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. As we have reported previously, Lewinski was involved as an expert witness in the BART incident, a widely publicized mistaken-weapon shooting by a transit officer in the San Francisco area.

The current case, Torres v. City of Madera (CA), is a 1983 civil action brought by parents of a suspect who was fatally shot in the chest while handcuffed in the backseat of a patrol car. The involved officer intended to Tase him because he was kicking the rear door and she feared he would cut himself if he broke the window. Unwittingly, she grabbed and fired her sidearm instead of her Taser.

Among other things, these factors emerged as evidence at trial:

• As instructed when it was issued, the officer carried her Taser “in a thigh holster immediately below her holstered Glock on her dominant right side.” Earlier on the night of the shooting, she had turned off the safety on her Taser, to enable its quicker deployment.

• Reaching down, she unsnapped the holster holding her Glock, removed the gun, aimed its laser at the suspect’s center mass, put her left hand under the gun for support, and pulled the trigger, “all without looking at the weapon in her hand.” Both weapons had laser components.

• Twice previously the officer had confused the 2 weapons, once when trying to reholster her gun and her Taser after a jail visit and again when trying to drive-stun a combative suspect during a field encounter. The latter time she ended up pointing her mistakenly drawn pistol at her partner’s head.

• Frightened by that potentially tragic error, she told her sergeant, who advised her to “keep practicing” in drawing her Taser and in distinguishing between the 2 weapons. She informally “practiced” daily on her own for 9 months leading up to the shooting, but underwent no “formal” retraining.

• Her initial training had consisted of a single 3-hour class, during which she fired the weapon only once. There was no discussion during that session of the weapon-confusion risk nor of weapon-confusion incidents that had occurred on other departments.

The district court found that the officer’s mistake in drawing her gun was “reasonable” and granted summary judgment in favor of her and the city. But the appeals court declared that the district judge had over-reached with that decision. “While a jury might ultimately find [the officer's] mistake of weapon to have been reasonable, it was inappropriate for the [lower] court to reach this conclusion,” the appellate decision states.

Further action by the district court is now pending. To read the appellate decision in full, with more details of this case, click here.

For an article about the case from the Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, click here

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provided free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

[Ed. note: The Need for the Patrol Rifle  is part three of a series on Tactical Patrol.  The prior articles are Tactical Patrol Mindset and Patrol Response to Critical Incidents.]

The use of a patrol rifle is not a new concept. In fact, when you think about the “old west” the image of a lawman with a trusty Winchester lever-action is the standard. The 20th century witnessed the creation of some of the most deadly criminals to ever prowl our country. Names like Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, and Al Capone. This was the era of the “Tommy” gun, even BAR’s, and of course shotguns. Those heavier weapons ended the careers of many criminals.

After WWII times were good, America was growing, the Baby-Boom generation was in full swing. Then the 1960’s came. The Civil Rights struggle, the progressively unpopular Vietnam War, and the emergence of radicals saw America suffer home-grown terror from groups like the KKK, the Black Panthers, and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

During this time America had its first, real taste of an active shooter when a murderer mounted the bell tower at the University of Texas in Austin and shot multiple victims before two brave patrolmen and an armed citizen raced up the tower and ended his reign of terror. The racial, political, and social violence led police departments to look for a way to counter this new era of deadly threat.

Former Inspector, Daryl Gates, of the Los Angeles Police Department is often credited with the formation of the first “S.W.A.T.” team in America in 1968.  However some teams were already in place across the country. Specially selected and trained police officers now had the skills and equipment necessary to respond to the most violent of situations that patrol officers were not trained or equipped to handle. S.W.A.T. spread across the country in a short time, and today most departments with more than 25 officers have some form of participation with a tactical team.

So where does the patrolman fit into this equation? Right at the forefront! Time and time again it has been shown that the only way to successfully end immediate deadly threats is by the rapid and decisive application of lethal force by the initial patrol officers. And the best way to ensure that success is to provide the patrolmen with the training and arms necessary to engage in the myriad of deadly threats we can expect to encounter.

Unfortunately, the invention of S.W.A.T. teams created an internal dilemma in law enforcement that was probably best exposed on February 28, 1997. Police Administrators had swallowed the need for S.W.A.T. because they hoped the use of teams would be sparse, and they could keep the focus on returning to the kinder “community policing” image of yesteryear. This actually led to the disarming of patrol officers. Some agencies didn’t even provide patrol officers with shotguns. Chiefs and government administrators wanted their police to look “friendly”.

S.W.A.T. is necessary and good, but in almost all jurisdictions the team takes significant time to gather forces. Even in the larger metropolitan police forces like Los Angeles, where S.W.A.T. is a full-time assignment, the response time can be lengthy. But on that day in 1997 two heavily armed criminals engaged police in a heavy weapons shootout that lasted 44 minutes outside of a Bank of America in North Hollywood, and exposed the error in police philosophy.

The first officers to observe the botched robbery were on “routine” patrol and just happened to witness the armed thugs enter the bank. Armed with only 9mm pistols and one shotgun, they were completely outmatched by the robbers who were armed with multiple rifles, handguns, and extensive body armor. Multiple responding patrol officers faced the same dilemma as the first officers. Some officers scrambled to a nearby gun shop to acquire AR-15 rifles. Wounded officers could not be evacuated because of the long range and heavy firepower of the criminals. It would not be until the arrival of a group of underdressed S.W.A.T. officers with MP-5 submachine guns and AR-15 rifles, that the nightmare would end.

Eleven officers and seven civilians were wounded, the two thugs were dead, and nearly 2,000 rounds were exchanged in that epic gun battle. Dozens of buildings and vehicles were shot up as well, and a nation was shocked at the images from news helicopters. The need to properly equip patrol officers was once again in the spotlight of national law enforcement. Patrol officers needed to be equipped and trained to give the best first response that was possible.

The response around the country was the beginning of the trend to re-arm patrol officers with rifles – mostly AR-15’s or surplus government M-16’s. In April, 1999, the violence at Columbine High School caused Active Shooter Response training to sweep the nation perhaps like nothing ever seen before. And then on September 11, 2001 America woke up to the reality that our world had changed forever. Terrorism had struck with such a magnitude that America would change its viewpoint on security and how we wanted our police to protect us. Remember, that the 9-11 terrorists were living among us. In that regard, we must be prepared for a Mumbai type attack from these radical Islamist terror groups.

We cannot change history, but we can change the present. By acting now to prepare ourselves for the rise in violence seen all across the nation, we can have an impact on our future. From small and rural communities to large metropolitan centers, patrol officers need to be prepared to effectively protect the innocent.

One of the most critical methods of providing the patrol officer with the tools necessary to accomplish this daunting task is to arm them with a long range weapon. Shotguns are great weapons for medium range and short range work, but quickly become limited in their effectiveness at ranges beyond 50 yards. Even with a slug round, the shotgun is limited at longer ranges. Many slugs begin to deviate several inches from point of aim at 100 yards. Some agencies only provide patrol officers with 00 Buck rounds, so an officer must be aware of the spread of the shot and the limited range that a subject can reasonably be engaged without having shot go past the target and hit unintended targets down range.

The obvious solution to the increasingly heavier armed threats that law enforcement is facing today is to arm patrol officers with rifles. One of the advantages and reasons law enforcement went to semi-auto handguns was the increase in firepower offered with a magazine fed weapon with as much as three times the capacity of a revolver. This was infamously demonstrated in the 1986 F.B.I. shootout in Miami where agents armed mostly with revolvers and two shotguns were outgunned by criminals armed with a Ruger Mini-14 and a shotgun. That incident left two agents dead, and five wounded. The apparent disadvantage of limited rounds and firepower caused the F.B.I. to move to semi-auto handguns, and much of the nation followed.

Eleven years later the officers in Los Angeles faced similar disadvantages, despite having semi-auto handguns, and the results were nearly as bad for law enforcement.

That same philosophy can be applied to the selection of rifles, and the reason a rifle can be more advantageous than a shotgun in some situations. Probably the most commonly used patrol rifle in American law enforcement is the AR-15. This weapon allows the officer to field up to 30 rounds of .223 rifle ammunition at the start of an engagement. Should the need arise, extra magazines are relatively easy to carry and quickly add to the officer’s ability to engage armed criminals, multiple adversaries, and even those who themselves are armed with rifles and maybe ballistic armor.

The benefit of a detachable magazine fed system is the quick reload of multiple rounds. A shotgun does not provide this same benefit, despite it’s awesome firepower, nor does a bolt action rifle or even a lever-action rifle.

The AR-15 also allows officers to deliver accurate fire at greater distances. This is a tremendous benefit to patrol officers as they are now capable of delivering lethal force to stop heavily armed criminals, but can afford to do so from distances that provide the greatest benefit of space and cover. With proper training a patrol officer could reasonably engage a suspect at distances of up to 200 yards with an AR-15, without negating the need for accuracy or the concept of knowing your target and beyond. With even more training and a proper optic, the AR-15 can even be used to engage adversaries at greater distances, but for most patrol officers this will not be an option so I’ll focus on the 0-200 yard range.

The AR-15 is not a difficult weapons platform to master, and there is an abundance of training across the country for this weapon. Parts are plentiful from a number of sources, as are the availability of Armor schools. Reputable manufactures are long and include big names like Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington, Rock River Arms, CMMG, Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, and others.

Other reputable rifle choices can be found in the H&K G-36 (.223), or in the H&K 416 (.223) or H&K 417 (7.62 mm). The 416 and 417 take on the similar AR-15 style platforms, while the G-36 is uniquely H&K in function and style. One disadvantage of H&K is that they tend to be more expensive than American made AR-15 platforms, and getting parts and Armor training can be difficult. Outside of these choices there are other acceptable options such as the Ruger Mini-14, chambered in .223, or even an M1 Carbine chambered in .30 caliber. Other options are out there but far less popular.

Some agencies have selected to arm officers with various carbine rifles that are chambered in the same caliber as the officer’s pistol. There are obvious advantages to this decision, as some carbines allow for interchangeable magazines. And if an officer has a malfunction with one system, they are transitioning to the same caliber and have extra rounds available to them. The disadvantages to a carbine are found in the stopping power provided by a pistol cartridge. Though accuracy and distance are improved through the rifle platform, a pistol round maintains its limitations. In the instance of the LA bank robbery, the suspects were covered in ballistic armor from head to toe so a pistol round, even fired from a rifle, may not have been sufficient to stop the threat posed by those criminals.

For the purpose of this article I will focus on the highly popular AR-15 platform. For the patrol officer to be sufficiently armed with this rifle there are a few additions that I feel are critical to the successful deployment of a rifle.

First, the rifle should be equipped with a sling. For that matter, shotguns should be too. If you go into an armed conflict and cannot safely discard your long weapon (by leaving it slung) then you are not prepared to handcuff the suspect, or tend to the wounded. A proper sling will be a tactical sling that goes over the head and drapes over one shoulder. These allow for the shooter to use the sling to tighten unsupported shooting positions, and allows for the weapon to be fairly securely slung for hands-free operation.

Second, the rifle should be equipped with a light. Half of what we do is in the dark, and even if an officer works during the day they are likely to encounter dark basements or other spaces. This lighting system should allow the officer to manipulate the light on and off from the support hand so as to not interfere with the shooting hand. The light should also preferably be set up to cause the operator to engage the on/off switch with their thumb, or a full grip squeeze. This should help prevent any sympathetic reflex from using a finger squeeze.

Although not as critical as the first two are, I feel that a proper patrol rifle should be outfitted with an updated sight. Trying to use iron sights in the heat of battle could be tedious to say the least, especially if we’re in low light conditions. A better option is to use a hollo-graphic sight that displays a red dot or red targeting circle. There are plenty of good choices from such manufacturers as Aimpoint, Bushnell, and EOTech to name a few. An officer should be able to acquire targets in the fastest manner possible in a deadly force encounter.

Finally, I believe that a good patrol rifle should be outfitted with a collapsible stock. These forms of stocks are almost universal and standard issue in many AR-15 configurations so this should not become an issue. Although not absolutely necessary, a collapsible stock provides the shooter a greater deal of mobility in tight spaces, and also allows officers of different builds to set up the rifle to fit them.
Before a patrol officer enters the field with the rifle they must undergo an orientation and qualification training. Failure to do so opens agencies to liability for negligently providing equipment that an officer does not know how to use.

In this course the officers should be trained on the following critical areas:

• nomenclature of the weapon
• proper carry positions
• use of the sling
• use of the light
• use of the sighting system including iron sights
• field stripping for proper cleaning and maintenance
• safety features
• loading, unloading, and failure to fire drills
• transitioning to sidearms
• defensive tactics while a long gun is slung
• basic proficiency firing drills
• combat qualification course that includes different position shooting.

Hopefully this article is preaching to the choir, but I am keenly aware that there are still many agencies that do not arm their officers with patrol rifles. Whether this is due to image or budgetary concerns creative ways to overcome these obstacles must be found. Active shooters from around the country have struck in rural areas, not just major metropolitan centers. Armed robbers often target smaller communities due to lessor security measures and fewer cops. To maintain our professional image, the trust of the people, and to fulfill our sworn duty we must have the necessary tools to accomplish the tasks that we may face.

Ultimately we must recognize that the first line of defense in our struggle with armed criminals and terrorists, is the properly trained and equipped patrol officer. One of the best ways to prepare those officers is to entrust them with the patrol rifle.

Officer Involved Shooting

The dominant goal of citizen police academy programs is to get civilians to walk a mile in an officer’s boots. Thanks to the creativity of Force Science Analyst Steven Goard, those who attend the academy conducted by the Livermore (CA) PD walk an important extra mile–through the landmines of a simulated OIS investigation that tests their memory and perceptions of a personal controversial shooting.

The participants, including some police critics, learn first hand the vagaries of human behavior under pressure and the challenges of credibly defending a deadly force decision that may seem suspicious to outside observers.

“Invariably they’re shocked by the experience,” says Goard, who has now developed the OIS-investigation feature across 10 of his department’s citizen academy sessions.

Among many satisfying payoffs, he recalls the reaction of an African-American woman in her late 60s. “I feel guilty,” she told Goard as she shook his hand after the exercise. “For years, I’ve been skeptical of the police. I bought into the way the media report police shootings. I just didn’t have the knowledge to enlighten my thinking.”

Speaking for the Force Science Institute, executive director Dr. Bill Lewinski notes, “Part of our mission is to educate the public about the truth of use-of-force dynamics. Steve Goard has crafted a memorable way of doing that. It’s an approach that other agencies and the communities they serve could benefit greatly from following.”

At 38, Goard has been a Livermore cop for nearly 9 years, cycling through assignments in training, SWAT, sex crimes investigation, and patrol. An avid student of human behavior, he’s currently working toward a master’s degree in psychology. He’s read so deeply on the subject that his fellow officers have nicknamed him Bookworm. After FSI began offering its certification course in Force Science Analysis, he attended at his own expense to further pursue what he calls “my passion.”

Even before that training, he’d been integrating Force Science concepts into his department’s semi-annual citizen academy after hearing Lewinski speak at a seminar in nearby San Francisco. Further fueled by his Analyst training, he expanded and polished the initial content into its present format.

The citizen academy meets roughly 4 hours a week for 17 weeks. About half way through the term, after they’ve sat through use-of-force lectures, experienced a simulator exercise, and fired some of the department’s SWAT weapons, Goard introduces the 30-35 participants typically enrolled to a special force-on-force scenario.

Partnered up and armed with Glock Simunitions pistols in a shoot house built by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, they’re instructed to respond to a given 911 call and “handle the scene as you think appropriate based on what you’ve learned in class and as you think police officers should in real life.”

At the scene, each pair encounters role-players in circumstances that quickly evolve into a tense situation designed to make the “officers” feel threatened. Details vary, but the core action generally involves a subject pulling out a cell phone, reaching for a wallet, brandishing a toy gun (plainly signified by an orange tip ), gripping a power drill, or displaying angry gestures.

“Invariably at least 1 of the student partners shoots, and most often both do,” Goard explains. “When the scenario is at its highest peak, a safety officer standing directly behind them activates an air horn or fires several blank rounds at the floor from a .38 handgun.” Everything is captured from different angles by a battery of hidden video cameras.

Immediately after the scenario, the partners are separated and told that since 1 or both used deadly force, they will need to undergo a mini OIS investigation. They are then told to fill out a questionnaire or submit to an oral interview about what happened.

The questions are based primarily on information typically sought after a police shooting, according to what prosecutors and survivors of real OISs have told Goard. In part, these include:

• Describe the call.
• What did you first observe at the scene?
• What were the suspect’s actions?
• What did you do?
• What, if any, level of force did you use?
• If you used your firearm, how many rounds did you shoot?
• Describe the suspect.
• Describe the scene.
• What kind of weapon did the suspect display, if any?
• What did you feel or experience during the encounter?
• What was said by you and by the suspect?
• What did your partner do?
• Did you hear any loud noises?
• Did you see any guns with orange tips?

And so on. “We get a lot of blank looks or blank spaces on the questionnaires because they don’t remember,” Goard says.

That task over, with no further discussion “I tell the students that I’ll be doing a presentation for the class at a later date to discuss their scenarios,” Goard says. During off hours at home, he then carefully edits footage from the cameras to reconstruct a comprehensive picture of each encounter and burns all of them to a DVD that will later be played and given to the students.

The defining moment comes weeks later shortly before graduation day. Goard starts off with some important preliminaries. First, the students are asked to again write down an account of what happened during their scenario. Then Goard shows them dash-cam recordings from YouTube or PoliceOne’s BluTube of various “mistaken judgment” shootings involving cell phones, toy guns, and other controversial elements. “I ask them to comment, and they generally remark on how ‘really bad’ the incident looks and express doubts about the involved officers’ justification for shooting,” he says.

Finally, he plays the videos of them using force and compares what the hidden cameras documented with the articulation of events they gave. “You can actually feel the shock in the room,” Goard told Force Science News.

Certain consistencies arise class after class:

• After their encounters, “all the students report seeing a gun or seeing a gun actually fired at them, which prompted them to shoot,” Goard says. “Yet in the videos, they see themselves using deadly force on people with wallets, cell phones, drills, and unarmed.” One student described a role-player as threateningly pointing an automatic rifle; in reality the “suspect” pointed aggressively with his arm.

• “They’re also always surprised at what they didn’t see that was right in front of them, how much the mind ignores under stress,” Goard says. “Amazingly, none of the students recall hearing the air horn or the blanks being fired, nor do they complain about their ears ringing even though they didn’t have ear protection. And they never see the orange tips on toy guns. A common comment is, ‘I didn’t have time to pay attention to that.’ They were worried about whether they were going to die, not about looking for orange tips.”

• Typically, the students fire more rounds than they estimate in their reports. One who said he shot only 4 times actually shot 19. Some have inaccurately claimed there was no suspect weapon in their scenario and that they didn’t shoot at all.

• Some are sobered to see that they kept “shooting and shooting and shooting–maybe 6 or 7 additional rounds–even though the suspect was down and not fighting back.” Or that they shot a suspect in the back when they said they had shot him in the chest.

• At least 85% of the students find they haven’t given accurate descriptions of the suspect, of important scene elements, or of their partner’s behavior, Goard says.

• There tend to be major differences between accounts the students give when initially questioned about their shooting and when describing the event again weeks later. In some cases, their memories have improved significantly with time. But there have been instances in which students in their second telling describe scenarios they weren’t even involved in, having apparently internalized someone else’s experience during conversations about the exercise. There are also notable differences between the accounts partners offer about the same scenario, just as there often are between fellow officers in real-world shootings.

The inconsistencies and omissions open the door for Goard to confront the students with some of the suspicions officers under investigation often have to contend with in similar circumstances: Are you lying…conspiring…contriving amnesia…trying to cover up unsavory truths?

Goard completes his presentation by explaining some of Force Science’s research findings regarding reaction time, turning time, “excessive” shots, attentional blindness, and other behavioral phenomena associated with high-stress, life-threatening encounters. He also reports on the well-known studies of perceptual distortions conducted by Dr. Alexis Artwohl, a National Board Member for FSI and a faculty member for its certification course. “The students are always very surprised at how similar their experiences are to her discoveries,” Goard says.

“Overall, it’s quite a ride,” he concludes. “From the feedback we get, I do believe that the exercise broadens the citizens’ views of officer-involved shootings and opens their minds to the ways controversial shootings can be sensationalized. We’re only 35 miles from where the BART shooting occurred, so we’re very familiar with how police actions can get distorted.

“It’s interesting to hear data, but it’s always more powerful to get at least a taste of how data transforms into reality. And the fact is that these people may someday be jurors, judging a police-shooting case. Hopefully, they’ll remember their experience and cut a well-intentioned officer some slack.”

Goard left us with a fascinating footnote. He mentioned that the academy graduates often share the DVD of the scenarios that he gives them with civilian friends while explaining the cognitive shortcomings that were exposed during the mock investigation. “Sometimes those friends attend future academies,” he says, “and even though they’ve seen the scenarios they still make the very same mistakes when it’s their turn behind the gun.”

For more information, Steve Goard can be reached at: SGoard@ci.livermore.ca.us

For a complimentary subscription to Force Science News, an e-newsletter provided free by the Force Science Institute, visit www.forcescience.org or e-mail your contact information to: editor@forcescience.org

Review of Lasers for Defensive Handguns from the Armed Response training series.

The use of lasers in law enforcement is a point of controversy with many instructors and policy makers. While there are some rational arguments made against the use of a laser, there are many very good arguments that can be made for the use of a laser sighting device.

If you are considering adding a laser to your pistol, I suggest you take a look at Lasers for Defensive Handguns, a training video featuring Ralph Mroz from the Armed Response video training series.

The Video

Lasers for Defensive Handguns is a practical training video in which Mroz, a veteran firearms instructor, tackles the topic of using a laser aiming device on your handgun.

Mroz is a former law enforcement officer who has been involved in training and writing for many years. Mroz is also a former training director of the Police Officers Safety Association where he developed many video training programs for police officers.

In Lasers for Defensive Handguns, Mroz takes a reasoned, practical approach to the topic. Mroz does not avoid the arguments against lasers, rather he takes the objections head-on. For each objection, he offers his reasoned opinion on the argument without injecting spurious logic.

Mroz discusses the different type of lasers available (such as those from Crimson Trace, LaserMax and others) and offers the pros and cons of each type. Mroz anticipates possible problems with each design and offers suggestions on working with that design.

Mroz goes through a series of range drills and shows how the laser can really be of benefit, especially when shooting from imperfect positions. For example, when shooting from retention or when wounded, you may not be able to align the sights with your eyes. From these positions, your laser can still establish a good aim for your handgun.

Likewise, Mroz demonstrates shooting around cover with a laser. The demonstration clearly shows that there are times when the laser allows you to put rounds on target while exposing less of your head and body than with traditional aiming.

Lasers for Defensive Handguns was created for the armed citizen, but much of the information is directly applicable to the patrol officer.

One law enforcement-specific argument I have heard against the use of laser aiming devices on duty guns is the laser is indistinguishable from the lasers emitted from Tasers. The fear is that officer could mix-up aiming devices and inadvertently use deadly force when none is justified.

I call BS on that one, as an officer should only shoot a suspect if it is reasonable for him or her to use deadly force. The presence of a laser from a Taser on the suspect will not suddenly cause the officer with the pistol to use deadly force because he was confused about aiming devices.

Mroz addresses multiple lasers on a suspect in the video. Though he was not talking directly to police officers, his advise seems to apply just the same. If you and your partner both have a laser on the suspect and you are forced to shoot, does it really matter which laser is yours as long as both are on the suspect?

The Series

Lasers for Defensive Handguns is but one video in the Armed Response video training series. There are currently ten videos in the series, with three more in production right now.

Armed Response video program topics include fundamentals, tactics, drills, shoot/no-shot scenarios, use of white lights and less lethal tools like pepper spray.

All of the videos in the series come on DVD. Training tips and previews of the different DVDs are available on the Armed Response website.

Final Thoughts

Mroz does an excellent job in breaking down the topic and giving you a thorough understanding of laser aiming devices. The video is an excellent primer on the topic, and gives you the drills you need to build skill with whatever laser aiming device you might choose.

If you are interested in learning more about adding a laser to a firearm, I definitely recommend this video for your training library.

How do you think that will play out in the pending civil suit filed by the family of the decedent?

The officer in question was not the only one on the force who missed state mandated training.  In fact, of the eight man East Dublin Police Department, more than half did not attend the mandatory retraining and had lost their powers of arrest.  One of the people who failed to attend training and should not have the power of arrest?  Police Chief Bill Luecke.

If you be concerned about rigors of that use of force training, don’t be:  it is only one hour per year.  Mandatory firearms training accounts for one hour per year also, bringing the total to two hours per year.

Having started my law enforcement career in Georgia, I am pretty familiar with the training standards in the Peach State.  They aren’t terribly impressive.  Compared to other states, Georgia is ahead of some in the number of hours at the academy and such, but that doesn’t mean they are squared away.

When I first graduated the academy, I was “certified for life” on my duty pistol, as Georgia did not have any requirements for requalification.  Thankfully, that changed.  I still wonder how many cops working 20+ years only shot their service guns at the academy.

But, I figured that the East Dublin officer was an isolated incident.  Unfortunately, it is not.  According to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, “dozens” of Atlanta police officers have not been through mandatory retraining, which has resulted in their loss of arrest powers.  According to the article, more than 50 officers have been discovered to have lost their powers of arrest.  That number is likely to go higher, as there are still 600 files to review, or about 1/3 of the force.

How many criminal investigations do those officers represent?  How many use of force cases?  Arrests?

Lest you think I am picking on Georgia, let me present the Honolulu Harbor Police Department.  According to KITV-4 News, the state confiscated all of the weapons and vehicles used by the Harbor PD.  Why?  Among other reasons: the department lacked proper record keeping on firearms training, qualifications and other topics.

The harbor police still patrol, but without weapons.  Should any law enforcement action be needed, they call the sheriff’s department and county police.

The shocking thing is all three of these stories were published in the same week.  It really makes me wonder how many administrators are ignoring their responsibility to ensure the department is meeting minimum requirements, never mind being well trained.

This may sound a little silly to some folks, but I hope not.  We in law enforcement owe the citizens of our jurisdiction the best service possible.  That means our officer have to be well trained in all important areas of law enforcement.  At the top of that list should be the use of force.

The use of force is an integral aspect of law enforcement.  Officers who are well trained in the use of force (generally) and in the various weapon systems issued to them are unlikely to inappropriately use force, are more likely able to prevail in an armed encounter and are easy to defend against frivolous lawsuits.

Untrained officers are more likely to use an unreasonable amount of force (too much or too little for the circumstances), are more likely to be killed in a violent encounter and are hard to defend in frivolous lawsuits.  If you do not document proper training, the well-trained officer is also hard to defend against nuisance lawsuits.

The citizens deserve better.  Our officer deserve better.

When asked about the mandatory training requirements by a reporter, Chief Luecke said “Everything’s cool.”  No Chief Luecke, everything is not cool.

Mock-up of the unusual cover described by Clint Smith. I hope my writing is better than my drawing.

There are a multitude of ways to improve the firearms training program in your department. In this article, I’m going to illustrate a few ways. I don’t consider any of these to be absolute “musts,” rather I see them as a way to get you to think.

If you are an instructor, you can use these to spice things up on the next training series. The key is to make them fun as well as challenging. Everyone likes to be challenged, and if the officers see the exercise as fun, they are more likely to listen and learn something.

If you are “just” a slick-sleeved patrol officer pushing a beat car around your district, think about maybe trying some of these with your buddies. If your local range won’t let you do them, try dry fire or Airsoft practice with them.

IDPA Classifier

The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) is a competitive shooting sport that is geared toward self-defense shooting. It is a game, but it is a lot more “realistic” than the other shooting sports out there.

Regardless on what you think about shooting sports, learning to shoot under pressure builds stress inoculation.

Running your cops through the IDPA classifier course of fire is an interesting way to start them in range training. The course requires shooting from the draw, weak hand shooting, center mass to head transitions, use of cover, turns, movement and reloads. Shooting is done from ranges of five to 20 yards and on three different targets of varying heights.

The course is not overly challenging, but unless your students have previously shot it, the course is different.

The best part is you can point out to your students that this is just the qualifier course for a “game” that “normal” people play. If nothing else, you may be able to use it to get the arrogant shooter to recognize that his shooting skills are not as great as he may think.

Shooting from Unusual Cover

Sure, we teach officers to use cover, but do we train them to recognize cover, and then to actually use it? Probably not as well as we could.

Part of the problem is range masters like neat ranges. I can understand the sentiment, but neat ranges rarely equal well-trained police officers.

So, bribe the range master with donuts and coffee, and drag some weird things out onto his range. Old plywood can be painted to look like a low wall. An old 2×6 could be a tree trunk.

None of them are ideal cover, but what is? Look around the next time you are on patrol and figure out how to replicate the items you see as cover. Then bring them to the range.

The best prop to use is a patrol car. Actually shooting around the front bumper with one hand trains the student how to use cover. Telling them in a classroom to use the engine block for cover won’t instill the skill.

Mock-up of the unusual cover described by Clint Smith.

I read an article by trainer Clint Smith several years ago. He was talking about teaching students to shoot from unusual cover and had a photo (or diagram?) of a tricky bit of cover he used.

The simulated cover was a sheet of plywood with various shapes cut into it, running left to right. Each of the shapes was at a different height, and each represented a shooting station.

The object was for the shooter to engage a rack of steel plates from each hole in the plywood. Each position required the shooter to kneel, lay in the dirt, squat down or otherwise shoot from an uncomfortable position.

The idea is to make the student adapt to the situation. When he or she properly applies the fundamentals, the reactive targets fall.

Again, this can be both a challenge and fun for the students.

The DTI Dance

I’ve never had the chance to train with John Farnam, but he holds an excellent reputation as a firearms instructor for armed citizens and law enforcement officers alike. Farnam runs a training school called Defense Training International (DTI).

Long time cop and firearms instructor Dave Spaulding wrote about the DTI Dance in the January 2008 issue of Law Officer Magazine.  Essentially, the drill that Farnam developed (actually, there are two) tests the fundamental ability of the shooter to accurately put rounds on target, clear malfunctions and reload in a short amount of time.

Spaulding does an excellent job in explaining how to run the drills, so make sure you click through to his article. However, the overview of the basic course (no movement) is:

• the student draws and fires at the 8”x12” target,
• while shooting the student encounters a dummy round, which must be cleared, and
• after a total of four rounds, the slide locks back and the shooter must reload and fire two more rounds.

Any misses constitute failure; it is all or nothing. A student should be able to clear the drill at 100% in less than 18 seconds. An instructor should be able to do the same in less than 12 seconds.

The drills are run individually, but should not take more than about 20 seconds per officer. This means that a lot of students can be moved through the exercise quickly.

Thoughts?

I hope I’ve gotten you at least thinking about firearms training. None of the above is anything wild or crazy. All of the above could be a challenge, and if done right, can be a springboard into showing the students the importance of mastering the fundamentals.

Does your department do anything to challenge the shooter? Or are you stuck with just showing up at the range and banging out a qualification round?

If you are an individual officer, not trainer, what are you doing to challenge yourself?

Stay safe!

We have all probably left something on our cruisers at one point or another.  Coffee cups, clipboards, an unfortunate Radar gun.  But a firearm?   Yes, it can happen.  And it happened at my agency many years ago.

After Mids Readoff, one of our SWAT guys put his H&K MP5 on the trunk of his car while talking to a buddy.  Following the conversation, the officer got in his car and drove off, forgetting the nylon bag with his subgun, and its three topped-off mags, on the decklid.

For some reason, something was nagging in the back of his mind about 20 minutes later and he checked his trunk.  I’m sure his face showed his horror at what had occurred.

He rushed back to the station and looked everywhere.  He called a supervisor and then things got really, in a word, stupid.  The troops were recalled and some brain surgeon had the idea to put a ten-pound dumbbell in an MP5 bag and have the officer drive off like he did when he lost it.

Of course the bag fell off in the PD parking lot and everyone converged on the spot of the second bag.  Not even close, boys.

I was called by the now-frantic supervisor, who asked me to take my K9 out to go up and down the streets to look for the gun.  Yeah.  I didn’t need the dog for that.

To sum it up, a couple of dozen city blocks were gridded off and search teams were sent out.  The news media was alerted.  Command staffers were furious.

Early the next afternoon, a local TV station was called by a “concerned citizen” who had found the gun bag about a mile from the PD.  He had seen it fall off the police car.  He had picked it up and taken it home.

He did not mention that an officer knocked on his door in the morning and asked if he had seen such a bag.  He told the officer he had not.  This citizen, a convicted felon, had also bent the barrel of the gun under the corner of a dumpster.

A chagrined captain was sent to meet with the news crew to retrieve our wayward submachine gun from the citizen.  The story made the national news outlets…

I know how Seattle PD officers feel.  A moment’s inattention by one officer has become what seems like an eternity of embarrassment for all the officers.

We are only human and we make mistakes.  Be humbled and realize they can be made by you.  In that way, we reinforce that we are fallible and need to pay due attention to our duties each and every shift.

Randall spent eight years as a Police K9 Handler.  His two German Shepherd Dogs were deployed for Patrol, Narcotics, and SWAT.  He also handled a Narcotics Labrador Retriever.  Randall is currently a proud K9 Unit Supervisor.

Saf-T-Trainers snap caps for safe dry fire practice.

Dry fire practice can save your butt. Seriously.

Spending a few minutes every day working on trigger control and sight alignment through dry firing can translate into huge improvements on the range. Probably the biggest problem anyone has with shooting is trigger control. Learning to master that is probably the biggest thing you can do to become more accurate.

One of the concerns about dry fire practice is the possibility of damaging the firearm. In my own experience, I think the concern is wildly overstated by many people. Having dry fired a number of centerfire weapons thousands of times, I have not seen any problems develop in any of them.

Until recently, I have said the only firearms that can suffer damage from dry firing are some rimfire guns. I do not suggest doing dry fire practice with a rimfire.

Recently, however, I heard an episode of the Gun Dudes podcast, where one of the ‘Dudes’ had to ship his Springfield XD back to the factory because the firing pin was broken during dry firing. I cannot confirm the information as accurate, but even if it is, that is the first case I have heard about directly from the affected party. (‘I knew this guy who had a cousin…’ stories don’t count for me.)

As I have stated before, using snap caps (dummy rounds) can eliminate the potential for gun damage during dry fire. They are relatively inexpensive, and can be had in most major handgun and long arm calibers.

If you are concerned about damaging your gun, pick up some snap caps for your gun. I’ve had experience with four different brands.

9mm Saf-T-Trainers Snap Caps

Saf-T-Trainer – These are my favorite kind of dummy rounds. The Saf-T-Trainer rounds are plastic rounds colored a bright orange. Not only will they not fire, they also provide a very clear difference from live ammo.

The Saf-T-Trainer rounds can be had in a wide range of calibers. Currently, I have them in .223, 9mm, .38 Special, 12 gauge and 20 gauge. All of them function reliably through my guns.

I bought all of my Saf-T-Trainers through Brownells, but they can be had elsewhere.

MTM Snap Caps – I bought two packages of MTM Snap Caps in 12 gauge. Each package contained three shells. I wanted at least five shells so I could practice loading from the ammo carrier on the buttstock of my Remington 870.

I was not happy with the MTM Snap Caps for a variety of reasons, but probably could have lived with them. However, I found that the mouth on the crimp end was much too wide. The open mouth would sometimes hang on things that a normal shell, or other snap caps, would not.

A-Zoom Snap Caps – I own A-Zoom Snap Caps for the 12 gauge. I like these snap caps, but they are more expensive.

Instead of plastic, the A-Zoom 12-gauge rounds are made of metal with a closed end. This allows the shell to have a more realistic weight and it will not catch on anything a live shell would not.

Like I said, they are more expensive, and instead of a three-pack like the MTM, or a 10-pack like the Saf-T-Trainer, the 12 gauge comes in a two-pack.

Armsport Snap Caps – I own a set of these in .38 Special. Unlike any of the other snap caps listed, the Armsport has a spring that absorbs the impact of the firing pin. I don’t know if that is better for protecting the firing pin, but it certainly seems like it could be.

My complaint about the Armsport snap caps is that the cartridges are not full length. The diameter is correct, so they fit properly in the cylinder, but they are only about 1/2 of the normal length of the .38 cartridge.

For strictly dry firing, these are fine. But, if you plan on incorporating reload drills into your dry fire, they become a liability.

Looking at the non-revolver snap caps, it looks like Armsport makes the other cartridges the correct size for proper cycling in shotguns and semi-autos.

At the end of the day, you have to decide what level of comfort you need for conducting dry fire practice. Personally, I think the value of dry firing far exceeds the possibility of damage to the gun. That said, I have bought snap caps in several of the calibers I own, and will eventually own dummy rounds for all of my firearms.

No sense in inviting problems, no matter how remote, when the snap caps are so cheap.

12 Gauge Snap Caps, from L to R: MTM, A-Zoom, Saf-T-Trainer

At about 4:15 am on August 29, 2009, Guilford County (NC) Sheriff’s Corporal J. Mecham made a pedestrian stop on a suspicious person later identified as Daniel Roy Smith.  Unknown to Corporal Mecham, Smith was an escapee from a halfway house where he was serving time for a federal bank robbery conviction.  Also unknown to Corporal Mecham, Smith was armed with a handgun.

Here’s what happened:

Lessons Learned

Radio Traffic – First of all, let me compliment Corporal Mecham.  He was amazingly rational when talking on the radio, and when dealing with Smith.  Even though he was under extreme stress, Mecham was clear and understandable on the radio.

Mecham relayed enough information to the dispatcher, so that everyone knew (generally) what was going on.  Mecham did not run on at the mouth: he said what was needed and then shut up.  Also note that Mecham was aware enough of radio traffic to give an updated location when a responding deputy asked where Mecham was.

Shooting – Mecham was able to deliver accurate fire on a moving target from a supine position under a high degree of stress.  I don’t know if Guilford County trains from that position, or if Mecham made any habit of practicing from his back.  However, it is something we should all practice.

The Fight’s Not Over… – Something happened that could have had lethal consequences for Mecham.  After Mecham shot Smith, Mecham retreated to his car to call for help.  Immediately afterwards, Smith is able to get up on his knees and fire three more shots at Mecham (around 5:25 into the video).

When the subject starts to point the gun at Mecham, Mecham shouts “Get on the ground!”  Smith fires three times before collapsing.  It does not appear that Mecham shoots any more at Smith.

It is my opinion that Mecham did not see Smith pointing the gun, and I am unsure if Mecham realized that Smith was firing again.

Regardless, just because you shoot an attacker, and they go down, doesn’t mean they are no longer a threat.  In this case, Mecham shot Smith and Smith collapsed, allowing the corporal to retreat to his vehicle.  But, the fight wasn’t over.

Frankly, I believe Mecham would have been justified in shooting Smith after he collapsed a second time.  Smith still appeared to have the gun and was not cooperating.  Smith had just tried, twice, to kill Mecham.  It would appear reasonable to resume shooting Smith.

Backing Up – I started this article by saying that Corporal Mecham was almost killed because he was walking backwards.  Let me explain.

At about 5:00 into the video, Mecham sees Smith pulling out a gun and backs out of the frame.  What you don’t see is Mecham falls backwards into the street.  ”When I saw the gun, my first reaction was to back up and try and get my gun. That didn’t work so well. I tripped and fell backwards in the middle of the road,” Mecham said.

Mecham’s fall is not unusual.  Police trainer Dave Spaulding has noted it in another publicized officer involved shooting, in which one of his students was involved.  Same thing – officer backing up quickly and under stress falls down.

Creating distance is a good thing, but winding up on your back in a gunfight is a bad place to be.  Moving laterally can sometimes create additional distance, but it can also slow down the assailant’s ability to bring his gun to bear.  That time can be critical time in which you can get your pistol out and on target.

Moving laterally is not necessarily an instinctive reaction though, and you must train using this technique.  Burn the movements into your neural pathways so they become instinctive.

Back Up – Corporal Mecham was working without backup during this incident.  Everything went down in a few seconds, and it was all on him to provide for his own survival.  I don’t know if another deputy was already enroute to assist him when the violence erupted.

Look at how long it took for the first back up unit to arrive: four minutes.  Four minutes is a lifetime when you are involved in a shooting.  The deputies responding to assist were running code at speeds they likely reserve for those “officer needs assistance” calls.  Even at Warp 9, it took the first deputy four minutes to get there.

If this was a hands on fight for your duty gun, do you have the conditioning needed to prevail in that fight until your partner can get there?  If you were in Mecham’s place, but one of those rounds had clipped your femoral artery, do you have the skills and tools to stay alive long enough for help to get to you?

Final Thoughts

Corporal Mecham did an excellent job in surviving and winning this encounter.  Combat is messy and ugly, and nothing goes completely right.  Even with the problems that came up, Mecham continued fighting, and was able to control his body alarm response well enough to think, move and communicate.

Smith survived the encounter, and was convicted of attempted murder on June 15, 2011.  Smith will be required to serve the remainder of his federal sentence for bank robbery, which will make him 85.  At that time, he will be transferred to state custody and begin serving a 26-32 year sentence.  I sincerely hope this means that Smith will never again breathe air outside of prison walls.

The study headed by J. Pete Blair, Ph.D. examined the reaction time of police officers when confronting a subject armed with a handgun.  The results are eye opening, confirming what many of us already knew from running similar drills in our own training classes.

Essentially, Blair took experienced SWAT officers (average 10 years on the job, 5 years on a team) and ran them against criminal justice students.  In the scenarios, the SWAT officers were sent to a “man with a gun” call, and encountered one of the students at a distance of about 10 feet.

In the scenarios, the officers already had their gun pointed at the suspect.  The suspect, however, had their pistol pointed either at the ground or at their own head appearing ready to commit suicide.  The officers were instructed to shoot the suspect as soon as the suspect made a move to shoot the officer.

Study Results

The results were not good.

The suspects were able to get their first shot off at the officer in an average of just 0.38 seconds.  The highly trained officers lagged behind with an average time to first shot of 0.39 seconds.

If you believe 0.01 seconds to be an insignificant measurement, look at it this way:  the study showed the inexperienced suspects shot first or exactly tied the highly trained and experienced officers 60% of the time.  Not good.

Two things to keep in mind about this study – the conditions and suspect incapacitation.

Ideal Conditions – This reaction time study was conducted in ideal conditions for the officers.  The SWAT cops went into the scenario knowing they would encounter an armed subject, and they knew they would likely shoot the suspect.

Additionally, there were no outside distractions, the suspect was not moving and the suspect made no attempt to deceive the officer by feigning compliance.  Also, the testing was done in full light, not the low light conditions we often work in.

Lastly, none of the officers reported perceptual narrowing or other distortions associated with body alarm response.

All of these things could drastically alter officer reaction times.

Incapacitation – Even if the officers are a fraction of a second faster, how long does it take for bullets to incapacitate a suspect?  If the suspect is hit center mass, it will take a few seconds for massive blood loss to render the suspect unable to shoot you.  So an officer that is twice as fast as the suspect may not be in less danger from being shot.

Implications

This study does not give law enforcement the “go ahead” to shoot all armed suspects.  But, the study does reinforce the notion that you cannot react quick enough to beat an act.  In other words, you are behind the curve when it comes to confronting armed suspects.  ”Being fast” isn’t likely to ensure survival.

Remember that distance is your friend.  If you are already aiming at a subject who suddenly points a gun at you, you may be slightly slower, but you are also likely to be more accurate.  The longer the distance, the less accurate they are and the more accurate you can be.

The suspect is also less likely to hit you if you are properly using cover.

No matter what you do, make sure your actions conform to department policy and the law.  For those just joining us, Graham v. Connor is the “touchstone” for the reasonable use of force.  But, Graham is mostly a restating of Tennessee v. Garner.

Plus, there have been dozens (hundreds?) of cases since then in the federal appellate courts that have further refined Graham v. Connor.  Read a few of them to get a better idea of how the courts look at police use of force.  Your freedom could depend on it.

Additional information:

• Reaction Time Study Information