There is advice for a CHL and there is advice for cops. Tactics for the two aren't always the same. However, if you are a CHLer and you shoot 15 times just because someone turns and looks at you quickly, you will probably have some explaining to do.baldeagle wrote:I thought it was shoot until the threat is stopped? Where'd the double tab and look thing come from?mojo84 wrote:Whatever happened to the double tap and see if the threat stops or retreats?
FL: LEO Shoots Man Rummaging in Car Late Night
Re: FL: LEO Shoots Man Rummaging in Car Late Night
Re: FL: LEO Shoots Man Rummaging in Car Late Night
Shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. Whether that takes a single round to the pinky toe, or a mag dump to central mass / brain case, the ideal for cops and "man on the street" alike is to stop the threat.
It's been well documented that people go into "autopilot" in this sort of situation, and repeat their defensive action until something changes, without realizing they're doing so. Whether that action is pummeling someone in a bar fight, stabbing an attacker with whatever implement may be handy, or shooting until the guy falls over, we humans tend to go on "autopilot" unless we've very carefully and specifically trained ourselves not to. The Rummaging Man probably fell over when he realized his leg had been shot; I would bet it was at that point the cops stopped shooting. They fired until they saw a result.
This is the reason we were told, should we ever get into a shooting, not to declare how many rounds we thing we fired. Odds are, we'll remember "two or three" but have a pistol at slide lock and brass all over the ground. Telling the investigators you fired fewer times than evidence shows is a good way to wind up in the crosshairs of Internal Affairs, prosecutors, and civil litigation attorneys, all of whom will use it to denigrate your character and intentions.
---
As to whether the officers involved in this particular incident were justified or not, I decline to speculate. It could be anything from the officers just coming from a particularly nervy call, without time to settle, to a neighbor with a grudge calling in a bogus report, to a misunderstood 911 call, to a wrong address, to incompetence. I admit, though, from the basic article, it doesn't look good for them.
It's been well documented that people go into "autopilot" in this sort of situation, and repeat their defensive action until something changes, without realizing they're doing so. Whether that action is pummeling someone in a bar fight, stabbing an attacker with whatever implement may be handy, or shooting until the guy falls over, we humans tend to go on "autopilot" unless we've very carefully and specifically trained ourselves not to. The Rummaging Man probably fell over when he realized his leg had been shot; I would bet it was at that point the cops stopped shooting. They fired until they saw a result.
This is the reason we were told, should we ever get into a shooting, not to declare how many rounds we thing we fired. Odds are, we'll remember "two or three" but have a pistol at slide lock and brass all over the ground. Telling the investigators you fired fewer times than evidence shows is a good way to wind up in the crosshairs of Internal Affairs, prosecutors, and civil litigation attorneys, all of whom will use it to denigrate your character and intentions.
---
As to whether the officers involved in this particular incident were justified or not, I decline to speculate. It could be anything from the officers just coming from a particularly nervy call, without time to settle, to a neighbor with a grudge calling in a bogus report, to a misunderstood 911 call, to a wrong address, to incompetence. I admit, though, from the basic article, it doesn't look good for them.