Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Defensive Training-Short Distance

I'm with Blue, the Ohem post was utterly preposterous on so many levels that a persuasive response would be an exercise in futility.
Instead, he deflated the whole argument with humor. Touche!

Not to mention that The Real Hawkeye thinks tha Oheremicus was an "operator" back in the day. I nearly busted a gut with that little jewel.

This ^^^^^^^ in spades.

MM

Well, Blue, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I base mine on my own experiences, that means mistakes I made while doing it for real and those made by others. The other thing is I don't feel the need to do a lot training. But certain basics are needed to be maintained. They are to avoid target fixation, i.e. "keep shooting him until he goes down," and two, make sure you actually hit him where it will get the job done.
This idea of aimed fire was not taught back when I got into law enforcement. At 7 yds, we shot from the hip, reloaded (I guess it was assumed the bad guy would hold his fire) and shot six more. You concentrated on emptying your gun on the bad guy to stop him..... Bitter experience taught us this didn't work at times. Then came the idea of a double tap as fast as you could draw and shoot. That's fine, as long as it worked. But, again, experience showed that when in a big hurry, too many missed what they shot at when it came time to do it for real. But LAPD's training for focusing on the front sight, slowed them down and improved accuracy. That's why they have the best survival rate among the big law enforcement agencies. They hit what they need to hit.
My last point is that the odds are good that anybody one goes against may well be pumped on drugs or nuts. If that's the case, a body hit, even with a .44 Magnum, may not do the job. You need to be prepared to do a head shot. E

How long were you in law enforcement? San Jose ring a bell?

jwp, if you have something to say, say it. E

Be careful, you'll get chastised...

Tough crowd...
Bob

I disagree wholeheartedly. I train, preach and teach upper thoracic hits. If I can cover them all with my fist excellent. Body armor drills are not practical in the real world. The first thing a person does when they're hit is move whether it's a flinch from the hit or oh Shiite I gotta get outta here. Trying to follow up a center mass shot with a head shot is not reasonable. I've been trained that way and it's wrong. All the new training I've received in the past couple years was pound upper chest till he goes down. The head is far too animated to reliably hit. If you can't shoot on the move or at least train for it then my friend you're putting yourself in a world of hurt.

Oh and Blue, keep posting the training tips. They've been very helpful.

You're always talking about this "experience" you have, so you should tell us about your "experience".

Why so defensive?

It's not like you shot an unarmed man in the back.

Thanks man, good info.

I'm shooting either of a pair of G19 pistols, one with an RMR and one without. Times are equal with both. Ammo is handloads but essentially +P 115gr. I haven't been practicing my draw in a while, and could definitely work on that. You're right on the draw time, ~1.4-1.5 seconds.



That's exactly how I shoot when I'm going fast. The pistol, hands, and arms act as one unit, aiming is done with arms & torso. I do practice that kind of shooting, but have very little competition experience.

When you tell us about your live shootings and Blue tells us about his, I'll describe mine. E

Just my observation on red dot pistols, the advantage gained is at distance or on the move. The Bill Drill is shot pretty well with either point shooting, as Blue points out. Move the Bill Drill out to 20 yards or while moving and the dot will excel.

Blue, you need to read the autopsy report. I have shot no one in the back. He was "unarmed" ? "Unarmed" people can't kill or do great bodily harm ? Blue, are you really that ignorant ? E

Well, Mac, what you say is true. Head shots are much harder to make. But guys pumped up on street drugs really can't be stopped any other way. I know of many cases where it simply couldn't be done any other way.
As a civilian, at age 73, even if I were to train in the "shoot while moving" mode, I seriously doubt I could ever learn to hit much.
As a historical note, many who have studied Wyatt Earp's shootings believe he never had a bullet touch him because when he was shooting, he stayed in one spot. He did not move and thus attract attention.
The other thing is that if an opponent is shot, and then decides to move as a result of this, he has lost at some of his ability to do harm to you if not all of it. E

REPORT: Sudden Death In San Jose

Robert h. shepherd

A man was slain by a police officer during the early morning hours of Sunday September 19. Here is a summary of events condensed from various articles appearing in The San Jose Mercury this past week. John Henry Smith, a chemist working for IBM, had just taken his date home from a party and was apparently on the way home. Near Kiely Boulevard and Saratoga Avenue Officer Rocklin Wooley, on patrol with his dog, observed him make an illegal turn against a red light, pursued with red light and siren, stopped him at the rear of an apartment complex, Meridian Corners, at 4 221 Norwalk Drive. Smith got out of his car, was abusive, used obscene language,

calmed down, accepted his ticket and was about to drive on when two off-duty, out of uniform policemen (Officers Darrel Richter and Robert Watts), stopped to see if Wooley required any assistance. Smith then went berserk, got out of his car, threatened the police with a tire iron, was squirted with mace, subdued, placed under arrest and requested to submit to a search. This he started to do, then suddenly refused to cooperate. (From here on the story begins to get confusing, if it hasn't already.) Cries For Help Somewhere along the way Smith once again made threatening gestures with the tire iron, was set upon by the police dog, ran across the street to a chain link fence, tried to climb over, was once more attacked by the dog. Residents of the nearby apartment buildings, where he and the two off duty men all lived, state that they heard moaning and cries for help. He then returned to the police car, placed his hands on it and agreed to be searched. (Officer Wooley was unable to put hand cuffs on him because, for some

reason, he didn't have any.) Again Smith broke iway, running toward the entrance of the buildings. At this time Wooley drew his gun, and fearing Smith intended to enter the apartment and re-arm himself, shot him in the chest. The coroner's report states the body was found bare to the waist, bore marks probably made by the dog, and had a split lip, as well as the fatal gunshot wound. (An x-marks the spot type photo shows the location of the body as being several feet inside a pass-through, or hall way). Not Drunk, No Drugs An autopsy later proved Smith to be "clean," he'd had a few drinks but was not drunk, nor was he under the influence of drugs—contrary to an earlier statement of opinion by Chief of Police Robert Murphy. Briefly, these are the facts of a sad, melancholy, mess, as presented in the papers. Now for some personal views ana comments. Assuming (which I do not), that the officers' account is substantially correct, I hold the shooting to be inexcusable; if what I have good reason to suspect, did in fact, occur, then it

is criminal. If three men, plus a trained dog, could not cope with one man, of medium height and rather slight build, in a less permanent manner, then they are not the calibre men (or dogs), needed on an up to date metropolitan police force. I was somewhat acquainted with John Smith; a few years back we belonged to the same social organization, the Servetus Club, a singles group affiliated with the First Unitarian Church of San Jose. He was a handsome, intelligent and sensitive man, out-going and friendly. At parties he had a few drinks, liked to talk, was a mixer; neither I, nor anyone I've talked to, ever saw him drunk or acting other than a gentleman. Actions Not Possible He was not, by nature, violent or pugnacious in any way. Therefore, 1 find it most difficult to believe Mr. Smith could possibly have acted in the manner described by Officers Wooley, Richter, and Watts, except under conditions of extreme provocation and/or duress. I ask all members of the Stanford community, especially residents of San Jose, to write to Mr. Thomas W. Fletcher, City Manager, 801 North First Street, San Jose; urging that; (1 ) a thorough and impartial inquiry be held by an agency independent of the governments of San Jose and Santa Clara County, (2 ) the three police officers involved be suspended from duty, with or without pay, until such time as an investigation can be completed. I'd like to close with one more incontrovertible fact. John Henry Smith was a black. (Robert H. Shepherd is an operating engineer in the Stanford Steam Plant.)

http://www.bikernet.com/pages/October_23_2003_Part_2.aspx


BIKERNET COP CONVICTION STUDY-- Bad Cop: Convicting a cop, nearly impossible... California - It's been more than three decades since a police officer faced criminal charges for fatally shooting someone in Santa Clara County.

As a county grand jury considers this week whether to charge a San Jose officer in the July shooting death of a Vietnamese woman, the long-ago case of former officer Rocklin Woolley illustrates the long odds involved in trying an officer for killing in the line of duty.

"It's always hard for a jury to convict an officer, particularly in our county, where the public has a high opinion of police,'' said Dave Davies, a retired prosecutor who unsuccessfully sought to convict Woolley of felony manslaughter.

Woolley's case bore many similarities to the July 13 shooting of Bich Cau Thi Tran by San Jose police officer Chad Marshall. Both shootings drew public outrage and involved victims who were not white. The officers said they acted in self-defense and were accused of overreacting with deadly force to a harmless threat.

But what is especially telling about the failed prosecution of Woolley is that in some ways, his behavior seems more difficult to justify than that of Marshall, the officer in the Tran case. While Marshall faced a woman wielding a large, sharp instrument -- which turned out to be a vegetable peeler -- Woolley shot an unarmed man who was running away from him.

Woolley was a 27-year-old patrol officer when he stopped motorist John Henry Smith Jr., 37, for allegedly making an illegal U-turn Sept. 19, 1971. Smith, a black IBM research technician on his way home from a date, angrily protested the traffic stop when two off-duty officers who lived nearby happened on the scene.

Police said Smith threatened the officers with a tire iron. Woolley said he tried to subdue Smith with tear gas, then sent his police dog after him as he slipped free and fled toward an apartment complex.

As Smith reached the apartments, Woolley fired a single shot from his .45-caliber pistol, killing the unarmed man. Woolley later said he acted in self-defense, fearing Smith would arm himself once inside the apartments.

Community tension prompted calls for outside investigations. Two months later, a grand jury indicted Woolley on charges of manslaughter and using illegal tear gas.

At Woolley's trial, Davies told jurors the unarmed Smith posed no threat when he was shot. There was evidence Woolley threatened to kill Smith for suggesting he would sue over being tear-gassed. And officers said Smith had brandished a tire iron, but the tire iron turned out to fit one of their cars, not Smith's.

Then-Police Chief Robert Murphy said afterward that he no longer believed Woolley was justified in the shooting. Woolley, who was later fired along with another officer, lives in Placerville and declined comment. The city paid $30,000 to settle lawsuits on behalf of Smith's three children.

Though other fatal police shootings have been controversial since then, none resulted in charges against the officers, let alone convictions. Officials declined calls for an open grand jury hearing into the 1976 shooting of unarmed Latino bartender Danny Trevino by two San Jose officers.

The first such open hearing was held 20 years later over the 1996 death of Gustavo Soto Mesa, a suspected drunken driver fatally shot in the back as he ran from a sheriff's deputy. The grand jury declined to charge the deputy, who said his gun fired accidentally.

- See more at: http://www.bikernet.com/pages/October_23_2003_Part_2.aspx#sthash.dWsnA3v5.dpuf
_________________________

Did you really cite bikernet.com as a source. LMFAO


mike r