Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns .45 ACP +P Speer Gold Dots...Not Impressed!

jwp475,




In my nigh on twenty year law enforcement career I have talked to a zillion cops who have been in shoot outs some pretty darn extensive, I have never, ever heard of a bystander getting hit. While I know it can occur, we have to be careful about defining a rule by the exception. People are pretty darn smart about getting out of the way of gunfights!

If in a shootout a bystander is hit, it is not the officer(s) fault. The blame lies with the bad guy. Moreover, should a bystander be killed, the bad guy would be charged with his/her murder regardless of who fired the fatal round!

I hope this helps.

Take care,

Mando

Dan,



Obviously this is merely your opinion! Thanks God, CA POST does not agree with you!

BTW, how are you able to determine ALL of your potential shots at a bad guy are going to hit your target?


Thanks,

Mando

I can't fault you too much here, and late in my career I was exposed to training that emphasized the necessity of taking risks. But risks that cops do take must be calculated. Remember that a cop or anyone is no use to anyone if s/he allows her/himself to be killed! You gotta live to be able to help!


Take care,


Mando

I understand that, and my question was in reference to Kevins statement that any one that carried ammo that would exit a BG was irresponsible..

Mando;

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, but I'll be glad to answer the following question:

"how are you able to determine ALL of your potential shots at a bad guy are going to hit your target?"

You can't. I can't. What I can do, is take my expertise to a level where I know in my heart I'll be better than 99% of any crook I might encounter. That requires a lot of time at the range, on my own, and at my own expense.

I sometimes look at kids who spend countless hours (wasted hours as far as I'm concerned) trying to master a silly skateboard maneuver. But I know, I'll never try to challenge one of them to a scateboard competition. It's not my thing. But if that kid decided to kick in my door to accost my daughter, I wouldn't be holding a skateboard.

When I used to shoot qualification, I made it a point to be the one policing up my 26 rounds of brass while the other cops were still shooting the second magazine of a particular exercise. All my rounds were inside the 9 ring. Some of the other guys shots were all inside the 10 ring. To their way of thinking, that made them better shots. I could only smile. When it came time to prove otherwise, I did so quietly, but left no doubt.

One small personal anecdote: Once, years ago I was with some German GS-G9 counterparts in Wiesbaden Germany. They are counter-terrorist types who sing songs with their H&Ks. I was using a compact .45 about the size of an Officer's Model. I had to engage a couple of strings of targets and make some rapid reloads. When I was done, I looked behind me and there was a crowd of counter-terrs watching. One of them stepped forward and commented: "You are very fast!" Mando, that was the finest compliment I've ever received from anyone. It has more value to me than all the awards and medals and ribbons I have stuffed in boxes in the basement.

Why to I ramble so? Anyway, while I can't be certain that all my shots will hit their target, years and years and hours and hours of rapid fire drills and mastering sight alignment and trigger control will prove itself as long as I remain physically viable. Just to clarify, I already know how I react in life threatening situations involving guns, so I don't believe target panic will be my problem. I also know that I was able to hold fire in the face of each instance, while keeping my sights aligned. We thank our stars that we didn't have to kill on those nights, but death was immanent.

Shooting to keep a bad guy's head down has merit. Shooting a magazine in hopes you hit the bad guy may have merit if the situation is just right, but I find the thought unprofessional.

I recall a situation where a military police officer was faced with a BG at approximatly 75 yards. The BG had already killed his wife and her lawyer and had begun his "death run." The officer encountered the BG and took cover behind a dumpster. Under fire, the officer delivered a single shot with his Beretta 92 at the stated yardage, and felled the BG. Forgive me, but I know the vast majority of police officers whould not have been able to make that shot. Could one in a 1000? In 10,000? Could you? Could I? Do you believe anyone you know would have been able to fire a single round under those circumstances and not half a magazine or more?

I've never killed a man. I know a couple of guys who have. In one case it was a single shot against an armed opponent and in the other case it was a single shot against an armed opponent who was firing. Both BGs (one was a bad girl who was firing suppression fire for her escaping boyfriend) died at the scene. Another officer friend of mine in St. Louis has twice fired his weapon against armed opponents in close encounters. Both BGs survived wounded and the number of shots fired by the officer was in the neighborhood of...two or three.

That old aphorism, "you can't fire fast enough to catch up" is as true today as it was when police carried .38 special revolvers...or even .45 Colt revolvers. The mindset is as valid today as it was then. You should make up your mind that you are going to deliver "accurate" fire first and foremost, or you should take you gun home and join the boy scouts!

Police work is not a military endeavor! Ninja suits and machine guns against a crazed husband are not necessary and are more an affectation of arrogance than a professional badge of honor! If you shoot as if you only have one chance, you will shoot better. It's a proven fact, not a theory!

Dilligentia, vis, Celleritas is not theory either.

Best wishes.

Dan

Dan,

Very good. I just can�t understand why we still have people out there teaching point shooting when it has been proven time and time again that you can deliver an accurate aimed shot just as fast as if you point shoot. So if you�re going to choose between say a 40% chance of a hit or a 95% chance of a hit, which one will you choose? Yet, we still have LE shooting instructors who opt for the known lower hit percentage.



Mando � If that�s the way you want to train, so be it. But to insinuate that�s the only way an officer is going to survive is either self delusional or misleading. You said you�ve never heard of a bystander being hit or killed in a gunfight; wow, that really amazes me. I can name a couple incidents where I was on scene and exactly that happened. So when you�re researching shooting incidents, you�re either not paying attention or ignoring such things.

I don�t really follow such things, but a quick Google produced a few stories:
http://www.topix.com/city/san-mateo-ca/2007/09/da-says-bystander-was-shot-by-police-officer �A bystander who was wounded in a shootout following a July armed robbery was hit by a police officer, not by the robbery suspect, authorities said Friday.�
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GPG0101/708170587/1978 �Sonnenberg, 25, was shot 11 times and killed during a traffic stop on April 21 outside of Studio 720, 720 Bodart St. Police accidentally shot Grijalva-Ortiz, 31, who was inside the club.�
http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/police/hughes-update.html �Officer Wojcik was wounded by "friendly fire" and a bystander was shot in the leg.�
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=78120 �police killed Ramirez and shot an innocent bystander�
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8CF92B35-1C1D-4D2B-AD8E-88621106A0BA.htm �The guard's gunfire also apparently hit bystanders�
http://www.nicaso.com/pages/doc_page208.html �- a sharp contrast to the Boxing Day shooting, when no intended victims were hit and seven bystanders were shot.�
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/breaking-news-reporting/works/gunfire.html �Three civilians were also hit by gunfire�

Bystanders get hit in gunfights all the time. Some by the BG�s and some by cops, it�s the nature of gunfights. With LE some of these are covered up, this I know because one incident I was on scene at, the LE agency refused to release ballistic information, and to my knowledge never did.

Teaching point shooting when we know that aimed fire can happen just as fast and be significantly more effective is foolish.

If you spent a weekend at Gunsight, it will forever change your views. They keep track of how things work with point shooting and how things turn out with their graduates who use a flash confirmation sight picture. The last I checked, no graduate of gunsight has ever been killed in a shooting, and all shots have been accounted for. (my data is probably a decade old though)

Good shooting trumps "just shooting"

Good post Kevin..

I think you skill set should have to find a balance between a conventional sight picture and point shooting. I referred to it as a progressive sight picture when I was teaching but I believe someone has labeled it as something else. Basically at contact ranges the mere silhouette of the gun forms your "sight picture", ie a visual reference than allows proper site placement. As the range increases an individual will have to go to a finer and finer sight picture from the classic "flash" front sight ending with the full use of the front and rear sights to place your shots as necessary.

I always get a little laugh when I see classes where they tape over your sights and declare your "point shooting". In reality you are still obtaining a visual sight picture by placing the pistol on the target as a visual reference. In my opinion just because you are not using a conventional notch and post sight alignment does not mean you are point shooting.

Does anyone have a link where CA POST (peace officer standards and training) offers any opinion on gross negligence and suppressive fire? Without going into detail I agree it has its place in a very narrow scope of tactics but have never seen an official opinion given and I was not aware POST has ever offered a legal opinion.

Dear Kevin,




what do you mean by writing, "...if that's how I was trained."? No one, to my knowledge, is trained to hit bystanders. Do you know of where one could find such training?

Now that you're amazed, please tell me of the incidents in which bystanders were wounded by police officer fire and of which you have direct knowledge. In what city where you a paramedic to have had such extensive exposure to such extensive shootout experience???

What was covered up by LE? Are your intimating a conspiracy? Just what was covered up? To even remotely insinuate such nonsense betrays your extensive experience. And why would the investigating officers, who would have been conducting a criminal investigation, share sensitive confidential information with a paramedic? There is not a damn thing in law enforcement that is not subjected to subpoena, save an ongoing criminal investigation, even personnel files, which are far easier to get in federal court than in sate court. So if you know of some purported reckless indifference to society where a bystander was wounded, why wasn't a lawsuit filed??? Don't forget, Kevin, that it is a felony to knowingly introduce lies as evidence in any court, criminal or civil. It is also a felony to introduce in court a report that is knowingly false!

When I read these fantasies of cabals, conspiracies, cover-ups, I immediately become extremely suspicious. While, Kevin, you might have incorrectly interpreted an event at the scene of one of the numerous shootings you've investigated, it is wholly sententious, pretentious, and arrogant to assume that, based upon your interpretation, cops would place themselves in jeopardy of prison by engaging in a cover-up. God forbid you worked where I did and even remotely tried to tamper with evidence or submitted a knowingly false report.

BTW, were you able to find more links than the ones you have posted? Did you peruse peruse each article? Were these articles credible? Were any conclusions stated in these articles supported by facts? Assuming for a second that these articles do represent actual factual incidents where citizens were wounded as a result of gunfire in a shootout in which a law enforcement office participated, of what percentage of shootouts would they constitute? Maybe far <.01%? That would make such incidents extremely rare, wouldn't you agree???

Kevin, how many bystanders were wounded in the the North Hollywood bank robbery??? The SLA shootout??? The Norco bannk robbery shootout??? Probably a zillion rounds combined in just these three, m'man! And all occurred during daylight hours!!!




Take care,

Mando

In other words, Kevin, you provided only seven links, but Mando's talked to a zillion cops. Do the math!


And Mando, buddy, you ask way too [bleep] many questions for a guy who adamantly refuses to back up his claims.

Varmint

I don't recall the name either, but still, attaining a usable sight picture is easily accomplished in very short order.

I was never a die-hard IPSC shooter, but one day when I managed to turn in a pretty good score, I cleared 6 falling metal plates on separate pedestals that were placed at various intervals from 5 to 15 yards at varying heights. From the draw, the last plate broke the electronic contact point in a little under 4 seconds.

Now, that doesn't even come close to anything Leatham or Miculeck can do. They are friggin wizards!!!! But, I'd guarantee that 98% or better of our nation's law enforcement officers will never see the day when they could do that!

I should point out I was beaten soundly that day by a 50 something, pot-bellied, tobacco-chewing, slow-talking Texas farmer who used a WWII 1911A1 with stock mil-spec sights and a crack in the frame where the slide stop entered. He was FAST! You can't shoot that kind of event without using the sights and he proved sights can be used in a hurry!

Dan

Don't be too hard on Mando, Since He has shown up there has been some good debates. Since I'm more of a lurker than poster I have enjoyed some of the debate's and be;ing of middle age have seen this kind of dialog descuss;ed many time's before. I enjoyed some of the more experienced view's that are the same as mine. Coop

I may have given you the wrong impression. I wasn�t saying anyone was training to miss, I�m talking about the practice of point shooting training�it�s a poor practice for all but the most skilled.

You seem to have missed all that I posted as evidence (something I seem to be providing copious amounts of and you provide none of), and have focused like a laser beam on this one thing. Since you DEMAND to know everything.

I was a Paramedic for 16 years in Sacramento, CA. I was employed with the now defunct Metropolitan Ambulance

The incident in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sacramento_hostage_crisis (there are some inaccuracies in the story, but for the most part is pretty good)
Video can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sacramento_hostage_crisis

Three years after the incident, the ballistic evidence had not been released. I recently was interviewed by a film maker who is wanting to make a movie about the incident and he informed me that he, after all these years, is still unable to get ballistic evidence from the shooting. I�m not saying any investigators are engaged in a cover up, but at the highest levels, they were unwilling to release ballistic evidence, so you call it what you want, but I say something doesn�t smell right.

There was a whole lot that wasn�t right about this incident, and none of it ever came to light. Maybe not a cover up, but certainly a convenient lack of the truth coming out.

Since we're coming clean about our resume's, how 'bout you share? Where are you a cop, what department, what's your title and experience?

I like your presence on the board, but you throw your weight around as an authority until you get into a tight spot, and then you seem to come up short. My last post should have been very clear, yet you insist on the distraction of the Good Guys incident.

If you�re such an authority, then stick to the subject at hand. If you disagree with me, go after what you disagree about, don�t go after me. You want to have it out on my credibility or bash around the subject of the Good Guys incident, fine�start another thread and let�s see where it goes.

But back to this thread, can we get back to the subject? I�m saying the training doctrine you promote is a potential public hazard and I�ve given evidence to back that up�what say you??

This is your best case yet�

True, just as you said, civilians are smart enough to get out of the way in the majority of shooting incindents, but as you can see by my links, such is not always the case. Would you agree that if you could fight the same fight, with a much higher hit percentage, you should be doing that?

Dan,
Im a fan of the big dot express sites for that reason, it perfect to catch a quick confirmation on everything past arms length. Playing with FOF extensively has repeatedly taught me that unless your firing from a protected CQB position at contact ranges some type of sight picture can be achieved and hits go way up.

Mando,
Since you know everything why dont you call the San Jose Police department and ask them about the officer they lost to friendly fire when rounds missed the target. In this case it was an officer trying to use 00buck at extended range, the deceased officer took a pellet in the thigh at 70 yards and bled out.

http://www.sjpd.org/fallenofficers/silva.cfm

This is from the department website and is a cleaner version but the incident was debriefed a couple of times at different seminars, including the Calibre Press.

The one thing for sure for me, when I pointed a pistol at a man in a real life or death situation I wasn't thinking about the ammuntion or what kind pistolcraft I was using at the time.
Coop

But I do remember it was kind of like tunnel vision and my front sight was pointed at center mass but I'm not a well trained man but condider mydelf a survivor type
coop

Being a diehard pistol type and after shooting many thousands of rounds, strong supporter of the 1911 for the experienced, a person will react under stress as he trains. But I don't claim to be any kind of expert and I belive shot placement is the answer to survival. Sorry for the rant, a combination of too much JIM BEAM, BURSITUS AND CORTISONE SHOTS, gezzerhood is not fun, cary on with the discussion, It's kind of fun to watch.
Coop

You actually made me LOL...

I'm under the influence of 3 Rolling Rocks and Celebrex, which is the treatment for my geezerhood. I'll be having a total knee replacement next month. Hopefully, once all is healed, I can make a part time return to executive protection work...we'll see.

You appear trained well enough!

Dan

Kevin, I enjoy and look forward to you're posts, But actual experience and truth is hard for many people to comprehend, keep posting you;re experiences I do enjoy
Coop