Why not a double tap?

[C. Sumpin]

Rules of Engagement Reform for LE?

It's been a minute since my last "shoot school" but the training seems not to have changed when it comes to use of deadly force with the firearm. The shoot house drill was to engage to the max; empty the mag into the target, reload and empty again. And this appears to be the SOP still and is sometimes a justified response. With multiple LE at the same scene they may all "empty out" on a subject. Now I'm as "Law & Order" as they come, but, dismayed when hearing of deaths of mentally ill, playing children, and yes, even a criminal has a right to due process (and perhaps the SOP for some of them is what we have).

Why is the double tap, then a pause to access if further forces is needed not an option for LE?
Should "back up" officers be restrained unless the primary LE has lost/has no control of the event?
Is it "overkill" for a subject to have 10, 20 or even more rounds, by multiple officers, taken?

 

[HayesGreener]

Not SOP in any agency I have been associated with. I am not aware of any LE training policy that directs a mag dump, although I know it happens. In my experience officers are taught to shoot till the threat is gone and there is no way to know how many rounds that will take. Range drills typically stress 2-3 round strings to center mass, re-assess, and repeat as necessary. You are responsible for any rounds that do not hit the intended target. Even with full auto firearms we stressed controlled 2-3 round bursts. Extreme circumstances may call for extreme measures.

The lethality of the threat will often determine the amount of trigger he will get. Officer training and experience is a factor as well. A murder suspect who wants to gunfight and still has a gun is going to get shot, a lot. Shoot an officer and you are probably going to get shot, a lot. We also have to note that because an assailant is down, he may still pose a threat for a period of time.

Statistically however, the Rule of Threes is in effect. Most OIS occur at 3 yards or less, 3 shots or less, and it's over in 3 seconds or less.

 

[Bassbob]

I have to assume that different departments train differently. Most here that I know of train to shoot to stop the threat.

Also do you mean controlled pairs or the clinical definition of double tap?

 

[C. Sumpin]

Geez BBob........"Also do you mean controlled pairs or the clinical definition of double tap?"
Early Sunday am, still working on coffee and you give me a question like that?

I mean two rounds fired, then a pause to see if the threat is disabled before further engagement.
Now you tell me........is that controlled or clinical??

 

[C. Sumpin]

I am not aware of any LE training policy that directs a mag dump, although I know it happens. In my experience officers are taught to shoot till the threat is gone and there is no way to know how many rounds that will take. The lethality of the threat will often determine the amount of trigger he will get. A murder suspect who wants to gunfight and still has a gun is going to get shot, a lot. Statistically however, the Rule of Threes is in eff

Would you please expound on the Rule of Threes......?

 

[Bassbob]

Geez BBob........"Also do you mean controlled pairs or the clinical definition of double tap?"
Early Sunday am, still working on coffee and you give me a question like that?

I mean two rounds fired, then a pause to see if the threat is disabled before further engagement.
Now you tell me........is that controlled or clinical??

Well brother, a double tap is two rounds fired as fast as you can without re-establishing the sight picture on the second shot. A controlled pair is two shots fired quickly while taking the extra .5-1.0 second to settle back on to your target with the second round. I only asked because there is a difference and not too many people are advocating the double tap these days. I personally think it only got popular because it sounded cool in the movies.

All the cops I know say pretty much exactly what HayesGreener said. You shoot until the threat is gone. Your focus is going to be on the target/threat so pausing to assess the threat shouldn't be necessary.

My personal feeling is when there is a situation where cops spray bullets all over the place, as you are describing, it indicates 2 things. First, they don't have much experience in real life gun fights. And second, they need a lot more training on A) hitting the target and B) shooting under extreme duress while adrenalin is pumping through their bodies.

The fact is that even with the world as it is, it is relatively uncommon for police officers to actually get into gunfights. It is not combat. Unfortunately it is also a fact that a lot of police officers fire their weapons once or twice a year at qualification time.

These are just my thoughts on it. I am not LEO so I think HayesGreener is much more qualified to answer these questions and/or correct me where I am mistaken.

 

[HayesGreener]

Would you please expound on the Rule of Threes......?

I am a member of two major LE Firearms instructor associations, NLEFIA and IALEFI. When firearms instructors get together, a topic that always comes up is that, to varying degrees, training and range time is limited.

With the reality of limited training and range time, you have to decide where to focus your training efforts, and courses of fire, for the best effect. After action reports from OIS provide data to help shape training programs to meet what has actually been happening out on the street. These lessons are hard won with real officers, both from wins and losses. There is a full range of training programs in LE agencies, determined by training time and resources.

The Rule of 3's comes from after action data, and relates to the majority, but not all scenarios. The data is there: when it begins, violence occurs up close and personal, it happens very quickly, and is resolved with 3 shots or less, so there is a strong emphasis on training to those realities. Boyd's OODA loop figures into the equation as well. You Observe your assailant, Orient to him, Decide what to do about it, and Act, and repeat as needed. In a firearms training context for example, if your firearm is in its holster, and if it takes 4 seconds from the time you perceive the threat to get your gun drawn, you are statistically losing the fight.

Neural motor memory developed on the range will attend the fight on the street, so you attempt to "train in" the memory that would be most useful to the officer in a fight for survival. Officers should be able to direct accurate fire at say, 7, 10, and 15 yards, but if that's where you are placing most of your training emphasis, you are not training him for the event that is most likely to occur. Marksmanship is important and there is no substitute. Distance gives you time and options; close combat does not. A large percentage of training emphasis is on CQB, getting multiple solid hits center mass as quickly as possible, at whatever distances are involved. You can never know how many rounds will be fired before the fight ends, but experience tells us most often it is 3 or less.

Although it may be called for in extreme circumstances, I would suggest that an SOP to do a magazine dump in every scenario is irresponsible

 

[Bassbob]

I kinda think the situations that involve mag dumps are not usually a case of an officer dumping a mag into a warm body, rather they are an officer making a lot of misses.

Which brings up an important point for civilians. Mag dumps and double taps ( that is when your second shot is fired without aiming) aren't a very good idea generally. YOU are responsible for every bullet that leaves your barrel.

 

[Sld1959]

I kinda think the situations that involve mag dumps are not usually a case of an officer dumping a mag into a warm body, rather they are an officer making a lot of misses.

Which brings up an important point for civilians. Mag dumps and double taps ( that is when your second shot is fired without aiming) aren't a very good idea generally. YOU are responsible for every bullet that leaves your barrel.

I was taught that a controlled pair is the better tactic than a double tap. Finding and realigning the front sight keeps your head in the game, as it were. Depending upon the caliber of the weapon the muzzle could be further or lesser off target and the possibility of triggering again before realignment is accomplished is too great. A great recipe for one of those errant bullets...

 

[C. Sumpin]

A double tap to me is two rapidly aimed shots.

"I felt threatened" is all most LE's have to say to justify lethal force. One can feel threatened and be mistaken at the same moment.

"Shoot until the threat is gone". Sounds like a definition of killing/dead.

I dunno,,,,,,,,it's not rare to hear of mag dumps during LE conflicts. And by multiple officers at one scene.

There are a few, and some on this forum, that are in the cream at the top.

The bulk are mediocre that need more study and training.

I would advocate that the standards/requirements/pay rate for LE across the board be raised significantly.
What quality of individual works six days, all holidays, all hours, just so a cruiser can be seen parked in his driveway when he is off?
When a rotten LE is found out he should be out of LE forever, not hired the next town or county over.
I'd like to see the public willing to pay minimum 50K (with excellent bennies) per year to start. And the department heads hiring college grads who have a passion for LE work at the truly professional level. I witness LE Goons that are in it for the violence, they get off on escalating then beating. Raise the bar, and the rewards; to have Law Enforcement
anywhere share the same status/respect as Entertainers, Attorneys, Pilots, Doctors, Educators and so on. Reform LE to include more specific training in mental illness and how to handle it. These are just one persons observations to excel, not a condemnation of the industry.

 

[wmg1299]

I have no doubt that different agencies use different training methods, but I am not aware of any police agency intentionally training officers to conduct multiple mag-dumps without justification for each shot fired. During my years as a Use-of-Force Instructor, all of the agencies I encountered stressed that all uses of force are seizures under the 4th Amendment. All uses of force, whether lethal or otherwise, must comply with the “objectively reasonable” standard put forth by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Conner in 1989.

It is common for officers to act in ways that do not perfectly comply with their training under extreme stress, which is the most common explanation for apparently excessive force. Officers may have had a little fun by emptying their mags on the last drill of a training day, but I never witnessed any officers being trained to do so as part of any sort of sanctioned tactic.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Can't say about cops. I've heard many of them unload a 1/2 a mag or more to shoot a person.

As I wrote before, Darby's Rangers had a 3 shot method to take someone out. 1 in the stomach, 1 in the chest 1 in the mouth. Paladin Press had a DVD called 'Shoot Him to the Ground' and that was what it basically was. Keep shooting until they collapse.

For me, I stopped carrying a 5 shot snub and moved up to carrying 2 Hellcat 9mm's. I got 28-30 rounds to work with for CCW. In the new dem world order you need as much firepower as possible. And God help you if you need to shoot and are behind enemy lines in a dem run state or city.

 

[HayesGreener]

I have no doubt that different agencies use different training methods, but I am not aware of any police agency intentionally training officers to conduct multiple mag-dumps without justification for each shot fired. During my years as a Use-of-Force Instructor, all of the agencies I encountered stressed that all uses of force are seizures under the 4th Amendment. All uses of force, whether lethal or otherwise, must comply with the “objectively reasonable” standard put forth by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Conner in 1989.

It is common for officers to act in ways that do not perfectly comply with their training under extreme stress, which is the most common explanation for apparently excessive force. Officers may have had a little fun by emptying their mags on the last drill of a training day, but I never witnessed any officers being trained to do so as part of any sort of sanctioned tactic.

Agreed. So many people labor under the belief that police officers are all about pursuits and shooting. The truth is that most officers will reach retirement never having fired a gun in anger. They may be legally justified many times, but exercise restraint and will go to great lengths to avoid a shooting. It is, after all, a helping profession first. We have the media and Hollywood to thank for the misperceptions. There are a few mistakes but for the most part those who get shot left no other choice.

 

[Bassbob]

A double tap to me is two rapidly aimed shots.

"I felt threatened" is all most LE's have to say to justify lethal force. One can feel threatened and be mistaken at the same moment.

"Shoot until the threat is gone". Sounds like a definition of killing/dead.

I dunno,,,,,,,,it's not rare to hear of mag dumps during LE conflicts. And by multiple officers at one scene.

There are a few, and some on this forum, that are in the cream at the top.

The bulk are mediocre that need more study and training.

I would advocate that the standards/requirements/pay rate for LE across the board be raised significantly.
What quality of individual works six days, all holidays, all hours, just so a cruiser can be seen parked in his driveway when he is off?
When a rotten LE is found out he should be out of LE forever, not hired the next town or county over.
I'd like to see the public willing to pay minimum 50K (with excellent bennies) per year to start. And the department heads hiring college grads who have a passion for LE work at the truly professional level. I witness LE Goons that are in it for the violence, they get off on escalating then beating. Raise the bar, and the rewards; to have Law Enforcement
anywhere share the same status/respect as Entertainers, Attorneys, Pilots, Doctors, Educators and so on. Reform LE to include more specific training in mental illness and how to handle it. These are just one persons observations to excel, not a condemnation of the industry.

Two rapidly aimed shots is called a controlled pair.

 

[KASHIRA-3]

Why is the double tap, then a pause to access if further forces is needed not an option for LE?

I agree that force of any kind should be thoughtfully measured and I am not saying that an evaluation after 2 shots would be a bad thing ( it may not be). That said, plenty of bad things have occurred during these "pauses" you speak of.

The methods surrounding the use of force ( by professionals) are in constant flux. Changes in practices/policies are always evolving. They often change as a result of unwelcomed results. Hopefully the changes are for the better and that people learn from past mistakes.

I have seen people at the range fire 2 shots and then get off the gun by lowering it arbitrarily or snaping it back to high chest. I have seen many people do this over and over during their sessions. I am not sure what they are doing or why but I would be willing to bet that they will do exactly that if they are ever forced to fire their weapon in self defense. If they do, I sure hope that their 2 shots are enough.

 

[TSiWRX]

Force Science's archives -even for a layman such as myself- are a treasure-trove:

Force Science - Research | Training | Consulting

Understanding Force Encounters Through Science and Research

www.forcescience.org

Articles are now split between the "Research" banner and the "News" banner, with the latter being further categorized via "Topics."

Two articles relating to the current topic that came off the top of my head were:

Why So Many Shots In An OIS? A FS Advanced Specialist Explains - Force Science

Trained by Hollywood to expect that a single round is enough to fatally wound a threatening suspect, noncops may question OISs in which multiple shots were fired. Why did officers fire so many rounds? Why was the suspect shot after already falling to the ground? Why did some bullets hit him in...

www.forcescience.org

( https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/understanding-police-officer-reaction-time-to-stop-shooting/ )

and

“Excessive” Shots And Falling Assailants: A Fresh Look At OIS Subtleties - Force Science

A new look at why officers often fire controversial “extra” shots after a threat has ended has been published by an independent shooting reconstructionist and certified Force Science analyst. Researcher Alexander Jason reports that even under benign experimental conditions brain programming...

www.forcescience.org

There's *_A LOT_* at-play, and for average-Joe/Jane law-abiding armed civilians like myself, for those who really want to seriously delve into this phenomenon first-hand, I would recommend seeking out both live-fire flat-range training that involves the use of dynamic targets that actually fall after being engaged (even better, there are those whose "sensitivity" can be adjusted, so that they fall after variable number of rounds or only after the the target is more precisely hit) as well as Force-on-Force and/or integrated combatives training, where additional stressors as well as the need to problem-solve in real-time more accurately reflects the chaotic and wide-ranging stimuli that real-life use-of-force events bring. Today, there are many reputable and thoroughly vetted outfits throughout the nation that offer these types of courses/seminars for open-enrollment, and many even are able to make special accommodations for those who are physically disabled, frail, or are aged.

 

[HayesGreener]

I ran across this, written by an unnamed police officer who has experienced the mean streets. I think it captures the ethos and internal quandary of the warrior police officer:

"Those who fight monsters inevitably change. Because of all that they see and do, they lose their innocence, and a piece of their humanity with it. If they want to survive, they begin to adopt some of the same characteristics as the monsters they fight. It is necessary. They become capable of rage, and extreme violence.

There is a fundamental difference, however. They keep those monster tendencies locked away in a cage, deep inside. That monster is only allowed out to protect others, to accomplish the mission, to get the job done.....Not for the perverse pleasure that the monsters feel when they harm others. In fact, those monster tendencies cause damage...GUILT, ISOLATION, DEPRESSION, PTSD. There is a cost for visiting violence on others when you are not a monster. Those who do so know one thing...The cost inflicted upon society as a whole is far greater without those who fight monsters. That is why they are willing to make that horrible sacrifice so that others may live peaceably.

Before you judge one of us, remember this...

We witness things that humans aren't meant to see...and we see them repeatedly. We perform the duties that you feel are beneath you. We solve your problems... Often by visiting violence upon others. We run towards the things that you run away from. We go out to fight what you fear. We stand between you, and the monsters that want to damage you. You want to pretend that they don't exist, but we know better. We do the things that the vast majority are too soft, too weak, too cowardly to do.

Your life is more peaceful.....because of us.

The current political climate in this country holds that there is nothing worth fighting for. Submission is the popular mantra. Warriors are decried, denigrated, and cast as morally inferior. We know how childish, how asinine, and how cowardly that mindset is.

We know this.....There ARE things worth fighting, and dying for. We know that not every problem can be solved through rational discourse...that some problems can only be solved through the application of force and violence. And, while we do prefer the former....we are perfectly capable of the latter.

We believe that fighting what others fear is honorable, noble, and just....and are willing to pay the price for that deeply held belief. Why? For us, it isn't a choice...

It is what we are. We are simply built that way."

 

[TSiWRX]

^ "Seeing the human decay" -literally- is also something that's said to attribute to the high burn-out and suicide rate among dentists.

There's a lot that folks don't think about, when their loved-ones aren't in a profession that they are truly intimately familiar with.

 

[BobM]

I ran across this, written by an unnamed police officer who has experienced the mean streets. I think it captures the ethos and internal quandary of the warrior police officer:

"Those who fight monsters inevitably change. Because of all that they see and do, they lose their innocence, and a piece of their humanity with it. If they want to survive, they begin to adopt some of the same characteristics as the monsters they fight. It is necessary. They become capable of rage, and extreme violence.

There is a fundamental difference, however. They keep those monster tendencies locked away in a cage, deep inside. That monster is only allowed out to protect others, to accomplish the mission, to get the job done.....Not for the perverse pleasure that the monsters feel when they harm others. In fact, those monster tendencies cause damage...GUILT, ISOLATION, DEPRESSION, PTSD. There is a cost for visiting violence on others when you are not a monster. Those who do so know one thing...The cost inflicted upon society as a whole is far greater without those who fight monsters. That is why they are willing to make that horrible sacrifice so that others may live peaceably.

Before you judge one of us, remember this...

We witness things that humans aren't meant to see...and we see them repeatedly. We perform the duties that you feel are beneath you. We solve your problems... Often by visiting violence upon others. We run towards the things that you run away from. We go out to fight what you fear. We stand between you, and the monsters that want to damage you. You want to pretend that they don't exist, but we know better. We do the things that the vast majority are too soft, too weak, too cowardly to do.

Your life is more peaceful.....because of us.

The current political climate in this country holds that there is nothing worth fighting for. Submission is the popular mantra. Warriors are decried, denigrated, and cast as morally inferior. We know how childish, how asinine, and how cowardly that mindset is.

We know this.....There ARE things worth fighting, and dying for. We know that not every problem can be solved through rational discourse...that some problems can only be solved through the application of force and violence. And, while we do prefer the former....we are perfectly capable of the latter.

We believe that fighting what others fear is honorable, noble, and just....and are willing to pay the price for that deeply held belief. Why? For us, it isn't a choice...

It is what we are. We are simply built that way."

Other dangers? Some may need to be more careful out there of all the dangers when seeking monsters? In order to seek them, need to think like them to find them sometimes. In thinking like them, when finding them and associating with them, some may rub off and the monster hunters also become the indifferent monsters they themselves seek? The on/off switch isn't always within reach. A bit of Jekle and Hyde? One heck of a price to unknowingly pay.