Oct 2, 2016

Action is faster than reaction


Please watch the above video first before you read the rest of this post.

I will not get into the numerous tactical issues which were recorded, all I'll say to that end is that they need to hire someone who is capable of teaching them how to properly execute whatever it was they were trying to do.


What I will point out is that there are a few lessons in this video which needed explaining.

First and foremost the media is reporting that one officer was shot, another had a bullet pass through his clothing and the deceased subject of the warrant was able to discharge four rounds prior to being killed.  

Four rounds in what appeared to be a split second, even as he was being shot he was still able to stay in the fight. 

Think about that, let it stir in your head.

If you have not, read my article on tactical de-escalation where I cover a good bit of the issues that are presented when encountering this type of situation.  For police officers who use force, criticism is quick to follow, which is why there is a myriad of info on the matter.  This article from policeone.com is a good example of considerations and we also have the Graham three prong test:

THE SEVERITY OF THE CRIME(S) AT ISSUE;
WHETHER THE SUBJECT POSES AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF THE OFFICER(S) OR OTHERS;
WHETHER THE SUBJECT IS ACTIVELY RESISTING ARREST OR ATTEMPTING TO EVADE ARREST BY FLIGHT;


 What does all this mean to the average person?

This is a clear example of feeders turning into receiver's for no good reason.  It shows that the reactionary gap of pistol is immediate up on execution and that the requirement for immediate incapacitation is absolutely needed to stop that near immediate reaction and threat.

If one of those officers either aimed to immediately stop the threat or had a weapon in a caliber which could produce a shock significant enough to immediately stop the threat, this may have caused the situation to change.  

Furthermore, the repeated statements/commands made to the subject which were continually ignored,  "Drop the gun!" Was yelled no less than ten times by several different people.  At what point do we cut off verbal communication and default to physical confrontation?  How does that apply to interpersonal confrontation?  Especially when a weapon is in play, what should your personal shoot threshold be?

Ask. Tell. Make.

This doesn't just apply to police officers, but applies to anyone who may be in an imminent physical confrontation.  This is definitely something that needs understanding because when the moment comes to implement this, there can be no doubts as to what actions are required.  

It all boils down to what is faster, action or reaction when inside the reactionary gap.  Action is always faster and should be on the tip of the feeders mind when being presented with such circumstances.  You simply cannot wait to act once you are in such a situation.  The only valid course of conduct once either parties intentions have been made clear is to act.

That team banged on his door and was holding him at gun point giving him commands.  He refused to follow those commands.  Was he magically going to come to his senses in the next few seconds that he did not in the last few?  Highly unlikely, furthermore, his reaction to shooting his pistol was against the action of a taser being implemented.  The team followed proper use of force protocols in hopes of not needing to use deadly force.  This is all well and good, text book, stuff for LE, but what about the average person?  
Do you carry a taser?  Spray?  Is there any requirement that you use less lethal means before using deadly force in a similar contextual situation?

No one wants to be shot and the only way to have statistics and percentages be on your side is to follow Han Solos advice and shoot first.