Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After watching the video from the recent shooting at the Michigan police station I offer up the following observations:

The officers did the best they could with the situation they had. All were much braver than I.

1. All officers were caught by surprise. "Awareness" played no role in the immediate response. The security cameras provided no advanced warning and were simply evidence collectors.
2. No returned shots were fired from a static position. The officers were all in the process of moving in some manner (either out from concealment or back to concealment) at the time the shots were fired.
3. Most returned shots were fired one handed.
4. Few (it doesn't appear any) returned shots were aimed using the sights. Some returned shots were fired without even looking at the target.

Lessons anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,606 Posts
How many hits did they make B-one? How many shots did they fire?

Those that fired two handed, how did they fair in hits .vs. those that shot one handed?

To me that is what really matters. Now how many fired one handed or moved or whatever but how did each one if them do?

Deaf
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
After watching the video from the recent shooting at the Michigan police station I offer up the following observations:

The officers did the best they could with the situation they had. All were much braver than I.

1. All officers were caught by surprise. "Awareness" played no role in the immediate response. The security cameras provided no advanced warning and were simply evidence collectors.
2. No returned shots were fired from a static position. The officers were all in the process of moving in some manner (either out from concealment or back to concealment) at the time the shots were fired.
3. Most returned shots were fired one handed.
4. Few (it doesn't appear any) returned shots were aimed using the sights. Some returned shots were fired without even looking at the target.

Lessons anyone?
Welcome to the real world. That is the lesson, IMO. We've seen it over and over. No matter how well you are trained, if surprised the response is almost inevitably one-handed point and shoot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
In looking at the video, and listening to the description, both in live motion and in slow motion, as above poster said, and as far as I can tell their were ' no ' sighted shooting by the officers and they were done one handed. They were trying to find cover and then shoot back. The BG had a shot gun, One of the officers, the commander did not have a gun and ended up using a downed officers gun. The BG was shot point blank by the commander when some of his fingers were blown off ( the commanders ) by the BG.

As far as was said, the fatal shot came from the commander. Also note, if the BG was shot from the other officers, he kept firing until the final shot that hit him was the commanders shot.

So far, there have been no reports as to how many shots were fired total, but speculation from the video is somewhere from 15-20 from the officers. Also no reports on how many actually hit the BG.

video of shooting: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region...ting-video-to-be-released-at-4:00-p.m.-friday

Beware it is graphic!!

This is reality!!!! I think we all can learn from this.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,716 Posts
This is reality!!!! I think we all can learn from this.
We can, but not yet and not just from the video. Look at your post, just as an example: "speculation" "as far as I can tell" and a whole bunch of other developing issues. To learn the real lessons, we're going to need more.

(Again, no cut on you or your post. Just calling for detailed analysis.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
How many hits did they make B-one? How many shots did they fire?

Those that fired two handed, how did they fair in hits .vs. those that shot one handed?

To me that is what really matters. Now how many fired one handed or moved or whatever but how did each one if them do?

“We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality” Ayn Rand

Deaf
It would be interesting to know who hit what, how many times and how they did it, but I am not sure how educational it would be.

Reality is what matters to me. Not what we wished could have happened. Reality dictated the circumstances and reactions that unfolded.

If these officers were in control of the situation, I am sure that they would have chosen to take a perfect stance, hold the gun with two hands and squeeze off aimed shots. Reality is that the perp dictated the circumstances and all the officers could do was to react. The officers were caught off guard. Awareness is important and can help us elude danger, but if we are ever attacked, it is likely that it will be a time when we are unaware of what is going on.

Reality is that the best action that the officers could have taken was what they did under the circumstances that they had. For those officers, shooting around desks, poking the gun out one handed and firing while, at best, catching a glimpse of the target; or firing one handed scampering for cover, or for distance while the other hand was breaking a fall or groping to find objects impeding progress were the options available. Shooting erect, two handed, Weaver, while lining up the sights was not a prudent or available option.

We can, but not yet and not just from the video. Look at your post, just as an example: "speculation" "as far as I can tell" and a whole bunch of other developing issues. To learn the real lessons, we're going to need more.

(Again, no cut on you or your post. Just calling for detailed analysis.)
Hit youtube and search for videos of IDPA matches. Compare the best shooters you see at the IDPA matches to the shooters in the video from the police station. Watch the speed of the shots are taken at the matches from low ready and compare that to the timing of the shots at the police station. The difference is easily perceptible, even without a timer. I respectfully submit that there is no way that the officers in the station were aligning their sights.

I think that we have enough details already to learn some things. The implications of what I saw in the video and its relationship to training are dang frightening.

One of the officers, the commander did not have a gun and ended up using a downed officers gun.
Lesson 1 we can all agree upon; have a gun on you, not in a desk drawer, locked in a safe or sitting next to you. When you dive for cover, you are likely diving away from the gun.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,716 Posts
I think that we have enough details already to learn some things. The implications of what I saw in the video and its relationship to training are dang frightening.
Please be specific here as to what the implications are and why you worried.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,606 Posts
It would be interesting to know who hit what, how many times and how they did it, but I am not sure how educational it would be.
Oh quite educational. That will tell you if their method of fire was accurate at the minimum. It will also tell you if their movement while shooting was effective (if I am not mistaken the NYPD teaches them to move to cover first if possible and not fire while moving unless you have no other choice.)

Just watching everyone rush around in mayhem won’t tell you all that much as to what technique was effective.


Lesson 1 we can all agree upon; have a gun on you, not in a desk drawer, locked in a safe or sitting next to you. When you dive for cover, you are likely diving away from the gun.
That's the first rule of any gunfight, to have a gun. Failure to obey that first rule tends to make you merely a victim.

Deaf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,606 Posts
Oh and B-One,

If you know the skill levels and training regime of the shooters you will also be able to see how well their training holds up! Be it point shooting or sighted fire or just whatever they were trained in (and how well they were trained!) And their gun handling skills to boot.

And that helps you to see alot of what they do in those films and why.

See trouble is the shooters may be totaly untrained highly trained and you take the wrong conclusions all because you have no idea how good they are. You may see alot of one handed shooting cause they never have shot any other way.

Take for example if you see one of them fire from the hip and the target drops. You might conclude that hip shooting is the way to go, but it might be the shooter is exceptionaly skilled or just lucky. You might see them shoot while moving and not score a hit. Again it might be cause they are roten shots, or they just missed (yes even good shots miss!)

Anyway there are many reasons to find out who all the shooters are, their skill levels, experience, etc... and then look closely at their technique and what worked and didn't work!

Deaf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
To dissect the situation to find what strategy was most effective is a task that has already been completed on multiple gunfights in the past. It is unquestionable that two handed, aimed fire will produce the most hits. With that in mind, most if not all of the time at the big name schools is used teaching this method.

In the video from the police station, though, I didn’t see the officers doing any of the things that we are supposed to do in a gunfight. I don’t know of any school that teach students to blindly stick a gun out from cover and begin pulling the trigger. I am not advocating this be taught or even employed, nor am I blaming the officer that I saw in the video for employing such a technique, but it is what was observed in the video.

The officers in the video had no chance to employ the "proper" techniques that they, undoubtedly, were taught. The “best” technique is irrelevant if the circumstances do not allow for that technique to be used. The best we can do is to use the best technique that the individual situation allows.

As I watched the officer on the floor on the right side of the desk thrusting his gun from behind the desk one handed and obviously not aiming I wondered if he had any other choice. Should he have exposed more of his body for a longer period of time so that he could have employed a two hand hold while lining up the sights?

As I watched the other officer retreating from the perp, tripping over objects on the floor, firing one handed with the gun arm stretched behind his body I wondered if he had any other choice. Should he have stood his ground, assumed a two handed hold, lined up the sights and pressed the trigger. Should he have ran for cover without firing and then returned fire from cover, as one has stated the NYPD trains it’s officers to do.

The popular techniques and tactics taught in the schools are very applicable in a gunfight when an individual is in a controlling role. However, only the individual initiating the gunfight or the individual that has taken the upper hand in a gunfight has the controlling role.

Considering that control of the situation is necessary to employ sound tactics. What are the odds that a normal citizen begins a gunfight in control of the situation? What are the odds that, once a gunfight starts, the average citizen will gain control before he or the perpetrator is incapacitated?

Most of us here are regular folks. We are not SWAT operators that tasked with initiating gunfights. If any of us get into a gunfight, my vision is that it will play out like the shooting in that police station, where classical training played little role in the reaction. That is what is so dang frightening.

The implication is that we spend most, if not all, of our time in training preparing for a situation that is very unlike any situation that we may encounter.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,716 Posts
I think what you've now seen is the difference between a reactive fight and a proactive one. And the 2-handed, plant your feet (after you've kicked the rocks out of the way) teaching and competition out there is overwhelmingly aimed towards the proactive.

Search here for "getting off the x" and point shooting, and you'll see that there's training around for the reactive end of things.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,686 Posts
Is there a better video than linked here? My old eyes are not able to pick up on enough detail (although my sphincter does seem to get the big picture loud n clear!).

'Drew
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
from B-One:
The officers in the video had no chance to employ the "proper" techniques that they, undoubtedly, were taught. The “best” technique is irrelevant if the circumstances do not allow for that technique to be used. The best we can do is to use the best technique that the individual situation allows.
from Sam Spade:
I think what you've now seen is the difference between a reactive fight and a proactive one. And the 2-handed, plant your feet (after you've kicked the rocks out of the way) teaching and competition out there is overwhelmingly aimed towards the proactive.
Two very important concepts that many often seem to either forget or ignore.
 

·
Hunc tu caveto
Joined
·
1,663 Posts
Look at the stark contrast between the Bad Actor and the Police Officers. One hell bent on killing and the others trying to survive. It surely isn't pretty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
I have been wondering why the perp dove into the enclosed area - close with and finish the target? the whole thing was surreal.

same thing happened in DC ways back. guy with a tec 9 IIRC. total surprised in a cold case squad made up of detectives and FBI agents. many casualties in that case. the dynamic in the detroit shooting would have been different if the perp did not run out of shells. thank the Almighty for that.

at first viewing, amidst the chaos, it did seem strange that the LEOs were firing one handed, what appears to be unaimed fire - and not the isosceles, 2 handed mode. however, one can argue that the LEOs did respond to training - at close proximity - the officers dished out suppressive fire, took cover, maneuvered for better cover. ultimately, they prevailed.

the terminal effect of the 12G shot at the commander looked peculiar too. I somehow expected him to be totally incapacitated after that close of a shotgun blast. I guess the vest and the adrenaline dump allowed him to disengage from contact.

I am not criticizing the LEOs here but just making observation. i think overall they gave an excellent account of themselves - they put the perp down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,606 Posts
In the video from the police station, though, I didn’t see the officers doing any of the things that we are supposed to do in a gunfight.
Actually there were many things you do on the range in that video. The very fact they held the gun and pointed it at the attackers is something you learn on the range.

I don’t know of any school that teach students to blindly stick a gun out from cover and begin pulling the trigger. I am not advocating this be taught or even employed, nor am I blaming the officer that I saw in the video for employing such a technique, but it is what was observed in the video.
So, what do you do about that B-One? You just said they should not do that? What lesson is there to learn?


The officers in the video had no chance to employ the "proper" techniques that they, undoubtedly, were taught. The “best” technique is irrelevant if the circumstances do not allow for that technique to be used. The best we can do is to use the best technique that the individual situation allows.
Actually you should always use the best technique for any given situation, but since every situation is different that could mean alot of techniques to learn (and master... cause to just learn them does not mean you can use them under pressure.) Instead you do as in Jeet Kune Do (my favorite philosophy for self defense.) That is you 'improvise adapt overcome', and the Marines use that same concept.

The things you learn in the classrooms and range do not cover every possibility. You have to learn to improvise and adapt what you have learned.

As I watched the officer on the floor on the right side of the desk thrusting his gun from behind the desk one handed and obviously not aiming I wondered if he had any other choice. Should he have exposed more of his body for a longer period of time so that he could have employed a two hand hold while lining up the sights?
B-One, he improvised, he adapted, and he overcame. And that is the is the key to winning at anything. Everything you learn on the range, the 'proper method' is not set in stone. You have to learn to adapt those things. These things you need to figure out for yourself… Many don’t and won’t.

As I watched the other officer retreating from the perp, tripping over objects on the floor, firing one handed with the gun arm stretched behind his body I wondered if he had any other choice. Should he have stood his ground, assumed a two handed hold, lined up the sights and pressed the trigger. Should he have ran for cover without firing and then returned fire from cover, as one has stated the NYPD trains it’s officers to do.
B-One, 'stuff happens'. Even the best fighters will trip over something now and then. Yea maybe he should have ran to cover, but that's Monday morning quarterbacking. Each situation is different.

The popular techniques and tactics taught in the schools are very applicable in a gunfight when an individual is in a controlling role. However, only the individual initiating the gunfight or the individual that has taken the upper hand in a gunfight has the controlling role.
Whoa... 'Popular techniques"? I'm at a loss here, define 'popular' technique? Is this the only techniques they teach? Do they also teach shooting while moving? Or night shooting? Or one handed shooting? Moving backwards or forwards?

Considering that control of the situation is necessary to employ sound tactics. What are the odds that a normal citizen begins a gunfight in control of the situation? What are the odds that, once a gunfight starts, the average citizen will gain control before he or the perpetrator is incapacitated?
Normal citizen? You mean an 'average citizen'? I've never seen that animal in the wild. I am not average nor exactly normal (after all, we all ARE a bit crazy, right?)

Most of us here are regular folks. We are not SWAT operators that tasked with initiating gunfights. If any of us get into a gunfight, my vision is that it will play out like the shooting in that police station, where classical training played little role in the reaction. That is what is so dang frightening.
Improvise, Adapt and Overcome B-One. Many will not because they just don't care to train. Nothing you nor I can do about that. All you can do is study and practice (and hope you are not in that situation!)

The implication is that we spend most, if not all, of our time in training preparing for a situation that is very unlike any situation that we may encounter.
Only if you take your training as being just what is taught on a range and you don't learn how to improvise and adapt what you are trained to do.

The biggest problem I see is people have a tendency to feel whatever the 'authorities' proscribe as training is it. No practice on the side, no looking to see if there are alternative techniques. Just do the minimal training and they are good to go no matter what.

And that is the real failing. It’s their failing and not anyone elses.

At least B-One, you are thinking. Most just go watch the Simpsons.

Deaf
 

·
"Don't Tread On Me!"
Joined
·
6,425 Posts
JMHO but it seems to me that the Officers fell back on their training, which must have been very poor training. Rather then duck behind something and start a "spray and pray" technique it seems that the fight could have been brought to a close a lot faster if someone would have taken a well aimed shot at the perp. Yes, you run the risk of getting hit with return fire but you also have a good chance of not getting hit AND ending the fight.
No, I've never been in a "real world" shoot out so I'm not an "expert" on the subject but I have read a lot of stories written by guys were have been in shoot outs and they all agree that you need to place aimed fired on target to end the confrontation as quickly as possible even if that means the risk of taking a bullet yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Actually there were many things you do on the range in that video. The very fact they held the gun and pointed it at the attackers is something you learn on the range.
Yes, conceded and agreed!

So, what do you do about that B-One? You just said they should not do that? What lesson is there to learn?
Not sure that I was completely clear. I don't know what the right answer is. We can view this in hindsight from the angle of the camera, but we weren't there. I am guessing that there aren't many ranges that would allow blind firing around an object like we saw in order to train for this eventuality.

Actually you should always use the best technique for any given situation, but since every situation is different that could mean alot of techniques to learn (and master... cause to just learn them does not mean you can use them under pressure.) Instead you do as in Jeet Kune Do (my favorite philosophy for self defense.) That is you 'improvise adapt overcome', and the Marines use that same concept.
This is where I think training should focus. Improvise, adapt, and overcome. Strict dictum from a set philosophy is not.

The things you learn in the classrooms and range do not cover every possibility. You have to learn to improvise and adapt what you have learned.
...and can not cover every possibility. The question is then, how should training be changed or modified to account for this. I have a great analogy, but it is too lengthy and not yet on paper. If I get to it soon and remember, I will PM it to you for critique.

B-One, he improvised, he adapted, and he overcame. And that is the is the key to winning at anything. Everything you learn on the range, the 'proper method' is not set in stone. You have to learn to adapt those things. These things you need to figure out for yourself… Many don’t and won’t.
We have all read the writings of some of the big names whose philosophies are set in stone. This is what I am railing against.

B-One, 'stuff happens'. Even the best fighters will trip over something now and then. Yea maybe he should have ran to cover, but that's Monday morning quarterbacking. Each situation is different.
Classical training does not and can not account for this. I think the officer described did the best he could with what he had. That was my point. Your improvise, adapt and overcome philosophy is what I intended for folks to bring up. Thanks

Whoa... 'Popular techniques"? I'm at a loss here, define 'popular' technique? Is this the only techniques they teach? Do they also teach shooting while moving? Or night shooting? Or one handed shooting? Moving backwards or forwards?
Poor choice of terms on my part relying too much on the interpretation of the reader. Those of us that have been to various trainers over the last 20 years have seen trainers that are blinded and set in their own regimen.

Normal citizen? You mean an 'average citizen'? I've never seen that animal in the wild. I am not average nor exactly normal (after all, we all ARE a bit crazy, right?)
LOL! Good point.

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome B-One. Many will not because they just don't care to train. Nothing you nor I can do about that. All you can do is study and practice (and hope you are not in that situation!)
Hope and pray!

Only if you take your training as being just what is taught on a range and you don't learn how to improvise and adapt what you are trained to do.

The biggest problem I see is people have a tendency to feel whatever the 'authorities' proscribe as training is it. No practice on the side, no looking to see if there are alternative techniques. Just do the minimal training and they are good to go no matter what.

And that is the real failing. It’s their failing and not anyone elses.

At least B-One, you are thinking. Most just go watch the Simpsons.

Deaf
Amen Brother! I do see that we have more work to do though!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,798 Posts
We can, but not yet and not just from the video. Look at your post, just as an example: "speculation" "as far as I can tell" and a whole bunch of other developing issues. To learn the real lessons, we're going to need more.

(Again, no cut on you or your post. Just calling for detailed analysis.)

Absolutely...and beyond knowing the technical aspects of the fight, knowing the level of training of those involved is very important also. Its hard to draw conclusions about how a person reacts and performs during a fight unless you know how well and often they train. Many LEO's never get any firearms training once they leave the academy and only shoot their guns twice a year to qualify. Even then, many academies lack any sort of real dynamic firearms training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
JMHO but it seems to me that the Officers fell back on their training, which must have been very poor training. Rather then duck behind something and start a "spray and pray" technique it seems that the fight could have been brought to a close a lot faster if someone would have taken a well aimed shot at the perp. Yes, you run the risk of getting hit with return fire but you also have a good chance of not getting hit AND ending the fight.
No, I've never been in a "real world" shoot out so I'm not an "expert" on the subject but I have read a lot of stories written by guys were have been in shoot outs and they all agree that you need to place aimed fired on target to end the confrontation as quickly as possible even if that means the risk of taking a bullet yourself.
Many of the stories that you have read were from individuals involved in what Sam Spade referred to as "proactive" gunfights. These stories are written by swat operators, stakeout squad members, soldiers or others that were able to some degree control the fight. Individuals in a proactive fight are better able to use our trained techniques.

We "average" (Thanks Smith) folks, are not likely to be involved in a proactive fight. Refer above for the implications of being involved in a reactive fight.

In short, I feel that the officers in the video did the best they could with what they had. I do not think that the training was poor, per se, but may have been irrelevant (if it did not include alternatives for adaptation, and improvisation) for the situation.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top