The "better to die on your feet" thread

[Steve]

Related to this discussion, in a crisis, I think it's a good idea to have given how you might react some thought in advance, and to have a clear idea in mind of what your priorities really are. I work in training, and a lot of the training I do now is for new supervisors. We have a lot of young people who are great technicians, but lack the experience that we used to take for granted (for a lot of reasons).

One of the things I encourage them to do is to give some thought to how they would make a decision in a crisis. I have them list out the various influences and then to prioritize those influences. Some questions I might ask myself are, "is this safe? Is it legal? Do we have an existing policy? Is there a regional expert or point of contact? Is there a past precedent? What are the priorities for my executives or superiors?" We go through several, actual crisis that vary from physical threats and actions against employees to plumbing malfunctions to loss of heat in the Winter to power outages, earthquakes and several other things.

There are dozens of possible questions or influences that can be identified, and the point of the exercise isn't to lead them to a single right answer. The point is to get them to think about how they will make a decision in a crisis, so that they are more likely to make a sound decision when something happens. If you have to make a choice between doing what is legal or doing what is safe, which would you choose? No right answer, but it will help you in a crisis to have determined this in advance. If there is a conflict between doing what is safe or doing what you are being ordered to do by your superior, which would you do ("i.e., go in there are open that strange box!")?

And personally, the value of discussions like this, for me, isn't that there is a right or wrong answer. It's useful to have given some thought to "what ifs." What if I'm being mugged and I'm alone, and the guy has a knife? What if I'm not alone? What if he has a gun? What if I think he just wants my wallet? What if he asks me to climb into his van or the trunk of his car?

The point is that, I think that the answers to these questions are really less important than that we ask them for ourselves.

 

[Tgace]

Related to this discussion, in a crisis, I think it's a good idea to have given how you might react some thought in advance, and to have a clear idea in mind of what your priorities really are. I work in training, and a lot of the training I do now is for new supervisors. We have a lot of young people who are great technicians, but lack the experience that we used to take for granted (for a lot of reasons).

One of the things I encourage them to do is to give some thought to how they would make a decision in a crisis. I have them list out the various influences and then to prioritize those influences. Some questions I might ask myself are, "is this safe? Is it legal? Do we have an existing policy? Is there a regional expert or point of contact? Is there a past precedent? What are the priorities for my executives or superiors?" We go through several, actual crisis that vary from physical threats and actions against employees to plumbing malfunctions to loss of heat in the Winter to power outages, earthquakes and several other things.

There are dozens of possible questions or influences that can be identified, and the point of the exercise isn't to lead them to a single right answer. The point is to get them to think about how they will make a decision in a crisis, so that they are more likely to make a sound decision when something happens. If you have to make a choice between doing what is legal or doing what is safe, which would you choose? No right answer, but it will help you in a crisis to have determined this in advance. If there is a conflict between doing what is safe or doing what you are being ordered to do by your superior, which would you do ("i.e., go in there are open that strange box!")?

And personally, the value of discussions like this, for me, isn't that there is a right or wrong answer. It's useful to have given some thought to "what ifs." What if I'm being mugged and I'm alone, and the guy has a knife? What if I'm not alone? What if he has a gun? What if I think he just wants my wallet? What if he asks me to climb into his van or the trunk of his car?

The point is that, I think that the answers to these questions are really less important than that we ask them for ourselves.

+1

Something I preach as well, especially to new officers. You should constantly be playing the "what if" game in your head. It's better to execute even a "poor" plan than it is to be frozen in spot trying to come up with ANY plan.

You should also have some hard and fast "rules of thumb". I think it was mentioned earlier to not allow yourself to be transported from one scene to another by a bad guy. I would suggest risking being killed on the spot in an attempt to run or fight vs being taken. Unless there was some bizarre set of facts that led me to believe that going along would be beneficial, I'd make that a 100% rule.

 

[drop bear]

+1

Something I preach as well, especially to new officers. You should constantly be playing the "what if" game in your head. It's better to execute even a "poor" plan than it is to be frozen in spot trying to come up with ANY plan.

You should also have some hard and fast "rules of thumb". I think it was mentioned earlier to not allow yourself to be transported from one scene to another by a bad guy. I would suggest risking being killed on the spot in an attempt to run or fight vs being taken. Unless there was some bizarre set of facts that led me to believe that going along would be beneficial, I'd make that a 100% rule.

That is preemptive as well. Had a friend of mine almost bashed because he had a meeting with a guy in a back car park.

It is an old ploy but it still gets people.

 

[GiYu - Todd]

Some arm robberies don't want any witness. Also the gun shot in "walk in" can not be heard outside.

This happened at my favorite Taco Bell 30 yards away from my appartment in college. After robbing the employees at the end of the night, they herded them in the walk-in, and executed 5 people... who I'd talked with the previous day, and just wanted to go home for the night. They didn't offer any resistance at all. One girl survived long enough to drag herself out to a phone and get help. I actually met one of the murders a couple years later while in the waiting room at a hospital (he was shackled and had two corrections officers with him). The sad thing was this kid looked so "normal". So you might not always know if surrender/acquiescence will keep you alive or not. I, for one, am highly reluctant to second guess how anyone else responds to a mortal threat, unless I'm there.

The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.

Back to the initial CCW holder scenario... I've never known of anyone being forced to defend themselves with deadly force, going on to become murderers because they enjoyed the experience. Most, if not all, feel remorseful they were put in that situation in the first place. Even most LEOs seem the same way if they've ever had to use deadly force. Soldiers who have to do it repeatedly, have to find a way to deal with it... and many have trouble with that aspect, but few truly start to "like it".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This happened at my favorite Taco Bell 30 yards away from my appartment in college. After robbing the employees at the end of the night, they herded them in the walk-in, and executed 5 people... who I'd talked with the previous day, and just wanted to go home for the night. They didn't offer any resistance at all. One girl survived long enough to drag herself out to a phone and get help. I actually met one of the murders a couple years later while in the waiting room at a hospital (he was shackled and had two corrections officers with him). The sad thing was this kid looked so "normal". So you might not always know if surrender/acquiescence will keep you alive or not. I, for one, am highly reluctant to second guess how anyone else responds to a mortal threat, unless I'm there.

Agreed. One of the points I was trying to make, however, is that if you are in such a situation and you evaluate the threat and decide that you need to respond by drawing a weapon and employing deadly force, you have changed the balance of the risk, for good or ill. Although it is impossible to know in hindsight whether the confrontation would have ended badly or not without the introduction of the weapon by the victim, it is also possible that by doing so, the situation becomes worse.

Again, I am not saying that a person should or should not draw a weapon in a given situation (a point I feel others seem to continue to misunderstand). I am saying that introducing the weapon brings its own set of risks for good or ill. Any situation in which a weapon is introduced becomes a life-or-death struggle, whether it was one prior to that or not.

Back to the initial CCW holder scenario... I've never known of anyone being forced to defend themselves with deadly force, going on to become murderers because they enjoyed the experience. Most, if not all, feel remorseful they were put in that situation in the first place. Even most LEOs seem the same way if they've ever had to use deadly force. Soldiers who have to do it repeatedly, have to find a way to deal with it... and many have trouble with that aspect, but few truly start to "like it".

Agree. I hope I did not imply otherwise.

 

[GiYu - Todd]

I am saying that introducing the weapon brings its own set of risks for good or ill. Any situation in which a weapon is introduced becomes a life-or-death struggle, whether it was one prior to that or not.

Even employing your MA skills does pretty much the same thing. If you initiate a physical confrontation (armed or not), the situation has changed. Perhaps if you just handed over your wallet, or car keys, or even acquieced to a rape, you might get to walk away alive... but perhaps not. Waiting until they have attacked you (if that was their choice), may be too late. Sometimes, preemption may be the best option if you determine you have a realistic chance. As an unwitting victim of the situation, you're now forced into making a critical decision you never wanted, without benefit of knowing the attacker's true intent.
All of the CCW holders I know carry for the exact same reason LEO's do. It's not to go hunting for bad guys. It's insurance in case someone else puts them in a situation where it becomes a necessary tool (hopefully a rare enough even to never happen to most CC'ers). Most of the time, a CC who does draw (same for LEOs) doesn't end up firing the weapon. It's presentation alone changes the dynamic for the attacker and terminates the initial attack. Although, there is a chance it could make things go the other way too... you never know.
I have friends and family who are LEOs, and most never had to draw in their careers... and are glad for it. Ironically, about a year ago, an old high school friend who's a sheriff deputy, caught four armed robbers who had fled and ended up in my dojo's parking lot, about 10 minutes before I arrived to open the doors for class. He had to draw on them (the only time in his career), and was still visibly shaking from it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Even employing your MA skills does pretty much the same thing. If you initiate a physical confrontation (armed or not), the situation has changed. Perhaps if you just handed over your wallet, or car keys, or even acquieced to a rape, you might get to walk away alive... but perhaps not. Waiting until they have attacked you (if that was their choice), may be too late. Sometimes, preemption may be the best option if you determine you have a realistic chance. As an unwitting victim of the situation, you're now forced into making a critical decision you never wanted, without benefit of knowing the attacker's true intent.
All of the CCW holders I know carry for the exact same reason LEO's do. It's not to go hunting for bad guys. It's insurance in case someone else puts them in a situation where it becomes a necessary tool (hopefully a rare enough even to never happen to most CC'ers). Most of the time, a CC who does draw (same for LEOs) doesn't end up firing the weapon. It's presentation alone changes the dynamic for the attacker and terminates the initial attack. Although, there is a chance it could make things go the other way too... you never know.
I have friends and family who are LEOs, and most never had to draw in their careers... and are glad for it. Ironically, about a year ago, an old high school friend who's a sheriff deputy, caught four armed robbers who had fled and ended up in my dojo's parking lot, about 10 minutes before I arrived to open the doors for class. He had to draw on them (the only time in his career), and was still visibly shaking from it.

Yes, fighting back is an escalation, and necessarily increases risk.

Drawing a weapon is a new dimension entirely. It is now a deadly force situation for good or ill. You seem to think I'm implying that this is to be avoided; I am not. I am stating a fact. Draw a weapon, the chances that you will have to use it have now gone up quite a bit. That's a bell that cannot generally be unrung.

I'm not sure how else I can explain this simple fact. Fighting back with hands and feet is not the same level of risk as drawing a weapon.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yes, fighting back is an escalation, and necessarily increases risk.

Maybe... I don't necessarily see fighting back as an escalation, since that would imply you're increasing the force being used. Not true, if you're responding in kind. You punch me. I punch you. That's not an escalation.
And I do not agree at all that it increases the risk. There are plenty of examples of cases in which fighting back saved the victims life. None at all in which it can be shown that the victim was hurt MORE because they fought back than they would have been had they been a passive victim.

Drawing a weapon is a new dimension entirely. It is now a deadly force situation for good or ill.

You seem to be making the false assumption that it's not a deadly force situation without weapons being drawn.

You seem to think I'm implying that this is to be avoided; I am not. I am stating a fact. Draw a weapon, the chances that you will have to use it have now gone up quite a bit. That's a bell that cannot generally be unrung.

Well, since the chances of using the weapon without being drawn are zero, this is technically true. But essentially meaningless, as well.
Draw the weapon, and history shows us that in the vast majority of cases the confrontation will end immediately, without the weapon being used, and with nobody being injured (at least, no more than they had already been injured before the weapon was drawn).
If the goal is to end the confrontation, drawing a weapon, especially a firearm, has an excellent track record to show that the goal will be reached. Immediately.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You seem to be making the false assumption that it's not a deadly force situation without weapons being drawn.

I don't assume that, but I do believe that once the victim produces a weapon, it is one for sure. If it was in question, that question has now been answered.

Speaking only for myself, if I am ever in a situation where I believe the appropriate response is to draw a firearm, I am going to employ it the moment I draw it. There will not be any waving it about or threatening anyone with it. If someone sees my firearm, that's the last thing they will ever see, if I can help it. I would never draw a weapon unless I was legally entitled to defend my life by taking the life of another.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don't assume that, but I do believe that once the victim produces a weapon, it is one for sure. If it was in question, that question has now been answered.

Speaking only for myself, if I am ever in a situation where I believe the appropriate response is to draw a firearm, I am going to employ it the moment I draw it. There will not be any waving it about or threatening anyone with it. If someone sees my firearm, that's the last thing they will ever see, if I can help it. I would never draw a weapon unless I was legally entitled to defend my life by taking the life of another.

Neither would I. But I may or may not fire it immediately. Just as I wouldn't always draw it. It's all circumstantial.
Just because I am legally entitled to kill them doesn't mean I necessarily will.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Neither would I. But I may or may not fire it immediately. Just as I wouldn't always draw it. It's all circumstantial.
Just because I am legally entitled to kill them doesn't mean I necessarily will.

There is a philosophy that when your life is in danger to the extent that the use of deadly force is authorized, the only correct response is to employ it without delay.

Part of that is legalistic. Part of it is based on a moral determination. Part of it is based on training.

Legalistically, it can be asked why, if you had a moment to delay using deadly force, did you think you were in immanent danger to begin with? I'm not saying I like that question, but it can be asked. My thought is that if I must draw, it means I am in fact under immediate threat of my own death or serious injury and therefore I must act immediately by using deadly force. Delay of any kind means the threat was not that great. Well, theoretically anyway, and according to some kinds of lawyers and politicians. I don't like that kind of lawyering ex post facto, but I'm familiar with it.

Morally, it can be asked why a person under threat of his or her life would permit that situation to continue even a moment more, if life is indeed threatened and if one's own life is indeed more important to oneself than that of an assailant. If I have determined that the bad guy must die so that I may live, we proceed immediately to the 'the bad guy must die' part without delay.

With regard to training, we tend not to train ourselves to respond to threat by preparing to take a defensive action and then deciding whether or not to take it. We train (typically) to take immediate action. Punch comes in, we block. We are threatened with our life, we draw and fire. Draw and fire. They are linked. Not draw and think about it, or draw and wait to see if that works before we pull the trigger. That will get you killed. Draw and fire.

When I was an MP, we were trained to draw and fire, aiming for center-mass. When asked why we didn't shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or shoot him in the leg, or wait to see if he surrendered first, we were instructed to describe the fact that we were trained to draw and fire at center mass. Our minds tell us when we are in mortal danger and authorized to use deadly force in self-defense. Our training does the rest; no thought required.

"Did you shoot to kill or to wound?"
"Neither. I shot for center-mass."
"Why did you do that?"
"Because that is how I was trained."

Once I have cleared leather, the discussion about whether or not I am going to use it has ended. I rely upon my training at that point.

 

[GiYu - Todd]

Just because you CC, doesn't mean you will pull it out if an unarmed agressor starts trouble... in fact, you'd be best to use deescalation skills or try to get away.
If you CC and draw on someone, you'd already have to be in a life-or-death situation of the other person's making. Otherwise, you've just become a criminal. So if you're already in a deadly situation... essentially just your own death if the aggressor so chooses... opting for a weapon MAY give you a way out, although an ugly one.
If CC isn't your thing, I can truly respect that. But I've never known anyone who CC's, who isn't profoundly aware of the added burden on them if a situation arises.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just because you CC, doesn't mean you will pull it out if an unarmed agressor starts trouble... in fact, you'd be best to use deescalation skills or try to get away.
If you CC and draw on someone, you'd already have to be in a life-or-death situation of the other person's making. Otherwise, you've just become a criminal. So if you're already in a deadly situation... essentially just your own death if the aggressor so chooses... opting for a weapon MAY give you a way out, although an ugly one.
If CC isn't your thing, I can truly respect that. But I've never known anyone who CC's, who isn't profoundly aware of the added burden on them if a situation arises.

I agree. But...

‘Worst nightmare': Woman with concealed gun permit shoots at fleeing shoplifter outside Home Depot

This happened less than three miles from my house. The woman was a licensed concealed weapon permit holder, had been through the training, etc. Just because you don't know any non-idiots with guns doesn't mean they're not out there.

 

[drop bear]

Just because you CC, doesn't mean you will pull it out if an unarmed agressor starts trouble... in fact, you'd be best to use deescalation skills or try to get away.
If you CC and draw on someone, you'd already have to be in a life-or-death situation of the other person's making. Otherwise, you've just become a criminal. So if you're already in a deadly situation... essentially just your own death if the aggressor so chooses... opting for a weapon MAY give you a way out, although an ugly one.
If CC isn't your thing, I can truly respect that. But I've never known anyone who CC's, who isn't profoundly aware of the added burden on them if a situation arises.

OK so incompetent cc people exist. Shown by the article above. Do you support their right to carry?

For me this is the gun debate in a nutshell. Gun rights vs responsible gun ownership.

 

[drop bear]

I don't assume that, but I do believe that once the victim produces a weapon, it is one for sure. If it was in question, that question has now been answered.

Speaking only for myself, if I am ever in a situation where I believe the appropriate response is to draw a firearm, I am going to employ it the moment I draw it. There will not be any waving it about or threatening anyone with it. If someone sees my firearm, that's the last thing they will ever see, if I can help it. I would never draw a weapon unless I was legally entitled to defend my life by taking the life of another.

Woah back the truck up right there.

Beep....beep....beep...

Your basic personal safety starts before you engage the guy if you possibly can wrangle it. So you should be looking to put yourself in a tactical advantage before you have to act.

So best case scenario in a lethal threat is to be in a position to create time and space to end a situation. So gun out could be wave and threaten. Well let's say warn cos it sounds more professional.

So they have a knife. Which is gun out threat. And you can move behind cover. You have time and space to end that situation without a death.

At least you have the opportunity to give that a go.

 

[ballen0351]

OK so incompetent cc people exist. Shown by the article above. Do you support their right to carry?

yes. We have people that use all our rights irresponsibly. Not being about to take,it away is what makes it a right not a privilege

For me this is the gun debate in a nutshell. Gun rights vs responsible gun ownership.

Then it's no longer a right.

 

[ballen0351]

So they have a knife. Which is gun out threat. And you can move behind cover. You have time and space to end that situation without a death.

At least you have the opportunity to give that a go.

very similar situation happened to me last week. Call at 3am for loud music. I can hear the music 3 blocks before I get to the house. I pull up the guy put 6 large speakers in his driveway blasting music into the neighborhood. I walk up he's standing in his garage. I approach tell him to turn off the music. He cusses at me tells me to leave. I walked into the garage and again tell him to turn off the music. He picks up an axe. I draw my weapon and he walks towards me. Now he's about 8 feet away. So could i have shot him? Sure I think I'd be justified. But I backed away put a car between him and I and ordered him to drop the axe. He did after about 30 seconds then ran into his house.

 

[Tgace]

very similar situation happened to me last week. Call,at 3am for loud music. I can hear the music 3 blocks before I get to the house. I pull up the guy put 6 large speakers in his driveway blasting music into the neighborhood. I pull up he's standing in his garage. I approach tell him,to turn off the music. He cusses at me tells,me,to leave. I walked into the garage and again tell him to turn off the music. He picks up an axe. I draw my weapon he walks towards me. Now he's about 8 feet away. So could i,have shot him sure I think I'd be justified. But I backed away out a car between him and I and ordered him to drop the axe. He did after about 30 seconds then ran into his house.

Then what?



Sounds like the start of a barricade operation to me.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

Then what?



Sounds like the start of a barricade operation to me.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Yeah started off as barricade then like 3 min later he came running out the front door naked. I hate tackling naked dudes. He was taken to hospital on mental health eval

 

[Bill Mattocks]

very similar situation happened to me last week. Call at 3am for loud music. I can hear the music 3 blocks before I get to the house. I pull up the guy put 6 large speakers in his driveway blasting music into the neighborhood. I walk up he's standing in his garage. I approach tell him to turn off the music. He cusses at me tells me to leave. I walked into the garage and again tell him to turn off the music. He picks up an axe. I draw my weapon and he walks towards me. Now he's about 8 feet away. So could i have shot him? Sure I think I'd be justified. But I backed away put a car between him and I and ordered him to drop the axe. He did after about 30 seconds then ran into his house.

Your responsibility as a LEO ia different than mine as a civilian. If said naked guy had advanced on me as a citizen with an axe in his hand, I'd have run away if I could have. I don't have the fun job of putting the habeas grabbus on him. On the other hand, if I found I could not retreat, I also don't have to try to effect a least reasonable use of force arrest that might expose me to life-threatening danger. You had a job to do. I only have to survive. So yeah, dude gets two in the ten ring.