{"id":8637,"date":"2014-06-05T04:00:42","date_gmt":"2014-06-05T08:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/modernserviceweapons.com\/?p=8637"},"modified":"2014-06-04T21:21:55","modified_gmt":"2014-06-05T01:21:55","slug":"some-perspective-on-shot-count-placement-reloads-reengagement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/modernserviceweapons.com\/?p=8637","title":{"rendered":"SOME PERSPECTIVE ON SHOT COUNT & PLACEMENT, RELOADS, REENGAGEMENT"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A tactically appropriate, legally acceptable deadly force response doesn’t necessarily “look right.”\u00a0 Imagine a courtroom (an LEO is being sued under Federal law for “excessive force,” or a non-sworn alleging self-defense is being prosecuted for murder or manslaughter), where you hear some or all of this: “Members of the jury.\u00a0 You heard from several eyewitnesses in this case.\u00a0 They uniformly told you they observed the defendant shoot the victim X times\u00a0 .\u00a0 . look around as if to see if anyone was watching, and then<\/em> duck behind a wall .\u00a0 .\u00a0 . <\/em>stash the partially empty pistol magazine .\u00a0 .\u00a0 . <\/em>put a fresh one into the pistol\u00a0 <\/em>. \u00a0 .\u00a0\u00a0 .\u00a0 and reengage the wounded and flailing victim with Y additional shot(s) to the (body part) .”\u00a0\u00a0<\/em> A <\/em>bit concerned that even with the extensive explanation of experts, the above would seem excessive (shot count), unreasonable (reloading, reengaging), and\/or sinister (scanning, taking cover) to a judge or <\/em> jury?\u00a0 Even when the shooting is unquestionably “good”?\u00a0 I am.<\/p>\n

Current tactical thinking on shot count\/placement, reloading, and reengagement (for both LEOs and the non-sworn) seems to be the following: keep shooting until the threat has been neutralized, with continuous reassessment of the necessity to apply deadly force. Some trainers add to follow the threat with the muzzle while confirming neutralization. (Admittedly, whether an apparently incapacitated or capitulating threat has been effectively neutralized is one of those “eye of the beholder” questions).\u00a0 Some teach a standard “failure drill” engagement and response: Shoot a set number of shots (usually two to “center mass”) with a pause for assessment, and if necessary, execute a relocated reengagement, as thought to be the best placement option considering revised target presentment, location of prior shots, and human anatomy.\u00a0 (Shooting a preplanned number of shots followed by a pause for reassessment, then reengagement, has its LEO trainer detractors. <\/strong> See “How Not to Respond on the Street,”\u00a0 by Kevin Davis).\u00a0 <\/a><\/strong>Many teach to reload during a gunfight “when you can,” before the gun runs dry, and when it appears the need for deadly force has ended .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 in case it hasn’t.<\/p>\n

The principal rationale for such training is the widely accepted notion that the “one-shot stop” myth had its funeral some 20-plus years ago. Stated another way, handgun shots, even fatal ones, are not necessarily instant neutralizers.\u00a0 There have been instances where inflicting fatal wounds didn’t end a gunfight, and a shot person didn’t promptly act neutralized.\u00a0 While on the ferryman’s boat ride to Hades, they receive the assistance of confederates, or deliver deadly blows, stabs, or shots, for seconds, maybe even for a minute or more.<\/p>\n

My Perspective — Legal and Otherwise
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am not particularly keen on canned shot counts with preplanned pauses for assessment, reloading of a handgun before it is empty, or “topping off” when the need for the use of deadly force appears to have ended.\u00a0 I revere many who teach such things, but I was never convinced of the practicality of or tactical necessity for such robotic behaviors, especially for the non-sworn (who are likely only to be involved in a low shot count shooting, not a gunfight).\u00a0 I think a pause, including that for a reload, may suggest to a judge or jury there was time for a perfect reassessment decision, and\/or disengagement.\u00a0 To them, shots fired after a pause easily take on a sinister appearance.\u00a0\u00a0 But, I strongly subscribe to the notion that if an earlier properly taken shot delivered a fatal wound, subsequent shots, especially those in the same volley, should have no legal significance.\u00a0 (There are cases containing language suggesting that).<\/p>\n

<\/strong>A <\/strong>two or three second volley of sustained fire would rarely be found unreasonable or excessive.\u00a0 It is not unusual for a person running a modern service pistol to be able to shoot two to five times per second.\u00a0 You can do the math and see why an LEO’s shot count north of three isn’t vigorously questioned.\u00a0 (Davis: “Round count as an indicator of excessive force comes from the land of the mythical one shot stop”<\/em>).\u00a0 What about when reengagement occurs after an interruption of more than say a few seconds?\u00a0 Like all deadly force encounters, the answer is entirely situation dependent.\u00a0 Here’s a video of an LEO shooting with two volleys, 11 shots, over more than a minute.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

There is Federal case law which addresses seemingly high LEO shot counts.\u00a0 The cases hint at how reloading and reengagement are viewed.\u00a0 Shot count is rarely rejected, except perhaps when pauses, reload(s), and\/or reengagement reflect excessive shots fatally wounding an already neutralized but likely surviving subject.\u00a0 Here are examples of cases finding a seemingly high round count LEO shooting not<\/span> “excessive force”\u00a0 —<\/p>\n

\n