| Copyright © 2006 - 2007 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Police Authors Websites |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Don't Be Afraid... To Pull The Trigger |
| by Frank Borelli |
I've been a cop in some way, shape or form (military, civilian, private, etc) since the
fall of 1982. For 24 years I've lived with the reality that I might, just MIGHT, have to
put a human being in my sight picture and squeeze the trigger. It's a reality I came
to live with a long time ago and it remains with me today. I decided lo those many
years ago that it was something I could do and promised myself I would if it needed
doing. It was something I saw as part of my job when circumstances warranted it.
The reality of life though is that there are a great many police officers who simply
don't have it in them to pull the trigger when they should.
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman speaks about this in his presentation on the Bulletproof
Mind. He tells the story about a cop who comes and thanks him for having simply
asked, "Can you pull the trigger when you have to?" It's something that far too
many cops take for granted. Grossman cites human interpersonal violence as the
"universal phobia" and gives hitorical information to support his theories. The fact
that some cops today hesitate to pull the trigger when it's both justified and
necessary to their potential survival may further support his theory.
I've seen numerous videos from dahsboard video-cameras mounted in police and
sheriff's patrol vehicles around the country. In one, the law enforcement officer,
gun drawn and pointed at an armed threat, says, "I'll shoot your ass," nine times.
NINE times. Now, admittedly that's not the most professional thing to say to a
subject who needs to drop his weapon before you are forced to shoot him.
Perhaps, "Don't make me shoot you," would sound more professional as it's
captured on your dash-cam, but be that as it may, NINE times? Let's think about
everything that is implied in ONE verbal warning.
Situation: Subject is armed and not complying with your orders. You have drawn
your weapon, and are aiming / pointing it at him. The moment of truth has arrived.
Either he must drop his weapon or you must pull the trigger on yours - at least
twice in most contemporary training structures and then evaluate the need for
further shots.
Boyd's Decision making model of Observe - Orient - Decide - Act affects both
"players" in this drama and we law enforcement professionals - or any other
contemporary warrior for that matter - must understand what our failure to act in a
timely fashion means to the opponent.
Subject's OODA Loop has ended at ACT: He is NOT complying. He is resistant. He
is armed. He presents a threat. He may not yet have decided to pull the trigger, but
he is refusing to surrender or put down his weapon. He HAS decided not to be
obedient.
Officer's OODA Loop has ended at ACT: Observed a threat. Oriented sufficiently
to recognize that the threat is to himself or an innocent it is his duty to protect.
Decided that he must present Deadly Force. The Action is simultaneously to draw
his weapon and to issue a verbal command / warning.
Subject's OODA Loop repeats: I'm not complying. He warned me, but he hasn't
started shooting yet. My decision and resolve hasn't changed.
Officer's OODA Loop has ended at ACT: He observes no change in the threat
level. The threat still exists to himself or another. He has decided to present
Deadly Force and did so at the conclusion of his last OODA Loop. Now he has to
choose:
Action 1: pull the trigger.
Action 2: repeat verbal warning.
Okay. Three things have to be said here:
1) Police officers have no legal requirement to retreat from a physical threat. In
fact, it's our sworn duty to stand in harm's way and defend / protect those who
cannot defend or protect themselves. We cannot in good conscience shirk that
duty.
2) If Deadly Force wasn't justified, we shouldn't be standing there with the gun in
our hand pointed at a bad guy. If we're confident in our decision to present Deadly
Force, we should be equally confident in the necessity of pulling the trigger.
3) Action is always faster than REaction. If the bad guy goes through his next
OODA Loop and decides to start pulling the trigger, the officer or other victim may
be critically injured by gunfire before the officer can return fire. At that point, the
action is too little too late.
Those three items recognized, let's consider the implication of a second (or third or
fourth or NINTH) warning. The subject is going through repetitive OODA Loops just
as the officer is. To make those OODA Loops innefficient, the officer has to press
the subject's time and space. By whatever means necessary, the officer must
reach an appropriate ACTION first - or risk losing the fight and potentially his life. If
the officer makes the decision to issue a second warning - which may be
appropriate dependent on circumstances, position of cover, threat presented, etc.
- then the subject takes that into consideration in his next OODA Loop.
What's the message he's been given? Let's think about it.
Observe: Nothing physical has changed. I'm here with a gun in hand. The cop is
there with his gun pointed at me. He looks shaken and unsure, but his gun has a
big hole at the end of it and it's pointed at me. He just said, "Don't force me to
shoot you," which means the choice is mine. I can drop the gun and live, or I can
disobey him and he'll shoot me. But then he said the same thing again.
Orient: Hmmm... maybe he really doesn't want to shoot me. Let me think about this
a minute... maybe more options will become apparent before he actually gets up
the courage to shoot me. Let me look around and see what I can leverage to my
advantage or do to escape.
Decide: I think I'll pull this trigger and shoot him before he says anything else again.
Act: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.
Of course, that's only one possibility. He may decide to drop the gun and
surrender. He may realize that your position of cover is so good he'd be wasting
bullets trying to shoot you. He may hear sirens and decide he needs to get away
fast and you're in his way so he opens fire. But let's take a look at the options and
see how the percentages work out for the good guys: us cops.
He surrenders. GOOD.
He shoots. You don't. He's not shot. You're injured. BAD.
He shoots. You don't. He's not shot. You're incapacitated. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's injured. You're not shot. GOOD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's injured. You're injured. BAD. He shoots. You shoot.
He's incapacitated. You're not shot. GOOD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's incapacitated. You're injured. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's incapacitated. You're incapacitated. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's injured. You're incapacitated. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's not shot. You're incapacitated. BAD.
If he surrenders then great. If he decides to pull the trigger, you're in a REactive
position. Of those options listed above, seven out of nine where he shoots work
out BAD for you. That's a 78% chance it will go wrong for you. How can we change
that? Be PROactive and do what you know is right and justified. Pull the trigger
FIRST. How will that work out?
You shoot. He doesn't. He's injured. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He doesn't. He's incapacitated. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's injured. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's incapacitated. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's injured. You're injured. BAD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's incapacitated. You're injured. BAD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's incapacitated. You're incapacitated. BAD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's injured. You're incapacitated. BAD.
Now take a look at that. In the instances where the good guys shoot and the bad
guy doesn't, it works out 100% in our favor (given that the use of force is justified).
In the remaining six of eight, four of them work in his favor. It would seem to me -
based simply on math - that making an appropriate decision and ACTING on it in a
timely fashion while using good tactics (such as being behind cover) increases our
chances of victory at least 30%.
While I fully understand that today's society puts a lot of pressure on cops to make
sure we do the right thing, some things will never change: I will always rather be
tried by twelve than carried by six. Understand, you're almost guaranteed to get
sued if you pull that trigger. You will face administrative and criminal investigations
and someone will always said you could have done something different. They'll be
right. There was always something different that could have been done. Would
that different thing have ended in your victory in the conflict? Or would it simply
have made it easier for the bad guy to kill you?
Now let me give you an example of how things can work the other way:
County police get a call for a man armed with a knife at a local gas station. They
arrive and sure enough, here's the man wandering around the parking lot with a
butcher knife in his hand, waving it at people and making verbal threats. The
corporal who arrives on the scene has JUST finished qualifying with his carbine. He
pulls up approximately fifteen yards / 45 feet from the subject, pops his trunk and
gets out. As he goes to his trunk to pull out his 9mm carbine, the subject begins
approaching him waving the knife. The officer secures his carbine, chambers a
round, checks his shooting backdrop. He moves around to the other side of his
cruiser away from the subject, takes aim and issues one warning: "Drop the knife
and get down on the ground or I'll fire." The subject never slows down and has
approached to within the infamous 21-foot distance. One shot is fired. The subject
is immediately incapacitated. The administrative and criminal investigations were
completed. The shooting was deemed justified. The witness statements clearly
indicated that the officer wasn't eager in his actions, but didn't hesitate either - - -
as it should be.
Do what you have to do and don't hesitate. Beat the bad guys in the OODA Loop
races and ACT appropriately before they can come to a coherent decision. Don't
doubt. Don't second guess. Don't die or get injured because you're afraid of civil
litigation or administrative headaches. If you were a uniform and a badge and
consider yourself a law enforcement professional, you're a contemporary warrior.
Warriors go into battle. In battle there are victors... and those other folks. Don't be
one of those other folks.
BE SAFE!
fall of 1982. For 24 years I've lived with the reality that I might, just MIGHT, have to
put a human being in my sight picture and squeeze the trigger. It's a reality I came
to live with a long time ago and it remains with me today. I decided lo those many
years ago that it was something I could do and promised myself I would if it needed
doing. It was something I saw as part of my job when circumstances warranted it.
The reality of life though is that there are a great many police officers who simply
don't have it in them to pull the trigger when they should.
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman speaks about this in his presentation on the Bulletproof
Mind. He tells the story about a cop who comes and thanks him for having simply
asked, "Can you pull the trigger when you have to?" It's something that far too
many cops take for granted. Grossman cites human interpersonal violence as the
"universal phobia" and gives hitorical information to support his theories. The fact
that some cops today hesitate to pull the trigger when it's both justified and
necessary to their potential survival may further support his theory.
I've seen numerous videos from dahsboard video-cameras mounted in police and
sheriff's patrol vehicles around the country. In one, the law enforcement officer,
gun drawn and pointed at an armed threat, says, "I'll shoot your ass," nine times.
NINE times. Now, admittedly that's not the most professional thing to say to a
subject who needs to drop his weapon before you are forced to shoot him.
Perhaps, "Don't make me shoot you," would sound more professional as it's
captured on your dash-cam, but be that as it may, NINE times? Let's think about
everything that is implied in ONE verbal warning.
Situation: Subject is armed and not complying with your orders. You have drawn
your weapon, and are aiming / pointing it at him. The moment of truth has arrived.
Either he must drop his weapon or you must pull the trigger on yours - at least
twice in most contemporary training structures and then evaluate the need for
further shots.
Boyd's Decision making model of Observe - Orient - Decide - Act affects both
"players" in this drama and we law enforcement professionals - or any other
contemporary warrior for that matter - must understand what our failure to act in a
timely fashion means to the opponent.
Subject's OODA Loop has ended at ACT: He is NOT complying. He is resistant. He
is armed. He presents a threat. He may not yet have decided to pull the trigger, but
he is refusing to surrender or put down his weapon. He HAS decided not to be
obedient.
Officer's OODA Loop has ended at ACT: Observed a threat. Oriented sufficiently
to recognize that the threat is to himself or an innocent it is his duty to protect.
Decided that he must present Deadly Force. The Action is simultaneously to draw
his weapon and to issue a verbal command / warning.
Subject's OODA Loop repeats: I'm not complying. He warned me, but he hasn't
started shooting yet. My decision and resolve hasn't changed.
Officer's OODA Loop has ended at ACT: He observes no change in the threat
level. The threat still exists to himself or another. He has decided to present
Deadly Force and did so at the conclusion of his last OODA Loop. Now he has to
choose:
Action 1: pull the trigger.
Action 2: repeat verbal warning.
Okay. Three things have to be said here:
1) Police officers have no legal requirement to retreat from a physical threat. In
fact, it's our sworn duty to stand in harm's way and defend / protect those who
cannot defend or protect themselves. We cannot in good conscience shirk that
duty.
2) If Deadly Force wasn't justified, we shouldn't be standing there with the gun in
our hand pointed at a bad guy. If we're confident in our decision to present Deadly
Force, we should be equally confident in the necessity of pulling the trigger.
3) Action is always faster than REaction. If the bad guy goes through his next
OODA Loop and decides to start pulling the trigger, the officer or other victim may
be critically injured by gunfire before the officer can return fire. At that point, the
action is too little too late.
Those three items recognized, let's consider the implication of a second (or third or
fourth or NINTH) warning. The subject is going through repetitive OODA Loops just
as the officer is. To make those OODA Loops innefficient, the officer has to press
the subject's time and space. By whatever means necessary, the officer must
reach an appropriate ACTION first - or risk losing the fight and potentially his life. If
the officer makes the decision to issue a second warning - which may be
appropriate dependent on circumstances, position of cover, threat presented, etc.
- then the subject takes that into consideration in his next OODA Loop.
What's the message he's been given? Let's think about it.
Observe: Nothing physical has changed. I'm here with a gun in hand. The cop is
there with his gun pointed at me. He looks shaken and unsure, but his gun has a
big hole at the end of it and it's pointed at me. He just said, "Don't force me to
shoot you," which means the choice is mine. I can drop the gun and live, or I can
disobey him and he'll shoot me. But then he said the same thing again.
Orient: Hmmm... maybe he really doesn't want to shoot me. Let me think about this
a minute... maybe more options will become apparent before he actually gets up
the courage to shoot me. Let me look around and see what I can leverage to my
advantage or do to escape.
Decide: I think I'll pull this trigger and shoot him before he says anything else again.
Act: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.
Of course, that's only one possibility. He may decide to drop the gun and
surrender. He may realize that your position of cover is so good he'd be wasting
bullets trying to shoot you. He may hear sirens and decide he needs to get away
fast and you're in his way so he opens fire. But let's take a look at the options and
see how the percentages work out for the good guys: us cops.
He surrenders. GOOD.
He shoots. You don't. He's not shot. You're injured. BAD.
He shoots. You don't. He's not shot. You're incapacitated. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's injured. You're not shot. GOOD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's injured. You're injured. BAD. He shoots. You shoot.
He's incapacitated. You're not shot. GOOD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's incapacitated. You're injured. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's incapacitated. You're incapacitated. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's injured. You're incapacitated. BAD.
He shoots. You shoot. He's not shot. You're incapacitated. BAD.
If he surrenders then great. If he decides to pull the trigger, you're in a REactive
position. Of those options listed above, seven out of nine where he shoots work
out BAD for you. That's a 78% chance it will go wrong for you. How can we change
that? Be PROactive and do what you know is right and justified. Pull the trigger
FIRST. How will that work out?
You shoot. He doesn't. He's injured. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He doesn't. He's incapacitated. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's injured. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's incapacitated. You're not shot. GOOD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's injured. You're injured. BAD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's incapacitated. You're injured. BAD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's incapacitated. You're incapacitated. BAD.
You shoot. He shoots. He's injured. You're incapacitated. BAD.
Now take a look at that. In the instances where the good guys shoot and the bad
guy doesn't, it works out 100% in our favor (given that the use of force is justified).
In the remaining six of eight, four of them work in his favor. It would seem to me -
based simply on math - that making an appropriate decision and ACTING on it in a
timely fashion while using good tactics (such as being behind cover) increases our
chances of victory at least 30%.
While I fully understand that today's society puts a lot of pressure on cops to make
sure we do the right thing, some things will never change: I will always rather be
tried by twelve than carried by six. Understand, you're almost guaranteed to get
sued if you pull that trigger. You will face administrative and criminal investigations
and someone will always said you could have done something different. They'll be
right. There was always something different that could have been done. Would
that different thing have ended in your victory in the conflict? Or would it simply
have made it easier for the bad guy to kill you?
Now let me give you an example of how things can work the other way:
County police get a call for a man armed with a knife at a local gas station. They
arrive and sure enough, here's the man wandering around the parking lot with a
butcher knife in his hand, waving it at people and making verbal threats. The
corporal who arrives on the scene has JUST finished qualifying with his carbine. He
pulls up approximately fifteen yards / 45 feet from the subject, pops his trunk and
gets out. As he goes to his trunk to pull out his 9mm carbine, the subject begins
approaching him waving the knife. The officer secures his carbine, chambers a
round, checks his shooting backdrop. He moves around to the other side of his
cruiser away from the subject, takes aim and issues one warning: "Drop the knife
and get down on the ground or I'll fire." The subject never slows down and has
approached to within the infamous 21-foot distance. One shot is fired. The subject
is immediately incapacitated. The administrative and criminal investigations were
completed. The shooting was deemed justified. The witness statements clearly
indicated that the officer wasn't eager in his actions, but didn't hesitate either - - -
as it should be.
Do what you have to do and don't hesitate. Beat the bad guys in the OODA Loop
races and ACT appropriately before they can come to a coherent decision. Don't
doubt. Don't second guess. Don't die or get injured because you're afraid of civil
litigation or administrative headaches. If you were a uniform and a badge and
consider yourself a law enforcement professional, you're a contemporary warrior.
Warriors go into battle. In battle there are victors... and those other folks. Don't be
one of those other folks.
BE SAFE!
In addition to his police and military service, Frank
began a writing career in 1999. With several dozen
articles published internationally, he has become a
recognized expert on police training techniques and
technologies. Frank is currently a weekly columnist
for the Blackwater Tactical Weekly as well as
Officer.com, and Editor of the Borelli Consulting
Forum News & Intel page. Frank is also the Editor
began a writing career in 1999. With several dozen
articles published internationally, he has become a
recognized expert on police training techniques and
technologies. Frank is currently a weekly columnist
for the Blackwater Tactical Weekly as well as
Officer.com, and Editor of the Borelli Consulting
Forum News & Intel page. Frank is also the Editor
In Chief for New American Truth magazine, a monthly publication launched in
January '07, and a contributing editor for American Cop magazine, published
bi-monthly.
January '07, and a contributing editor for American Cop magazine, published
bi-monthly.
| Don't Be Afraid...To Pull The Trigger |
| By Frank Borelli |