There is much talk both on the internet and in real life about the duty or obligation that comes with carrying a concealed firearm Many times we hear people say things like "If I'm ever where an armed robbery is going down I'll get my gun out and shoot the bad guy dead" or something similar. Is this a good idea? Should our default position be "I'll be a good witness" or should it be "I will stop evil acts at any cost" or something in between? Why do we carry a gun? For some it is protection for themselves and their loved ones. For others it extends to property, other people, and so on. Writer, researcher, and retired police officer Evan Marshall graciously allowed me to re-print one of his commentaries on intervention. Some important things to think about here, presented by a man who truly has been there and done that.
**********************************************
THE DANGERS OF INTERVENTION
There has been a lot of space devoted in the Stopping Power Message Board http://www.stoppingpower.net/ and other message boards to the presentation of hypothetical situations and a request for solutions. The problem with such imaginary situations is that there is none of the untidiness and ambiguity that exists in the real world.
Please understand that I’m not ridiculing those who present such situations or those who attempt to solve them. I consider those who post on this board as friends I haven’t met yet. As your friend I feel a moral responsibility to share my observations based on my actual experiences in real incidents. I don’t want to see good guys and gals get their selves in a jam by jumping into situations that are unclear and fraught with danger.
Let me be perfectly frank. Those who think that intervention will bring fame, honors, glory, etc., are delusional. I once prevented the rape of a woman by butt stroking her attacker with a shotgun while he was in the act of penetrating her. Weeks later she made an excessive force complaint against me. She thought I should have been more restrained in my behavior! On another occasion, my partner and I chased a holdup man into a store where he took a woman hostage. He then threatened to kill her (he had just shot two people in a bank and we believed him!). My partner shot the bad guys three times. One of those bullets slightly grazed the woman’s finger and she sued us for endangering her!
If the rescued individual doesn’t make life miserable for you in the courts, they just might kill you. I’m aware of four instances where officers responded to a domestic violence situation and when the wife realized the breadwinner was going to jail she assaulted and killed her would-be rescuers.
My Tac Unit partner and I backed up a precinct unit on a domestic assault arrest. As the husband was being handcuffed the wife disappeared down the hallway. I motioned to my partner and we followed her down the hall with guns drawn. We found her in the bedroom loading a Winchester .30-.30 lever action rifle. We quickly disarmed and cuffed her. As we brought her into the living room a precinct sergeant ordered us to let her go. When we refused to do so, he attempted to remove her from our custody. When told him that if he didn’t back off we would arrest him, he left to complain to our supervisors.
If ingratitude isn’t enough we need to understand that things are almost never what they seem. What appears to be a car jacking may be the attempt by a father to recover a child from a noncustodial mother. Our intervention may not only be ill advised but we may be acting in violation of a court order. The fact that we are unaware of a court order will not save the day.
Even if the situation is exactly as it appears and you’re even in accordance with the law, you need to understand one simple fact-the law is what the local prosecutor says it is. Do you really want to spend 7 years in jail waiting for an appeal to be heard and your conviction overturned?
I once got sued for in excess of $100,000 for handcuffing a suspect. The city settled out of court even though my actions were totally legal. Anybody who read about this settlement in the paper would assume I was guilty of inappropriate behavior or some illegality. The city paid the settlement and provided legal counsel. Had I been acting as a private citizen I would have subjected my family to decades of poverty in order to pay the judgment and attorney fees.
Situations that involve significant injury or death are frightenly expensive. My partners and I were sued for $17.5 million dollars in the fatal shooting of a holdup man. The legal fees alone would have run into seven figures. We were accused of being blood thirsty, trigger-happy racist cops. The media conveniently forgot we had intervened in the severe beating and robbery of an elderly woman.
All that being said and experienced, I continued to intervene. However, people should be reminded I was a cop-it was my job. I spent 20 years going in harms way for total strangers. Would I do that today? Probably not. I no longer have the deep pockets of the City of Detroit behind me. Sound callous? Well, would you be willing to jeopardize everything you own and your family’s security for a total stranger? Would you be willing to lose your home, your cars, and your retirement to play Knight of the Round Table?
Apparently some people are certainly willing to fantasize about intervening in a hypothetical situation. Some may consider this harmless musing, but I find it troubling. Tactical planning involves assessing all the potential problems carefully and realistically looking at the cost of such intervention. Role-playing or gaming looks at it through rose colored glasses and ignores the cold hard reality of a person’s involvement in a deadly force event.
I carry a gun to protect myself and the people I love from the Monsters that roam the earth. When I’m away from those that mean everything to me, I carry so I can return to them. Are there circumstances where I would intervene to help a stranger? Yes, but such intervention would be on my terms at my pace. I am not going to jump into a situation with gun drawn.
Rather I would seek cover and carefully evaluate the totality of the circumstance. When I was convinced I knew what is really going on I would respond with the minimum amount of force necessary whether that required drawing my cell phone or my pistol. If all we have is a pistol we have severely limited options. I carry three pistols, oc, cell phone, and a flashlight, and I am a PPCT Defensive Tactics Instructor. I am willing and trained to respond with the appropriate level of force even if that is “only” a command voice. I understand the force continuum and know what the appropriate level force is in a given situation. Ignorance of such critical parameters can have horrific consequences.
Those who think the mere display of a weapon will stop hostilities are naïve in the extreme. The same people we will be confronting know what an appropriate level of force is and when we make outlandish or unjustified threats we’ll show our true colors. These people can tell when we’re serious and we will quickly find ourselves disarmed and in real trouble.
Again, we need to avoid rushing in where Angels fear to tread. Remember the most endangered species is good guys and gals. Go with God.
Evan
Copyright © 2002 StoppingPower.net. No re-distribution without permission.
Showing posts with label tactics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tactics. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Monday, January 18, 2010
THE MYTH OF MURPHY'S LAW: Why "better to have it and not need it" fails the test.
We've all heard it, frequently from the guy who is carrying three guns, 90 rounds of ammo, two tactical folding knives, a cell phone, a couple of flashlights, a can of Mace, an expanding baton, a Kubotan, and so on. "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." A close companion is "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." While technically true I suggest that this is a poor way to plan, and thus becomes a myth that the thinking gunfighter needs to recognize.
Yes, anything that can go wrong will go wrong...given enough time, enough incidents, and so on. The actual problem is not will it go wrong, but how likely is it to go wrong at any particular time or place. The same is true of the concept that it is better to have it and not need it. Technically true, but "what is the actual likelihood of needing it and how much does having it impact your resources" is the better way to look at the issue.
Let's look at the issue from a few different viewpoints. A question I often see is "how much spare ammunition should I carry" or the similar "how many spare magazines should I carry?" At which time we begin hearing horror stories about being attacked by roving gangs of street thugs, or shooting someone and then having their friends come to their defense and having an on-going, running gunfight, or some such. Folks, it is possible, but not too darned likely. You are going to solve the problem with what you have in your gun, or the chances of you solving it at all are almost non-existent. Even in law enforcement, with a much more offensive role, reloads are needed in a very small percentage of gunfights.
Let's say that you have 30 rounds with you. Do you really think that that you are going to be able to accurately and effectively fire 30 rounds at the bad guys? Equally important, if you were attacked by a dozen people, (A)do you really think they would press an attack after you shot the first 3, or 4, or 5, etc. and (B) if they pressed the attack do you really think you would be able to shoot them all before they got you? Let's think about it.
"But wait!" comes the cry. "What about if I have a malfunction and need to clear it? That requires another magazine." First, if you are worried about your weapon malfunctioning, you need to get a different weapon. Yes, I know that guns do malfunction. I see it on the range quite regularly. Why do they malfunction? Bad ammo, cheap aftermarket equipment, modifications designed for the range instead of real life, and so on. A well made, quality firearm that has been properly checked out and is well maintained, using ammunition proven to feed in that gun will not suddenly decide to start malfunctioning on you. Yes, magazines are the weak link in most autoloaders, but not good magazines. If you are going to the range and practicing and checking out your equipment, you will know what works and what doesn't. If a magazine malfunctions don't carry it for serious social purposes. Use that magazine only for the range. And if it continues to cause problems, throw it over the berm and get rid of it!
Second, let's think about this for a moment (Thinking Gunfighters, remember!). A spare magazine only addresses problems that are related to the magazine. If one wants to worry about malfunctions one should look at all malfunctions. After all, isn't that the essence of Murphy's Law? Why worry about and provide a solution to one narrow malfunction problem. Let's solve ALL of our malfunction problems and just carry a spare gun. Realistically, what are the chances that your quality-made, well-maintained firearm will pick this particular time to have a malfunction? Given that, what are the chances that particular malfunction will be the result of a magazine that is defective? If we truly believe in the Murphy concept carrying a spare magazine is rather silly.
OK then, but still isn't it better to have it and not need it than the other way around? Again, sure, but let's think about it. We can't carry around everything, so we need to rationally consider what equipment will be useful to us and what won't. It is always going to be a compromise. Most of us don't carry around a big-game rifle to kill a tiger if it attacks us. Why not? Isn't it better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it? "Wait a minute" you say. "I don't need that rifle because the chances of me getting attacked by a tiger are so small that I don't need to worry about it!" And with that you have effectively done away with the myth of "better to have it and not need it." Having something does cost us. Whether it be money, time, physical effort, convenience, or any of our other resources, there is a cost. We should balance that cost against the need.
The reality is that we all make decisions about what we will need, and we all compromise what we carry based on what we think we will need. Based on perceived need one person might decide a 1911 with 8 rounds meets their needs. Another person might decide that a Glock 17 with a spare mag and 34 rounds meets their needs. But the decision on where to compromise on what to carry should be made based on a reasonable and realistic understanding of what is needed (risk assessment) accompanied by a cost/benefit analysis.
"Remember Murphy's Law" and "better to have it and not need it" are the rationalizations of people who are unable to decide what their needs actually are or people who are unwilling to accept the conflict between the world of fantasy and reality. No matter what the case we will all compromise on what we decide to do for our personal safety and security, even though we might be unwilling to acknowledge that fact. The important thing is if we determine that compromise based on thinking about it, or do we base it on the non-thinking mythology of Murphy's Law?
Yes, anything that can go wrong will go wrong...given enough time, enough incidents, and so on. The actual problem is not will it go wrong, but how likely is it to go wrong at any particular time or place. The same is true of the concept that it is better to have it and not need it. Technically true, but "what is the actual likelihood of needing it and how much does having it impact your resources" is the better way to look at the issue.
Let's look at the issue from a few different viewpoints. A question I often see is "how much spare ammunition should I carry" or the similar "how many spare magazines should I carry?" At which time we begin hearing horror stories about being attacked by roving gangs of street thugs, or shooting someone and then having their friends come to their defense and having an on-going, running gunfight, or some such. Folks, it is possible, but not too darned likely. You are going to solve the problem with what you have in your gun, or the chances of you solving it at all are almost non-existent. Even in law enforcement, with a much more offensive role, reloads are needed in a very small percentage of gunfights.
Let's say that you have 30 rounds with you. Do you really think that that you are going to be able to accurately and effectively fire 30 rounds at the bad guys? Equally important, if you were attacked by a dozen people, (A)do you really think they would press an attack after you shot the first 3, or 4, or 5, etc. and (B) if they pressed the attack do you really think you would be able to shoot them all before they got you? Let's think about it.
"But wait!" comes the cry. "What about if I have a malfunction and need to clear it? That requires another magazine." First, if you are worried about your weapon malfunctioning, you need to get a different weapon. Yes, I know that guns do malfunction. I see it on the range quite regularly. Why do they malfunction? Bad ammo, cheap aftermarket equipment, modifications designed for the range instead of real life, and so on. A well made, quality firearm that has been properly checked out and is well maintained, using ammunition proven to feed in that gun will not suddenly decide to start malfunctioning on you. Yes, magazines are the weak link in most autoloaders, but not good magazines. If you are going to the range and practicing and checking out your equipment, you will know what works and what doesn't. If a magazine malfunctions don't carry it for serious social purposes. Use that magazine only for the range. And if it continues to cause problems, throw it over the berm and get rid of it!
Second, let's think about this for a moment (Thinking Gunfighters, remember!). A spare magazine only addresses problems that are related to the magazine. If one wants to worry about malfunctions one should look at all malfunctions. After all, isn't that the essence of Murphy's Law? Why worry about and provide a solution to one narrow malfunction problem. Let's solve ALL of our malfunction problems and just carry a spare gun. Realistically, what are the chances that your quality-made, well-maintained firearm will pick this particular time to have a malfunction? Given that, what are the chances that particular malfunction will be the result of a magazine that is defective? If we truly believe in the Murphy concept carrying a spare magazine is rather silly.
OK then, but still isn't it better to have it and not need it than the other way around? Again, sure, but let's think about it. We can't carry around everything, so we need to rationally consider what equipment will be useful to us and what won't. It is always going to be a compromise. Most of us don't carry around a big-game rifle to kill a tiger if it attacks us. Why not? Isn't it better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it? "Wait a minute" you say. "I don't need that rifle because the chances of me getting attacked by a tiger are so small that I don't need to worry about it!" And with that you have effectively done away with the myth of "better to have it and not need it." Having something does cost us. Whether it be money, time, physical effort, convenience, or any of our other resources, there is a cost. We should balance that cost against the need.
The reality is that we all make decisions about what we will need, and we all compromise what we carry based on what we think we will need. Based on perceived need one person might decide a 1911 with 8 rounds meets their needs. Another person might decide that a Glock 17 with a spare mag and 34 rounds meets their needs. But the decision on where to compromise on what to carry should be made based on a reasonable and realistic understanding of what is needed (risk assessment) accompanied by a cost/benefit analysis.
"Remember Murphy's Law" and "better to have it and not need it" are the rationalizations of people who are unable to decide what their needs actually are or people who are unwilling to accept the conflict between the world of fantasy and reality. No matter what the case we will all compromise on what we decide to do for our personal safety and security, even though we might be unwilling to acknowledge that fact. The important thing is if we determine that compromise based on thinking about it, or do we base it on the non-thinking mythology of Murphy's Law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)