Thursday, August 29, 2019

The Four Rules of Firearm Safety? Instructor Shoots a CCW Student.


The Palm Springs Desert Sun* reports that a Riverside California County Sheriff's Department trainer (apparently not a sworn officer) shot a man attending a concealed weapons permit firearms training class.

A sheriff’s department spokesman stated that as gun range staff were inspecting student's firearms to ensure they were unloaded, the range staff member administered a "trigger pull test" and shot the student in the leg.

Paramedics transported the citizen to a local hospital where he received treatment for a non-life-threatening wound. 

The news report goes on to say that the sheriff's Perris Station staff and the staff at the Ben Clark Training Center are investigating the "accidental discharge" incident.

I can save them the trouble.

The instructor, having failed to check and see if the firearm was loaded, pointed the firearm at the student’s leg, and intentionally pulled the trigger. 

Did the instructor intent to shoot the student?  Undoubtedly no; however, this was negligence, not an accident.

The instructor violated at least two of the firearm safety rules.

1. The instructor did not treat the firearm as if it was loaded.

2.  The instructor did not point the muzzle of the firearm in a safe direction.

The four firearm safety rules are multilayered.  You can typically violate one without catastrophic consequences.  Once you begin to violate two or more you are in trouble.

The four firearm safety rules:

1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded at all times.

2. Always point the firearm in a safe direction — this is dependent upon the environment and circumstances. We line in a 360-degree world.  A safe direction one minute may not be safe a moment later.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are intentionally firing a shot. Discard all other variations of this rule.  Intentionally firing a shot.

4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

From the Palm Springs Desert Sun, Published Aug. 24, 2019

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Think Before Shooting--Fleeing Suspects

Jason Moak--Suspected Burglar

Recently Concealed Nation ran an article that recounts a burglary incident and shooting that happened in German Township, Ohio. Richard Winegardner’s unoccupied home has been burglarized numerous times over the last few months; however, this time it happened while Winegardner was home and in the shower. You can click on these links to read the Concealed Nation article and news account.

Winegardner calls 911 while he is confronting the person in his house and simultaneously providing the dispatcher information. It seems that the suspected burglar (later identified as Jason Moak) at some point decided to flee and Winegardner apparently gave chase, ultimately firing numerous shots at Moak’s SUV. The news reports that police found the SUV with the back window shot out, bullet holes in the interior, and the rear bumper.

The Concealed Nation article closes with a comment that causes some concern. “While we never recommend shooting at a fleeing suspect, this particular case ended up working out. Had Winegardner shot Moak, well, that could have been a different ending for Winegardner.” It is not clear whether the comment implies that it was better to shoot at the fleeing Moak rather than using deadly force in the residence or whether it is fortunate that although Winegardner shot at Moak’s vehicle he did not hit him.

Ohio like many states has a form of a presumption of reasonableness if you use force or deadly force against someone who has unlawfully, or in some circumstances, unlawfully and forcibly entered an occupied habitation (and in some states) vehicle, or business. Under Ohio law* there is a presumption that a defender acted in self-defense or defense of another if he used deadly force against another if the person against whom the defensive force was used had unlawfully entered (or was in the process of unlawfully entering) the residence or vehicle that the defender occupied. Further, Ohio law does not require the defender to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of his residence.

Ohio law does not say anything about chasing someone who is no longer in the occupied residence, who is in fact fleeing from the scene, and is not posing a deadly threat. I confess surprise that prosecutors did not charge Winegardner criminally for shooting at Moak’s vehicle.

Knowing your state’s specific laws associated with these circumstances can be very important. Texas law for example presumes you acted reasonably and justifiably if you use force or deadly force to defend yourself or another innocent against an intruder who unlawfully and with force enters your occupied habitation (home or residence), vehicle, or place of business or employment. 

Texas law requires meeting these two provisions to give rise to this important legal presumption. Someone unlawfully entering your occupied residence through an unlocked front door would not meet the use of force provision and therefore not enjoy the presumption of reasonableness. Of course this does not mean that you could not argue self-defense under the totality of the circumstances if someone illegally entered through an unlocked door and subsequently presented a threat of unlawful deadly force.

Many people find themselves in trouble when an incident evolves from one in which deadly force was justified into one where the perpetrator is fleeing and the defender is now the aggressor. It is clear that some people cannot control what is apparently an irresistible urge to chase after and shoot at someone who is fleeing from a confrontation. A quick Internet search for “chases robber” or “chases burglar” shows numerous instances. Although some states have fleeing felon provisions in the law, using deadly force under these circumstances can potentially be very problematic for how and where you live the rest of your life.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.


* Ohio 2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense: Section B (2) A person is presumed to have acted in self-defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.



Friday, July 26, 2019

The Same Thing, the Correct Way, 48 out of 50 Times

I recently had to fire the Texas License to Carry qualification to renew my instructor certificate. In Texas an LTC instructor must qualify with a .22 caliber or larger revolver and a semi-automatic pistol. 

For the revolver I chose to qualify with a 4-inch S&W 44 Remington Magnum with a heavy (however not absolutely full power) 240 grain load that is about the equivalent of the Remington factory Semi-Jacketed HP load. For the semi-auto I shot my everyday carry SIG P320 carry in 9mm with the equivalent of the Hornady 135gr Critical Duty load. 

My goal for the semi was 50 shots in the "X" ring. To shoot well you must do the same thing, the correct way, every time. My students tell me that my mantra is often the one thing that really sticks in their mind. I tend to repeat it over and over during the course of a class. I did not do this with the semi and slipped two in the Ten ring due to two sloppy trigger pulls. The same thing, the correct way, 48 out of 50 times--I missed my goal.

Chased the same goal with the revolver and dropped a few more outside the "X" ring and two in the Nine ring. Grrrrrr. . .



The Texas License to Carry qualification is as follows: Your handgun must be .22 caliber or larger. 


Course of Fire:

3 yard line – 20 shots:

- 1 shot in 2 seconds, 5 times
- 2 shots in 3 seconds, 5 times
- 5 shots in 10 seconds, once

7 yard line – 20 shots:


- 5 shots in 10 seconds, once
- 1 shot in 3 seconds, 5 times - 2 shots in 4 seconds, once - 3 shots in 6 seconds, once - 5 shots in 15 seconds, once

15 yard line – 10 shots:
 

- 2 shots in 6 seconds, once - 3 shots in 9 seconds, once - 5 shots in 15 seconds, once

An LTC student must score of 70% or 175 points of a possible 250 to pass. An LTC instructor must score at least 90% or 225 points to pass. Five points for each shot within the 8 ring, 4 points for each shot within the 7 ring, 3 points for each shot within the colored silhouette, but outside the 7 ring, no points for shots outside the silhouette.

I fired a possible score of 250 on both qualifications; however, that was not the point.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Thursday, July 4, 2019

Advanced Low Light Course

In Mid-May 2019, I conducted an advanced Low Light course with two students who have progressed to this level. For the qualification, we fired the MAG 20 Live Fire course. I tossed in an extra challenge by covering each target with a new t-shirt so the students did not have a reference aiming point.

We used the San Antonio Police Department target and scored it as five points in the inner “bottle,” four points inside the next scoring area, and zero points outside the four point ring or for misses.

⁣We shot a single speed qualifier in daylight for a control score and then in low light with no moon. I shot the qualifier as well and achieved a 300 with a 5-5/8ths inch group. I used a P320 Carry with Lima Module, a Trijicon Red Dot and a Fenix hand-held flashlight.

To learn more about the MAG20 qualifier, go to the link here.


SIG P320 Carry with the LIMA Module
At 15 yards the standard MAG20 qualifier has six shots using the Weaver stance, six shots using the modified Chapman, and six shots using the Isosceles with a reload between each string. The only challenge with the qualifier was using the Isosceles stance at 15 yards—very difficult with a hand-held light unless you are using the syringe technique and then the pistol/light grip will shift with every shot. With the Fenix light I was using, the tailcap design makes the syringe technique almost impossible. The student’s flashlights had a similar design.

Given these challenges, I allowed the students to use the Isosceles or if they preferred the modified Chapman or Weaver. At 15 yards, I shot it using the Weaver, then Chapman, then Weaver and used the 
Harries flashlight technique.

Harries Technique
Harries Technique
You must practice low light techniques to have any hope of using them under stress. The students in this course have mastered low light shooting through practice and taking more advanced classes. 

You can practice these techniques with live fire during daylight if your range won’t allow night shooting. If your local range has IDPA matches, shoot the course of fire using your flashlight if the match director will permit it. You won’t win the match; however, you will learn how to shoot and manipulate your pistol under some stress.

To my knowledge, no data exists concerning private citizen-involved shootings with criminals under low light conditions; however, since a lot of criminal activity occurs after dark we can assume that there is a likely correlation. There are several reasons to use a flashlight: to observe and detect, to illuminate and navigate, to eliminate anonymity, and to identify and engage threats. Used properly, a flashlight lets you see danger before it can affect you and it can encourage the danger waiting in the dark to go elsewhere.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Don't Get Shot: Dealing With Police During a Traffic Stop

March 6, 2014, Opelika, Alabama: Air Force Airman 1st Class Michael Davidson was travelling on I-85 headed to his next duty assignment at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. While driving through the Opelika, Davidson (who was driving an SUV) lightly sideswiped a tractor-trailer so both drivers pulled over to report the accident. Coincidently, just prior to this accident the Opelika Police Department had received a phone call about an SUV driving erratically along I-85 and Opelika Police Officer Phillip Hancock was in the area attempting to locate the erratic driver.

When the accident call came in Officer Hancock quickly arrived at the scene and pulled up behind the two vehicles just as they both exited the roadway. The police dashcam shows Airman Davidson attempting to get out of his vehicle; however, because he had pulled his SUV off the road shoulder, the vehicle was tilted slightly to the right. This caused to door to close as the Airman tried to exit.

As he struggled with the door, Airman Davidson made a movement with his right arm that is similar to someone drawing a weapon--and apparently similar to removing a wallet from your back pocket since that is what the Airman was actually doing (see picture #1 below). However, as Davidson exited the vehicle, he held the wallet in an unusual manner in both hands, pointing toward Officer Hancock (see picture number #2). In the video, Airman Davidson looks exactly like someone pointing a weapon as though he was preparing to shoot.

#1: Airman Davidson Exiting Vehicle
 
#2: Airman Davidson Holding Wallet


Officer Hancock yells at Davidson to “Let me see your hands” two times before firing almost immediately (0.25 seconds) after he yells the second command. Officer Hancock fired two rounds within approximately 0.25 seconds, one bullet struck Airman Davidson in the lower abdomen and the second bullet struck the road next to Davidson’s right foot.

A furtive movement is a suspicion provoking movement that (under the totality of circumstances) is consistent with accessing a weapon, but is not reasonably consistent with doing something else. The totality of the circumstances is the key element in this discussion since Davidson was drawing his wallet, not a pistol. It would be a gross overreaction on your part to draw a weapon while standing in a cash register line at a store when the person in front of you reached for their wallet. Their actions would be consistent with paying for merchandise given the totality of the circumstances.

When dealing with an uncertain situation, it is perfectly reasonable for an officer to be acutely aware of the ability, or inability, to see a person's hands to ensure he is not clutching or reaching for a weapon. However, yelling show me your hands and then shooting when the person does exactly that is obviously problematic as we see in this incident. Officer Hancock yelling “show me your hands” provided Davidson no effective warning that he was about to shoot him. Davidson later stated that he was in fact showing his hands just as the officer commanded.

In this incident, Davidson’s movement with his right hand and then extending his arms while clutching his black wallet with both hands clearly made Officer Hancock believe that Davidson was holding a firearm and advancing toward him. How quickly can someone exit a vehicle and start shooting?

We did an experiment to determine how fast someone could do this. I exited my vehicle while simultaneously drawing my pistol from a strong-side holster and firing three rounds while advancing. From the time someone could see that I had a pistol in my hand until I began firing was a 0.81 second average time for five runs. My fastest time to begin shooting was 0.47 seconds. My average split time between shots was 0.20 seconds as I advanced toward the remote camera. (see video here).

Many studies have shown that the average person’s reaction time to a stimulus is between 0.70 and 1.5 seconds or longer depending upon the circumstances. Added to the reaction time is the time necessary to complete the physical action the stimulus requires (e.g. pushing the brake on a car or drawing a pistol).* As we see in my experiment, the time between your ability to recognize that someone has a pistol until that person begins shooting can be as short as 0.47 seconds.

Were Officer Hancock’s actions reasonable given the totality of the circumstances? Look at picture #3 below. The left picture is of Airman Davidson drawing his wallet; the right picture is me drawing a pistol.  Do the actions look similar? 

Drawing Wallet                          Drawing Pistol

In January 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling that Officer Hancock acted reasonably when he shot Davidson. "After careful consideration and review of a video recording of the shooting, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Davidson, we conclude that a reasonable officer in Hancock's position would have feared for his life," the three-judge panel wrote in the ruling.**

The court’s decision hinged on a single issue: “whether, given the circumstances, Davidson would have appeared to reasonable police officers to have been gravely dangerous.” The Eleventh Circuit justices clearly believed that was the case.

Something people often misunderstand is that the law does not require us to make perfect decisions in a self-defense incident nor does it demand that the threat against which we defend ourselves be an actual threat. The law demands that you must have a reasonably objective belief that you are responding to an imminent deadly threat. Many states have an apparent danger clause which aligns with the concept that in a given set of circumstances, an antagonist’s furtive movement could cross the threshold of apparent danger in the mind of a reasonable and prudent person. If you wait to see the gun, you may well see what comes out of it as we demonstrated in our experiment.

If it later turns out that perception was mistaken, that’s legally acceptable so long as the perception was reasonable and therefore the mistake, a reasonable mistake. All of this is true even if it turns out that the perceived attacker never actually possessed a weapon as in this instance.

In a separate case with similar circumstances the Fifth Circuit held in Young v. City of Killeen, Tex.: "If Young's movements gave (Police Officer) Olson cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm, Olson's use of deadly force was not a constitutional violation.... We hold that no right is guaranteed by federal law that one will be free from circumstances where he will be endangered by the misinterpretation of his acts." ***

So how should you conduct yourself during a traffic stop to lessen chances that your actions will be perceived as a potentially deadly threat?

 -- Stay in your vehicle. A well-known tactic of police killers at traffic stops is to quickly exit the vehicle and advance on the officer while shooting. Bank robbers, terrorists, and other felons have been doing this since at least the late 1970’s and probably much earlier. Although Airman Davidson probably did not know this, his actions mimicked this tactic.

 -- Roll down the driver’s window and place your hands on the steering wheel. Don’t worry about turning on an interior light—at night the officer will light up your vehicle with their spotlight anyway so this is unnecessary. However, your movement can increase the officer’s suspicion that you are doing something nefarious.  

-- Wait for the officer’ further instructions.

This was truly a tragic and very unfortunate event--nothing in this article should be see as placing blame on either Airman Davidson or Officer Hancock. Police officers don’t want to get shot nor do they want to shoot innocent citizens. In reality, both parties want the same outcome. Ensure that your actions cannot be mistaken for threatening behavior when you interact with the police during a traffic stop.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

____________

* http://www.technology-assoc.com/articles/reaction-time.htmlhttps://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html


** United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Michael Davidson, Plaintiff - Appellant, V. City Of Opelika, Alabama, Phillip Hancock, John Mceachern, Defendants - Appellees. No. 16-10857, Decided: January 17, 2017


Before Wilson, Rosenbaum and Jill Pryor, Circuit Judges. Michael Davidson was shot by Opelika, Alabama police officer Phillip Hancock just after exiting his vehicle alongside the highway. Davidson was unarmed. He survived the incident but was grievously injured. Davidson subsequently sued Hancock, Opelika Chief of Police John McEachern, and the City of Opelika for claims arising from the shooting. The shooting was undeniably a tragedy, but it resulted from the unique and lamentable position of Davidson's hands holding his wallet the moment before the shooting. After careful consideration and review of a video recording of the shooting, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Davidson, we conclude that a reasonable officer in Hancock's position would have feared for his life. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity in favor of Hancock on all claims. 

*** In Young v. City of Killeen, Tex., 775 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1985), Carolyn Young brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and wrongful death action against police officers and the City of Killeen for the shooting and killing of her husband David Young. The Fifth Circuit stated the material facts:

"David Young, with a friend, drove to a parking lot in an area of Killeen where they could buy marijuana. Officer Olson observed the apparent drug transaction between the two men in Young's car and a pedestrian. Olson directed his patrol car, with lights flashing, at the participants in the attempt to apprehend them. Olson successfully blocked Young by pulling his patrol car in front of Young's car. Olson left his car and ordered Young and his passenger to exit theirs. Young apparently reached down to the seat or floorboard of his car and Olson, believing that Young had a gun, fired his own weapon. The shot was fatal." 

The Fifth Circuit held that Mrs. Young could not recover under Sec. 1983, stating: "If Young's movements gave Olson cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm, Olson's use of deadly force was not a constitutional violation.... The only fault found against Olson was his negligence in creating a situation where the danger of such a mistake would exist. We hold that no right is guaranteed by federal law that one will be free from circumstances where he will be endangered by the misinterpretation of his acts."



Sunday, June 23, 2019

Trespassers Will be Shot! Survivors Will be Shot Again!

19 April 2019. St. Paul, MN police were chasing a car thief when he crashed the car and took off running. Moments later, police heard gunfire and found Jalik Combs lying wounded in Vincent Trotter’s yard. Police identified Combs as the driver of the stolen car.

Combs apparently was not armed and allegedly said that Trotter told him to leave his property. Combs said he told Trotter he was leaving and started to depart when Trotter shot him. Combs was shot in the buttocks, forearm, and legs and received medical treatment for non-life-threatening injuries at a local hospital before police booked him into the Ramsey County jail.

Trotter had a sign in his home’s front window that said, “Warning” “No Trespassing, Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again!” Police questioned Trotter and eventually charged him with second degree assault with a deadly weapon.

Police likely charged Trotter because Combs was unarmed and the apparent locations of his wounds may indicate that he was leaving Trotter’s property. Although the sign in Trotter’s window probably didn’t affect the police decision to charge him, prosecutors will no doubt use it against him if he eventually faces trial.

Although Minnesota law does accept the use of force (not deadly force however) when the person using the force reasonably believes it is necessary in resisting a trespass, clearly Trotter’s use of deadly force is excessive absent other potentially mitigating factors that may exist and have not yet come to light.*

Minnesota Statute 609.065 outlines the use of deadly force as follows: “The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.” Place of abode refers to the actual dwelling and does not include land, detached garage, storage shed, etc.

Minnesota law, like that of most states requires that a person using deadly force must have done so in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or great bodily harm. That the person’s judgment concerning the severity of the danger must have been reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. And that the person’s decision must have been such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger perceived and the existence of any alternative way to avoid and (in Minnesota’s case) retreat from the danger.

Were Trotter’s actions in using deadly force reasonable? Probably not. There is no information indicating that Combs was presenting a deadly threat to Trotter nor that Combs was inside or attempting to enter Trotter’s home.

The law typically applies three criteria in determining whether an act is or is not reasonable:

    1. What would a reasonable and prudent person have done?

    2. In the exact same situation?

    3. Knowing what the actor knew at that time within the mainstream of convention and best practice?

Or phrased another way: Knowing what the actor knew within the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under the totality of the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

It will be interesting to see if Trotter claims self-defense. Remember, self-defense is an affirmative defense and can be a 2-edged sword. To present an affirmative defense, you must admit that you did the act; however, you affirm that your actions were reasonable and that you were legally justified in taking such actions. The prosecution obviously disagrees and will be attempting to demonstrate that your actions were not reasonable nor legally justifiable and that you in fact committed a crime. If the prosecution is successful, your life has just dramatically changed.

As I have written in other articles, anything you post on social media, signs, or other communications can be detrimental to a claim of self-defense and have implications you would rather not have your defense lawyer try to defend at your trial. It is not hard to imagine Trotter's lawyer trying to defend against the following scenario:

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present "exhibit A," a sign the defendant placed in the window of his home. According to the defendant, he shoots trespassers just like he shot his victim Jalik Combs. Since Mr Combs survived, did the defendant shoot him again? The defendant who, by his own warning sign planned to shoot trespassers used DEADLY HOLLOW POINT KILLER BULLETS from his AUTOMATIC ASSAULT PISTOL (liberal prosecutors always use incorrect nomenclature like clip and assault pistol) to shoot Jalik Combs innocently on Mr Trotter’s lawn. Was Jalik Combs trespasser that should have been shot? Killed?

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

* 2018 Minnesota Statutes, 609.06 Authorized Use of Force, Subdivision 1.

Friday, June 7, 2019

Maintaining the Edge—How Much Practice is Enough?

A good friend and I recently explored the topic of how much practice—dry practice and range time—is enough to maintain acceptable levels of defensive shooting skill. I define acceptable skill level from a self-defense perspective as the ability to fire Sharp Shooter on an IDPA classifier, pass the FBI qualification, or achieve similar performance on a state or nationally-recognized course of fire (Massad Ayoob Group’s MAG 20 live fire qualifier for example).

My friend Steve is an IDPA six-gun Master (achieved with the original IDPA 90 round classifier) and his shooting skill level is well documented; however, as a result of medical challenges, Steve was effectively unable to practice his pistol skills for six months. In April 2019 he had recovered enough to begin practicing once again and we documented his progress over five practice sessions.

When he is at his peak, Steve can shoot master on demand on the IDPA 5x5. In the first practice session he wanted to assess his skill level. With no warm up, he fired high Sharp Shooter on the IDPA 5x5 classifier. Clearly his skills had deteriorated; however, he maintained an acceptable level of shooting ability despite no practice.

We then fired the old IDPA 90 round classifier and noted some deterioration in group size and resulting dropped points at the 15 and 20 yard strings. So while his self-defense performance at 10 yards or closer had not appreciably suffered due to no practice, his skills at longer distances clearly had. He also noticed that his ability to correctly draw was not as certain and he fumbled the draw more often that he would have under normal circumstances. Additionally, he was having some difficulty with his sight alignment and noticed a tendency to peek at the front sight and therefore shoot high on the target.

In the first practice session, we identified issues that Steve needed to address or improve. You improve your shooting skills with deliberate practice and the first step in deliberate practice is have a practice plan. Steve used this assessment to develop his deliberate practice plan.

Through documenting these practice sessions, Steve discovered that some skills deteriorated more than others. We recorded several of his shooting strings and identified specific issues that he is focusing on correcting. He identified his goals for improvement, broke down each specific movement or task necessary to accomplish the goal, and planned the next practice sessions.

In subsequent practice, we updated his deliberate practice plan based upon the progress he was making and adjusting for new issues that we discovered. We also shot drills specifically designed to address issues that Steve had identified in the initial skill assessment such as two shot draws, transition drills, 5x5s at varying distances, and others.

Steve’s skills began to improve (as you would expect) to the point where he now shoots high Expert on the 5x5 classifier and occasionally shoots Master. He still has not recovered to his pre-hiatus accuracy levels at greater than 10 yards; however, his abilities at 10 yards or closer are getting back to normal. Steve’s normal time splits between shots averages between .15 and .17 seconds with many splits much faster. By practice session three his average splits between shots was .16 seconds and he was able to keep the group in the IDPA zero down ring at 7 yards.

Steve is well on the road to re-sharpening his shooting edge. Steve has regained his trigger speed and overcome the fumbling issues associated with the draw. The arc of motion (and resulting group size) is a bit more challenging; however, as he continues to recover his strength and stamina and focuses on grip and stance this will improve.

Deliberate practice builds confidence. Real confidence comes from being able to consistently nail a qualification course, stage, or a drill and knowing that this isn't a coincidence but that you can do it correctly on demand. Real confidence is knowing precisely how to correct a problem or misstep because you have identified the key movement or physical factors that are necessary to correctly perform the action every time.

We can improve our shooting through specific exercises, standard tests (qualifier or classifier courses of fire), and drills using deliberate practice methods.

I still admire the IDPA classifiers--both the 90-round original and the current 72-round classifier. The team that put the current IDPA classifier courses of fire together captured the 10 major skills you must perform to shoot a match successfully. Conveniently, these are the same skills you should master to improve your defensive shooting skills.

They are:

-- Safely draw the pistol

-- Extend to fire

-- Execute precise shots

-- Transition between targets

-- Reload the pistol

-- Shoot the pistol unsupported with either hand

-- Turning then drawing the pistol

-- Moving while shooting

-- Shooting from cover

-- Moving from one shooting position to another

We can break each major task down into subtasks (that also must be performed correctly), then apply the deliberate practice methodology to hone our skills. We can improve many of these tasks through dry practice as well and thereby save our range time for tasks that can only be performed on the range.

Time is our most valuable commodity, and we will never have enough. If you're going to practice, you might as well do it right. How much practice is necessary to maintain your self-defense shooting skills? Perhaps not as much as we might imagine. If your goal is an acceptable level of self-defense shooting skills then modest dry practice with a periodic focused range session is probably enough. If you wish to improve beyond modest skills, then a planned practice regimen with specific goals and milestones is very helpful.


If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Saturday, May 25, 2019

Thugs kicking in the door--Burglar Nikusubila Makwangwala


Kaufman County Texas—23 May 2019: Nikusubila Makwangwala (born in Texas as Bobby Reynard Emerson) probably thought he had picked out the perfect house. A semi-rural neighborhood with really large, expensive houses that were spaced well apart from each other. Makwangwala pulled his red pickup in the driveway and looked the house over.

It was late morning and the homeowners were likely to be at work—perfect. Just to be certain, he went to the front door and banged on it several times. With no response, he went around to the back of the house and discovered a back door he could easily kick open. Several kicks and he was inside. Makwangwala headed for the bedroom where most people keep jewelry, money, guns, and other valuables. Ideal for a quick entry, grab the stuff, and exit back to I-20 and Dallas. 


However, the home was occupied. Makwangwala’s loud banging on the front door awakened the homeowner who did not answer the door because she did not recognize Makwangwala nor his red pickup in the driveway. She immediately called 911; however, the sheriff’s response time can be a bit slow as you would reasonably expect for a rural area. When she heard Makwangwala kick in the back door, she grabbed a gun, retreated to the bedroom, and hid in the closet—all the while telling the 911 dispatcher what was happening.

As Makwangwala started toward the bedroom did he hear her talking? Did he hear her in the closet? We’ll never know. What we do know is that once he entered the bedroom, he opened the closet door and confronted the homeowner who fatally shot him.

Makwangwala was a career criminal with an extensive arrest record dating back to 1989 when he was 16 years old. Makwangwala had twelve felony convictions for Aggravated Robbery, Burglary of a Habitation, a Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Robbery, Theft, and Illegal Drug Possession. He had been in and out of the Texas prison system numerous times and was on probation at the time of his last burglary. Poor Makwangwala, no more felonies for you.

In Texas, using force against an intruder who you know or have reason to believe was unlawfully and with force entering or attempting to enter unlawfully and with force your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment is presumed reasonable under certain circumstances. Therefore, the homeowner is unlikely to face any criminal charges associated with Makwangwala’s death. Civil action on Makwangwala’s relatives’ part is another issue—you can always be sued civilly.

A key step in home security is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to enter your home. Most pre-hung doors are not very sturdy and therefore it is relatively easy for a burglar to kick them open as shown in this video: Home Burglary

One solution to ensure that no one can simply kick in your exterior doors is to install heavy metal doors and frames, very decorative and somewhat costly; however, no human can kick them in.

For exterior wooden doors (make sure they are solid wood at least 1-3/4 to 2 inches thick), you can install the Strikemaster II Pro or similar products such as the Door Armor Max (formerly EZ Armor), or Door Security Pro to reinforce the door jams and hinges. I did this as the house was being built so it was relatively painless; however, they are not that difficult to install.

Your home security plan should also include a safe room or rooms. A wood bedroom door made from at least 1-1/2 solid wood, with a deadbolt, and reinforced frame and hinges will make it impossible to enter the bedroom without power tools to breach the door. Once you retreat to the secure bedroom or other safe room you can call 911 and prepare to take other necessary action as the homeowner did in this instance.  


If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.




Sunday, April 28, 2019

The New FBI Qualification -- Low Light


In January 2019 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) adopted a new qualification course for its agents.  This new course is somewhat different that the one the FBI adopted in 2013 which itself represented a substantial departure from the older FBI qualification.

Inexplicably, although the 2013 qualification required all draws from concealment, the Bureau dropped this requirement for the 2019 qualification.  Given that FBI agents generally wear plain clothes and carry concealed, this seems counter intuitive (they did not ask my opinion however).

The 2013 qualification was a 60-round course of fire which likely produced a lot of partially filled boxes of ammunition. The new qualification is a 50-round course of fire and agents must achieve a minimum of 80% (40 hits) while instructors need 90% (45 hits) to qualify.   From an admin perspective, a 50 round course certainly makes sense.

The January 2019 qualification uses an FBI QIT-99 silhouette as follows:

3 yards

    -- Draw and fire 3 rds (strong hand only) switch hands and fire 3 rds (support hand only), 6 seconds

5 yards

    -- Draw and fire 3 rds, 3 seconds
    -- From the Ready, fire 3 rds, 2 seconds
    -- From the Ready, fire 6 rds, 4 seconds

7 yards

    -- Draw and fire 5 rds, 5 seconds
    -- From the Ready, fire 4 rounds, reload the empty pistol, and fire 4 more rds, 8 seconds
    -- From the Ready, fire 5 rounds, 4 seconds


15 yards

    -- Draw and fire 3 rds, 6 seconds
    -- From the Ready, fire 3 rds, 5 seconds

25 yards

    -- Draw and fire 4 rds from Standing, drop to kneeling, and fire 4 more rds from kneeling, 20 seconds. 

Scoring:Shooters receive 2 points for every round that lands inside the Q99 target outline.  There is no disqualification or penalty for hitting outside the bottle or for missing the target entirely.

Well everyone and their brother is shooting and pontificating about this new qualification, so . . ., we decided to shoot the FBI qualification under low light conditions with different light systems. We did not have the QIT-99; however, the QIT-97 bottle is the same size so not an issue.

I shot a control qualification in daylight (picture 1), with all draws from concealment scoring a 100. I shot everything within the prescribed time limits with no problem.  I then shot a low light qualification (very dark night) using a handheld flashlight (picture 2).  Given the requirement that you switch hands mid-string, I could not use a light for the 3-yard string and essentially used point shooting. I dropped two shots at 3-yards (weak hand) for a score of 96.


I then shot a low light qualification (picture 3) using a handheld flashlight to initially identify the target and then using a pistol-mounted light for the actual target engagement.  Pistol mounted lights with the proper switch configuration can make hitting a target under low light conditions easier. However, learning the tighten/relax grip to turn the light on and off requires practice—particularly for someone accustomed to maintaining a firm firing grip on the pistol.


In my classes, I always require everyone to master hand held light techniques before I allow them to use a pistol-mounted light for several reasons. Searching with a mounted light virtually guarantees that you will point the pistol in an unsafe direction at some point. For that reason, I ask shooters to search with their hand-held light (as I did in this qualification) and then to release it and go to the pistol mounted light once they identify a threat. I used a San Antonio, TX police target for this qualification and scored a 100.  Even though the target was different, all shots would have been in the FBI QIT-97 target bottle.

Finally, I used the SIG P320 Lima Laser system (with a green laser) to fire the last qualification using the laser sighting system at 3-yards and then a handheld flashlight in combination with the laser thereafter (picture 4).  Although I used the SIG P320 Lima system, I believe any laser sighting system with a grip switch (see picture below) on the market would have worked equally well. I scored a 100 on this qualification also.


The one issue with firing the FBI qualification under low light conditions is the string of fire at 7-yards where you fire 4 rounds, reload the empty pistol, and fire 4 more rds in 8 seconds. I do not believe it is possible to do this with a handheld flashlight within the 8-second time limit.  My normal reload for a semi-automatic pistol is 2.0 – 2.5 seconds, so 4 reload 4 in 8 seconds is no problem.  With a handheld flashlight my reloads averaged 5.5 seconds so 4 reload 4 is problematic when you must release the light, reload, recover the light, reacquire a firing grip, and then engage the target.

This was the first time I used the Lima system in low light (very dark night w/ no moon) and I was very impressed.  It does require a purpose-built holster; however, with a such a holster it carries very well.  I think the laser in combination with a with a handheld flashlight will make a superb low light system.  In a couple of weeks I am teaching a low light, close range gun fighting class and I look forward to seeing how the Lima works under these conditions.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Pistol Mounted Lights--A Solution in Search of a Problem?

Denver — A Denver Police officer faces a 10-day suspension for accidentally firing his weapon nearly striking a suspect. Officer Asher Rose accidentally pulled the trigger of his pistol while trying to turn on his pistol mounted light. Officer Rose was attempting to use his light to illuminate a suspect hiding under a truck when he fired a bullet that hit a rear tire inches away from the suspect’s head.

We just started our 6th year of low light classes and we have had several police officers attend our classes and practice sessions--some are issued pistols with mounted lights. These officers did very well; however, in general I don’t believe that issuing pistol mounted flashlights to police officers is a good policy.  Unlike the officers in our classes who come to learn and practice low light techniques, the average officer is unlikely to practice activating and using the light under stress.

Pistol mounted lights with the proper switch configuration can make hitting a target under low light conditions easier. However, searching with a mounted light virtually guarantees that you will point the pistol in an unsafe direction. For that reason, I require students to master hand held light techniques and search with their hand-held light. If they decide to engage a target, they are free to release the hand-held light and go to the pistol mounted light if they have one.

Lights that require you to change your grip or that require you to push a button with your support hand or trigger finger to activate are awkward at best and impossible at worst under stress.

A remote switch that activates when you tighten your grip on the pistol (such as the one in the picture above) greatly simplifies the process of activating the light; however, it also carries a substantial risk of accidentally firing the pistol if you fail to apply proper trigger finger discipline.

KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU HAVE MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO INTENTIONALLY FIRE A SHOT!

Even with a remote switch, training remains a critical component. The human body’s sympathetic nervous response makes it difficult to tighten your grip without simultaneously tightening your trigger finger. For the same reason, it is difficult to squeeze one hand and not squeeze the other hand. If you have your finger on the trigger and tighten your grip to activate a light, you will likely tighten your finger on the trigger and fire the pistol.

On 13 October 2010, an undercover Plano, Tx police sergeant shot and killed Michael Anthony Alcala as he was trying to turn on his pistol mounted light. The sergeant told investigators he was trying to turn on the light when he accidentally fired his weapon.

The sergeant stated that he never intended to have his finger on the trigger nor did he intend to shoot Alcala. The light the sergeant had mounted on his pistol was a Surefire x300 without the DG remote switch. The sergeant had used remote switches in the past and tightened his grip thinking he was activating the light. Finger on the trigger, tightening his grip, pistol firing--the sympathetic nervous response in action.

During the last practice session we completed the Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas state police) old 60 round qualification course with a possible score of 300 as outlined below. The new qualification deletes the support hand string at seven yards.

3-yard line - 19 shots:

-- Holstered: 2 steps right, 3 shots, 5 seconds

-- Holstered: 2 steps left, 2 shots, 4 seconds

-- Holstered: 2 steps right, 2 shots, 4 seconds

-- Holstered: Strong Hand, 6 shots (3-2-1); 4,3,2 seconds

-- Ready: Support Hand, 6 shots (3-2-1); 4,3,2 seconds

7-yard line - 18 shots:

-- Holstered: 6 shots, while reloading 1 step right, 6 shots, 20 seconds

-- Ready: Pistol in Support Hand (you may use two hands), 6 shots, 15 seconds

15-yard line - 12 shots:

-- Holstered: 6 shots, 1 step left, 6 shots, 20 seconds

25-yard line - 11 shots:

-- Holstered: 6 shots, 1 step right, 5 shots (standing or kneeling), 25 seconds

We used the Austin Police Department modified Q19 target with shots within the Q19 outline (red zone--see picture below) scored as 5 points and shots outside that zone but on the threat as 2 points. Everyone passed (80% or 240 points) and I shot a possible score of 300 with my SIG P320 using a hand-held light with only three shots outside the center rectangle.




Is a light on a long gun a good idea? Absolutely. However, a pistol mounted light may be a solution in search of a problem. They are expensive, speciality lights designed for a single purpose. You can purchase a superb hand-held light for much less and it will serve for everyday use as well as for the rare emergency when you must engage a threat with your pistol under low light conditions.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page.

All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Sunday, February 17, 2019

Don't Get Shot -- Interacting with Police at Home

On January 4, 2019 a Knox County Sheriff's Deputy was performing a security check in response to a home alarm. The deputy’s bodycam shows him examining the property and as he approached a rear door on the house, the homeowner yanked open the door pointing a pistol at the deputy. The deputy fired one shot without hitting the homeowner. Although uninjured, you can hear the homeowner ask: “Why did you shoot me?”  (click here for the video)

Well duh! You yanked open a door and pointed a pistol at the deputy—that’s why. Although there is no public information concerning why the homeowner’s alarm was triggered, it is possible that the homeowner inadvertently entered the duress code on his house alarm. A duress code is a secondary, covert signal designed to be entered on the alarm keypad in the event that an intruder ambushes you at home and forces you to disarm the system. On monitored alarm systems, the duress code appears to disarm the alarm; however, it sends send a silent panic alert to a monitoring station that something is amiss in the home. This often causes the alarm company to call the police without calling the house first to see if everything is OK.

I do not believe that the deputy involved in this incident did anything wrong. The deputy was responding to an alarm at a home that indicated that an intruder might be present and his reaction to someone opening a door and pointing a pistol at him was perfectly reasonable and justified. In the end, no one got shot and everything turned out fine; however, this incident could have ended very differently.

How do we prevent situations like this? Although the homeowner believed he was defending his home from a suspicious intruder on his property, in reality there was no reason to open the door. The deputy was in uniform and simply looking out the window would have demonstrated this fact. It is unclear if the homeowner called 911; however, had he done so and provided his address, it is probable that the dispatcher would have told him the police were at his home.

In Texas, using force against an intruder who you know or have reason to believe was unlawfully and with force entering or attempting to enter unlawfully and with force your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment is presumed reasonable under certain circumstances. Therefore, someone in similar circumstances can simply wait to see if the intruder attempts to enter their house and respond accordingly from a cover position (in Texas at least—if you live in another state your results may vary).

The first step in home security is to have a plan and that plan should probably not include “exit the home and confront intruder.” I am not a fan of leaving your home to confront intruders. I did that once and learned just how foolish that can be. Exiting your home and confronting a possible intruder outside increases your physical risk and may negate the presumption of reasonableness for your actions depending upon the laws in your jurisdiction.

If you exit your home armed and find yourself facing the police instead of an intruder, you may well finish up on the receiving end of police gunfire as happened on May 7, 2015 when Bryan Heyward called 911 to report armed men attempting to break into his mother’s home. When sheriff's deputies arrived at the scene, Heyward exited the house through the back door holding a gun. A deputy yelled “show me your hands!” and fired twice at Heyward less than a second later. One bullet struck Heyward in the neck and he may be permanently paralyzed.

Ensure that no one can simply kick in your exterior doors as shown in this video. One solution is heavy metal doors and frames, very decorative (somewhat costly) and no human can kick them in.

Other than metal doors, most pre-hung doors are not very sturdy. For exterior wooden doors (make sure they are solid wood), I personally used the Strikemaster II Pro to reinforce my door jams and hinges. I did this as the house was being built and asked the builder to install them so it was relatively painless. Similar products are the Door Armor Max (formerly EZ Armor) that Armor Concepts produces and Door Security Pro. There are probably others on the market that perform a similar function.

If someone does manage to defeat your door and enters your home, responding from a cover position increases your chances of survival and builds the foundation of “reasonableness” for your actions.

Your home security plan should also include a safe room or rooms. In my house, someone yelling “BEDROOM!” is giving the command for everyone to instantly stop what they are doing and retreat to a secure bedroom with a reinforced bedroom door. From there you can call 911 and prepare to take other necessary action.

The door on you safe room or rooms should be made from at least 1-1/2 solid wood, with a deadbolt, and have a frame reinforced with the Strikemaster or similar product. Even if someone gets in the house, attempting to enter the bedroom is impossible without power tools and significant noise that will alert the homeowner.

Remember, not every possible “intruder” is necessarily a criminal. The homeowner in this incident probably did not have reason to believe that the police would be at his house. Regardless, there was a completely valid reason for the police to be poking around his back yard and coming to his back door. There are many completely legitimate and legal reasons why you could find a police officer, fireman, or utility worker on your property. In most neighborhoods it is more likely that someone on your property is either a neighbor or first responder rather than a criminal.

It is much safer to stay put and deal with a possible intruder on your terms rather than exiting your home and charging into a situation where you may not have enough information nor enough time to make a good decision. Additionally, making contact with police on the scene is much safer if you are not visibly armed.

Police officers don’t want to get shot. Legally armed citizens don’t want to mistakenly shoot a police officer who is trying to help them and certainly don’t want the police to shoot them. In reality, both parties want the same outcome. 

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. 

All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.