1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tragic richocet, poor training?

2K views 34 replies 16 participants last post by  Tim Burke 
#1 ·
Dog involved shooting by police in CA. Richocet killed a teen. Such a close distance (5-7 feet).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/23/l-a-cops-shoot-at-attacking-pit-bull-and-instead-kill-teen-authorities-say/?utm_term=.f8155dce1a48
 
#4 ·
I'm not clear as to when the frag hit the kid. First time he came out to restrain the dog or after the officers re-grouped, returned and were again attacked by the dog? The story doesn't mention shots fired when they first approached the building when the officer was bit. It only mentions the shots fired after they approached for the second time and were charged by the dog again. But it only mentions the kid being present the first time, it doesn't mention his being present that second time.

Either I missed it or my brain isn't working this morning. Either way, sounds like an unfortunate accident. Avoidable but I'm not putting it on the cops. Sometimes really bad crap just happens and I have no idea how much care the officers used.
 
#5 ·
I think just poor circumstances did not help. The kid appeared to be trying to protect the dog, which was a neighbor's. I feel bad for the officer, clearly he was just intending to protect himself and fellow policemen.

I wonder about this wisdom of not using dog spray. Taser does not make sense. Being rushed by a medium sized dog requires a cool hand and good reflexes. Not any easy shot even at those distances.
 
#8 ·
Dog repellant works most of the time, at least to buy you time. But it also just seems to piss some dogs off. And hitting a charging dog in the face and eyes with the spray probably isn't any more certain than hitting them with a shot. Probably less so, depending on how well one shoots at charging pit bulls. Also, backspray is a bitch and, obviously, puts you at more of a disadvantage.

For the record, I'm not a cop. But occupation did require use of dog repellant on occasion.
 
#7 ·
"Know your target, and what is behind and around it"...

"You, and only YOU, are legally and morally responsible for each and every round you fire"

A fundamental rule of gun safety, and a more advanced one...
 
#9 ·
I just wonder if there is a better way to stop a dog then with a bullet. After all, what do most dogs do when strangers come in the yard. This does happen a lot (dogs charging, not the kid getting hit)...No not bashing the cops, just the "manual of arms" set by the department(s).
 
#10 ·
That was my question. I have no idea as I am not an officer. For bears in Mi, they argue spray is more effective than shooting them. Just thought to ask as you did.

Dog repellant works most of the time, at least to buy you time. But it also just seems to piss some dogs off. And hitting a charging dog in the face and eyes with the spray probably isn't any more certain than hitting them with a shot. Probably less so, depending on how well one shoots at charging pit bulls. Also, backspray is a bitch and, obviously, puts you at more of a disadvantage.

For the record, I'm not a cop. But occupation did require use of dog repellant on occasion.
I see your point. I think both would be challenging, not to mention being stressed by the situation, etc. It's not a good choice to carry around a shotgun, but rubber buck shot or bean bag would likely have been the best option. Anyways, what do I know, not much.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Rule 4 applies mostly on the gun range and while hunting. In a sudden life or death situation out on the street it's pretty hard to watch where errant bullets might end up because there's no time. You do what you can to limit the danger to bystanders but sometimes it's just not possible. Until the day comes when we have Star Wars blasters that can be set to stun this is always going to be a risk.
 
#13 ·
Rule 4 applies mostly on the gun range and while hunting. In a sudden life or death situation out on the street it's pretty hard to watch where errant bullets might end up because there's no time.
I disagree. The 4 rules are universal. You don't get a pass if you end up killing someone with a miss or a ricochet. Rule 4 is almost never an issue on the range, because there is a clearly identified target and a perfectly placed backstop. If you don't work to incorporate Rule 4 into your training, you won't observe it under stress
 
#12 ·
It all seems understandable to me, at least with what information I have picked up. I certainly do not believe I know all that happened or all of the circumstances. But what I basically got was this:

LEO responds to complain about loud party.

LEO attacked and bitten by very aggressive dog.

Dog restrained by 17 yr. old (I read it was the dog's owner) by tying dog to fence.

LEO backs away and radios in for assistance.

More LEO's appear and more than one approach the site of the original complaint.

Dog is loose again (untied? Broke rope / leash?) and charges one LEO.

LEO's open fire on dog, miss multiple times but do hit the dog and disable (but not kill) it. While firing at the dog, a ricochet hits the 17 yr. old (owner per the article I read owner of the dog) while he was trying to regain control of the dog.

My take is that this whole thing was unfortunate but understandable. Given the high stress of the situation and a relatively small, rapidly moving target, I believe the LEOs firearm skills are acceptable. I certainly do not believe I could hit a running dog, under stress, with certainty. More like controlled 'spray and pray'.

If there is a fault, it is, in my opinion, in having such an aggressive pet not being restrained or controlled. I believe the dogs' owner(s) should be accountable on some level; not for the 17 yr olds' death directly but for allowing their property, known to be very aggressive, to be or become loose in the first place.

Brian

Dog involved shooting by police in CA. Richocet killed a teen. Such a close distance (5-7 feet).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-teen-authorities-say/?utm_term=.f8155dce1a48
 
#15 · (Edited)
Tim, I certainly didn't say nor did I mean to imply that you ignore Rule 4 in a defense situation or in training. I was simply pointing out that when a vicious dog comes at you from out of nowhere, or some thug in a convenience store suddenly pulls out a gun and starts screaming at everyone there's only a split second to assess and react. Some people have held off the trigger because a bystander was too close, and they got shot for their noble efforts. Others dared to fire at the bad guy anyway, missed and killed an innocent. It's a bad deal either way.
 
#16 ·
I agree with you to an extent, and especially your last sentence. I also feel that each round exiting our firearm is truly our responsibility. It's not to say that in an extremely rapidly evolving incident we'll be able to guarantee that each round we fire will in no way harm any innocents. That's getting very close to demanding perfection. At the same time, we still own any round, no matter how justified, reasonable, or "acceptable" the collateral damage is. I'm sure in this case the deputies feel horrible, and I think that, while many love to throw out the bumper-sticker logic of "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6", neither of those options are fun. They both suck really bad, so if someone's planning on one or the other, I don't want to play that game. I'm looking to walk my own rear end out of the situation, and walk right past the court house without having to go inside. If there are tactics, techniques, training, or mindset that can help me avoid being tried, carried, or haunted by anyone... I want to know them... and I want all other good people to know them too.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Teen killed by ricochet from LEO's

It is very easy to critique a tragedy after the fact, but some of the glaring issues in the news report all worked in synergy to cause a tragedy.....

The apartment in the apartment complex that caused the "loud music" complaint by neighbors at 4am was described as a "hang out" for local teens.......if the music was loud enough to cause neighbors to call the cops, we must assume there was no adult supervision at 4am in the morning.

The 3 year old 65lb. pit bull should not have been able to get outside any of the apartments without a leash....yet it attacked a LEO and bit him on the knee, then retreated behind the building. The LEO was treated by other officers at the scene......since the dog was not contained, the LEO's went to contain the dog. It seems that shotguns should have been deployed, which would limit their range in an urban setting.....and might be better to use on a charging animal. A shot gun can be an effective club as well......two officers with strong flashlights and handguns and a third officer with a shotgun might have been a better option......there were 5 LEO's at the scene.

The tragedy occurred when six to eight shots were fired and a ricochet killed the unsuspecting teen.....I assume the ricochets were fired from the LEO's duty sidearms.....

It sounds to me like there were issues from unsupervised teens that precipitated the loud music complaint at 4am, issues with a dog not properly secured with a leash, and issues with the wrong choice of weapons deployed by the LEO's.....all ending in a tragedy..... :scratch:
 
#22 ·
This...

"Nor do I expect "perfection ", such a characteristic in humans doesn't exist. What I DO expect is reasonable, deliberate, intentional actions, that reduce or minimize the risks to noncombatans. The risks need to justify the rewards.... AND, as you said, one must accept full and complete responsibility for each and every round, and the manner in which it was employed."

EVERY pull of the trigger is a choice, and we are responsible for, and have to live with, the consequences of where EVERY round goes......morally, legally, emotionally, spiritually....whether the shot hits its intended target or not.

In this case the officer faced the very difficult choice of letting the dog attack, and maybe defending against the attack through other means, or discharging the weapon to try and stop the attack; both choices come with risks and consequences. He / she chose to shoot and now has to live with it.

The lesson for me is don't pull the trigger if I can't live with the consequences of what happens if it goes wrong. Its assumed that if I pull the trigger my life hangs in the balance. But change the dynamic a little...what if the errant bullet had struck a 4 year old girl, pregnant mom, expectant father? There are fates worse than death, and killing someone like that by accident may be one of them.

The circumstances, loud music at 4am don't mitigate any of the outcomes. I'm not commenting on whether the officer made the right choice in a very tough circumstance.... just that he or she has to live with the outcome....and that won't be easy.
 
#23 ·
As I said, if you don't practice to incorporate Rule 4, you won't.
I've also heard people suggest that Rule 2 doesn't really apply in a dynamic situation. I think accepting either of those positions constitutes an admission that one isn't willing to train enough to actually follow the rules.
In this video* at about 42 seconds, the officer drops his muzzle so he doesn't sweep his colleague. It can be done.
 
#24 ·
I'm not suggesting that one doesn't practice the basic rules... they're good rules, and good habits to develop - but one must understand

What I am suggesting is that in the real world one of 2 things will happen.
Either you WILL violate rule 4, or you will NEVER fire a round. 100% of rounds fired in an urban or suburban environment will, to some degree, violate this "rule"... the backstop NEVER be 100% "safe", and the shooter will NEVER have the time ot ability to make such a determination with 100% certainty....
 
#30 ·
You cannot duplicate accurately Real World Rule #4 scenarios on any range, nor can training as such guarantee that it will be adhered to 100%. Stuff happens. Mistakes happen. It's called life and that's why municipalities have liability insurance. In a perfect World the first LEO on scene would have bitch slapped the 17 yr. old for the loud music, shot the dog & then said "Have a nice day" and order would have been restored. Unfortunately, those days are long gone.
 
#31 ·
The problem isn't that the scenarios can't be reproduced completely accurately; the problem is that there is usually no effort made to incorporate it into training at all. And yes, even if it was trained, there wouldn't be 100% compliance. That's true for any training. Are you suggesting that there should be no training at all?
 
#32 · (Edited)
I don't think anyone believes LE would benifit from LESS training... the problem is twofold: a lack of training time and dollars, and a lack of understanding of WHAT skills need to be improved upon and how to do so...

The issues in this case aren't specifically a shooting skills related problem, but rather one of cognitive function; receiving, identifying, sorting, processing, prioritizing, and acting upon sensory input or stimuli.

While it is possible to do so, its a time consuming and complex process, and developing appropriate exercises and evaluating results.requires experianced, educated specialists. On the positive side, once developed, exercises can be incorperated into other training events as a secondary component.
 
#33 ·
I'm sitting here reading the arguments going back and forth, and the truth is none of you are wrong. Proper training is essential, including strict adherence to all four rules of gun safety. You need to have it ingrained into your head to always watch the muzzle and your trigger finger, and to be aware of who else might be in danger when you open fire. At the same time a safe backstop rarely presents itself in an urban environment, and when threatened you have little control over the direction the threat is coming from. Your assailant is attacking you and there's probably no time or opportunity to change your position so that innocents are not in the line of fire. Tough decision time. You remember your training and do the best you can to save yourself and stop the threat without inadvertently hitting someone else in the process. Failing to stop your assailant and winding up dead would be horrible. But to save yourself yet kill an innocent person in the process of doing so would be even worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top