Gun Owners Win A Round In California: A judge has ruled that a group of
plaintiffs, led by the couple who ran gun shows at the Alameda County
Fairgrounds, can proceed with a First Amendment lawsuit against a 1999
ordinance that prohibits firearms on county property.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_3078555
---
Another Canadian Registration Joke: It's unclear whether anyone actually
used the website in question to generate phony registration certificates
for real firearms or simply made gag certificates for nail gun and other
tools with pistol grips but it took the Canadian government a while to
shut the site down.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9dbd2877-b11e-415e-9113-d85847d52cb8
---
Prohibitionists Emerge In Dominican Republic: As elsewhere, firearm
prohibitionists are using recent events to call for infringements on the
traditional RKBA in this Caribbean nation.
http://www.columbian.com/news/APStories/AP10012005news8447.cfm
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/95920.php
---
Arizona Residents, Please Note:
The CCW permit reciprocal agreement with Utah will be cancelled effective
October 25th, 2005. Arizona residents currently carrying concealed weapons
in Arizona with a Utah permit are encouraged to obtain an Arizona permit.
Once the agreement is cancelled, Arizona residents are subject to arrest if
found carrying concealed weapons using a Utah permit.
The Utah permit will be recognized in Arizona if held by a non-Arizona
resident pursuant to ARS 13-3112.V.
This agreement is being cancelled because Utah CCW permit training is no
longer considered "substantially similar" as required by statute (ARS
13-3112.U), Utah has issued permits to Arizona residents who were denied an
Arizona permit and Arizona residents are obtaining Utah permits to carry
concealed weapons in Arizona, bypassing training requirements on Arizona
firearms and use of deadly force laws. Please note that the Utah and
Arizona permit licensing units continue to enjoy an excellent working
relationship.
Respectfully,
Detective Russ Hamilton
Supervisor
AZ DPS Concealed Weapon Permit Unit
(602) 256-6280
(602) 223-2708
(800) 256-6280 (In Arizona only)
(602) 223-2928 Fax
---
From Force Science Research Center:
II. MISS A FORCE SCIENCE NEWS TRANSMISSION?
BE SURE TO VISIT THE FS NEWS ARCHIVES
The Force Science News Archives house all the back issues that have been
transmitted beginning with the first, sent Sept. 17, 2004. The archive
system allows you to either list all issues by number/date or to search for
a keyword.
Here's how to get there:
1. Go to: www.forcesciencenews.com
2. Click on "Search Archive" (5th option from the top on the left side of
the page)
3. Here you will see two options: "Search the past issues" with an empty
box where you can enter a specific keyword, then hit "Submit" or "VIEW ALL"
which retrieves a list of all past issues. To view an issue in the list,
simply click on the title.
At this 1 YEAR ANNIVERSARY of Force Science News, we want to thank you for
being a reader and for spreading the word to others. Much more to come in
the years to follow!
As we head into this week's Force Science News Mailbag, now's a good time
to check out the archives if you missed the recent 2-part series exploring
the IACP "learning keys" that suggest ways to handle suicide bombers. The
transmission numbers to click are #26 and #27.
III. WE ASKED, YOU ANSWERED: YOUR VIEWS ON SUICIDE BOMBERS
The email in-box at Force Science News was flooded with vigorous responses
to our recent 2-part series on guidelines for dealing with suspected
suicide bombers published by the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police.
Reactions to the recommendations authored for the IACP by terrorism expert
Robert Bunker, PhD, ranged from enthusiastic acceptance to scathing
rejection.
Here's a representative sampling, edited for clarity and length.
***KEEP IN MIND THAT THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE THOSE OF THE WRITERS
THEMSELVES AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THEIR AGENCIES OR OF
THE FORCE SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER AT MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY-MANKATO.***
For those who may have missed the series in question:
Part 1:
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=26
Part 2:
http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=27
"HARD, DEADLY LESSONS" LIE AHEAD
I believe that the law enforcement response to suicide bomber threats will
be one of hard, deadly lessons before there is public acceptance of
appropriate "shoot to kill" guidelines. There will also be hard decisions
about the role of law enforcers and how law enforcement is trained in the
upcoming years.
Most officers today do not have the skills or mind-set to address the
threat of a committed suicide bomber or terrorist attack. In fact, there
has been a conscious attempt at selecting these kinds of officers out in
many departments.
The possibility of an even greater threat of trained, armed, and committed
violence exists with a very small number of our returning veterans from the
present conflicts overseas, who find themselves unable or unwilling to
integrate back into society and instead choose to use their combat-honed
skills either in the commission of crime or in response to severe mental
and emotional distress. We have already had several such incidents occur
across the country.
The same administrations, policies, and officers who are unable to cope
with terrorists will be unable to cope effectively with these threats as
well until there is a recognition that in some few cases the "playing
field" has changed and we are facing adversaries who are trained,
organized, and have prior real-world combat experience upon which to draw.
Officer Chris Leblanc
Vancouver (WA) PD
APPROACH "NA�VE" AT BEST
There are two obvious and major problems with Bunker's approach to stopping
a suicide bomber.
1. Philosophical--In 2005, I suspect that optimistically only one in five
officers would shoot first in even a hostage situation. In 100 bomber
scenarios, maybe in only 1-2% of the time would an officer have enough
information to act and be emotionally prepared to make the shot that Bunker
recommends.
2. Practical--We are not putting people on the street with the skills to
make a head shot. For every officer who is emotionally prepared to take the
shot, maybe only 10% have the skills to deliver it accurately. So Bunker's
approach may work in one out of 500-1,000 events--and that is optimistic.
Dr. Bunker's approach, while sounding like active problem solving, is at
its kindest--naive.
Sp. Agt. Leo Shepherd (ret.)
FAA/DOT
"CURSORY, AMATEURISH, SUPERFICIAL"
I am a former police officer (7 years' experience) who is now an
experienced (23 years) civil litigator who handles "police misconduct"
liability matters. I will labor mightily to discourage our police
department from adopting these dangerous guidelines for a number of reasons.
Take a quick look at how the national community responded to the 9/11
incident. In the face of a perceived threat of hijackings at the hands of
those drawn from the identical profile pool set forth in the IACP
article--[Middle Eastern] males 16 to 40 years old, perhaps with a
smattering of 16 to 25-year-old females--America insisted upon putting the
entire populace (including an octogenarian Medal of Honor winner) through
all kinds of ridiculous hassles at our airports in order to avoid
accusations of racial profiling (and continues to do so to this day!).
Against that backdrop, how do you think the nation will respond to the
police using those identical criteria as a means of narrowing the field of
potential persons who should be considered subject to summary curbside
execution? Not favorably, I would predict. This is a strong indicator that
American society is not ready to have its municipal police officers
cruising around looking for folks who fit some kind of vague (if fairly
accurate) profile, with an eye toward then deciding whether of not to shoot
some hapless individual who appears to "fit" it in the head!
The author claims that the mere threat of the use of a bomb would suffice
to justify deadly intervention. I take issue with that, particularly within
the context of the vague and ambiguous profile indicia which have been set
forth! Secondly, I question the author's legal reasoning when he counsels
us that "An officer need only determine that the use of deadly force is
objectively reasonable under the circumstances."
The objective reasonableness determination is not one which is made by an
officer in the field! Rather, it is a determination which is made after the
fact, when triers of fact are given all of the information which was
available to the officer at the moment he or she made a use-of-force
decision, and decides whether the option chosen by the officer was
objectively reasonable under those circumstances. Woe be to the officer
who thought that s/he was being reasonable, only to learn later that the
community, in the form of civil or criminal jurors, disagrees!
As a legal professional who is tasked with advising my clients on the
avoidance of unnecessary exposure to civil liability, I heartily recommend
that law enforcement professionals treat this IACP article for what it
really is: a cursory, amateurish, and superficial attempt to expound on a
complex legal and social problem, and one likely to create more problems
than it solves.
Atty. James F. Wilson
City of Sacramento, CA
MEDICAL DEVICES COULD BE MISLEADING
Various medical devices worn by citizens, such as insulin- and
heart-monitoring devices, could easily be misidentified as part of a
suicide bomb. I seriously doubt if my agency or the local political types
would allow the implementation of the recommended policy changes.
Sr. Dep. Charles Bass
Los Angeles County (CA) S.D.
BOMBER PROFILE MAY INCREASE MISJUDGMENTS
Taken on its face, the Suicide Bomber Profile presented by Dr. Bunker also
describes behaviors and characteristics of persons with developmental
disabilities such as autism, Tourette's syndrome, cerebral palsy or
epilepsy, mental illness, traumatic brain injury, obsessive compulsive
disorder, Alzheimer's disease and other conditions that may affect a
person's cognitive abilities. Persons with these conditions often have no
control of the behaviors and characteristics they display.
Without training to recognize these conditions, the potential increases for
good law enforcers to misjudge what they are seeing and hearing during
field interactions. Dr. Bunker's SBP and articles add to that potential.
Dennis Debbaudt
Police trainer and private detective
Port St. Lucie, FL
MORE PUBLIC TOLERANCE POSSIBLE AFTER MASS CASUALTIES
How the 4th Amendment, which governs officers' use of deadly force, is
applied will likely be based, in my opinion, on how threatened the American
people feel at the time of the criminal or civil trial. Right now, before
anyone has been hurt by a bomber (9/11 is too far in the past to be real
anymore to most Americans) and with most of the U.S. population sleeping,
if the officer made the "right" decision and shot an actual bomber, then
there will likely be very little chance of a trial going forward. However,
if the officer was reasonably mistaken and shot an unarmed person, a civil
trial is probably assured, especially if a large settlement was not
forthcoming. The resulting publicity would likely guarantee that few
officers would chance shooting the wrong person in the future.
Following the first mass-casualty incident, or wave of incidents, the
public MAY be more tolerant of mistakes. However, it is probably safe to
say that the press and a vocal minority will not be and the firestorm of
negative publicity nationally and internationally will likely wilt all but
the strongest officers.
Still, a jury convicting an officer, or voting for an adverse award against
an officer in the wake of real fear and the officer's good though mistaken
judgment is unlikely...juries enforce the law through their verdicts, and
jury nullification or sympathy for the fact that we are under attack and
with body bags being filled will probably be seen.
Will officers, today take the shot on a guess that the guy is carrying a
bomb? I'd have to say no. Without hard information, the reality of this
type of attack is just not at the forefront of most officers' minds. What
is certain are the negative consequences following a deadly mistake, and
without a climate of fear based on American civilians being slaughtered,
all but a hardcore few officers will not react to Dr. Bunker's guidelines.
I think very few Chiefs will change policy to reflect his thinking as well.
I do believe that a Beslan-style takeover with enormous casualties will
inevitably occur at some point...and probably with similar results if the
terrorists are as well-trained and armed as the Chechen-led Beslan
terrorists. With a possible combination of our porous border and homegrown
extremists, we are likely to see an outrage that will equal or exceed the
shock and grief of 9/11. At that point, while no repeal of the 4th
Amendment is likely (or desirable), the American public will forgive
mistakes by police, and preemptive shots at suspected bombers may be
forgivable.
There is some good information in Dr. Bunker's paper, but the tactical
issues within a law enforcement context are not, in my opinion, practical.
George T. Williams, Director of Training
Cutting Edge Training, LLC
Bellingham, WA
A CHANGE IN SHOOTING DRILLS
I really like the recommendations outlined in the article. After reading
this report, I will start to incorporate shooting drills with an emphasis
on head shots instead of center mass.
Constable Rom Ranallo
Vancouver (BC) PD
ACCURATE HEAD SHOTS ARE "SURE NONSENSE"
The reality of any officer making an accurate head shot with a handgun at
any distance on a moving suspect is sure nonsense. For over a decade, I
directed all firearms training for LAPD. We have long had head shot
requirements at 12 yards or less in our firearms qualification course. Yet
the majority of our officers have a difficult time making a head shot
during qualification on a course they have been training on for years
without the stress of a bomb-laden suspect as their target. Many times the
head shots they make are marginal at best and most probably would not stop
a determined suspect.
If IACP is going to promote this concept they should try it.
Sgt. Lou Salseda
Los Angeles (CA) PD
MISS RATE IS HIGH, REGARDLESS OF WEAPON
In non-stressed situations on immobile targets, outside of about 21 feet, I
have continually observed officers miss "Q" targets, let alone the head
zone, with their service pistols. Even with patrol rifles I would hesitate
to have the "average officer" attempt a head shot outside 15-20 yards.
Ptlm. Daniel Brady
Burlington (VT) P.D.
RECOMMENDATIONS ALREADY "WIDELY ACCEPTED"
Those of us who have coordinated major events (Olympics, etc.) since 9/11
have been using a use-of-force policy similar to what Dr. Bunker is now
espousing, so it is not new to many agencies. When I coordinated security
for the Maccabee Games (Jewish Olympics) in Baltimore, we were briefed by
Israeli terrorism experts who actually developed these counter-suicide
bomber tactics. They have become widely accepted, particularly by the
tactical community.
The IACP recommendations that many Chiefs are now adopting as policy are
actually a step in the right direction for officer safety, and political
survival in the event that a Suicide-by-Cop suspect posing as a Suicide
Bomber is killed as a result. The public and political administration would
have already been prepped for the LE response, and the aftermath would
certainly be less controversial. At least the people out in the field now
have some direction.
The "shoot to kill" policy is somewhat dramatic and serves no more purpose
than what is largely accepted (Federal or Local) as shoot to incapacitate.
Even our Snipers are in fact shooting to incapacitate. Stopping the threat
is the primary mission. If death occurs as a result that is not the mission
or concern of the operator.
The head shot/contact shot at a downed or restrained combative suspect is a
viable and practical option that many in the LE firearms instructor
community were unaware of until the IACP report brought it to light.
Contact wounds have been extremely effective in the field.
I have already had firearms instructors ask me what courses are available
that incorporate head shots, a result of the IACP report. If the head shot
becomes a qualification mandate, administrators will have to increase
training budgets, and might also have to remove unqualified people from
service. There are limits when dealing with the skill proficiency of the
average field officer/agent, and it will take more than a policy to alter
that level.
Instructor George "Butch" Rogers
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Cheltenham, MD
EVACUATION TACTICS THE MOST PRESSING TRAINING NEED
Training your average police officer to make the tactical, precision head
shot recommended for a suicide bomber is a monumental task. Even in the
countries that have the most experience in dealing with this type of
attack, the bomber usually gives responders no time to create the
recommended stand-off distance, set up a sniper and take the needed shot.
The more pressing training need is to create an awareness among our
officers that upon recognition of a threat the area must be evacuated and
cover obtained. I can't imagine a bomber allowing such an evacuation to
occur. Still, it must be attempted to save as many as possible.
Getting close enough to the bomber to initiate an accurate head shot is
critical and must be taught. Just as the mind-set of containment was
changed to allow for active shooter scenarios, so must we adjust to this
new threat. IACP's recommendations are the current reality we must face if
we are to provide any measure of safety and security for our citizens.
PFC Jerry MacCauley
Training officer, West Palm Beach (FL) P.D.
AMBULATION AFTER DEATH
Even with a properly placed head shot from an appropriate weapon,
ambulation after death can still result in the suicide bomber triggering
the device. With head shots not 100% effective 100% of the time, even by
the most highly trained officers, I doubt communities can be expected to
adopt the "new mentality" of "shoot to kill head shots" as acceptable.
Lt. Jim Kahler
Firearms Instructor, Prince George's Co. (MD) DOC
JAIL TALK!
Regarding the claim that under "Federal laws and rulings" you can shoot if
you have a reasonable belief that a suspect is capable of detonating a
bomb, without needing to wait for him or her to actually make a move or
take "other action potentially sufficient to carry out the bombing:" That
recommendation is nothing more than go-to-jail talk.
Agent Tim Houghtaling (ret.)
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Detroit, MI
DITCH "SHOOT TO KILL" TERMINOLOGY
You need to remove the phrase "shoot to kill" from your vocabulary.
Justifiable Lethal Force, Instantaneous Incapacitation" or Immediate
Neutralization of a Threat are much preferable and easier to explain in
court.
Inv. Eric S. Kennard
Office of the State Attorney
Viera, FL
WOULDN'T WALKING TOWARD THE TARGET BE AN "IMMINENT THREAT"?
If an officer has a "reasonable basis to believe that the suspect has the
capability to detonate a bomb," then wouldn't the action of walking toward
the target be an overt act of imminent threat? The weapon in this case is
already "drawn and ready," which is more dangerous than a handgun tucked
into the waistband with the suspect is reaching toward it or tugging on it.
After all, we do not require officers to wait until they see a suspect
pulling the trigger of a firearm before defending themselves or others.
As a U.S. LEO, it is our function and intent at this point to STOP the
crime from being committed. Killing the person is not the point. I believe
that having the intent to kill as a U.S. LEO could result in extreme jury
liability, especially in this case if it were the "wrong person."
The point is to stop the suicide bomber from completing actions that would
cause death or serious bodily injury. We understand ballistics and that
putting a .223-caliber round from an AR-15 through the nose of a suspect
has a very low likelihood of survival. If the suspect dies from being shot,
it is a result of reasonable tactics that a police officer was forced to
deploy to immediately STOP the suspect's threatening actions.
Sgt. Ed Flosi
Research and Development Unit
San Jose (CA) P.D.
IT'LL BE "A VERY INTERESTING EXPERIENCE" FOR MISTAKEN SHOOTER
I predict that the first officer who shoots someone who appears to be a
suicide bomber and isn't will find himself a participant in a very
interesting experience with the criminal justice system.
I hope that it does not take a successful suicidal bomb attack here to make
our criminal justice system see the wisdom contained in the IACP's Training
Keys.
Lt. Edward B. DeVennish
Columbus (OH) P.D. Intelligence Section
QUIT WHINING!
Quit your frickin' whining. There has only been one mistaken shooting of a
mistaken suicide bomber.
SFC Fred Killian
Howell Township (NJ) PD
NOT READY FOR THESE TACTICS
My agency is not ready to adopt this type of engagement tactic nor do most
officers have the skill required to carry it out. I think several
successful bombings would have to take place before any agency would even
consider these tactics.
Sgt. J. Sferruzza
Wayne Township (NJ) PD
SEVERAL INCIDENTS NEEDED BEFORE PROBLEM IS DEALT WITH
I don't think our administration has given a second thought to possible
terrorist activities in our jurisdiction, except pro forma attendance at
Counter-Terrorism meetings. Pre-supposing that the guidelines were adopted,
our boys and girls would follow them, but the response of our political
leadership is problematic, as they constantly have their heads in the sand
and their fingers testing the wind!
We must adapt to the changed circumstances. This is how the world is today.
Sadly, I think it will take several domestic suicide incidents before the
problem is seriously addressed.
Dpty. John Langan
Juniata County (PA) SD
================
(c) 2005: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints
allowed by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
[email protected]. FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of The
Force Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at Minnesota
State University, Mankato.
================
---
From John Farnam:
27 Sept 05
Excellent summary of our national training dilemma, as exemplified by NG troopers in New Orleans:
"It is not a failure of the troopers' training, nor a failure of discipline. Rather, it is a failure of the commanders' understanding of the military's role, and, by extension, a failure of the entire sociopolitical ethos. Commanders aren't afraid troopers won't shoot. THEY'RE AFRAID THEY WILL! The sad circumstance your friend described in New Orleans betrays a high-level, fundamental incomprehension of the warrior ethos and the way it should serve a civilization.
All human behavior is reducible to circumstantial evaluation of self-interest. It's a simple matter of weighing pros and cons. Establishment of civil order is a matter of the judicious application of the continuum of force. Often, mere presence and voice are sufficient, but they must unmistakably imply that escalation is available and will be resorted to without hesitation, until the desired effect is achieved.
Any fighter worth the title is dangerous, until he is dead. But, soldiers operate under 'rules of engagement' and specific orders. When you direct them to be dangerous, by arming them, then (in the same breath) tell them to be only a 'little dangerous,' by arming them incompletely and disaffirming their skill and ethics by giving them only a few rounds, you imply that they must neglect the very esprit you've pounded into them. In other words, you make them schizophrenic.
Schizophrenia is the embodiment of decontrol. Schizophrenics are perniciously dangerous, not because they are uncontrolled, but because they are confusingly controlled, with a host of internalized, but mixed, messages."
Comment: Mixed messages are the last thing soldiers need!
/John
(Schizophrenia is actually a major disorder of thought in which the afflicted person has a perception of reality that differs vastly from that of most other folks. I included the message because it is a preface to one from a couple of days later.)
27 Sept 05
Comments on preparedness, from friend and students in the hurricane zone:
"Daily clothing choices are important, footwear particularly. I saw several people who got out early, return wearing shorts, T-shirts and flip-flops. I was amazed that they had the foresight to evacuate early, and obviously had time to think about what to take and what to wear. Yet, they chose this ensemble and thus found themselves wading around in filthy muck with bare legs and 'shoes' in which they are essentially bare-footed, and clumsy too! What could they have been thinking?
I have a pair of Croks, but I never wear them when I go out, because I can't move quickly or surely in them, and they expose my bare feet to cuts and scrapes. I don't carry a pistol, blade, and OC because I expect a fight. Still, if one comes to me, I intend not to look foolish."
>From another friend:
"As you know, all freeways out of Houston were choked. Many who did not have an auxiliary escape route became a road block to everyone else as they ran out of gas. Freeways became 'lemming lanes.' I was able to get all the way to Dallas in six hours on back roads and, in some instances, with the aid of four-wheel drive."
>From a trauma surgeon:
"Clean, white underwear are recommended. Deadly, internal infections often come from bits of clothing dragged into wounds by missiles. The missile itself is usually sterile. I've removed much clothing from gunshot wounds!"
Comment: Good advice!
/John
28 Sept 05
More comments on "Induced Schizophrenia:"
"Internalized, mixed messages are the antithesis of the 'mushin' state of mind, that is the requisite predisposition of effective warriors. Commanders, responding to politically-correct constraints desired by clueless, naive,'innocent,' bureaucrats, have provided yet another nail for the coffin of the warrior class.
'Mu,' meaning negation. 'Shin,' meaning heart/mind. Often translated, confusingly, as 'no mind.' A more correct translation is 'pure mind.' It refers to that state of mental clarity and enhanced perception produced by the deliberate absence of judgments, fear, anxiety, pre-conception, and self-consciousness, collectively known as 'clog and clutter.' With mushin, the mind is not preoccupied. Instead, it is freed. No longer inhibited, slowed, distracted, or clogged, the mind is liberated to fully perceive, respond, and commit to action. Warriors in the mushin state of mind cannot be defeated!
Not only is this current generation of commanders marginalizing their troops' effectiveness by limiting ammunition and not allowing them to carry loaded guns, but, by inducing schizophrenia, they are robbing these troops of full use of their most effective weapon, their minds."
Comment: Shame on them!
/John
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
