Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Member |
Regarding the double tap method of firing against unlawful lethal force attack, I was originally trained to use a double tap method for the first volley against the attacker. That trainer was a retired senior military officer who had trained military police and military special forces. Much later I was trained by a verteran LEO and professional trainer of LEOS, NOT to use the DT method because of legal exposure, that if you send two, you will still have to explain the second round, thus increasing possible negative legal exposure. That trainer said to dynamically evaluate whether to send the second round or not, because you'll still be required to answer for the seconde round. In this context assuming the second round connects with the perpetrator vice an innocent bystander. What do you think? Both in terms of practical efficacy of Defensively stopping an attacker (versus Offensively stopping a perpetrator as the legal obligation of LEOs in general), AND the legal aspects of using that rapid two round method? I'm asking this question based on the assumption that one can perform the double tap method effectively putting both rounds onto the perpetrator, versus not being practiced enough to perform it correctly whereby the second round fails to connect and misses entirely, or worse. What say you ? The context based specifically on civillian self defense, though I would also like to hear from LEOs as well in their own duties as extra wisdom. Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | ||
|
| Ammoholic |
There is an OODA loop before you start to fire. There is also an OODA loop involved in stopping firing. From what I have been told by multiple LEOs, they were trained to continue firing until the threat ceased to be a threat. Not to fire a controlled pair, then decide whether a headshot was needed (failure drill), but to continue firing into the threat until he or she ceased aggressive action. Some officers said they were taught to work up and down the midline, others did not. All officers said that every shot was to be an aimed shot. Some folks seem to mean “Take one sight picture and launch two shots.” when they say double tap. I’ve not heard any LEO suggest this. Rather, what I’ve heard is that if you take two shots, you should have three sight pictures. Take a sight picture, prep into the shot, start prepping while waiting for the sights to align for the next sight picture, if necessary take that shot, rinse repeat. You are always prepping for one more shot in recoil while you wait for the sights to return and evaluate whether you need that one more shot or not. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
That is in essence my philosophy. It doesn’t mean we fire a round, bring the weapon down to the ready while observing and assessing its effect then deciding to reengage if necessary. What it does mean is that if we become aware that further shots are not necessary, then we stop shooting. Will that awareness always occur instantly during a string of fire? Of course not. That’s why there have been many incidents of officers’ shooting subjects in the side or even in the back as they react to being hit and turn away during a string of fire. I view firing a “double tap” on robotic automatic as one of those gimmicks originally invented by a trainer to set himself apart from the crowd, and has probably been supported by the idiotic claim that handguns are poor defensive weapons. And the question we should ask if we’re a fan of the practice is Why stop with a double “tap”? Why not three or four or as many rounds as we can fire without thinking about what’s happening to the target? We must also keep in mind that even if we’re conditioned to always and immediately fire two rounds in a defensive situation, there is no guarantee that they will stop the threat, or that they will even hit the target. “Okay: I’ve fired two shots; let’s see what happened,” is just as bad as firing one and expecting that the threat has been neutralized and we can relax. ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
| Member |
I was taught the double tap method myself. Honestly, if I have to draw and fire a firearm, I'd rather fire 2 rounds and then have to explain them later, rather than fire 1 round and it's not effective enough. The legal ramifications of any shooting can be so much different depending on what county/state you're in, who is the DA/prosecuter, the jury if there is one, etc. In reality, there is 1 person who decides whether your shooting was justified or if it should go the court route etc. and have to be justified by you. | |||
|
| Member |
I have taught the double tap, mainly as emergency response from the holster. If the threat continues, keep shooting. End of Earth: 2 Miles Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles | |||
|
semi-reformed sailor |
We were taught to double tap from the holster at three yards w/o sighting in on the target. (Same way in the service) It was when we moved back to the 5 yard or further we were taught to use sights.... Most qualification courses subliminally teach many things.... How to clear the holster quickly How to use the gun w/o sights How to use the sights Standing Kneeling Prone Using a barricade Strong side Weak side Reloading Etc... If you look at the number of rounds used during a string it also reveals that many many courses are a transition from revolver days...ie six rounds in x seconds , reload and six seconds in the blah blah position... But the class about use of force was when they brought up about shooting to stop the threat and when someone says about how each round has a lawsuit attached to it..... Personally I’m not worried about dumping two rounds into anyone.... if you have justification to shoot them once you can justify shooting twice. it was the way I was trained and I can invite any lawyer to examine any ten or twenty Leo qualifications and show more then one that doesn’t teach double tapping. "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” Robert A. Heinlein “You may beat me, but you will never win.” sigmonkey-2020 “A single round of buckshot to the torso almost always results in an immediate change of behavior.” Chris Baker | |||
|
| and this little pig said: |
Our course of fire has us draw from the holster (at 3 yds) and shoot 1, 2, and 3 shot strings in 3 seconds. At 5 yds, we shoot using witness sights, not really sighting in using the sights, but more of a "I know it's there" philosophy. The majority of our expected confrontations will be close and personal. We train like we expect to shoot! | |||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
You'll never know until it happens. Too many variables to predict how many shots will be required at a moving target and fluid situation. Your first job is to live, a close second is to not harm innocent parties. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
Member |
Interesting responses. The one shooting I had, IAD asked me why I only fired once. I responded he was going down and I didn't need to fire the second round. My partner nailed him with 3 so it was kinda a moot point by then. The one I was a supervisor on, The bad guy had a Uzi taped to his hand. The office told him multiple times to drop the weapon and the BG continued to advance on the officer. Officer double tapped with an Issue AR center mass. The round count was never even raised as an issue with that one. | |||
|
| Member |
That's very interesting. But civillians don't have a supportive LEO system and police union backing them. Civillians are at the mercy of the integrity of local LEOs, the Prosecutor, and the political climate. None of these come with human integrity warranties. They can generally screw you with little or no consequences. Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
| Member |
I agree, but the alternative is 6' underground...…. | |||
|
| Not as lean, not as mean, Still a Marine  |
Former Marine Security Guard here... I was trained to double-tap and evaluate the need for follow-up shots as needed. The threat we faced was expected to be wearing armor, so the double-tap was theorized to slow the threat enough to get a clean head or groin shot if needed. We also used FMJ rounds, not the best at creating a large wound channel for instant stoppages. I have continued to train that all torso shots are double-tap due to the increased chance of hitting a vital point, and given the size of the average torso I expect my rounds to impact their target. If given a restricted target area, I adjust my shots accordingly. I shall respect you until you open your mouth, from that point on, you must earn it yourself. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
We should all be content with the methods and practices we prefer, but to suggest that if we don’t go into an automatic robot mode of firing a second shot without thinking we’re likely to end up dead is a nice example of the false dichotomy logical fallacy. Countless threats have been ended with one shot, and many others required more than two. ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
| Member |
Your brain is going to have a delay catching up to your eyes. I have done a video shooting simulator (SimTac) training several times. During the scenarios the actor was shot and in the process of falling to the ground but some of my shots were still hitting in the last location he was standing. There was a delay in my brain that had not processed the actor going down, therefor I continued to shoot multiple rounds. | |||
|
| Member |
In both civilian and military police training I was taught to aim center of mass and keep shooting until the threat stops. I wouldn’t worry about the number of shots. I’m going to shoot until the threat is gone, whether it’s 1 or all 15 | |||
|
| Member |
Agree with your points. I have/had the benefit of a Large organization (State Police) behind me and the benefit of the IAD division ruling it a righteous shoot. Adding in it was a Rural County and fairly Conservative, My Partner and I were Not even taken to a Grand Jury. If it had happened a Liberal enclave and a SJW DA, I am sure the process would have been very different. | |||
|
| and this little pig said: |
I think, for civilians (I am one), the circumstances involving a shooting will be reviewed by law-enforcement within their scope of training. For example, if they have 16 to 30 hours of force on force drills, that will influence their judgement in the shooting case. How can a civilian, who might have 4-8 hours of force on force assess the situation in the same mind-set as that? Apples and oranges! Civilians certainly are at a disadvantage so a good defense lawyer is almost certainly needed. Find one that is not afraid to call experts in on your case, like Mas Ayoob! However, don't hesitate during the course of the situation to act. Don't second-guess yourself. | |||
|
| Member |
If I find reason to fire at someone it’s because I feel they are trying to kill me. Round count will never enter my mind. That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. | |||
|
| Oh stewardess, I speak jive.  |
If I'm justified in shooting it once, I will be justified in shooting it twice or thrice. I'll be concerned with defending my life, not whether I shot them an extra time or two. | |||
|
| Member |
Shoot until the threat is neutralized. I am of the mindset to run dry to accomplish that. In the gravest extreme, I hope to live and let my attorney take care of the rest. No quarter .308/.223 | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024