Oh, and calm down. By your language you are coming off a little angry telling poeple to shut the f up. That's just rude.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Blue Tile Spook
Master
When you point your finger at someone you have three fingers pointing right back at yourself.
pftraining_in
Sharpshooter
Force Science News
Force Science News #117: New study: When civilians would shoot…and when they think you should
I. New study: When civilians would shoot…and when they think you should
Fascinating experiments by 2 California researchers show that young civilians who might someday be on an OIS jury overwhelmingly disagree with veteran officers about when police are justified in shooting armed, threatening perpetrators.
Interestingly, tests also reveal that when facing shoot/don’t shoot decisions of their own, civilians tend to be quick on the trigger—and often wrong in their perceptions. Even in ideal lighting conditions, civilian test subjects show “a very low capacity for distinguishing” a handgun from an innocuous object, such as a power tool. Forced to make a time-pressured decision, the vast majority would shoot a “suspect” who is, in fact, unarmed.
“On one hand,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, “this research should make civilians more sympathetic to officers who mistakenly shoot unarmed subjects under high-stress, real-world conditions.
“But on the other hand, the study shows the woeful lack of understanding most non-cops have about the larger legality and appropriateness of using deadly force. And this can result in serious ramifications in the courtroom.”
The findings, by Dr. Matthew Sharps, an expert on eye-witness identification and a psychology professor at California State University-Fresno, and Adam Hess, a lecturer in criminology at the school, are reported in The Forensic Examiner [12/22/08], published by the American College of Forensic Examiners. Their paper, “To shoot or not to shoot: Response and interpretation of response to armed assailants,” can be read in full by clicking here.
In their experiments, Sharps and Hess report, they first addressed “how untrained people would react if placed in the position of police officers confronting a situation potentially involving firearms and firearm violence.”
Eighty-seven female and 38 male college student volunteers of various races were each shown 1 of 4 high-quality digital photos of simulated “crime scenes.” The settings were stage-set with the guidance of veteran FTOs from the Fresno PD, “all highly experienced in tactical realities and the sorts of situations encountered by witnesses and officers on the street.”
Three photos showed a lone M/W subject, holding a Beretta 9mm pistol in profile: one depicted a “simple” scene, “sparse in terms of potentially distracting objects”; another a “complex” scene, “including street clutter, garbage cans, and other potentially distracting items”; the third a complex scene that included several bystanders and a young, female “victim” being threatened by the armed perpetrator pointing the gun at her in a 1-handed grip.
In a fourth photo, the scene was the same as the third—except that the Beretta was replaced with a power screwdriver.
Before any pictures were shown, each volunteer was told that a scene “which may or may not involve a crime or sources of danger” would be flashed for 2 seconds or less on a movie screen. “You may intervene” by shooting at the perpetrator “to protect yourself or others if you see an individual holding a weapon,” the researchers explained. Participants could “shoot” either by pressing a button or by firing a suction-tipped dart from a toy gun.
“The conditions for all 4 scenes involved uniformly excellent lighting (strong sunlight), and the relative comfort of witnesses being seated,” Sharps and Hess write. “There was no movement or occlusion of important elements of the scenes, and of course there was no personal danger for the respondents in the experiment.”
The smallest number of individuals decided to shoot at the lone subject holding a gun in the simple environment with no victim. Yet “even under these circumstances, in which no crime was depicted,” a strong majority—64%—decided to fire. This despite the fact that the “perpetrator” as depicted could have as easily been target-shooting as committing a crime, the researchers note.
In the complex but victimless scene, 67% chose to shoot. When a victim and bystanders were added, the proportion of shooters rose significantly, to 88%—nearly 9 out of 10.
But most revealingly, when the suspect pointed a power screwdriver instead of a gun, some 85% “shot” him. “In other words,” Sharps and Hess write, “respondents were equally likely to shoot the perpetrator whether he was armed or unarmed, as long as there was a potential ‘victim’ in the scene. It made no [statistically significant] difference whether the perpetrator held a gun or a power tool.”
Across the range of scenes, “when untrained people…‘confronted’ a suspect, the majority decided to shoot him under all conditions….[The] very high number of those who decided to shoot the unarmed suspect under ideal conditions might be inflated even further under the rapidly changing and visually confusing circumstances of a typical police emergency.”
The challenge the volunteers faced in distinguishing between the gun and the power tool was relatively easy, compared to officers making split-second decisions in the field. Cops frequently have to employ “rapid cognitive processing” in darkness or semidarkness, often deciding in less than a second whether to shoot, the researchers observe.
“During that time, many factors in a scene must be evaluated: the suspect’s motions; where the weapon is aimed; the presence of other people, including other potential suspects, and whether they are in the officer’s probable field of fire; other potential sources of hazard, to self, to others, and to the suspect, in the immediate environment….
“In view of these extensive processing demands, errors in perception or cognitive processing are likely to be relatively frequent….
“[E]xtraordinary demands are placed on the cognitive and perceptual abilities of police officers in cases of gun violence. Public perception of these incidents, however, typically does not center on the cognitive or perceptual issues involved.”
Instead, officers’ errors in shooting suspects brandishing innocuous objects rather than guns are “attributed, in many sources, to racism…and failures of integrity.” It seems “incomprehensible, to many people, that officers could possibly mistake a [non-weapon] for a real firearm in the dark.”
Among several instances the researchers cite in which officers have been pilloried by the press and public for mistaken perceptions is the infamous case of Amadou Diallo, who was shot and killed by NYPD personnel in 1999 when he abruptly pulled a black wallet from his pocket during a confrontation. More recently, a subject was shot dead in Tacoma, WA, when he pointed a small, black cordless drill directly at officers.
“It should be noted that the situation in which most people [in the experiment] effectively decided to kill an unarmed suspect was similar to the circumstances surrounding” these 2 cases, the researchers state.
The intensely negative reactions of civilians toward officers involved in such incidents may, in reality, “have more to do with highly unrealistic public and mass-media expectations, and with popular ideas about deadly force, than with putative racism or integrity issues on the part of police,” Sharps and Hess suggest.
A disturbing insight into the public mind-set regarding police use of deadly force surfaced through a companion experiment conducted by the research team.
Again using digital photography projected onto a screen, 33 females and 11 males recruited from freshman psychology classes were asked to view scenes in which a male or female Caucasian perpetrator, positioned “among typical street clutter,” pointed a pistol in a 1-handed grip at a young, female “victim.”
After viewing the scene for a full 5 seconds (“far more than ample observation and processing time”), each subject was asked “what a police officer should do on encountering the situation depicted”…and why.
Previously, 3 senior FTOs and a senior police commander had evaluated the proper police response. All concluded that “there was no question that this situation absolutely required a shooting response for both the male and female perpetrator…. [A]ny police officer encountering this situation must fire [immediately] on the perpetrator…in order to prevent the probable imminent death of the victim.”
To the researchers’ surprise, the civilian volunteers overwhelmingly rated this a no-shoot situation. Only 11.36%—roughly 1 out of 10—“felt that a shooting response was called for,” the researchers report. “[A]pproximately 9 out of 10…were of the opinion that an officer should not fire…although all of the senior police officers consulted stated that the situation depicted absolutely required a shooting response.
“This result may have important implications for situations in which 12-person juries must evaluate a given police shooting….In any given, randomly selected jury of 12 citizens, these results suggest that on average, 1 or at most 2 jurors out of 12 would be likely to see an officer on trial in an officer-involved shooting situation as justified in shooting a perpetrator, even under the clearest and most appropriate of circumstances.”
Sharps and Hess want to conduct further research before drawing any solid gender conclusions. However, “no male respondent felt that a shooting response was justified with a female perpetrator,” and only 1 in 16 female respondents favored shooting the male gunman.
The reasons the respondents gave overall for their negative views on shooting graphically illustrate the cop-civilian disconnect. Some thought the suspect wouldn’t really fire because of “the daylight, public conditions of the situation.” Others “concocted elaborate rules of engagement” under which an officer might shoot: if the suspect fired first, or if the suspect had already committed murder, or if the officer had first tried to “convince” the suspect to drop the gun.
Still others “literally invoked the need for clairvoyance on the part of the police, saying that an officer should not fire…because the suspect ‘did not look like she wanted to kill.’ Several qualified their responses with the idea that if the police had to fire, they should shoot the perpetrator’s leg or arm, because…‘a shot to the leg is relatively harmless….’ ”
The researchers speculate that “many of these unrealistic responses may have derived from confusion of media depictions of police work with the real thing on the part of the public…and probably from unrealistic expectations concerning the workings and capabilities of the human nervous system….”
They conclude: “f these ideas and attitudes are as widespread as the results of this initial research effort suggest, there is substantial need for better education in the realities of crime and police work for the public from which, of course, all jurors are selected.…This extreme discrepancy between public perception and actual police policy and operations warrants further attention, both in future research and in the modern criminal justice system….
“t is clear that these [findings] assume special significance for the real-world courtroom circumstances under which actual witnesses, jurors, and public constituencies consider and testify as to the actions of law enforcement personnel in application to real-world violent crime.”
“Although this research is a welcome first step in helping to bridge the gap of understanding between many civilians and law enforcement, it’s important to remember that the exploration doesn’t stop here,” says Dr. Lewinski. “Force Science Research Center Advisor Tom Aveni’s work on contextual cues makes clear that in order to facilitate a more thorough understanding of these issues, this study should expand beyond static settings and expand into fluid and dynamic scenarios that better reflect issues of threat recognition and response in regard to human movement. Although we’re supportive of and grateful for the work that’s been done to date, we’re hopeful that the focus will move in this direction.”
[Our thanks to Wayne Schmidt, executive director of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, for alerting us to this study. Reminder: register now for AELE’s unique workshop on Lethal and Less-Lethal Force, Mar. 9-11 or Oct. 26-28 in Las Vegas. Go to www.aele.org for more information and online sign-up.]
Force Science News #117: New study: When civilians would shoot…and when they think you should
I. New study: When civilians would shoot…and when they think you should
Fascinating experiments by 2 California researchers show that young civilians who might someday be on an OIS jury overwhelmingly disagree with veteran officers about when police are justified in shooting armed, threatening perpetrators.
Interestingly, tests also reveal that when facing shoot/don’t shoot decisions of their own, civilians tend to be quick on the trigger—and often wrong in their perceptions. Even in ideal lighting conditions, civilian test subjects show “a very low capacity for distinguishing” a handgun from an innocuous object, such as a power tool. Forced to make a time-pressured decision, the vast majority would shoot a “suspect” who is, in fact, unarmed.
“On one hand,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, “this research should make civilians more sympathetic to officers who mistakenly shoot unarmed subjects under high-stress, real-world conditions.
“But on the other hand, the study shows the woeful lack of understanding most non-cops have about the larger legality and appropriateness of using deadly force. And this can result in serious ramifications in the courtroom.”
The findings, by Dr. Matthew Sharps, an expert on eye-witness identification and a psychology professor at California State University-Fresno, and Adam Hess, a lecturer in criminology at the school, are reported in The Forensic Examiner [12/22/08], published by the American College of Forensic Examiners. Their paper, “To shoot or not to shoot: Response and interpretation of response to armed assailants,” can be read in full by clicking here.
In their experiments, Sharps and Hess report, they first addressed “how untrained people would react if placed in the position of police officers confronting a situation potentially involving firearms and firearm violence.”
Eighty-seven female and 38 male college student volunteers of various races were each shown 1 of 4 high-quality digital photos of simulated “crime scenes.” The settings were stage-set with the guidance of veteran FTOs from the Fresno PD, “all highly experienced in tactical realities and the sorts of situations encountered by witnesses and officers on the street.”
Three photos showed a lone M/W subject, holding a Beretta 9mm pistol in profile: one depicted a “simple” scene, “sparse in terms of potentially distracting objects”; another a “complex” scene, “including street clutter, garbage cans, and other potentially distracting items”; the third a complex scene that included several bystanders and a young, female “victim” being threatened by the armed perpetrator pointing the gun at her in a 1-handed grip.
In a fourth photo, the scene was the same as the third—except that the Beretta was replaced with a power screwdriver.
Before any pictures were shown, each volunteer was told that a scene “which may or may not involve a crime or sources of danger” would be flashed for 2 seconds or less on a movie screen. “You may intervene” by shooting at the perpetrator “to protect yourself or others if you see an individual holding a weapon,” the researchers explained. Participants could “shoot” either by pressing a button or by firing a suction-tipped dart from a toy gun.
“The conditions for all 4 scenes involved uniformly excellent lighting (strong sunlight), and the relative comfort of witnesses being seated,” Sharps and Hess write. “There was no movement or occlusion of important elements of the scenes, and of course there was no personal danger for the respondents in the experiment.”
The smallest number of individuals decided to shoot at the lone subject holding a gun in the simple environment with no victim. Yet “even under these circumstances, in which no crime was depicted,” a strong majority—64%—decided to fire. This despite the fact that the “perpetrator” as depicted could have as easily been target-shooting as committing a crime, the researchers note.
In the complex but victimless scene, 67% chose to shoot. When a victim and bystanders were added, the proportion of shooters rose significantly, to 88%—nearly 9 out of 10.
But most revealingly, when the suspect pointed a power screwdriver instead of a gun, some 85% “shot” him. “In other words,” Sharps and Hess write, “respondents were equally likely to shoot the perpetrator whether he was armed or unarmed, as long as there was a potential ‘victim’ in the scene. It made no [statistically significant] difference whether the perpetrator held a gun or a power tool.”
Across the range of scenes, “when untrained people…‘confronted’ a suspect, the majority decided to shoot him under all conditions….[The] very high number of those who decided to shoot the unarmed suspect under ideal conditions might be inflated even further under the rapidly changing and visually confusing circumstances of a typical police emergency.”
The challenge the volunteers faced in distinguishing between the gun and the power tool was relatively easy, compared to officers making split-second decisions in the field. Cops frequently have to employ “rapid cognitive processing” in darkness or semidarkness, often deciding in less than a second whether to shoot, the researchers observe.
“During that time, many factors in a scene must be evaluated: the suspect’s motions; where the weapon is aimed; the presence of other people, including other potential suspects, and whether they are in the officer’s probable field of fire; other potential sources of hazard, to self, to others, and to the suspect, in the immediate environment….
“In view of these extensive processing demands, errors in perception or cognitive processing are likely to be relatively frequent….
“[E]xtraordinary demands are placed on the cognitive and perceptual abilities of police officers in cases of gun violence. Public perception of these incidents, however, typically does not center on the cognitive or perceptual issues involved.”
Instead, officers’ errors in shooting suspects brandishing innocuous objects rather than guns are “attributed, in many sources, to racism…and failures of integrity.” It seems “incomprehensible, to many people, that officers could possibly mistake a [non-weapon] for a real firearm in the dark.”
Among several instances the researchers cite in which officers have been pilloried by the press and public for mistaken perceptions is the infamous case of Amadou Diallo, who was shot and killed by NYPD personnel in 1999 when he abruptly pulled a black wallet from his pocket during a confrontation. More recently, a subject was shot dead in Tacoma, WA, when he pointed a small, black cordless drill directly at officers.
“It should be noted that the situation in which most people [in the experiment] effectively decided to kill an unarmed suspect was similar to the circumstances surrounding” these 2 cases, the researchers state.
The intensely negative reactions of civilians toward officers involved in such incidents may, in reality, “have more to do with highly unrealistic public and mass-media expectations, and with popular ideas about deadly force, than with putative racism or integrity issues on the part of police,” Sharps and Hess suggest.
A disturbing insight into the public mind-set regarding police use of deadly force surfaced through a companion experiment conducted by the research team.
Again using digital photography projected onto a screen, 33 females and 11 males recruited from freshman psychology classes were asked to view scenes in which a male or female Caucasian perpetrator, positioned “among typical street clutter,” pointed a pistol in a 1-handed grip at a young, female “victim.”
After viewing the scene for a full 5 seconds (“far more than ample observation and processing time”), each subject was asked “what a police officer should do on encountering the situation depicted”…and why.
Previously, 3 senior FTOs and a senior police commander had evaluated the proper police response. All concluded that “there was no question that this situation absolutely required a shooting response for both the male and female perpetrator…. [A]ny police officer encountering this situation must fire [immediately] on the perpetrator…in order to prevent the probable imminent death of the victim.”
To the researchers’ surprise, the civilian volunteers overwhelmingly rated this a no-shoot situation. Only 11.36%—roughly 1 out of 10—“felt that a shooting response was called for,” the researchers report. “[A]pproximately 9 out of 10…were of the opinion that an officer should not fire…although all of the senior police officers consulted stated that the situation depicted absolutely required a shooting response.
“This result may have important implications for situations in which 12-person juries must evaluate a given police shooting….In any given, randomly selected jury of 12 citizens, these results suggest that on average, 1 or at most 2 jurors out of 12 would be likely to see an officer on trial in an officer-involved shooting situation as justified in shooting a perpetrator, even under the clearest and most appropriate of circumstances.”
Sharps and Hess want to conduct further research before drawing any solid gender conclusions. However, “no male respondent felt that a shooting response was justified with a female perpetrator,” and only 1 in 16 female respondents favored shooting the male gunman.
The reasons the respondents gave overall for their negative views on shooting graphically illustrate the cop-civilian disconnect. Some thought the suspect wouldn’t really fire because of “the daylight, public conditions of the situation.” Others “concocted elaborate rules of engagement” under which an officer might shoot: if the suspect fired first, or if the suspect had already committed murder, or if the officer had first tried to “convince” the suspect to drop the gun.
Still others “literally invoked the need for clairvoyance on the part of the police, saying that an officer should not fire…because the suspect ‘did not look like she wanted to kill.’ Several qualified their responses with the idea that if the police had to fire, they should shoot the perpetrator’s leg or arm, because…‘a shot to the leg is relatively harmless….’ ”
The researchers speculate that “many of these unrealistic responses may have derived from confusion of media depictions of police work with the real thing on the part of the public…and probably from unrealistic expectations concerning the workings and capabilities of the human nervous system….”
They conclude: “f these ideas and attitudes are as widespread as the results of this initial research effort suggest, there is substantial need for better education in the realities of crime and police work for the public from which, of course, all jurors are selected.…This extreme discrepancy between public perception and actual police policy and operations warrants further attention, both in future research and in the modern criminal justice system….
“t is clear that these [findings] assume special significance for the real-world courtroom circumstances under which actual witnesses, jurors, and public constituencies consider and testify as to the actions of law enforcement personnel in application to real-world violent crime.”
“Although this research is a welcome first step in helping to bridge the gap of understanding between many civilians and law enforcement, it’s important to remember that the exploration doesn’t stop here,” says Dr. Lewinski. “Force Science Research Center Advisor Tom Aveni’s work on contextual cues makes clear that in order to facilitate a more thorough understanding of these issues, this study should expand beyond static settings and expand into fluid and dynamic scenarios that better reflect issues of threat recognition and response in regard to human movement. Although we’re supportive of and grateful for the work that’s been done to date, we’re hopeful that the focus will move in this direction.”
[Our thanks to Wayne Schmidt, executive director of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, for alerting us to this study. Reminder: register now for AELE’s unique workshop on Lethal and Less-Lethal Force, Mar. 9-11 or Oct. 26-28 in Las Vegas. Go to www.aele.org for more information and online sign-up.]
pftraining_in
Sharpshooter
Force Science News
Force Science News #113: New Study Explores Threats Posed by Prone Suspects
One of the most dangerous positions a suspect can assume on the ground is prone with his hands tucked under his body, either at chest or waist level. What’s hidden in those hands? And if it’s a gun, how fast can he twist and shoot if you’re approaching him?
This month [1/09], the Force Science Research Center, in cooperation with Indiana University and the Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, will launch the first study of its kind in an effort to clearly define your risk and, hopefully, identify your best approach tactics in dealing with this common street problem.
The results may also help explain to civilians why officers sometimes react with what may seem like exceptional violence when trying to control a downed offender whose hands are concealed beneath him.
“When a prone suspect resists showing his hands when an officer orders him to or attempts to pry them out, officers become very suspicious and fearful about what his motive is. And justifiably so,” says FSRC’s executive director, Dr. Bill Lewinski. “FBI research has shown that suspects with concealed weapons most often carry them to the front of their bodies. So, when prone, they may have easy access to a weapon or already be holding one.
“Until the hands are controlled, officers are very vulnerable in this circumstance, and they often use a fairly high level of force to gain control of the hands because of their concern. They may deliver strikes with batons or flashlights that to naïve civilians watching a video clip on TV may look like malicious outbreaks of rage and vindictiveness.”
Since its beginning more than 4 years ago, FSRC has conducted a series of ground-breaking time-and-motion studies, documenting the amazing speed with which suspects can attack from a variety of positions—turning and shooting while running, drawing and shooting while seated in a vehicle, and so on.
“The prone study is an important extension of this sequence,” Lewinski explains, “and is expected to further pinpoint the formidable reactionary curve that officers are behind when attempting to prevent or respond to potentially lethal assaults.”
Several months ago Lewinski conducted some rough preliminary testing on prone action times at the FSRC lab at Minnesota State University-Mankato. Role-playing a prone, armed offender with hands tucked under his body, he repeatedly turned to present and fire a gun as if shooting at a contact officer approaching him from the feet or side. A time-coded video camera recorded his movements. You can view a short video clip of the movement here: Force Science® Institute, Ltd.
The average time it took him to make his threatening moves was “about one-third of a second,” Lewinski says. “This speed would likely be faster than an average cover officer could react and shoot to stop the threat, even if the officer had his gun pointed, his finger on the trigger, and had already made the decision to shoot. In other words, the officer would stand little chance of being able to shoot first.”
This convinced Lewinski that the subject was worth a much more in-depth investigation.
The core research will begin Jan. 5 at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in Green Bay, with the assistance there of Erik Walters, public safety training technician.
Four cameras positioned at different angles will film 7 volunteer role-players with different body types moving in a variety of ways to present a gun from under their body and shoot at an approaching officer. “The subjects will be young—reflecting the age demographics of offenders most likely to assault police officers—and agile,” Lewinski says. “Agility may play more of a role with suspects who are prone than with those in other shooting postures.”
Three of the cameras will be high-speed video units purchased by NWTC with a State of Wisconsin grant to assist with FSRC research. Walters used one of these to record the preliminary tests at Mankato.
The fourth camera is a sophisticated SportsCam, used by high-level athletics coaches and researchers in biomechanics, recently purchased by the Ergonomics Laboratory at Indiana University in Bloomington. This unit can film in color at speeds up to 500 frames per second.
FSRC learned of this equipment through a graduate student, Madeleine Gonin, originally from South Africa, who works in the IU Ergonomics Lab and is pursuing a PhD in human performance and ergonomics. Her master’s, however, is in safety management, with a focus on workplace violence. “There’s a high level of crime in South Africa, and I want to help find strategies for reducing it,” she told Force Science News.
An accomplished martial artist, she became an instructor in the Rape Aggression Defense system after arriving on campus, and through that involvement developed friendships with IU campus police and officers with Bloomington P.D.
As a subject for her PhD dissertation, “I was looking for a program that fitted in with violence prevention,” she says. “Some of the officers I knew suggested I get in touch with the Force Science Research Center.” She hopes to base her dissertation on the prone action-time research.
Gonin will be in Green Bay, along with Charles Pearce, project director at the IU Ergonomics Lab. To supplement what’s filmed there, they will photograph more subjects making more threatening movements on the Indiana campus, using student volunteers, including participants in a cadet program run by the university police department.
Using the Lab’s advanced technology, under supervision of director Dr. John Shea, a professor in IU’s Department of Kinesiology and Gonin’s academic advisor, the researchers intend to convert the photographic images into animated figures.
With cutting-edge software and a link to an immense databank of human forms, they can adjust the figures to as many different height, weight, and strength specifications as they like, and measure the movement times of each in the various action patterns.
“Without a doubt,” says Lewinski, “this will be the most thorough and complex analysis of human movement ever performed for law enforcement research.”
The initial goal is to nail down action times precisely—just how fast can a prone suspect present a deadly threat. “People tend to underestimate how quickly a human being can actually move,” says Gonin. “They also tend to underestimate how slowly officers react when they are under stress and narrowly focused.”
Beyond those measurements, the researchers will also be searching for early indicators that could telegraph that a suspect is initiating a dangerous movement. Ideally, this analysis will identify certain cues officers could watch for in prone-suspect situations. “We don’t know if we’ll be able to find these cues, but we’re going to look for them,” Lewinski says.
And finally, there may be findings that could affect training and tactics. Does approaching straight-on from a prone suspect’s feet, for example, offer the best protective edge against sudden threatening movement, as Lewinski suspects may be the case?
Lewinski estimates it will be a year or more before a final analysis is available, but IU’s involvement in the project represents an important breakthrough beyond the critical street knowledge that may result.
“One of our major goals at Force Science is to stimulate interest at universities and other influential institutions in doing research that is of value to line officers,” he says. “There has been a huge hole in research into issues that can help street officers perform with improved skill and safety. This is a step toward filling that gap. What a great way to start the New Year!”
Force Science News #113: New Study Explores Threats Posed by Prone Suspects
One of the most dangerous positions a suspect can assume on the ground is prone with his hands tucked under his body, either at chest or waist level. What’s hidden in those hands? And if it’s a gun, how fast can he twist and shoot if you’re approaching him?
This month [1/09], the Force Science Research Center, in cooperation with Indiana University and the Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, will launch the first study of its kind in an effort to clearly define your risk and, hopefully, identify your best approach tactics in dealing with this common street problem.
The results may also help explain to civilians why officers sometimes react with what may seem like exceptional violence when trying to control a downed offender whose hands are concealed beneath him.
“When a prone suspect resists showing his hands when an officer orders him to or attempts to pry them out, officers become very suspicious and fearful about what his motive is. And justifiably so,” says FSRC’s executive director, Dr. Bill Lewinski. “FBI research has shown that suspects with concealed weapons most often carry them to the front of their bodies. So, when prone, they may have easy access to a weapon or already be holding one.
“Until the hands are controlled, officers are very vulnerable in this circumstance, and they often use a fairly high level of force to gain control of the hands because of their concern. They may deliver strikes with batons or flashlights that to naïve civilians watching a video clip on TV may look like malicious outbreaks of rage and vindictiveness.”
Since its beginning more than 4 years ago, FSRC has conducted a series of ground-breaking time-and-motion studies, documenting the amazing speed with which suspects can attack from a variety of positions—turning and shooting while running, drawing and shooting while seated in a vehicle, and so on.
“The prone study is an important extension of this sequence,” Lewinski explains, “and is expected to further pinpoint the formidable reactionary curve that officers are behind when attempting to prevent or respond to potentially lethal assaults.”
Several months ago Lewinski conducted some rough preliminary testing on prone action times at the FSRC lab at Minnesota State University-Mankato. Role-playing a prone, armed offender with hands tucked under his body, he repeatedly turned to present and fire a gun as if shooting at a contact officer approaching him from the feet or side. A time-coded video camera recorded his movements. You can view a short video clip of the movement here: Force Science® Institute, Ltd.
The average time it took him to make his threatening moves was “about one-third of a second,” Lewinski says. “This speed would likely be faster than an average cover officer could react and shoot to stop the threat, even if the officer had his gun pointed, his finger on the trigger, and had already made the decision to shoot. In other words, the officer would stand little chance of being able to shoot first.”
This convinced Lewinski that the subject was worth a much more in-depth investigation.
The core research will begin Jan. 5 at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in Green Bay, with the assistance there of Erik Walters, public safety training technician.
Four cameras positioned at different angles will film 7 volunteer role-players with different body types moving in a variety of ways to present a gun from under their body and shoot at an approaching officer. “The subjects will be young—reflecting the age demographics of offenders most likely to assault police officers—and agile,” Lewinski says. “Agility may play more of a role with suspects who are prone than with those in other shooting postures.”
Three of the cameras will be high-speed video units purchased by NWTC with a State of Wisconsin grant to assist with FSRC research. Walters used one of these to record the preliminary tests at Mankato.
The fourth camera is a sophisticated SportsCam, used by high-level athletics coaches and researchers in biomechanics, recently purchased by the Ergonomics Laboratory at Indiana University in Bloomington. This unit can film in color at speeds up to 500 frames per second.
FSRC learned of this equipment through a graduate student, Madeleine Gonin, originally from South Africa, who works in the IU Ergonomics Lab and is pursuing a PhD in human performance and ergonomics. Her master’s, however, is in safety management, with a focus on workplace violence. “There’s a high level of crime in South Africa, and I want to help find strategies for reducing it,” she told Force Science News.
An accomplished martial artist, she became an instructor in the Rape Aggression Defense system after arriving on campus, and through that involvement developed friendships with IU campus police and officers with Bloomington P.D.
As a subject for her PhD dissertation, “I was looking for a program that fitted in with violence prevention,” she says. “Some of the officers I knew suggested I get in touch with the Force Science Research Center.” She hopes to base her dissertation on the prone action-time research.
Gonin will be in Green Bay, along with Charles Pearce, project director at the IU Ergonomics Lab. To supplement what’s filmed there, they will photograph more subjects making more threatening movements on the Indiana campus, using student volunteers, including participants in a cadet program run by the university police department.
Using the Lab’s advanced technology, under supervision of director Dr. John Shea, a professor in IU’s Department of Kinesiology and Gonin’s academic advisor, the researchers intend to convert the photographic images into animated figures.
With cutting-edge software and a link to an immense databank of human forms, they can adjust the figures to as many different height, weight, and strength specifications as they like, and measure the movement times of each in the various action patterns.
“Without a doubt,” says Lewinski, “this will be the most thorough and complex analysis of human movement ever performed for law enforcement research.”
The initial goal is to nail down action times precisely—just how fast can a prone suspect present a deadly threat. “People tend to underestimate how quickly a human being can actually move,” says Gonin. “They also tend to underestimate how slowly officers react when they are under stress and narrowly focused.”
Beyond those measurements, the researchers will also be searching for early indicators that could telegraph that a suspect is initiating a dangerous movement. Ideally, this analysis will identify certain cues officers could watch for in prone-suspect situations. “We don’t know if we’ll be able to find these cues, but we’re going to look for them,” Lewinski says.
And finally, there may be findings that could affect training and tactics. Does approaching straight-on from a prone suspect’s feet, for example, offer the best protective edge against sudden threatening movement, as Lewinski suspects may be the case?
Lewinski estimates it will be a year or more before a final analysis is available, but IU’s involvement in the project represents an important breakthrough beyond the critical street knowledge that may result.
“One of our major goals at Force Science is to stimulate interest at universities and other influential institutions in doing research that is of value to line officers,” he says. “There has been a huge hole in research into issues that can help street officers perform with improved skill and safety. This is a step toward filling that gap. What a great way to start the New Year!”
To those who think its inappropriate to 'question' the police:
Sorry, but as a society, that's our job.
We absolutely need the so-called 'monday morning quarter-backing' when the police use deadly force. If not & they realize they can get away with anything then they will try to get away with anything. We hear all the time (mostly from the LE community) that police are more highly trained than the non-LEO. Isn't that why they can carry anywhere even where the non-LEO's can't. The police NEED to be held to a higher standard.
I've never been to the moon but I know it's not made of green cheese. I've never been to Iraq but I know torture is wrong. Just because somebody has never been a LEO doesn't mean they don't have the right to criticize them.
I hope the cops were correct in what they did. If they weren't they need to be prosecuted, just like any LTCH-holder would be. Could you imagine what would happen to them if 6 non-LEO's opened fire on 1 guy with a rifle & shooting him 43 times because they 'thought' he was a threat?
Last edited:
Haha-thx. It's always nice to see our public taking days and weeks to analyze a situation that took seconds to unfold. I understand the scrutiny but it can make an officer hesitate when it counts. That hesitation might be seen as ok by our resident non-leo's but it can/has gotten officers injured/killed. There are always people who think they can "do it" better. Or they "would have" done things differently had they been there.Denny's my hero!
I can understand why you say you might hesitate when deciding the best course of action to neutralize an immediate threat, considering the scrutiny that is bound to accompany the action. But as a non-LEO, I believe that I could also hesitate if ever I am put into a position where I have to decide if I am justified in my actions of self-defense. Wondering if I did the right thing, and wondering if LE and the public are going to back me up or crucify me for my actions are going to be things that would almost certainly have to run through my mind if put to the test. "Will my actions survive the public scrutiny?" is a question that will possibly cause anyone to hesitate.
And I also believe that the taking of another's life cannot be a non-chalant action that can occur without some forethought about whether or not it is the only possible action that can occur. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether or not you are alive and the details have to dictate you actions. But then the real questions become "Can I live with the outcome?" and, "Was this my only possible course of action?". I have to think that these will be the things that one would ponder after the fact and debate internally. I think this could be a source of hesitation for some when making a decision of such magnitude. It's not just the public scrutiny that will follow, but I believe the personal internal scrutiny as well.
I hope this posting makes sense, but to be clear, I don't want you or any other LEO to hesitate when it counts. All I am saying is understand why it might happen. But if you are truly saving someone's butt, especially mine, I'm backing you all the way!
I would just like to point out that there are civilians and there are military. That is, LEOs are also "civilians" as well as "citizens". The most correct terms would be LEOs and non-LEOs.
And we appreciate your support.
YES IT DOES.
Hmm, well, my brothers/sisters I work with are my heros. My friend Jason was shot in the brain last year...he's my hero. To my fallen brothers/sister...they are my hero's. So, yeah, they wear the bag they get the hero tag, although MOST would not consider themselves as such. I know Jason does not feel that way.
Denny, I'm sorry to say this, but I have to disagree with your words here. I doubt that I disagree with your intent, however, and here's why:
Pinning on a badge is not what makes you a hero. Anyone who is hired by a LEA can pin on a badge. Upholding your oath... that's a daily challenge, and one which most handle easily, and those that do so are the heros. You have to be committed to your oath and uphold it or all you're doing is exercising authority improperly placed.
A badge is just a piece of metal. Honor and heroism come from your character and your heart.
Blessings,
Bill
I dont know the exacts on this shoot, but I do know that LEO's are trained at least in Indiana to shoot to stop the threat. Just from the story I see know problem with the number of shots fired, that being said you better believe that Indiana LEO are responsible for every round that goes down range. I wouldnt want 16 rounds in no mans land
pftraining_in
Sharpshooter
From Merriam-Webster
civilian
One entry found.
- Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
- Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
- Function: noun
- Date: 14th century
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b : outsider 1
— civilian adjective
I think people are putting too much into this. The term "civilian" is not being used as a jab or in an ill manner. It's been used for so many decades that is it the common term for non-LEO's. It's easy to say that in a sentence rather than the term "non-law enforcement officers, non-firefighters, non-public safety officers". Using the term "civilian" does not cause the "us v. them" mentality nor does it perpetuate it, if that is your fear. It is so ingrained that is has no meaning other than "non-leo, non-firefighter". What does our ride-a-long for say? "Civilian ride-a-long waiver". Is this really what we need to focus energy on?
public servant
Grandmaster
I guess I shouldn't tell this story then. Northern Iraq, early 2003, Iraqi Army is shooting at my team (13 guys), and we expend a good 50-75 rounds into every enemy combatant. So should I have remembered the exact round count? When YOUR life is in danger, you kill......end of story. I was trained to keep shooting until the threat is DEAD. Can't change now, even if this were to occur in my home.......
Example (someone count rounds): LiveLeak.com - Marines Unload on Insurgents during an Intense Firefight
Example (someone count rounds): LiveLeak.com - Marines Unload on Insurgents during an Intense Firefight
Last edited:
First thing, thanks to the men and women that take the responsibility to protect my family and me! Second, I would be curious as to how much range time and what kind of training these officers had. I am a HUGE advocate of a limited government, but one of the few roles of government is to protect society. Therefore, I firmly believe that anyone that is charged with carrying a firearm for a living to protect society should darn well be trained to the point that these situations are handled as well as possible. I understand that when these things DO happen, training is what takes over, and this falls back to how much their city council funds each departments training and how much the Chief pushes it. Training is WAAAAY cheaper than attorneys!
Once again, I'm not second-guessing anyone. I'm just the type that looks at situations and tries to learn what can be done to improve them for the next time. If it happened once, it could very easily happen again!
Once again, I'm not second-guessing anyone. I'm just the type that looks at situations and tries to learn what can be done to improve them for the next time. If it happened once, it could very easily happen again!
Last edited:
Nope. I mentioned it and quoted the examples where I believe it was improperly used. I mentioned it more in passing than as a major point of my post, which continued below your quote. Denny.
Blessings,
Bill
What they don't tell you was that only 1 of the guys out of 6 was firing.
Even a greater feat, he is blind in one eye and only had 1 arm and he was carrying .38spl derringer
Took 65 minutes to put down the BG.
Duly notes...thank you.
Grimythaone
Plinker
some cops are just bad guys...they think there not gonna get in trouble, i like cops though, just not all of em
Site Supporter
Members online
- snorko
- 4sarge
- KG1
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- Hawkeye7br
- Creedmoor
- peterock
- deo62
- jkaetz
- Born2vette
- buckwacker
- llh1956
- nucular
- Nacho Man
- Emerson Dambiggins
- Cavman
- opus1776
- TheEngineer
- El Conquistador
- Ark
- ironjaw77
- rgw13
- HoosierHunter07
- frenchiectfd2203
- archer_advice
- Mark-DuCo
- jtmiller951
- manifest destiny
- dwagner3701
- skydelta34
- IndyColtsFan
- dowalker
- joe138
- profjeremy
- lafrad
- 1775usmarine
- tomcat13
- mcapo
- JayCo
- KLB
- NoAdmiration
- radar8756
- indyjohn
- INgunowner
- 66chevelle
- sv40sw45
- Hinkle
- Steelworker
- XDdreams
- bobzilla