Quote Force Science news:
Our research tells us a standing suspect can draw a pistol from their waistband, point, and shoot in an average of .25 seconds.2 Our research also tells us that after the first trigger pull, each subsequent trigger pull will average another .25 seconds.3
But officers aren’t trained to “just pull the trigger.” Instead, they are trained to conduct threat assessments while maintaining their gun in various “ready positions.” These positions allow officers to focus their attention on the suspect (and the environment); while significantly reducing the time it takes to respond with aimed fire.
When we studied the speed in which officers could respond from various ready positions, we found that the bootleg position (pistol held behind the leg) was the slowest; taking an average of 1.3 seconds to raise the weapon, acquire a sight picture, and fire one round. The high ready position (pistol held extended just below the officer’s line of sight) resulted in the fastest average response time at .83 seconds.
Police, more than any other profession, appreciate the immense difficulty of identifying and responding to real-world assaults. To avoid split-second decisions, they have learned to recognize and value threat cues and suspicious patterns of conduct (schemas). Knowing the speed of assaults is why they give orders and prioritize tactics that reduce a suspect’s ability, opportunity, and willingness to assault them.
In the real world, officers do not have the luxury of standing perfectly still and intently focusing on possible weapons. They are scanning for available cover, improving their position, watching for crossfire, considering backdrops, attempting de-escalation, communicating with responding units, and coordinating with back officers.
This divided attention can significantly increase the time it takes for an officer to accurately perceive and consciously verify that a suspect has pulled a gun. But multitasking isn’t the only factor that affects perception and threat recognition.
In the real world, an officer’s physical capacity to see can affect perception, identification, and response time. As can environmental conditions like distance, light, shadows, wind, rain, and other physical obstructions.
We know that divided attention, physical limitations, and the environment can slow perception and response time; the question is, by how much? The answer is, we don’t know.
In complex, real-world use-of-force encounters, response time simply has too many variables to guess.
That said, we don’t need the exact numbers to make our point. UNQUOTE
are these statutory, per se., and just what are the legal ramifications of failing to abide by their mass issued commands to citizens?
Where does this sovereign immediate obey stance come from?
Our research tells us a standing suspect can draw a pistol from their waistband, point, and shoot in an average of .25 seconds.2 Our research also tells us that after the first trigger pull, each subsequent trigger pull will average another .25 seconds.3
But officers aren’t trained to “just pull the trigger.” Instead, they are trained to conduct threat assessments while maintaining their gun in various “ready positions.” These positions allow officers to focus their attention on the suspect (and the environment); while significantly reducing the time it takes to respond with aimed fire.
When we studied the speed in which officers could respond from various ready positions, we found that the bootleg position (pistol held behind the leg) was the slowest; taking an average of 1.3 seconds to raise the weapon, acquire a sight picture, and fire one round. The high ready position (pistol held extended just below the officer’s line of sight) resulted in the fastest average response time at .83 seconds.
Police, more than any other profession, appreciate the immense difficulty of identifying and responding to real-world assaults. To avoid split-second decisions, they have learned to recognize and value threat cues and suspicious patterns of conduct (schemas). Knowing the speed of assaults is why they give orders and prioritize tactics that reduce a suspect’s ability, opportunity, and willingness to assault them.
In the real world, officers do not have the luxury of standing perfectly still and intently focusing on possible weapons. They are scanning for available cover, improving their position, watching for crossfire, considering backdrops, attempting de-escalation, communicating with responding units, and coordinating with back officers.
This divided attention can significantly increase the time it takes for an officer to accurately perceive and consciously verify that a suspect has pulled a gun. But multitasking isn’t the only factor that affects perception and threat recognition.
In the real world, an officer’s physical capacity to see can affect perception, identification, and response time. As can environmental conditions like distance, light, shadows, wind, rain, and other physical obstructions.
We know that divided attention, physical limitations, and the environment can slow perception and response time; the question is, by how much? The answer is, we don’t know.
In complex, real-world use-of-force encounters, response time simply has too many variables to guess.
That said, we don’t need the exact numbers to make our point. UNQUOTE
You Don’t Have to Shoot First; But You Better Do Something! - Force Science
“The officer should have waited until he actually saw the suspect’s gun. If the suspect tried to shoot him, he could have shot first.” Anonymous The above quote didn’t come from an angry anti-police protestor or a biased civil rights attorney. It came from a police legal advisor. It came from an...
www.forcescience.org
that last sentence in their article says it all!
QI notwithstanding...when LE's are barking out commands, STOP or PUT DOWN... or YOU MUST LEAVE or or
are these statutory, per se., and just what are the legal ramifications of failing to abide by their mass issued commands to citizens?
Where does this sovereign immediate obey stance come from?