Defending Yourself: Robbery Car Jacking, and Use of Force

[jjackson@tierthreetac]

Hey everyone this is a little article I wrote that analyzes some common use of force situations. I think that we really don't do a good job training for these and have made some recommendations to modify our training practices.

Here is the link so you can see the video's: http://www.tierthreetactical.com/tac...ing-use-force/

Here's the full article, hope you all like it.

Most readers of this site regularly carry a firearm, both concealed and when they are on duty. We also practice regularly with our weapons to keep our skills sharp, but often times we don’t practice the necessary skills that will save our life in a real gunfight. This article is a tactical analysis of many common instances where we might be called to use our firearms. There are many commonalities in these situations and a few principles that will allow us to prevail in the fight.


Often times we get stuck in ruts in life, and it’s the same in our training. We go to the range, practice the few drills we like, hit a few reloads, and generally have some fun. We do this and we tell ourselves that we are now better prepared to handle a deadly force scenario, but are we? Does dumping some rounds from 7 yards away, from the ready position, really make it likely that I will win in a gunfight? Hint, hint it doesn’t. In fact, if we are really worried about self defense, shooting isn’t even the first thing we should be practicing. Check this video out.


No before we get started critiquing this video it should be said that I am not personally criticizing these folks. They are put in very tough situations and for the most part they handled them well, but we do owe it to ourselves to learn from their mistakes.

This video is a good example of using deescalation as much as possible. The assailant is clearly deranged and willing to fight anyone who happens to cross his path. This is the first lesson I want to highlight. Do not assume that because you are rational, your adversary will be as well.

This man knows the guy he is pushing has a gun. He is open carrying and when he goes back into the store he draws the weapon, keeping it at his side. This is probably the right choice when you are within touching distance with your adversary. Putting a gun in his face makes a very easy target to grab.

One critique of this shooting is that the defender really had no option other than to use his gun. Objectively, the assailant was pushing and pulling him, but he was not attempting to hurt him. If you do find yourself in this situation, there is nothing wrong with hitting him with your fists or any thing else that’s within reach. That being said, you might be better served to put your gun away to better defend yourself with two hands.

The biggest error in this video is when the man shoots, the clerk is directly behind the assailant. There’s probably a 50/50 chance that bullet will pass through a person. That could have ended very badly for the clerk and the defender, who ultimately was cleared in the shooting. It’s vital that you know your back drop and what is beyond it.

In the next video we will discus when to draw your weapon and when not to.


No the first part of the video is hard to watch, especially for those that wear a uniform everyday. When you are in contact distance with an assailant who has a drawn weapon you cannot go for your gun. You will be much better served attempting to disarm the assailant, if you have the skill and the practice, or running away.

The later half of the video shows the off duty cop performing amazingly. He plays it cool initially, raising his hands to show that he isn’t a threat. Once the bad guy’s attention is diverted, he is able to draw from the appendix and take him out. That shot is pretty damn hard given the immense stress and the cover provided by the hostage. He did a damn good job. Remember only draw when you have the advantage.

This video shows the good guy drawing when he has the advantage, but again, he does have an innocent directly behind his line of fire. Ideally he could have maneuvered to his right and engaged him using the middle ATM as his back drop.




This next video demonstrates a very good reaction to carjacking. This guy was successful because he paid attention to his surroundings and was not surprised by the attempted car jacking.


He kept his head on a swivel and gave the lead car jacker the last surprise of his life. He then turns and engages the others with him. Now I have to say you might be on shaky legal ground in the US. Here, you can only legally engage someone who’s a threat to you or others, and someone running away is probably not a threat. Just food for thought.

The last video of this article isn’t a good day for the bad guys or the good guy, but it does teach a valuable lesson.


His first mistake was standing and drawing his weapon in a dramatic motion. The human eye is most attracted to movement, so when you draw, attempt to disguise it as much as possible. He also get’s stuck in the corner when he is hit, but to his credit he keeps firing and makes the assailants pay. Now that we have seen all the videos lets discuss our key take away’s

First, all of these shooting were within lunging distance, approximately 4-7 feet away. This distance is going to be much more common for those that carry for personal defense. I believe that a lot of the drills you see in the shooting community originate from military tactics, where you are more likely to engage someone at a further stand off. This is not likely to be the case for us. This means that we must be able to draw our weapons, and manipulate them, in a dynamic situation.

The gun must be where we need it to be and we must be able to draw it with one hand. A lot of people are use a technique where they pull their shirt up with their off hand, then pull their gun from an inside the waist band holster. This will only work with stand off. If he can take a swing at you then you will need at least one hand up to defend yourself. Practice drawing with one hand only.

The second take away is learn some basics in self defense. In our first video we might have been able to prevent a shooting with a few swift strikes. Remember, if you are thinking of shooting someone you are probably justified to hit them.

The last take away is practice a surreptitious draw. Boxers call it telegraphing your moves, when you see a punch coming from a mile away. Do not telegraph your draw. If possible draw your weapon when the assailant is distracted or your body is bladed away from his line of sight. You can’t out race a drawn gun.

You’ll notice that these scenarios don’t much look like your normal range practice. Ideally you should practice these skills with dummy pistols and a buddy. You need a solid one handed draw, some basic self defense, and a surreptitious draw. You can practice these in a variety of scenarios without spending a dollar on ammo. Add these drills in with your usual range practice, because you never know when you might have to give someone the last surprise of their life.

[26 Inf]

Meh, not so much:

One critique of this shooting is that the defender really had no option other than to use his gun. Objectively, the assailant was pushing and pulling him, but he was not attempting to hurt him. If you do find yourself in this situation, there is nothing wrong with hitting him with your fists or any thing else that’s within reach. That being said, you might be better served to put your gun away to better defend yourself with two hands.

The biggest error in this video is when the man shoots, the clerk is directly behind the assailant. There’s probably a 50/50 chance that bullet will pass through a person. That could have ended very badly for the clerk and the defender, who ultimately was cleared in the shooting. It’s vital that you know your back drop and what is beyond it.

Do you know, has this been adjudicated yet?

[jjackson@tierthreetac]

They stated in the video that he was ultimately cleared, but I've not personally looked into the details of the case.

[26 Inf]

There is a lot of fail in the video - 1) open carry; 2) the hey, I'm a badass tee-shirt. I mention that because right at the beginning when it is fast forwarding, the 'instructor' was well aware of the guy's demeanor and actions, yet lets him get alongside of the openly carried pistol without any arm movement to block access. To me this is the first in a long series of bad decisions/incompetent actions.

Cutting to the chase, the guy is in his car, apparently leaving and the 'instructor' goes out to get his tag number. I perceive many of the 'instructor's' actions, including this one, posturing. Ultimately, it results in the guy, who was, once again, apparently preparing to leave, getting out of the vehicle to confront the 'instructor.'

Thus far, no real harm has been done, rather than make a big deal out of getting the guy's tag and re-escalating the situation, it may have been better to stay inside, watch him leave and get a vehicle description and at least a partial tag.

As it plays out, the 'instructor' leads the guy back into the store. Hmmm. Of course there is no guarantee the guy would have actually left, but at this point there is a direct relationship between the 'instructor's' actions and the guy's response. I get that at this point the 'instructor' has done nothing illegal, but the guy on the intro talked about de-escalation - this is not what de-escalation looks like.

Now we are back in the store, the 'instructor' has his weapon drawn and carried alongside his leg.

A long, long, long, time ago when I was a young officer, a salty veteran with one-year of experience, repeated twenty times, told me to never approach a vehicle after dark without drawing my weapon and holding it alongside my leg on the approach. I considered it for about two seconds, and realized that with all my practice, I would not be much, if any slower to fire out of the holster than I would be from the alongside the leg position. I also thought, WTF am I going to do with my weapon if some drunk gets out of the car on me? At the time we had security level one holsters, and I did not want to consider having to screw with getting the weapon holstered AND strapped while scuffling with someone. In the ensuring 30+ years, I've seen nothing to dissuade me from that initial assessment.

So the 'instructor' chooses to follow a path that leads him to get cornered, and ultimately uses lethal force.

I have no problem with the courts finding his actions to be reasonable, but there was plenty that could have been done to alleviate the situation.

Obviously the bad guy was a jerk, but, much like in Ferguson, the 'instructor's' actions resulted in escalating the situation to the point the jerk needed to be shot.

This is not the video you are looking for to teach tactics and situational awareness.

JMO.

[T2C]

In scenario # 1, I have no problem with the courts siding with the man who shot his attacker, but the courts or grand jury could have easily ruled the other way.

1) If the instructor was aware the subject was being at least verbally aggressive, I don't understand why he approached the cash register in the first place.

2) When the instructor approached the register, he exposed an open carry firearm to the aggressive subject and the situation could have easily devolved into a physical conflict for weapon retention. When he moved to the rear of the subject, he could have stepped further away from the aggressor and removed himself from the situation.

3) Following the subject outside the store to make a mental note of the vehicle registration may not have been necessary. Surveillance cameras likely had the information as the cameras definitely recorded the subject and vehicle description.

4) When the subject followed the instructor back into the store, I did not see anything that would warrant presenting his pistol. Perhaps the instructor heard verbal threats that we could not review on the video, which would justify deadly force.

5) The instructor continued to retreat which weighs in his favor, but if he intended to push and apply other physical force having the pistol holstered probably would have been a better idea. It's difficult to apply less than lethal force with a pistol occupying one hand.

6) Once the instructor backed into an area with no avenue of escape, he was surrounded by impact weapons he could have used to apply force. I would not criticize his moving into that particular area in the store, because he may not have been familiar with the store layout or stress interfered with his remembering the store layout.

7) When the instructor made the decision to discharge his pistol, it appeared he was not aware of the location of the store clerk. Even if a projectile would not pass through the subject, people miss at close distance and someone else could have been hit.

I don't understand what this situation has to do with the attack on a uniform police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Maybe 26inf can elaborate.

This is a great video for teaching situational awareness, a class could assess the instructor's actions and offer different/better courses of action. I would like to see more of the video to see how the people in the store controlled the aggressive man after he was hit by gunfire. What did the shooter do with his firearm after he disengaged? Where were people staged in preparation for the arrival of police and EMS? Did the store clerk lock the doors?

[26 Inf]

I don't understand what this situation has to do with the attack on a uniform police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Maybe 26inf can elaborate.

Sure thing, since everything has been decided.

Michael Brown was indeed a lethal threat at the time he was shot. However, Officer Wilson's tactics put him (Brown) in a position to attack Wilson. Wilson heard what Brown said as he pulled away and backed up to readdress Brown, putting himself at a distinct disadvantage. Ultimately what transpired led to Brown being shot.

I read all the grand jury transcripts that were posted, and I agree that Officer Wilson's actions were objectively reasonable. However, Wilson broke several very basic safety rules that a situationally aware officer would not have broken - where are officers taught to conduct pedestrian approaches while seated in the vehicle?

The video I saw above essentially follows the same path. The shooting may have been avoided if the 'instructor' had chosen different tactics.

Of course, we will never know. The point is that we should use tactics which help us avoid the need to use lethal force. That did not happen in the case of this video, the Michael Brown case, or for that matter, the Tamir Rice case.

BTW: thanks for explaining that more concisely and clearly than I did.

[T2C]

Officer Wilson worked in a high activity area close to where I worked for several years. That may be the reason he did not exit the vehicle when he first made contact with Michael Brown. Being inside the vehicle at first contact gives you the option to use the vehicle as an impact weapon should a pedestrian produce a firearm. Other people firing harassing fire at LEO in that area is commonplace and being able to drive out of the area quickly is a consideration. It is not uncommon for an aggressive crowd to gather quickly when making contact with a subject and a vehicle is the best way to move through the crowd to an area where you can request backup officers and re-enter the area to make an arrest. Those variables were not covered in the Academy when I went through training. They were learned in the field from officers with a great deal of experience. Neither exiting or remaining in the vehicle is a perfect way to make contact with a subject.

I am aware of two incidents in that area in which a vehicle was used to apply deadly force when a firearm was presented by a suspect, so I won't second guess why Officer Wilson handled first contact with Michael Brown in the manner he did. If Officer Wilson had been outside the vehicle, Michael Brown would have been shot while trying to disarm Officer Wilson in the street, on the sidewalk or on the grassy area near the street. The end result would have been the same.

[26 Inf]

Officer Wilson worked in a high activity area close to where I worked for several years. That may be the reason he did not exit the vehicle when he first made contact with Michael Brown. Being inside the vehicle at first contact gives you the option to use the vehicle as an impact weapon should a pedestrian produce a firearm. Other people firing harassing fire at LEO in that area is commonplace and being able to drive out of the area quickly is a consideration. It is not uncommon for an aggressive crowd to gather quickly when making contact with a subject and a vehicle is the best way to move through the crowd to an area where you can request backup officers and re-enter the area to make an arrest. Those variables were not covered in the Academy when I went through training. They were learned in the field from officers with a great deal of experience. Neither exiting or remaining in the vehicle is a perfect way to make contact with a subject.

I am aware of two incidents in that area in which a vehicle was used to apply deadly force when a firearm was presented by a suspect, so I won't second guess why Officer Wilson handled first contact with Michael Brown in the manner he did. If Officer Wilson had been outside the vehicle, Michael Brown would have been shot while trying to disarm Officer Wilson in the street, on the sidewalk or on the grassy area near the street. The end result would have been the same.

I guess I'm not understanding how backing up, and either backing the unit alongside Brown & Co. or allowing them to come alongside the unit's driver door facilitates using the vehicle as a weapon.

If you look at the LEOKA, for each year since it's inception, you'll that nearly every year an officer is killed when the assailant is able to approach them seated in the unit.

We have differing views on tactics.

[T2C]

I guess I'm not understanding how backing up, and either backing the unit alongside Brown & Co. or allowing them to come alongside the unit's driver door facilitates using the vehicle as a weapon.

But that is okay, we just have differing views.

Close contact with suspects at the door is a huge risk. Officer Wilson may or may not have made a tactical error. Either way, Michael Brown should not have tried to disarm him.

Back on point. The shooter in the video in scenario # 1 could have handled things differently, but that could be due to training and life experience. He lived though the incident and that's a win. I would like to ask him if he would do things differently if faced with the same situation tomorrow.

[26 Inf]

Close contact with suspects at the door is a huge risk. Officer Wilson may or may not have made a tactical error. Either way, Michael Brown should not have tried to disarm him.

Back on point. The shooter in the video in scenario # 1 could have handled things differently, but that could be due to training and life experience. He lived though the incident and that's a win. I would like to ask him if he would do things differently if faced with the same situation tomorrow.

In my view it is not a win if you had to shoot and you could have reasonably avoided it without unnecessarily endangering yourself.

I don't subscribe to the the 'he did a lot of things tactically unsound, but he lived through the incident and that's a win so let's use it as an example' theory.

To quote Steinbeck 'The final weapon is the brain, all else is supplemental.'