Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Training questions, approaches and reports

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
dogbane
* * * * *
Posts: 14386
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: the usual ones
Location: Dogbane Patch, Carolina Piedmont

Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by dogbane » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:11 pm

A friend of mine just posted on FB: "I just want to know why it's always the kill shot. Whatever happened to shooting to disarm? Hell, when I had to qualify with firearms in the Air Force, we were told that the kill shot was the very last resort."

That sounds like BS to me. The military small arms training targets I've seen always have the bullseye at center mass.

Can anyone confirm or refute for me? I never worked for that company.
Mostly not here anymore.

User avatar
dogbane
* * * * *
Posts: 14386
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: the usual ones
Location: Dogbane Patch, Carolina Piedmont

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by dogbane » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:21 pm

"In the hand?"

"That's right."

"Not in the face or the chest?"

"Nope"

"I don't like the ideer of gettin shot in the hand."

Mostly not here anymore.

User avatar
raptor
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 16804
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: Greater New Orleans Area

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by raptor » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:37 pm

Not a clue about training but in the civilian world shooting someone should be (but is not always) choice b or c ... however ... and I am sure agree ... if you are at the point of using potentially lethal force ... well ... it is called "lethal force" for a reason.

Now lawfully you are only allowed to use such force as necessary to render the threat to your life; non-threatening. Once the the threat is "reasonably" no longer a threat you cannot lawfully continuing using lethal force.

Perhaps your friend confused the logic?

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by Stercutus » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:18 pm

It is complete and total bullshit.
You go 'round and around it
You go over and under
I go through

User avatar
dogbane
* * * * *
Posts: 14386
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: the usual ones
Location: Dogbane Patch, Carolina Piedmont

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by dogbane » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:23 pm

Stercutus wrote:It is complete and total bullshit.
I politely told him that his training was "idiosyncratic." He had the same job as my dad in the USAF (film processor), although it was a couple of decades later, and my dad was trained to shoot center mass.
Mostly not here anymore.

User avatar
quazi
* * * * *
Posts: 4466
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:51 am
Location: AK

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by quazi » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:29 pm

Maybe he got the same super elite training as The A-Team.

User avatar
dogbane
* * * * *
Posts: 14386
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: the usual ones
Location: Dogbane Patch, Carolina Piedmont

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by dogbane » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:37 pm

quazi wrote:Maybe he got the same super elite training as The A-Team.
Actual laughs were produced.
Mostly not here anymore.

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by Stercutus » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:08 pm

dogbane wrote:
quazi wrote:Maybe he got the same super elite training as The A-Team.
Actual laughs were produced.
Ah ok, Yeah if he trained with the Mini-14 I can totally see it. If you can hit em at all you are doing well.....
You go 'round and around it
You go over and under
I go through

User avatar
airmandan
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:45 am
Location: somewhere in the sands of Afghanistan

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by airmandan » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:17 pm

As a former Air Force security forces member I can say we were never taught "kill shots" or "wounding shots". We were taught to shoot the threat until the threat is over.

User avatar
SRO1911
* * *
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:16 pm
Location: Abilene, TX

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by SRO1911 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:08 pm

Can't speak for air force basic,but having trained several hundred people - many of whom are actively serving at a nearby airbase - the goal is "shoot to stop" if a graze or near miss ends the threat, good job. If a 45 caliber abdominal aortic dissection ends the threat, good job.
Under pressure, most of us poor humanoid creatures revert to the lowest functional training - so the standard defensive shooting training goal is C.O.M. center mass -the big spot in the middle.

User avatar
TacAir
* * * * *
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by TacAir » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:05 am

SRO1911 wrote:Can't speak for air force basic,but having trained several hundred people - many of whom are actively serving at a nearby airbase - the goal is "shoot to stop" if a graze or near miss ends the threat, good job. If a 45 caliber abdominal aortic dissection ends the threat, good job.
Under pressure, most of us poor humanoid creatures revert to the lowest functional training - so the standard defensive shooting training goal is C.O.M. center mass -the big spot in the middle.
And don't forget the ever popular - "Keep stroking the trigger 'till the slide locks back..."

The only person I know that worked that whole 'shoot to disarm' was the Lone Ranger....
TacAir - I'd rather be a disappointed pessimist than a horrified optimist
**All my books ** some with a different view of the "PAW". Check 'em out.
Adventures in rice storage//Mod your Esbit for better stability

User avatar
ManInBlack316
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 677
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:28 pm
Location: Tampa Bay Area, Florida

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by ManInBlack316 » Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:03 pm

In Basic (Army) 2010 we were taught center mass hold every time, high fives went around for throat or neck shots :crazy:

User avatar
jor-el
* * * * *
Posts: 5209
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:42 am
Location: Watching over Metropolis

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by jor-el » Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:11 am

As a former and current firearms instructor I would say its possible to train people to shoot to disarm, but it would take a ridiculous amount of time and money to train line officers to hit an object the size of a baseball that sometimes moves at up to 25 yards in all weather and all lighting conditions.
Would you want to devote 200 rounds/2hours/2 hours dry fire practice for 5 days/week for a year?
That's 4K in ammo per month or 52,000 rounds in a year for one person. Quite a bit of cash when service ammo is fifty cents apiece rifle or pistol.
My son, you will travel far, but never be alone, for I am with you, my M14 and battle axe comfort you.

Aikibiker
* * * * *
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Outside CONUS making tax free cash
Contact:

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by Aikibiker » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:12 am

I would guess your friend does not understand the RUF/ROE. Or did not have adequate training.

ROE rules typically list a set of responses to various types of resistance in a linear fashion from least to greatest. Without good instruction many people think those steps have to be followed in order before lethal force can be used.

Good instructors will teach their trainees that a subject level of force and your response do not follow a linear path and it can be necessary to escalate from the lowest level to lethal force without any intervening steps depending on what the subject does, what the terrain is like, and what skills and abilities both sides bring to the fight.
___________________

Joel

Yes a Spartan hoplite trained for battle since he could walk, backed by 299 other Spartans, and lead by a military genius can hold off any number of zombies armed with spear, shield, and sword. However your couch-potato, asthmatic, gets in a car to drive to the corner store lazy ass can't. Deal with it.

Aikibiker
* * * * *
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Outside CONUS making tax free cash
Contact:

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by Aikibiker » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:28 am

This news article has an example of the RUF/ROE card I was required to have in my possession at all times when armed in Iraq and Kuwait working as a contractor. You can see how someone could easily misunderstand without good training.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... eescalate/
___________________

Joel

Yes a Spartan hoplite trained for battle since he could walk, backed by 299 other Spartans, and lead by a military genius can hold off any number of zombies armed with spear, shield, and sword. However your couch-potato, asthmatic, gets in a car to drive to the corner store lazy ass can't. Deal with it.

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by Stercutus » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:29 am

Aikibiker wrote:This news article has an example of the RUF/ROE card I was required to have in my possession at all times when armed in Iraq and Kuwait working as a contractor. You can see how someone could easily misunderstand without good training.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... eescalate/
There are numerous factual problems with that article. The whole thing is largely a work of fiction.
You go 'round and around it
You go over and under
I go through

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by Stercutus » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:37 am

Here, I will just highlight all the parts that are untrue.

False
Gross Misrepresentation
Opinion Presented as Fact
WTF?
Me
Grammar errors


As Milwaukee riots have followed a police shooting of a black man, many observers are again asking: Have U.S. police forces become too militarized?

But our research, and that of other scholars of international conflict, offers a different theory: They may not be militarized enough. The standards governing police use of force are weaker than the standards governing soldiers — and that could be a source of trouble.

U.S. police and U.S. military personnel have more in common than you might think

Police and military share important characteristics that make their comparison apt. Soldiers and police officers are the only U.S. citizens authorized to use deadly force to protect themselves and others on behalf of the state. Both regularly face stressful, dangerous situations. The soldier and the police officer share a responsibility to exercise that authority to use deadly force with discipline, guided always by respect for human life, even when their own lives are in danger.

Some Americans have objected to the “militarization” of the U.S. police force. Yet while police departments have armed officers with the trappings of a military force, they have neglected to impose military discipline.

Police training on the use of force is far less rigorous than military training


The military understands that if it wants to effectively govern its soldiers’ behavior, it must do two things. First, it must train them to manage their instincts so they can respond calmly in stressful, dangerous situations. Second, it must hold them legally accountable when they don’t. U.S. policing fails to do either.

Police training — though its content and length varies enormously across police departments — by and large does not prepare policemen to manage high-stress situations the way the military prepares its soldiers. Police training tends to be short and classroom-based, and rarely emphasizes deescalation.

Campaign Zero reports, for instance, that police spend 58 hours learning how to shoot firearms — but only eight hours learning how to use deescalation techniques. When police are trained in deescalation, they are usually trained in a classroom rather than a simulation environment. This does little to help officers become aware of their instincts when confronted with danger, much less manage them in the field when the stakes are high.

In contrast, soldiers continuously and over the course of their careers repeatedly train to employ techniques to deescalate stressful, unpredictable, and dangerous scenarios. They also know what steps they must take before resorting to lethal force. Most rules of engagement (ROEs) — the military’s term for rules that govern the circumstances when soldiers are justified using force — contain explicit instructions requiring soldiers to use verbal warnings, show their weapons, and exhaust all non-lethal physical options before resorting to deadly force. (The right to self defense is never denied. Soldiers are not "required" to do any of that stuff)

Example of a compact ROE card handed to every soldier in the Iraq war. (United States Army, Center for Law and Military Operations, “Legal Lessons Learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, Vol. 1: Major Combat Operations (11 September 2001-1 May 2003).” Charlottesville, VA (August 2004), p. 313.)

ROEs are drilled into soldiers through classroom-based discussion sessions and high-intensity simulation trainings that test soldiers individually and as part of a team. In these trainings:

…soldiers…encounter realistic scenarios, such as operating a checkpoint or guarding a camp gate. Role-players (playing enemy, civilians, or persons of uncertain status) drive the scenarios… [which] require the soldier to apply the ROE to an evolving situation. (United States Army Center for Law and Military Operations, “Rules of Engagement (ROE) Handbook for Judge Advocates.” Charlottesville, VA (May 2000), p. 2-9).

To further emphasize the importance of these deescalation procedures, the military employs a “train-the-trainer” technique, in which experts on deescalation train commanders in the appropriate use of force. Commanders in turn train their subordinates, signaling the importance of ROEs down the chain of command.

Legal accountability is crucial too

Deescalation training can only reduce unnecessary loss of life if it is paired with laws that hold individuals accountable when they break the rules.


Even if a police code of conduct contains explicit deescalation instructions, which is uncommon, police are not legally bound to uphold these codes. At worst violators face termination of employment — rarely legal sanction or incarceration.

Police, in the few instances when their behavior draws legal scrutiny, are subject to the same legal standard as the rest of civilian society. But it seems strange to hold police — governmentally (OK WTF kind of grammar is this) sanctioned users of violence — to the same “self-defense” standard as regular people. Self-defense is a safeguard meant to protect civilians who resort to killing when they perceive a threat of bodily harm to themselves or others. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the police officer’s perception of fear was “objectively unreasonable.”

Unlike civilians, however, police officers have a job that necessarily puts them in tense and often violent situations that they should be trained to de-escalate. The legal system to which they answer does not reflect this. The legal standard should be higher for police than for civilians. (I wait with rapt fascination to see what she thinks is a different legal standard)

The legal standard is higher, for U.S. soldiers. ROEs (unlike police codes of conduct) are not guidelines or suggestions, they are the law. In order to legally use lethal force, soldiers must first establish (and if called upon defend their perception of) hostile action or, minimally, hostile intent on the part of the target. (This is completely and totally untrue and absolutely nuts in her misunderstanding of what the military does. Firstly the military takes offensive action all the time and uses lethal force as a way of doing business. In Self Defense situations no hostile action needs to be taken.) When soldiers cannot establish either and do not follow clearly delineated de-escalation steps, they can be (and have been) prosecuted and convicted in military courts.

Hostile intent may resemble the police’s lax burden of proof — except that the military is also held to a variety of other laws covering the use of force that explicitly differentiate them from civilians. Soldiers make split-second decisions under extreme stress, and the law must and does take that into account. But the bottom line is that the military holds its soldiers to a higher legal standard than civilians, recognizing that fear alone, reasonable or not, is no justification for killing.

[People (including me) used to think the private military industry couldn’t govern itself. We were wrong.]
(You are still wrong.)

We spoke with a reserve Marine who is a lawyer, and who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject, who said:

In the heat of the moment, mistakes happen. But I think the reason they happen less in the military is that the military holds people accountable. When servicemen and -women mess up, we say ‘No, that’s not okay and we will not tolerate it.’ We [Americans] can support the police and still demand a higher standard.

Police officers are not soldiers. Nevertheless, debates about police reform could benefit from the decades of principled thinking within the military about rules of engagement and concrete steps taken to ensure those rules are respected. (If she thinks that adopting military standards in regard to ROE will solve the ills of the country I am all in. I can think of a few places off the of my head that could benefit from a few air strikes. I think we could have this crime problem licked in six months. Well, no actually she is stupid.)

Rachel Tecott is a PhD student in political science at MIT.

This is really sad. My son is considering MIT next fall. I am going to tell him to avoid the poly sci department like the plague of ignorance that they are.
Last edited by Stercutus on Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
You go 'round and around it
You go over and under
I go through

User avatar
AmnJoker333
* * *
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:25 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Dawn of the dead
Location: Panama City, Florida

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by AmnJoker333 » Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:40 am

13 years in the Air Force so far. I'm not security forces or anyone who carries a gun for a living, I turn wrenches for a living. But I have gone through the training that everyone initially goes through every time I have gotten ready to go overseas. Our training is lacking, in that it isn't very regular, but we are trained to shoot center-of-mass. Not really "shoot to disarm".
AR-15/Glock/.45 vs 9mm neutral/pie

User avatar
dogbane
* * * * *
Posts: 14386
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: the usual ones
Location: Dogbane Patch, Carolina Piedmont

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by dogbane » Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:37 am

If I were shot center mass, it would probably disarm me. :crazy:
Mostly not here anymore.

Aikibiker
* * * * *
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Outside CONUS making tax free cash
Contact:

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by Aikibiker » Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:43 pm

Stercutus wrote:
Aikibiker wrote:This news article has an example of the RUF/ROE card I was required to have in my possession at all times when armed in Iraq and Kuwait working as a contractor. You can see how someone could easily misunderstand without good training.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... eescalate/
There are numerous factual problems with that article. The whole thing is largely a work of fiction.
Yes but the ROE card shown in the article is genuine and did genuinely confuse people that did not get good training.
___________________

Joel

Yes a Spartan hoplite trained for battle since he could walk, backed by 299 other Spartans, and lead by a military genius can hold off any number of zombies armed with spear, shield, and sword. However your couch-potato, asthmatic, gets in a car to drive to the corner store lazy ass can't. Deal with it.

User avatar
flybynight
* * * * *
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:30 am

Re: Air Force "Shoot to Disarm" training? SRSLY?

Post by flybynight » Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:04 pm

TacAir wrote:
SRO1911 wrote:Can't speak for air force basic,but having trained several hundred people - many of whom are actively serving at a nearby airbase - the goal is "shoot to stop" if a graze or near miss ends the threat, good job. If a 45 caliber abdominal aortic dissection ends the threat, good job.
Under pressure, most of us poor humanoid creatures revert to the lowest functional training - so the standard defensive shooting training goal is C.O.M. center mass -the big spot in the middle.
And don't forget the ever popular - "Keep stroking the trigger 'till the slide locks back..."

The only person I know that worked that whole 'shoot to disarm' was the Lone Ranger....

ok so that jogged my memory. I think I figured out the whole Air Force/ shoot to disarm scenario . "As a young man, Moore worked successfully as a John Robert Powers model. Moving to Hollywood in the late 1930s, he worked as a stunt man and bit player between modeling jobs. According to his 1996 autobiography I Was That Masked Man, around 1940, Hollywood producer Edward Small persuaded him to adopt the stage name "Clayton" Moore. He was an occasional player in B westerns and the lead in four Republic Studio cliffhangers, and two for Columbia Pictures. Moore served in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II" Wikipedia article about Clayton Moore aka the Lone Ranger. Hell he probably dropped bombs in a unoccupied field near the target Knocking the enemy off their feet but otherwise unharmed and ready to surrender. :crazy: HI HO SILVER Image
As of now I bet you got me wrong

John Titor was right

Post Reply

Return to “Training”