"Stand your Ground" still standing

[Lonestar]

No, in Germany everyone gets the 8 weeks (six?) basic training regardless of where they go later on. Even the supply crews get basic training in house to house combat etc.

Yeah, and even the seabees get basic shipboard damage control training at Naval Station Great Lakes. Doesn't mean they know what the hell they are doing if you told them to go fight a fire, or perform flood control. The point of such training is to make sure you don't kill yourself in the off chance you need to use the equipment.


Serious, 6-8 weeks for BMT is absolutely nothing. They very likely ran them through it once and then that was it. USMC does Basic + SOI, which is why they tend to be better handlers with firearms than most.

Virtually all training in the military is OJT, and to put it bluntly Conscripts are just there to occupy a billet until their term of enlistment is up. There is very little incentive to seriously train people who are just going through the motions. In fact, I even recall you knocking their training in a Testing thread after I made a crack about you being a bad German by skipping out on Army service.

[Thanas]

As I recall I was ribbing the fact that they have nothing useful to do?

As for shooting, you are wrong. They spent about three months basic training. Several kinds of shooting are trained (night shooting, house to house shooting, simulator training). This video series shows a bit of the training.

[Lonestar]

As I recall I was ribbing the fact that they have nothing useful to do?

As for shooting, you are wrong. They spent about three months basic training. Several kinds of shooting are trained (night shooting, house to house shooting, simulator training). This video series shows a bit of the training.

Thanas...


What do you think Basic training entails? Serious question, because you seem to have strange ideas of it.

Very little of it is shooty stuff. I'd say that greater than 95% of it is Drill and Ceremony.

If I showed you this:



Would you seriously think that the vast majority of navy boot camp is on a simulated ship? No, of course not, but a small amount of training is done during boot camp so the sailors can at least spell "damage control" before they hit the fleet. Every service has training in basic that's at least tangentially related to their service mission. A day or two of training does not make them anything approaching expert. Or even a week, especially if they proceed to never use it again, which would have been the case for many of the German conscripts not in combat arms(and perhaps a not-insignificant number of those who were). Even USMC Boot Camp lacks it, they just make all the recruits go to SOI afterwards.

[Zwinmar]

And even SOI is a joke compared to what is done in the Fleet.

[Formless]

And, hm. The requirement that police "shoot to wound" in Germany strikes me as if anything trickier than firing a warning shot- because it places more active demands on the officer's marksmanship in a dangerous situation. Firing and deliberately missing almost has to be easier and more likely to go correctly than firing and hitting a small area of the body where (hopefully) the target won't suffer fatal injury.

I'm no expert on german law, but it would seem to me that the easiest way to do this would simply be to load an underpowered full metal jacketed bullet at the top of the magazine. FMJ vs hollowpoint is the difference betweeen stabbing someone with a stiletto and impaling them with a big ass machete, Slasher movie style. Then even if you miss the non-vital areas of the body, its much more likely your target will live.

Again, no expert on law. Just my opinion based on ballistics knowledge.

[Batman]

Re Germany being full of marksmen due to conscript military-Basic was 3 full months when I went through it about 20 years ago and I don't remember any house-to-house training? Not that that's relevant to firearms training mind you and yes, everyone does go through that in basic...to an extent. I never touched a firearm other than the assault rifle during basic nor any firearm once basic was done (medic), and I couldn't rightfully tell you if what little I know about gun safety comes from that training or was absorbed here/from online sources in general/print books. As for accuracy I'm dead certain I can hit the broadside of a barn from the inside and that's about all I'm willing to testify to.
As for the conscription being general, that (at least in my time) meant that (barring the usual qualifiers and exceptions) as an able bodied male of a certain age you were eligible to be conscripted, that was about it. If memory serves about only one in three males that qualified actually got drafted, and I doubt that number has gone up before they abandoned the conscript army.
I suspect the idea that a large percentage (leave alone the majority) of adult german males are properly trained marksmen (or even know proper gun safety rules) due to military service is not really supported by reality.

[Thanas]

Thanas...


What do you think Basic training entails? Serious question, because you seem to have strange ideas of it.

Very little of it is shooty stuff. I'd say that greater than 95% of it is Drill and Ceremony.

What do you see as drill, actually? Because these things might mean different things in Germany.

Or even a week, especially if they proceed to never use it again, which would have been the case for many of the German conscripts not in combat arms(and perhaps a not-insignificant number of those who were). Even USMC Boot Camp lacks it, they just make all the recruits go to SOI afterwards.

How about having 1 month of training in it?

[Zwinmar]

I am (or was when I was in) a triple award Marine Rifle Expert and one thing I will never do is fire off a warning shot as I have no clue were it would come down at. You have to be able to see your target and know what is beyond it for a well placed shot and when you fire up in the air you no longer have any control where it may come down; in essence the beaten zone goes from a cone (from the end of the muzzle) to an oblong area which, incidentally, puts far greater people at risk than if you fire straight on, because the bullet must come down.

That said the continuum of force includes:
hand on holstered/slung weapon
weapon in hand, pointed at ground
weapon pointing aimed at someone

Each of these represent an escalation of threat resulting in firing off a round, as such, there is no need for a warning shot.

[Thanas]

In your opinion. Others would disagree and their track record is a good deal better than that of US police.

[Tiriol]

Thanas...


What do you think Basic training entails? Serious question, because you seem to have strange ideas of it.

Very little of it is shooty stuff. I'd say that greater than 95% of it is Drill and Ceremony.

What do you see as drill, actually? Because these things might mean different things in Germany.

Or even a week, especially if they proceed to never use it again, which would have been the case for many of the German conscripts not in combat arms(and perhaps a not-insignificant number of those who were). Even USMC Boot Camp lacks it, they just make all the recruits go to SOI afterwards.

How about having 1 month of training in it?

Do the conscripts regularly get training in other personal weapons besides assault rifles (and maybe grenades)? Do they get regular training and practice after that one month? How about as reservists?

Unless former German conscripts are all supermen and veritable FPS characters, they're skills are going to get rusty very quickly. They will remember some things (basic safety, at least, which is in civilian use much more important than being MASTER MARKSMAN EXTRAORDINAIRE), but many things will degenerate simply because lack of continual practice. That's why the reservist organizations and even the Defence Forces in Finland are so pissed off that the reserve training budget has been cut and even the reservist organization's ability to give adequate gun practice to its members is limited to begin with; most seemed to rely on people being able to do that stuff on their own time as a hobby and no it has become very hard to get into that hobby.

[Thanas]

Nobody is saying they are superman, just that they might have some rudimentary skills with regards to gun safety. Read the thread.

As to the police they indeed get regular and extensive training.

[His Divine Shadow]

My point was anyone can have the required rudimentary skill in safely handling a gun inside a week if they aren't mentally handicapped. Guns aren't really that difficult to handle safely, simpler than most power tools really.

Accurately shooting at something is a different matter though, but learning to safely handle a gun is mostly being aware of a few simple things that every normal person can learn in days of training.

[Thanas]

My point was anyone can have the required rudimentary skill in safely handling a gun inside a week if they aren't mentally handicapped. Guns aren't really that difficult to handle safely, simpler than most power tools really.

Accurately shooting at something is a different matter though, but learning to safely handle a gun is mostly being aware of a few simple things that every normal person can learn in days of training.

Again, which is why we train our police very hard in this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And, hm. The requirement that police "shoot to wound" in Germany strikes me as if anything trickier than firing a warning shot- because it places more active demands on the officer's marksmanship in a dangerous situation. Firing and deliberately missing almost has to be easier and more likely to go correctly than firing and hitting a small area of the body where (hopefully) the target won't suffer fatal injury.

The idea of having training for the use of guns every few months is good; I am curious what Kamikaze Sith's experience is there.

We train on average every three months with firearms. Here's an example of what this training is like. Our last training involved moving and shooting with live ammunition involving approximately eight officers split into two teams fighting uphill. The environment was meant to simulate a canyon park and the situation was an active shooter situation involving several attackers. Tactical Combat Casualty Care was part of this training as well. Targets ranged from 25 yards to 100 yards. Weapons were pistol, shotgun, and .223 rifles.

[Kamakazie Sith]

First I have to clarify something after I went back and looked at my criminal law materials. A warning shot can be used but is not an absolute requirement. A wounding shot however is a requirement. You are not allowed to just straight shoot to kill, you always have to try and hit non-lethal areas. Also, you have to give at least a verbal warning before shooting ecxept in the case of kidnappers (see below). Most departments will use warning shots. You are only allowed to kill if there is no other way at all.

Can you clarify if a wounding shot required in every single circumstance? Like the gun being pointed at you circumstance?

BTW, I don't know how it is in the USA but in Germany several times a year there will be shooting training for police officers with actors, video sequences and simulators to prepare for such situations. Not just pure aim training.

We train three times a year. We qualify once a year. Our training usually involves firearms. I say usually because during hard economic times the training budget is usually the first to go. Anyway, when we usually train we do a lot of shooting, moving, or shooting while on the move. We also have a simulator for situations. Ironically a few years ago before that incident I shared with you one of the simulations was quite similar to that.

Like I said, it is in flux. General principle is one thing. The special situation is another and that is why I included some (but not all, as it is impossible to list all specific variables that could influence a situation) examples to try and help getting the point across. Sorry if these caused confusion.

If your police are allowed to defend their life with deadly force against an imminent deadly threat then that is satisfactory. I get that there are many variables. With us there are also variables. Another example. We had a mentally ill individual who was out in a field with a shotgun loaded with bird shot. He fired at our SWAT team that was being transported in an armored vehicle. A question was asked why the officers did not return fire. The answer was no. It was explained to this individual, a journalist, that the officers were in an armored vehicle which couldn't possibly be penetrated by bird shot and therefore their lives weren't in any danger.

Of course. That is the risk police officers take. We expect them to be very, very careful with shooting people and with escalating force. If this places them at a higher risk, so be it. It is not like cops are getting killed every year or so. Deaths on the job are very, very rare.

Every police action is always a probability game. That is why I tried to show how in some examples it was justified, in others less so.

Well, it's the same way here. Every traffic stop can be deadly. Even with this possibility we don't approach cars with guns out unless we have a reason to suspect the occupants are dangerous. There's a difference though between playing probability we an unknown and when someone is pointing a gun at you.

It should be self-evident that such info would only come into play if the police know about it or reasonably should have known about it. Unless you think we have telepaths as cops or are so stupid to require our police to be omniscient?

My point, Thanas, is that information doesn't matter. Every single killer of people has had a first time. Is a repeat more likely to do it? Sure. Does that mean you risk your life with someone who hasn't? Only if you're able to reasonably do so.

Well, like I tried to point out several times, it depends on the situation. If the guy is pointing a gun at you 5 meters away obviously the level of threat is relatively greater as if he is pointing a revolver at you eighty yards away. If you are behind cover or wearing armour also makes a difference. It all depends on the level of the specific threat at the specific situation.

Are you allowed to kill people? Yes. For example, killing kidnappers with snipers is allowed (even if they are not pointing weapons at somebody right at the time of the shot). However, just when the snipers are allowed to shoot and under what circumstances (option exhaustion being one) are again different and in fact a large matter of debate among German legal minds.

Those variables exist in the states as well. See my the story that I shared above. Our laws say that deadly force can be used against another person that poses a threat of serious injury or death to another. If you're in an APC and your suspect is armed with a shotgun loaded with bird shot then those elements are not met.

If they were likely to be unable to overpower him with non-lethal means they absolutely could (and should) have shot him then. Preferably in a disabling non-lethal area like the leg or shoulder, but obviously nobody would fault them if they were not able to aim accurately in such a situation or if they killed him while trying to stop him.

That sounds very reasonable. I don't actually have a problem with wounding shots. They make a lot of sense but only if they're applied to police in such a way that we remember that their lives are important as well.

But if there were more of them vs one fat guy with a knife, they probably would be asked why they did not simply beat him down with their larger batons, given that we expect our police to get good training in that regard and all that. One such example was that there was an investigation into a police officer who put several rounds into a young men who had caused a small wound on his partner with a kitchen knife. Again, variables, specific situation and all that.

Fair enough.

Yeah. I don't disagree that personally the trooper would have been better off shooting the guy immediately.

Yeah, he'd probably be alive.

But it comes down to probabilities. In Germany, we just do not get these cases that often that it would be worth it to change the general policy. In short, our police officers are not being put at risk too often to justify policies that would raise the risk of death to non-policemen or criminals. Like we agreed on in another thread, mental illness care, a social safety net and general unavailability of guns means that the risk of something like this happening is a lot less on German roads.

I still agree.

In the above example, if the police officer had yelled "Drop the weapon or I'll shoot" and then put a bullet into the leg or shoulder of the guy he probably would have gotten a well done.

Just to be sure we're on the same page we're talking about the obese man slowly running towards that officer with a knife? If so, he'd probably get a well done in the US as well.

But like I said, in general the guys who really own guns and would point them at the police are the sort of hardened criminals you don't send the normal patrol guys after anyways. Instead you sent in the SEK and even these guys very rarely have to use their guns.

In all of Germany 8 persons died last year in shootouts with the police.

Yeah, I think it has a lot to do with those social issues you mentioned.

[Lonestar]

What do you see as drill, actually? Because these things might mean different things in Germany.

D&C is exactly what is sounds like, it's intended to create camradarie/prepare the recruit for what the service expects them to know, regardless of their actual job.

In the context of "Drill and Ceremony" "Drill" means shit like marching back and forth across the square in formation.

"Drill", in the fleet refers to specific OJT.

How about having 1 month of training in it?

Really. So, as you said:

No, in Germany everyone gets the 8 weeks (six?) basic training regardless of where they go later on. Even the supply crews get basic training in house to house combat etc.

In BMT Half of it/over half of it is combat/firearms training?

Yeah, I'm going to call that a bogus claim. Especially in light of apparently the only German on the board who actually was a conscript not recalling anything other than very basic information about firearm safety being conveyed to him.

[Thanas]

Can you clarify if a wounding shot required in every single circumstance? Like the gun being pointed at you circumstance?

Yes, you are still required to try your best to only wound the guy. Which is why arming at the legs or lower body is generally preferred. With the difference being those situations where the outcome is always bloody and you can shoot directly to kill, for example in the typical "violent psychopath holding children hostage" situations.

We train three times a year. We qualify once a year. Our training usually involves firearms. I say usually because during hard economic times the training budget is usually the first to go. Anyway, when we usually train we do a lot of shooting, moving, or shooting while on the move. We also have a simulator for situations. Ironically a few years ago before that incident I shared with you one of the simulations was quite similar to that.

Yeah, I think we can count ourselves lucky that police training is not one thing that funding is that much lacking in. We do have a huge problems with getting enough police in the first place (job stress makes it unattractive except for hugely idealistic individuals, plus funding to refill job positions is in fulx) but training is not really that heavily influenced - or at least that is what I have heard from police.

If your police are allowed to defend their life with deadly force against an imminent deadly threat then that is satisfactory.

Well, I would say they are allowed to defend their life with potentially deadly force, as they are required to shoot to wound.

I get that there are many variables. With us there are also variables. Another example. We had a mentally ill individual who was out in a field with a shotgun loaded with bird shot. He fired at our SWAT team that was being transported in an armored vehicle. A question was asked why the officers did not return fire. The answer was no. It was explained to this individual, a journalist, that the officers were in an armored vehicle which couldn't possibly be penetrated by bird shot and therefore their lives weren't in any danger.

Yeah, that is a good reaction.

Well, it's the same way here. Every traffic stop can be deadly. Even with this possibility we don't approach cars with guns out unless we have a reason to suspect the occupants are dangerous. There's a difference though between playing probability we an unknown and when someone is pointing a gun at you.

Agreed.

My point, Thanas, is that information doesn't matter. Every single killer of people has had a first time. Is a repeat more likely to do it? Sure. Does that mean you risk your life with someone who hasn't? Only if you're able to reasonably do so.

I think both the US policies and German policies place officers at risk. The difference is in the final step of a confrontation, where the German policies put the officers at a bit more risk by requiring they shoot to wound. But I don't really think the difference is that much except in the rarest of cases. We do not get many people with PCP or other pain-immune drugs that often so I doubt many of those who get slugs in the shoulder or the leg will do anything other than scream in pain. And for those who are suspected PCP users you get the SEK anyway and those have full SWAT gear.

I think this is one of the tradeoffs a society without a history of widespread gun crime can make - increase the risk of the individual officer a bit more in exchange for a general downsize of the death rate of perps.

Those variables exist in the states as well. See my the story that I shared above. Our laws say that deadly force can be used against another person that poses a threat of serious injury or death to another. If you're in an APC and your suspect is armed with a shotgun loaded with bird shot then those elements are not met.

Yeah, I think we agree here.

That sounds very reasonable. I don't actually have a problem with wounding shots. They make a lot of sense but only if they're applied to police in such a way that we remember that their lives are important as well.

Yeah, agreed. To be honest, the life of a police officer is in my personal opinion worth more than the life of a criminal. But our state is forbidden of making that determination (for obvious historical reasons), all lives are supposed to be of equal worth.

In the above example, if the police officer had yelled "Drop the weapon or I'll shoot" and then put a bullet into the leg or shoulder of the guy he probably would have gotten a well done.

Just to be sure we're on the same page we're talking about the obese man slowly running towards that officer with a knife? If so, he'd probably get a well done in the US as well.

I was talking about the example of the crazy guy with a gun who shoots the officer.

Yeah, I think it has a lot to do with those social issues you mentioned.

Agreed. One of the very few good things to come out of the Nazi times were the laws that abolished gun ownership except for a few groups like hunters with state-issued hunting licenses etc. Obviously they did it out of a nefarious purpose (easier to prevent oppressed people from rioting if they do not have guns) but it established the idea that gun ownership is a very strictly regulated privilege. Our social net meanwhile was established by Bismarck so it has gained widespread acceptance simply by being effective for over 140 years. Those are things the USA lacks for a whole variety of reasons and I doubt will ever get fixed quickly.

If Germany had a gun culture, shitty economy and no social net I have no doubt there would be a lot more gun crime as well. Though I don't know how much is social welfare and how much is gun culture. Owning a gun seems to be "cool" or a sign of seriousness and adulthood in the USA. Over here in Germany you are getting glanced at like you are a weirdo if you confess to owning guns (happened to a friend of mine who collects German Army service rifles from 1830 onwards).

Really. So, as you said:

No, in Germany everyone gets the 8 weeks (six?) basic training regardless of where they go later on. Even the supply crews get basic training in house to house combat etc.

In BMT Half of it/over half of it is combat/firearms training?

My memory was bad. Basic training is three months. The schedule is as follows:

First month:
- getting equipment
- medical procedures
- PFT
- Law of war
- Using the G36
- Simulatortraining G36
- Shooting G36
- 5km march

Second month:
- Firing G36, combat training
- Machine gun training and shooting
- first aid kit
- Solemn oath
- Using maps and orientation devices
- 12 km march

Third month
- Firing G36
- combat training
- Pistol training and/or RPG training
- Advanced marksmanship training
- living in the field
- guard duty
- 20 km march

So as you can see a lot of firing and shooting there. Like in the videos I linked to.

Yeah, I'm going to call that a bogus claim. Especially in light of apparently the only German on the board who actually was a conscript not recalling anything other than very basic information about firearm safety being conveyed to him.

He also served a long time ago when we did not do anything with our conscripts. Now we are involved in wars and only have volunteers.

[RogueIce]

I don't remember if it was Thanas or Siege who said it, and KS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe US police shoot to kill per se but that they "shoot to stop the threat". They do aim center mass but that's mainly because it's a better target and you're less likely to miss than going for the arm or legs. I think the calculation there is that if the police are firing (outside of possibly highly trained snipers) there's a good chance the suspect can die anyway, regardless of where you aim, as there are important arteries in the legs and arms as well that could be hit. So the best option (from this perspective, at least) is to aim so that you can more reliably hit the suspect, especially as said suspect is at that point posing an imminent and lethal threat anyway. IOW, stopping that threat is more important than, strictly speaking, preserving the life of the suspect - though obviously if the suspect survives they are required to administer medical care, have paramedics move in, etc.

Regarding the earlier discussion about trigger pulls and the NYPD, from what I've heard that's actually a negative the way it's been implemented, because they've made the trigger pull so heavy that it throws off accuracy something fierce, hence those stories you may have seen about them unloading a whole mag and hitting everything but their target. I don't know what their training budget is, and that may play a part, but "heavier trigger pull" is not always a good thing.

[Tiriol]

Nobody is saying they are superman, just that they might have some rudimentary skills with regards to gun safety. Read the thread.

As to the police they indeed get regular and extensive training.

I disagree about "nobody is saying that they are superman" part, not to the part with the police:

I guess every swinging dick in Germany is a thoroughly trained marksman than.

Well, considering that German has general conscription (at least until they put a moratorium on that in 2011), yes, they are.

And on that I called foul, because there is no way in hell that a mere 6 months period of conscription will turn everyone into skilled and trained marksmen, unless they are indeed supermen.

[salm]

Depending on the federal state German police can be underfunded. The Berlin police is underfunded for example. They had to close a bunch of shooting ranges.
The Rheinland Pfalz police had trouble with their shooting ranges due to planing errors as did the police in Hannover.
I read that more and more police are joining gun clubs privately because they feel that their training is not good enough.

Even the police in Stuttgart, which is in one of the more affluent federal states had trouble back in 2011 with funding. This was general funding and I am not sure about gun taining but they had so little money that they couldnt buy enough gasoline.

[Mr. Coffee]

It's all pretty much irrelevant anyway. The OP was about Stand Your Ground laws pertaining to civilian self-defense. You're average civilian hasn't had much in the way of formal training, and most states I'm aware of don't require gun owners or even CCW permit holders to retrain/requalify. Requiring someone like that to fire controlled warning or wounding shots under stress is just plain unreasonable.

[CmdrWilkens]

Obviously this is related to the diversion in to the level of firearms training provided to the general German populace via military training so with that disclaimer:

Really. So, as you said:

No, in Germany everyone gets the 8 weeks (six?) basic training regardless of where they go later on. Even the supply crews get basic training in house to house combat etc.

In BMT Half of it/over half of it is combat/firearms training?

My memory was bad. Basic training is three months. The schedule is as follows:

First month:
- getting equipment
- medical procedures
- PFT
- Law of war
- Using the G36
- Simulatortraining G36
- Shooting G36
- 5km march

Second month:
- Firing G36, combat training
- Machine gun training and shooting
- first aid kit
- Solemn oath
- Using maps and orientation devices
- 12 km march

Third month
- Firing G36
- combat training
- Pistol training and/or RPG training
- Advanced marksmanship training
- living in the field
- guard duty
- 20 km march

So as you can see a lot of firing and shooting there. Like in the videos I linked to.

Yup that seems like a lot...only that's a nice tidy overview which compares at best favorably with the ~4 weeks of rifle training (2 weeks range only, 1 week field firing, + some additional days including during the Crucible) that goes in to Basic Training for the USMC...and those 4 weeks (also over the course of about 3 months) is essentially the bare minimum required to train a recruit up to minimum proficiency with a rifle in a field and/or range environment. What Im saying is that overview, without looking at daily task lists, shows no greater emphasis on marksmanship that USMC basic (and given the stutter step nature of splitting the firing courses over all three months probably also requires remedial instruction during each subsequent course of fire). In turn that level of training is probably enough to make sure you don't kill yourself with a weapon if you stay in one spot while handling and only for a year or so at that. Having any kind of actual proficiency with a weapon requires constant training and use which even the most rigorous basic training by its very nature doesn't provide.

Look I was an 8851 Primary Marksmanship Instructor my last two years in, one of the first things you realize (both in the actual training course for PMI and then back in the units) is that even straight out of basic folks forget little things because they haven't used a rifle in a few weeks (and this was actually post MCT Marines who even had additional training including fire-and-manuever). Firing in anything but the most simple environments (range without time hacks) is tough to do if you don't regularly and routinely handle firearms. Expecting proficiency out of anyone other than those who do so is foolish. I mean I went to PMI school because I was one of the better shooters in my unit and it still took me most of a week to shake off the rust and that was a week of doing almost nothing other than fire weapons. Weapons proficiency is damned hard to come by and no basic training in the world provides it period. Proficiency in more advanced things like fire and manuever, close combat, fire team/squad/platoon tactics, MOUT...all of those take MUCH longer to get up to speed on.

[Thanas]

K, I'll concede the point that it would not result in a higher level of marksmanship (we got police training for that anyway). I will however maintain that it helps establish some sort of basic firearm safety.