A Pakistani judge asked a police officer (he is the idiot in this case), in a court proceeding, if the officer knew how grenades worked. So what does the idiot do but pull the pin from a live grenade that was in evidence. More here.
The officer in the video did a lot right and the shoot was fully justified but he did not do everything right. Don't be blinded because it was a justified shooting.
So what did he do that was not the best thing to have done? He totally disregarded cover and instead of keeping it between him and his assailant he moved away from it. Thus, he did what too many do - used the weapon as a shield by holding it out in front of him and giving his attacker verbal commands. Could have done both of those while also using what would have amounted to a real shield - he could have used his cruiser as cover.
Many people somehow believe that the weapon out accompanied by commands is all it will take to deter an attack. As can be seen here that was not the case. It did not work and he had to shoot her. I repeat the shoot was good, totally justified. Yet, look at his failure to use cover, look at how he moves away from cover by moving backwards instead of moving around his vehicle to maintain cover.
Therein is a lesson anyone can learn by watching the video. That does not mean that even if behind cover he should not have shot, in that close of a proximity, cover offered some but still minimal protection as she kept advancing. It was indeed a good shoot but it would have been just as good from behind cover and there would have been less of a potential for the officer to be wounded. Yes, as it was, there was a greater chance he could have been wounded because he moved away from cover. Imagine something went badly wrong for the officer. Imagine he had tripped while moving backwards and dropped his firearms or it jammed when it hit the ground. Imagine he fired and she took 1, 2, 3, 4, shots and kept coming in a rage or drug induced frenzy. What if he had a misfire or catastrophic failure of his pistol.
In any of those scenarios, she may have gotten to him and whacked him a few times with the axe because he would not have had time to recover from whatever just went wrong. If he had been behind cover, he may have had a second or even split second more to recover. In an encounter with an assailant holding a bladed weapon, cover provides not only what will stop the weapon but can also, in effect, provide distance and time to the person being attacked. Making the assailant have to move around something to be able to reach you could be a lifesaver. Move to cover is a mantra not to be forgotten when one is faced by an assailant and one to be practiced often. Practicing it a lot helps to rid your mind of that crap you see in the movies where almost all the heroes shoot from out in the open; so, practicing moving to cover may save your life, then you can watch more of those movies.
Please bear in mind, I am not saying, or even hinting, that had the officer been behind cover he could have avoided shooting his attacker to assure she did not harm or kill him. In a case like this, shooting her would have been just as necessary from behind cover had she kept advancing like that. What I am saying is that cover potentially provides more protection than no cover and that you should use it whenever available and to your advantage.
Hat tip to Murphy on whose blog I first saw the video.
