Interesting interview, Chicago PD survivor of 14 gun fights

[wanneroo]

I saw this on the Firearm blog and listened to it last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd3v_fssabI

It's an interview by Massad Ayoob with Bob Stasch, 35 year Chicago PD veteran and survivor of 14 gun fights. I thought it might be interesting for some to listen to and to learn from his experiences. He also has some comments on the 2nd Amendment and Chicago's violent crime issue at the end.

To summarize:

His first gun fight, his partner shot a knife wielding Cuban national selling drugs, 6 times at close range with a 45 Colt revolver, then emptied his 38 special back up into the perp. The perp then said "I'm going to cut your blankin' head off". Stasch then made it inside and shot the perp twice with a Model 29 44 magnum, then thinking he might have body armor on, shot him once in the pelvis and in the kneecap which finally put him down. The lesson he learned was shoot for the head.

His favorite target is 6 inch pie plates to shoot at.

Doesn't get too worried about the sights on a pistol, focuses more on instinctive point shooting and getting front sight on target.

Believes the bigger the bullet the better.

Back in the 1970's and 80's, Chicago PD had a very liberal policy on carrying back ups. A six shot 38 special revolver was standard, but many carried Browning Hi Powers, 1911s, large bore revolvers, etc. as "back ups".

Believes that all cops should carry a back up pistol at all times.

Back in the day before the advent of speedloaders for revolvers, many Chicago PD cops carried multiple 38 special revolvers or what I call "Chow Yun Fat style".

In only 2 cases was he able to put both hands on his pistol to shoot. In other cases he neither had time or the ability to do so.

Many of the incidents happened within 12 feet.

In only 1 incident did one shot stop the perp.

In only 2 cases did he have time to reload.

[rckeystone]

Thanks for the link. Looking forward to listening.


/

[GeneCC]

His first gun fight, his partner shot a knife wielding Cuban national selling drugs, 6 times at close range with a 45 Colt revolver, then emptied his 38 special back up into the perp. The perp then said "I'm going to cut your blankin' head off". Stasch then made it inside and shot the perp twice with a Model 29 44 magnum, then thinking he might have body armor on, shot him once in the pelvis and in the kneecap which finally put him down. The lesson he learned was shoot for the head.

The head is such a small target. I'm trying to remember the ratio of square inches but it's probably close to ten to one in favor of the thorax. Even the pelvis is many times bigger in area than the head.

The round that misses the head isn't as good as the round that hits soft body armor. Better still the round that hits body armor doesn't go sailing down the street.

The irony here is that he did not shoot for the head. He shot the guy in the pelvis and knee.

How many head shots did he take over the years? If a civilian does a head shot how will a Jury evaluate their claim of self defense?

His favorite target is 6 inch pie plates to shoot at.

Doesn't get too worried about the sights on a pistol, focuses more on instinctive point shooting and getting front sight on target.

Believes the bigger the bullet the better.

Point shooting is good. So is front sight placement. If the PA Legislature were nutty enough to ban B-27 targets then pie plates would be a nice alternative. Paper plates are cheaper still and about the same size as a pie plate.

Back in the 1970's and 80's, Chicago PD had a very liberal policy on carrying back ups. A six shot 38 special revolver was standard, but many carried Browning Hi Powers, 1911s, large bore revolvers, etc. as "back ups".

Believes that all cops should carry a back up pistol at all times.

Back in the day before the advent of speedloaders for revolvers, many Chicago PD cops carried multiple 38 special revolvers or what I call "Chow Yun Fat style".

In only 2 cases was he able to put both hands on his pistol to shoot. In other cases he neither had time or the ability to do so.

Many of the incidents happened within 12 feet.

In only 1 incident did one shot stop the perp.

In only 2 cases did he have time to reload.

The rest of this agrees with various statistics I've seen over the years.

People were using multiple handguns to get around reloading issues when people wore braces of handguns back in the 1800s and before then.

Magazine capacity limits? No problem!

[GeneCC]

If you don't feel like watching an hour long video here is a print version of an interview with the guy....

INTERVIEW WITH BOB STASCH - A CHICAGO PD VETERAN OF 14 GUNFIGHTS

The following excerpts are from a ProArms podcast interview with Bob Stasch of the Chicago PD. Mr. Stasch has reviewed this material and approves of it as written.

Bob Stash has been with the Chicago PD since 1981, and he has been in 14 gunfights.

When he began with the Chicago PD, qualifications were at 7, 15, and 25 yards, and mostly bullseye. A two handed Isosceles or Weaver stance was used. And there was no time pressure or combat shooting.

He is a firm believer in carrying a back up. But he has had to draw one only a couple of times, and he has not used one in a shootout.

In his first shooting, he and his partner each hit a perp multiple times. His initial shot was at about 12 feet, and his last two were at about 6 feet. His last shot blew out the perp's knee which finally brought him down. The perp later died from the multiple wounds. After that shooting, Bob and his partner trained to make head shots to better assure a quicker stop.

He practices shooting at combat distances [out to 20 - 25 feet], and tries to shoot exclusively with one hand to learn to control the weapon.

In a gunfight, your off hand will be occupied doing something like pushing, opening a door, using the radio, etc..

He also said that standard range shooting positions are never acquired in combat. As to a combat crouch, he found himself almost sitting on his butt at times to get low, or behind something.

He is not a big fan of aimed fire, nor is he a precision shooter.

His shooting is instinctive shooting [like Point Shooting].

What you do, is point your finger at the target with your finger along the slide of the pistol.

When the top of the gun is at eye level, and the eye, front sight or muzzle, and the target are in line, you will hit what you are aiming at.

He is a big fan of 6 inch paper plates. If he can hit them with regularity, he is certain that he can probably do that at combat distances.

He also likes express sights.

In his second shooting, he and his partner were confronted by three perps. They both shot at and hit the closest of the three in the head. The other two perps took off, and were captured later.

The maximum gunfight shooting distance was maybe 20 to 25 feet. Most were under 12 feet.

Only two gunfights occurred at distance [30 - 40 feet]. In those cases suppressive fire, not aimed fire was used.

He also has had to reload only 3 times. In those situations, suppressive fire was used.

In the 14 shootings, only two or three times was a two handed grip used.

He shoots about 300 rounds per month.

He says that gunfight experience gives you knowledge of what can happen, but they are never easy. When he shoots, he shoots to live.

It is not easy to fire a gun at another human being. But just like a soldier in combat, first of all, it's your duty, to do that - if those in charge did not want you to do it, they wouldn't have issued you a gun in the first place, or had you carry it.

He has shot 9 people. Five of them died.

Most perps are bad sorts, who if not stopped, would probably hurt/kill others.

Only one gunfight was a one shot stop event. The distance in that situation was about 4 - 5 inches.

His experiences are in line with the findings of the NYPD's SOP 9 study of thousands of police combat cases. Here is a link to a digest of the study and its results.

http://www.pointshooting.com/1astasch.htm

NYPD study...

http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

[GeneCC]

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 Officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%

3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%

6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where Officers survived. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51%

10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

The majority of incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions. None occurred in what could be called total darkness. It was noted that flashlights were not used as a marksmanship aid. Also, dim light firing involves another element which is different from full light firing, muzzle flash.

Firearms accounted for only 60% of the attacks on Police. However, in the 254 cases of Officers killed in an armed encounter, firearms were used in 90% (230) of them, and knives in 5% (11).

The service revolver was used in 60% of the cases. The authorized smaller frame civilian clothes revolver was used in 35% of them.

In all cases reviewed, an unauthorized or gimmick holster (ankle, shoulder, skeleton, fast draw, clip-on etc.) was involved when the revolver was lost, accidentally discharged, or the Officer was disarmed.

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the Officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

65% of the Officers who had knowledge of impending danger, had their revolvers drawn and ready.

This is proper tactically for several reasons, the first being that holsters which are designed with the proper element of security in mind, do not lend themselves to quick draw. The old bromide, "Don't draw your gun and point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot" is a tactical blunder.

Situations in which rapid escalation occurred, were most often activities considered routine, such as car stops, guarding, transporting or fingerprinting prisoners or handling people with mental problems.

A warning shot may set off chain reaction firing.

Accurate fire from handheld weapons from a fast-moving vehicle is almost impossible, even by a highly trained Officer.

Firing while running changes the situation from one where skill has a bearing into one in which the outcome depends on pure chance. It endangers the Officer unnecessarily by depleting his ammunition supply, and increases the chance of shooting innocent persons who may be present.

The element reported as the single most important factor in the Officer's survival during an armed confrontation was cover.

In a stress situation an Officer is likely to react as he was trained to react. There is almost always some type of cover available, but it may not be recognized as such without training.

In 84% of the cases reviewed, the Officer was in a standing or crouch position (supported and unsupported) when he fired.

The training doctrine developed for use in an exposed condition involves use of the crouch/point shoulder stance. The feet are spread for balance and the arms locked at shoulder, elbow and wrist. The body becomes the gun platform, swiveling at the knees. Multiple targets can be fired on with speed and accuracy through an arc of 140 degrees without moving the feet.

The average number of shots fired by individual Officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.

The double action technique was used in 90% of the situations and used almost without exceptions in close range, surprise, or immediate danger situations.

During the period 1970 through 1979, the Police inflicted 10 casualties for every one suffered at the hands of their assailants.

In all of the cases investigated, one factor stood out as a proper measure of bullet efficiency. It was not the size, shape, configuration, composition, caliber, or velocity of the bullet.

Bullet placement was the cause of death or an injury that was serious enough to end the confrontation.

It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.

An attempt was made to relate an Officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached.

To this writer's mind, the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the two.

If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.

http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

[sprrdhawk44]

Really informative interview. The events that transpired in the first shooting that he was involved in is actually my biggest fear. Because of scenarios like that, I train to put two rounds center mass, quickly evaluate whether or not they were effective, and then send three more center mass. If those don't work either, I will assume he is either armored, high, or cyborg. At that point, I'll start looking for a head shot.

Gene, if you're involved in a legitimate self defense engagement, do what you need to do in order to survive. I am not familiar with ANY righteous shooting where a guy who was defending himself went to jail because he shot his attacker in the head. Not a single one.

[Hodgie]

Thanks for posting I listened to the entire interview and It was really interesting and a bit shocking to hear that he has been in & survived 14 gun fights in 30+ years as a Chicago police officer. Then you hear about cops in some places that retire in 25 years without ever having to fire their weapon other then at the range.

Really shows how horrible Chicago is and how their amazing gun control has really helped to curb all the gun violence there.

For anyone who doesn't have the time or attention span to listed for the hour just listen to the last 2 minutes he says some good things.

[wanneroo]

The head is such a small target. I'm trying to remember the ratio of square inches but it's probably close to ten to one in favor of the thorax. Even the pelvis is many times bigger in area than the head.

The round that misses the head isn't as good as the round that hits soft body armor. Better still the round that hits body armor doesn't go sailing down the street.

The irony here is that he did not shoot for the head. He shot the guy in the pelvis and knee.

How many head shots did he take over the years? If a civilian does a head shot how will a Jury evaluate their claim of self defense?

Point shooting is good. So is front sight placement. If the PA Legislature were nutty enough to ban B-27 targets then pie plates would be a nice alternative. Paper plates are cheaper still and about the same size as a pie plate.

In IDPA matches, when we have the choice I often shoot for the head. I have found through practical experience going for "center mass" I almost lose a few micro seconds mentally calculating shot placement as your sights almost get lost in all that "center mass". The head however seems to square up nicely in the sights almost intuitively and bang, done. Shooting under the pressure of time I have found with a head sized target I can often put 2 rounds practically right on top of one another and center mass shots can end up a few inches a part. It's not always that way, but more often than not is. I'll have to watch again this year to see how that goes.

Keep in mind with the guy he shot in the pelvis and knee, that guy had already taken 13 rounds of 45 Colt, 44 Mag and 38 Spl.

One of my life experience lessons is that often we try to anticipate things too much. What is this guy going to say about this, what will the jury say about that, what so and so will say about this or that and so on. And then often that's not the way it turns out anyways. So I would say if you are in a life or death struggle you can't be anticipating what everyone's opinions are going to be, you need to fight to survive and that is that.

In years past when I got to do some scenario based training exercises with shoot houses and other training venues using Simunition, I learned a lot of good lessons out of that(One time even got to spend a day with Chicago PD SWAT of all organizations). One of the lessons I learned if you are shooting it out is that you just have zero time to think about what's going to come after, such as your concern, a jury. If you do have that on your mind, then you are toast or dead meat. No question.

So the mental decision I made was to have the mindset to win and survive and do what it takes. Because if you don't survive what a jury thinks matters little.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

In IDPA matches, when we have the choice I often shoot for the head. I have found through practical experience going for "center mass" I almost lose a few micro seconds mentally calculating shot placement as your sights almost get lost in all that "center mass". The head however seems to square up nicely in the sights almost intuitively and bang, done. Shooting under the pressure of time I have found with a head sized target I can often put 2 rounds practically right on top of one another and center mass shots can end up a few inches a part. It's not always that way, but more often than not is. I'll have to watch again this year to see how that goes.

Keep in mind with the guy he shot in the pelvis and knee, that guy had already taken 13 rounds of 45 Colt, 44 Mag and 38 Spl.

One of my life experience lessons is that often we try to anticipate things too much. What is this guy going to say about this, what will the jury say about that, what so and so will say about this or that and so on. And then often that's not the way it turns out anyways. So I would say if you are in a life or death struggle you can't be anticipating what everyone's opinions are going to be, you need to fight to survive and that is that.

In years past when I got to do some scenario based training exercises with shoot houses and other training venues using Simunition, I learned a lot of good lessons out of that(One time even got to spend a day with Chicago PD SWAT of all organizations). One of the lessons I learned if you are shooting it out is that you just have zero time to think about what's going to come after, such as your concern, a jury. If you do have that on your mind, then you are toast or dead meat. No question.

So the mental decision I made was to have the mindset to win and survive and do what it takes. Because if you don't survive what a jury thinks matters little.

Exactly. That dude was not shot with nonsense sissy rounds. 45 Long colt fired out of a gun with a sizable barrel no doubt. Then a full wheel of .38 special - which although not the post powerful round in the world is not something people usually sneeze at, with a fairly heavy bullet that gets good penetration. And then the guy only stopped when having his pelvis shattered & leg shot out, because TWO rounds of .44 magnum were not large enough.

Really informative interview. The events that transpired in the first shooting that he was involved in is actually my biggest fear. Because of scenarios like that, I train to put two rounds center mass, quickly evaluate whether or not they were effective, and then send three more center mass. If those don't work either, I will assume he is either armored, high, or cyborg. At that point, I'll start looking for a head shot.

Gene, if you're involved in a legitimate self defense engagement, do what you need to do in order to survive. I am not familiar with ANY righteous shooting where a guy who was defending himself went to jail because he shot his attacker in the head. Not a single one.

Both of your practice plan seems wise. I think I well be adopting them.