Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Don't shoot the hostages


Proudprado
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had two very professional safety officers in my detail today and I learnt a lot.

Things started to go wrong whn I killed two hostages on the first stage ... that had nothing to do with the SOs ... the hostages would not duck. I also got a PE for racking the slide after inserting a magazine on a tactical reload. That's 13 seconds down at the start ... I only got two points down on the targets themselves. I did not know the rule about racking. I knew you should not shoot the hostages.

No problems on the second stage. Interesting (club shoot) one where you had to assemble your weapon after a field strip before you could shoot. No hassles on stage three either.

The next PE came on stage four, where I failed to "tuck" the pistol (as instructed) while shooting with my weak hand. I actually shot better than I thought I would on this one ... I blame the dot torture drill.

Last stage, last PE. "Cover" she shouted, but I had started shooting already. I must go on a diet and I must get decent hearing protection that allows me to listen to the SOs.

But a fun morning once again. Bloody hostages.

Edited by Proudprado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put a cat picture on a hostage target once to signify a cute little girl. One guy put 2 rounds in the cat's head (and through the hostage)! I said "big penelty". He said, "I hate cats!!" LOL! Stinkin' hostages! Why they gotta be that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an FYI, there is no obligation for an SO to give a cover call. They can try to give it to you in time but you need to learn how to place yourself properly in cover, which can be an extremely difficult proposition in IDPA. I'm sure I'll get flak for even suggesting this but you didn't "kill" any "hostages", you hit a non-threat target. I think it's an important distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you learned the lesson that if you read and know the rules to the Game you can protect yourself when the victim of a "bad call". Where I shoot you get used to the same setups and we shot yesterday at a different range and had more procedures. It was a really good time to ask WHY/HOW in relation to seeing the rules at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PE incurred for racking the slide, ejecting a round (without a malfunction being involved) and then leaving the round on the ground and not picking it up before the last shot in the string was fired would be for ... leaving live ammo on the COF. It would be no different than if a revolver shooter reloaded after only five rounds and left the live round on the ground. Or, if someone ejected a magazine that had a round remaining.

If no malfunction is involved you can't leave live rounds on the ground during a COF.

At least, that is the situation I gleaned from the OP. If so, it is a valid PE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 16. Example of PE:

b. The competitor fails to retain ammo when a tacload/ RWR is specified. (See Appendix TWO-Approved IDPA Reloads-Malfunction Clearing Exception.)

From Appendix two:

Failure to properly stow a partial magazine or live ammunition after a Tactical Reload or Reload with Retention prior to firing the first shot after the reload, will incur a procedural penalty.

Not sure if racking a round out is the same is dumping a live round from a revolver or leaving a mag on the ground. Good question. I do not think I would have called it, but I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the reload is completed when the mag is seated and the slide is forward, (as the rules say they are) then the racking out of the round occurs after the reload is complete and cannot be a PE. It was a mistake, but not a PE.

I agree. This was a mental malfunction, not ignoring a RWR or Tacload. Reload was completed in the manner specified in the CoF. No where in the book does it say you have to scramble around after a single dropped live round in a case like this before you move on to complete the stage. From an SO standpoint, being the guy standing right behind the shooter, I would not even want them to do so given the potential for muzzle violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 16. Example of PE:

b. The competitor fails to retain ammo when a tacload/ RWR is specified. (See Appendix TWO-Approved IDPA Reloads-Malfunction Clearing Exception.)

From Appendix two:

Failure to properly stow a partial magazine or live ammunition after a Tactical Reload or Reload with Retention prior to firing the first shot after the reload, will incur a procedural penalty.

Not sure if racking a round out is the same is dumping a live round from a revolver or leaving a mag on the ground. Good question. I do not think I would have called it, but I could be wrong.

IMHO, the key words here as it applies to the OP are "live ammo" and "after a Tactical or Reload with Retention prior to firing the first shot after the reload".

The OP was required to make a TAC/RWR reload. He had a round in the chamber and a partial mag. The mag was stowed properly and a new mag inserted. AFTER the TAC/RWR reload he racked the slide and ejected a live round onto the ground, which he failed to pick up before firing the first shot after the reload (which I believe has been changed in the Rule Addendum to "prior to the last shot being fired in the string")

My interpretation is that "live ammo" was not secured AFTER the TAC/RWR reload. I consider that no different than a revolver shooter who attempts a TAC/RWR reload, drops one of the live rounds onto the ground, and then fails to "secure it" before firing the last shot on the string, as the Rules Addendum now states.

That's my interpretation of the wording on this Rule, and one of the problems with the Rule Book as currently written. It is quite possible to have two, or more, totally different interpretations of the same Rule - one interpretation resulting in a PE and one not - but both interpretations seem reasonable. I've been a SO since 2006, and have traveled to a half-dozen different states for sanctioned matches, up to and including the World Championships and several National Championships... let alone a half-dozen different clubs in my home state... and differing Rule interpretations have been a problem.

I'll leave it to the Tiger Teams to clear the wording up and make it a bit more concise, and a bit less subject to individual interpretations.

Edited by GOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, logically a smart IDPA shooter would say "damn, not in battery" or something like that and eject the round....or at the end of the CoF say that the gun didn't go to battery or would not fire and then the SO would have to determine once again if this was a "real" malfunction (can leave ammo) or not a real malfunction and worthy of a PE.

SO's "in the moment" are not 100% of the time going to be able to determine if the gun was in battery or if the shooter did in fact have a malfunction. With my experience, I would simply state when they tried to PE me that I had a malfunction and cleared it. How is a SO going to prove that I didn't.....and if not 100% sure, benifit of doubt goes to the shooter. If one can't enforce a IDPA rule equally 100% of the time, it's a bad rule or tribial rule.

This is simply IDPA rule lawyers looking at a way to pile on. The shooter has lost time and has no advantage as he/she had completed the reload. The example of a non-completed RWR or Tac-Reload does not apply as gun is in battery and ammo stored (def of a completed reload) when the round was ejected AND....the round ejected out was not from the retained mag...or dropped round in a revolver reload.

If this is how it should be called in the future then all malfunction ammo must also be retained before the last shot because once again the SO will have to determine if and what is a malfunction and what is not to fairly assess PE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, logically a smart IDPA shooter would say "damn, not in battery" or something like that and eject the round....or at the end of the CoF say that the gun didn't go to battery or would not fire and then the SO would have to determine once again if this was a "real" malfunction (can leave ammo) or not a real malfunction and worthy of a PE.

SO's "in the moment" are not 100% of the time going to be able to determine if the gun was in battery or if the shooter did in fact have a malfunction. With my experience, I would simply state when they tried to PE me that I had a malfunction and cleared it. How is a SO going to prove that I didn't.....and if not 100% sure, benifit of doubt goes to the shooter. If one can't enforce a IDPA rule equally 100% of the time, it's a bad rule or tribial rule.

This is simply IDPA rule lawyers looking at a way to pile on. The shooter has lost time and has no advantage as he/she had completed the reload. The example of a non-completed RWR or Tac-Reload does not apply as gun is in battery and ammo stored (def of a completed reload) when the round was ejected AND....the round ejected out was not from the retained mag...or dropped round in a revolver reload.

If this is how it should be called in the future then all malfunction ammo must also be retained before the last shot because once again the SO will have to determine if and what is a malfunction and what is not to fairly assess PE.

That is, again, a differing opinion of a poorly worded Rule. I suppose one could 'game' that and claim gun not in battery and it was a malf, and the round did need to be ejected under current malfunction Rule. And, given the way the Rule is currently written I suppose one could 'game' (or as you suggest, just lie your way out) of the PE.

As the SO watching the gun, I might look/notice to see if the shooter actually brought the gun up to the target and attempted to fire a round. If that happened, and the round didn't fire, then YES a malf. If the shooter made no attempt to fire a round... and instead just automatically ejected the chambered round as the reload was being completed... I might have a differing view. YMMV.

But, IDPA is a game. There are winners and losers. That requires Rules. Those Rules should be followed... although some will always find a way to cheat. Thanks for your explanation of how to do it here. :roflol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But, IDPA is a game. There are winners and losers. That requires Rules. Those Rules should be followed... although some will always find a way to cheat. Thanks for your explanation of how to do it here."

GOF

Thanks for the smiling face while calling me names.

I am simply pointing out that this example is just one of many (on a couple of forums with IDPA as the subject) in which individuals are taking something that has been done from the beginning of IDPA and JUST now wanting to give PE's for these actions.

Define cheating? Is it the shooter that has shot IDPA for 12 yrs that might get dinged for a tribal rule interp of a rulebook? Is it the SO/MD that insists that the tribal rules can be used because that is the way they read or interp the rule book?

I have shot not only across the country but also in Europe. Not once in all my sanctioned matches (including S&W indoor and multiple Nationals) have I ever seen or heard of someone getting dinged by a PE for ejecting a round as discribed above. Have you?

My point on this is that this is a "new" slant on the rulebook that has never been done before and once again makes the SO determine what is and what isn't a malfunction. Only recently has this "malfunction and PE non-malfunction" issue come to discussion. In the last 12 years, it hasn't been a problem and SO's have called it consistantly.

BOHICA my friend....but with a :roflol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, Rules are Rules. And, many are written so poorly that multiple interpretations (and Tribal Rules) can result. My post regarding my interpretation of the quoted Rule is just that - my interpretation of the Rule as it is written. "Live ammo" is specifically mentioned in that Rule. "Live ammunition" left on the ground and "not secured" is also specifically listed in that Rule. How do you justify a "live round"... left on the ground... and "not secured" after a TAC/RWR reload?

If you have a particular 'interpretation' of that Rule, then fine. You call 'em as ya see them. I will do the same.

With any Luck, The Tiger Teams will provide us with more clearly written Rules that allow little in the way of individual interpretation.

Edited by GOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Gary, Rules are Rules. And, many are written so poorly that multiple interpretations (and Tribal Rules) can result. My post regarding my interpretation of the quoted Rule is just that - my interpretation of the Rule as it is written. "Live ammo" is specifically mentioned in that Rule. "Live ammunition" left on the ground and "not secured" is also specifically listed in that Rule. How do you justify a "live round"... left on the ground... and "not secured" after a TAC/RWR reload?"

AND that is my point exactly. The round they are talking about happens AFTER the TAC/RWR is finished. When does a reload finish? When the magazine is inserted and the gun is in battery. The round that is ejected is from a loaded gun and the reload is finished and the shooter may leave cover, eject rounds, etc...... so TAC/RWR does not apply. The live ammunition and not secured issues and clarifications are from what makes a IDPA legal reload and what and how fumbled reloads must be handled (I was the one that got the inital interp from Robert Ray on this years ago). The fumbled reload that must be stowed was done during the reload so was "part" of the reload (prev interp allowed it to stay on the ground as long as one didn't leave that position). In the situation discussed, there was no fumbled ammo, the reload has been completed and thus this does not apply (as the rules currently state and interp....IMO)

I concur that there can be equally "true" interp of the rules with one not more logical or rational than another. I was simply pointing out another viewpoint and used myself as an possible example. I did so for discussion purposes and did not think that someone would imply that I was a cheater because of a discussion viewpoint.

One of the recent "themes" of some of these discussions here and on the IDPA forum calls for the SO to make subjective calls as to what is and isn't a malfunction or similar situations and then apply these with PE's or no PE's. The more subjective, the more difficult to call fairly for everyone (round dumping as but one example).

This was headed into that same subjective area.

I agree, I hope that the Tiger Teams do clarify and make it so that the game can be fairly played and officiated equally for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...