part 2
Discussion & Analysis
Although suffering from what he understandably believed to be a mortal wound and pitted against a crazed man who seemed impervious to his gunfire, Officer Borders refused to quit. His actions prove what can be accomplished by an officer who possesses courage, tenacity and proper focus.
There is a lot more to be learned from this incident—lifesaving lessons that were purchased with Officer Borders' blood. We owe it to him to learn as much as we can from them.
An in-depth analysis of this case reveals a number of crucial learning points, including lessons related to proper risk assessment, hesitation in the application of deadly force, the ineffectiveness of gunfire against some opponents, the expenditure of large amounts of ammunition in a gunfight, winning mindset and warrior spirit. A thorough analysis is below, but before you read it, review the discussion questions below and work through your own answers.
Discussion Questions
1. What danger signs did Borders observe when he first contacted Mettinger, and how did he react to them? What does this case illustrate about the importance of taking quick and appropriate action when you detect danger signs?
2. What might have influenced Borders to wait until Mettinger started to attack his wife before he opened fire? When would deadly force have been legally justified? When would you have shot Mettinger? Why?
3. Borders' gunfire failed to disable Mettinger until his final shot to Mettinger's head. What can be done to prepare for the possibility that our gunfire may not always be effective? What should our attitude be if we are hit by gunfire?
4. This incident involved the expenditure of an unusually large number of rounds. What can be done to prepare for this possibility?
5. Borders had received very good firearms training from his department, including training on ricochet shots, and had also practiced on his own. What effect might his training have had on the outcome?
6. What can this case teach us about how to win in the face of a seemingly hopeless situation, like the one faced by Borders?
7. In what ways did Officer Borders' attitude and actions exemplify winning mindset and warrior spirit?
Risk Assessment
Keith Borders was a sharp, safety-conscious officer who made a point of always being ready for the possibility of violence. Because of this, he immediately alerted on Mettinger's unusually intense reaction to his intervention in the dispute. But more importantly, he didn't hesitate to act on his observations. Rather than ignore the danger signs or delay acting on them, he trusted his instincts and wasted no time in getting the two women and the child out of the garage.
Had Mrs. Mettinger been more cooperative and left the area with her daughter and grandchild, Borders could have retreated to a safer location and kept the house under observation until help arrived. With Mettinger's wife out of the picture, time to cool down, a greater police presence and the help of a negotiator, it is possible that Mettinger could have been talked into surrendering without violence.
Unfortunately, that was not the case, and Officer Borders was thrust into the difficult position of having to remain in the hot zone while trying to keep Mrs. Mettinger safely under control, guarding against an attack and coordinating the response of the backup units. Under the circumstances, Borders performed admirably. If it had not been for his alertness, persistence and indomitable courage, Mrs. Mettinger's stubborn refusal to leave might well have led to her death.
Hesitating to Shoot
From a purely tactical perspective, Officer Borders could probably have prevented Mettinger's attack if he had shot him sooner, either immediately after the garage door came open or when Mettinger left the cover of the Honda to approach the street. He had more than adequate legal and moral justification for doing so as soon as the garage door opened, because Mettinger—who had already fired at him once, shot up a patrol car and fired through the garage door—was clearly initiating a confrontation while armed with no less than three firearms. But the situation was greatly complicated by the presence of Mettinger's wife. Besides the fact that Borders' gunfire would probably have put Mrs. Mettinger in danger by drawing return fire, it is psychologically very difficult to shoot someone whose loved ones are watching. From a purely objective point of view, it makes no difference who is watching, but emotions inevitably play a significant role in our decision making, especially under stress. Although Officer Borders wasn't consciously aware of it at the time, it is very likely that Mrs. Mettinger's presence caused him to hesitate.
Officer Borders was also influenced by Mrs. Mettinger's insistence that her husband was a nonviolent person. Coupled with the fact that he had found Mettinger to be a decent, rational man when he had spoken to him a couple of weeks earlier, Borders was at least partially swayed into giving Mrs. Mettinger's opinion more credibility than it deserved.
We must also consider the fact that many officers are reluctant to fire unless someone points a weapon at them. Whether it is because of inadequate training, ignorance of the law regarding the use of deadly force, fear of legal repercussions, the normal human reluctance to kill or, most likely, a combination of these and possibly other factors, this reluctance is rather common among officers, and it has cost several their lives. Although we are legally and—more importantly—morally obliged to use deadly force only when reasonably necessary, officers must realize that there is no hard-and-fast rule that says we must wait until a gun is pointed at us before we defend ourselves. The justification for the use of deadly force lies in the reasonableness of our belief that deadly force is necessary under the totality of the circumstances, not where the suspect's muzzle is pointed. Policy must make this clear, and trainers must make every effort to ensure that their officers understand it well enough to apply it properly on the street. With so much hinging on an officer's ability to make good decisions in high-stress situations, we cannot afford to skimp on training when it comes to deadly force decisions.
It is important to note, however, that none of these concerns present much of a problem when the threat comes so quickly that the officer doesn't have time to do anything but react. Most lethal attacks against police officers fall into a very short time frame, but not all of them. Sometimes lethal threats develop over time, and when that happens, the officer has time to worry about the possible legal repercussions if his actions are questioned later, wonder if he should wait a little longer before pulling the trigger, question his own decisions or, as in this case, think about who is watching. Problem solving and decision making deteriorate rapidly under stress, and when these kinds of concerns have time to creep into the equation officers can be left with a dangerous level of indecision that can cost lives. On the other hand, we also don't want to overreact and shoot when it isn't necessary.
The best way to deal with this predicament is to simplify the decision-making process so you don't have to spend any more time than necessary wondering about when and if to shoot. The first step is to mentally draw a line in the sand, and then be committed to shoot as soon as the suspect crosses it. However, this can also present a problem, because it can be very difficult to determine where to draw that line when under the intense stress of an approaching threat on your life. Therefore, the decision-making process must be simplified further so that it will be applicable to as wide a range of situations as possible, and the best way to do that is to issue the proper verbal command as soon as you see the threat developing. Order the suspect not to move with the command, "Don't move, or I'll shoot!" This will firmly establish where the line has been drawn in your own mind, as well as his, and will make it very clear what will happen if he refuses to comply. It also warns any bystanders of the danger, clearly communicates to any witnesses that you are in fear for your life and makes it clear that you gave the suspect the opportunity to avoid gunfire by complying with your command. If he still chooses to move after that, any reasonable person would assume that he intends to attack.
Once you have frozen the action by ordering him not to move, you can start issuing other commands to further de-escalate the danger. These will vary depending upon the situation, but they should include clear step-by-step instructions, such as:
* "Don't move until I tell you to, and then do exactly what I say!" …
* "When I say, 'do it now,' turn around very slowly until your back is to me! … Do it now!"
* "When I say, 'do it now,' slowly put the gun down! … Do it now!"
Again, you must be firmly committed to take appropriate action if he attempts to attack at any point during this process.
Because of its no-nonsense approach to the problem, ability to allow officers to take command early on, simplicity and applicability to just about any situation, this tactic will go a long way toward enabling officers to handle slowly developing lethal threats more safely.
Resistance to Gunfire
Mettinger absorbed nine rounds from Borders' .45—six of which hit him in the torso and two more of which literally severed his right foot—without any significant effect on his fighting ability. This would have been remarkable even if Officer Borders had been firing marginally effective rounds, but he was using .45 caliber Gold Dot ammunition, which is considered by many to be the best man-stopper on the market.
Unfortunately, such resistance to gunfire is not particularly unusual in police shootings. The human body can stand up to an incredible amount of punishment, especially when fueled by alcohol, drugs, mental illness, anger or other strong emotion. In this case, Mettinger's near superhuman ability to take rounds appeared to have been bolstered by alcohol-induced rage, but sometimes the only identifiable explanation for such resistance to gunfire is sheer willpower. Regardless of the reason, it is alarming and distracting to face an armed assailant who seems impervious to your gunfire.
To combat this, it is important to recognize and accept the fact that, although firearms are unquestionably the most effective means for quickly stopping an attack, they are not 100 percent reliable. Even multiple hits to vital areas may not incapacitate an assailant as quickly as expected, so we must be ready to respond accordingly. Become as proficient as possible with your firearm so you can make every shot count, but also be prepared to keep shooting until your attacker is no longer a threat or to do whatever else it takes to win. If necessary, charge him and crush his throat with your empty gun, stab him through an eye with your pen or smash in his temple with your walkie-talkie. Do something. Inaction is your worst enemy, so doing something is always better than doing nothing. In some cases, your wisest option may be to retreat. Remember, there is no shame in making a tactical withdrawal that allows you to continue the fight, regroup, call for assistance and/or plan your next move.
Also, keep in mind that you can stand up to gunshot wounds as well as anyone. Far less than 10 percent of all gunshot wounds inflict mortal injuries, and most of those kill instantly, so the odds are excellent that you will survive if you are still alive after being hit. This is true even for head wounds, as evidenced by the fact that Officer Borders not only survived his, but was able to win the gunfight in spite of it. Unfortunately, he was eventually disabled by his wound, but it is not at all uncommon for people to overcome head wounds with little or no long-term impairment.
Human beings can take far more punishment than most of us realize, especially if they are determined to win and possess a strong will to live. Besides, worrying will distract you from the only thing that really counts—winning the fight. Ignore your injuries, stay focused on winning, and keep going no matter what.
High Volume of Fire
This was one of those unusual cases in which an exceptionally large number of rounds were fired by both parties. Although the vast majority of police shootings involve the exchange of only a few shots, high-volume gunfights occur often enough to seriously consider carrying a third spare magazine. It won't take up much room or weigh you down, and it can easily be slipped into a back pocket or under one of the straps of your body armor. Besides providing you with extra ammunition, this will serve as an important reminder to slow down if you have to use it. Because it must be drawn from a location other than your magazine pouch, the act of drawing it will alert you to the fact that it is time to conserve your ammo.
Backup Guns
Another important option in an extended gunfight is a backup gun. Although Officer Borders didn't need one in this case, he came dangerously close. Had it not been for the fact that he noticed that he was running out of ammunition when he did (which is not easy to do in the stress and chaos of lethal combat), he would have been facing Mettinger with an empty gun after just two more rounds. In that case, he would have been able to keep shooting because he always carried a Chief's Special on his ankle, but anyone less prepared would have been virtually defenseless. Interestingly, although Borders was aware that he might have to go to his backup gun, he was hoping it wouldn't be necessary, because he didn't trust the little .38 to stop Mettinger under the circumstances. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that even a single .38 caliber slug can be deadly, especially if well placed and/or delivered to an assailant who is already severely weakened by multiple hits from a larger caliber weapon.
While on the subject of backup guns, it is important to consider the fact that they have value that goes far beyond their ability to provide last-ditch firepower in an extended gunfight. They can save your life in a disarming and are irreplaceable if your primary weapon is lost, has a major malfunction or is disabled by an assailant's bullet. Further, if you choose to carry your second gun where it can be readily accessed with your support hand, it will provide you with a lifesaving option in the event that your gun hand is disabled, trapped in a car door by a motorist who is dragging you alongside his vehicle, being used to fend off an attack, etc. This last point is important, because it is very difficult and time consuming for most officers to draw their duty guns with their support hand, especially from high security rigs and/or when under extreme stress. If your backup is readily accessible with your support hand, you can use it instead of your duty gun if your gun hand is not available, which can save you crucial seconds in a gunfight.
Although they aren't needed very often, there is no substitute for a backup gun when you need one. No officer should ever work the streets without one.
Discussion & Analysis
Although suffering from what he understandably believed to be a mortal wound and pitted against a crazed man who seemed impervious to his gunfire, Officer Borders refused to quit. His actions prove what can be accomplished by an officer who possesses courage, tenacity and proper focus.
There is a lot more to be learned from this incident—lifesaving lessons that were purchased with Officer Borders' blood. We owe it to him to learn as much as we can from them.
An in-depth analysis of this case reveals a number of crucial learning points, including lessons related to proper risk assessment, hesitation in the application of deadly force, the ineffectiveness of gunfire against some opponents, the expenditure of large amounts of ammunition in a gunfight, winning mindset and warrior spirit. A thorough analysis is below, but before you read it, review the discussion questions below and work through your own answers.
Discussion Questions
1. What danger signs did Borders observe when he first contacted Mettinger, and how did he react to them? What does this case illustrate about the importance of taking quick and appropriate action when you detect danger signs?
2. What might have influenced Borders to wait until Mettinger started to attack his wife before he opened fire? When would deadly force have been legally justified? When would you have shot Mettinger? Why?
3. Borders' gunfire failed to disable Mettinger until his final shot to Mettinger's head. What can be done to prepare for the possibility that our gunfire may not always be effective? What should our attitude be if we are hit by gunfire?
4. This incident involved the expenditure of an unusually large number of rounds. What can be done to prepare for this possibility?
5. Borders had received very good firearms training from his department, including training on ricochet shots, and had also practiced on his own. What effect might his training have had on the outcome?
6. What can this case teach us about how to win in the face of a seemingly hopeless situation, like the one faced by Borders?
7. In what ways did Officer Borders' attitude and actions exemplify winning mindset and warrior spirit?
Risk Assessment
Keith Borders was a sharp, safety-conscious officer who made a point of always being ready for the possibility of violence. Because of this, he immediately alerted on Mettinger's unusually intense reaction to his intervention in the dispute. But more importantly, he didn't hesitate to act on his observations. Rather than ignore the danger signs or delay acting on them, he trusted his instincts and wasted no time in getting the two women and the child out of the garage.
Had Mrs. Mettinger been more cooperative and left the area with her daughter and grandchild, Borders could have retreated to a safer location and kept the house under observation until help arrived. With Mettinger's wife out of the picture, time to cool down, a greater police presence and the help of a negotiator, it is possible that Mettinger could have been talked into surrendering without violence.
Unfortunately, that was not the case, and Officer Borders was thrust into the difficult position of having to remain in the hot zone while trying to keep Mrs. Mettinger safely under control, guarding against an attack and coordinating the response of the backup units. Under the circumstances, Borders performed admirably. If it had not been for his alertness, persistence and indomitable courage, Mrs. Mettinger's stubborn refusal to leave might well have led to her death.
Hesitating to Shoot
From a purely tactical perspective, Officer Borders could probably have prevented Mettinger's attack if he had shot him sooner, either immediately after the garage door came open or when Mettinger left the cover of the Honda to approach the street. He had more than adequate legal and moral justification for doing so as soon as the garage door opened, because Mettinger—who had already fired at him once, shot up a patrol car and fired through the garage door—was clearly initiating a confrontation while armed with no less than three firearms. But the situation was greatly complicated by the presence of Mettinger's wife. Besides the fact that Borders' gunfire would probably have put Mrs. Mettinger in danger by drawing return fire, it is psychologically very difficult to shoot someone whose loved ones are watching. From a purely objective point of view, it makes no difference who is watching, but emotions inevitably play a significant role in our decision making, especially under stress. Although Officer Borders wasn't consciously aware of it at the time, it is very likely that Mrs. Mettinger's presence caused him to hesitate.
Officer Borders was also influenced by Mrs. Mettinger's insistence that her husband was a nonviolent person. Coupled with the fact that he had found Mettinger to be a decent, rational man when he had spoken to him a couple of weeks earlier, Borders was at least partially swayed into giving Mrs. Mettinger's opinion more credibility than it deserved.
We must also consider the fact that many officers are reluctant to fire unless someone points a weapon at them. Whether it is because of inadequate training, ignorance of the law regarding the use of deadly force, fear of legal repercussions, the normal human reluctance to kill or, most likely, a combination of these and possibly other factors, this reluctance is rather common among officers, and it has cost several their lives. Although we are legally and—more importantly—morally obliged to use deadly force only when reasonably necessary, officers must realize that there is no hard-and-fast rule that says we must wait until a gun is pointed at us before we defend ourselves. The justification for the use of deadly force lies in the reasonableness of our belief that deadly force is necessary under the totality of the circumstances, not where the suspect's muzzle is pointed. Policy must make this clear, and trainers must make every effort to ensure that their officers understand it well enough to apply it properly on the street. With so much hinging on an officer's ability to make good decisions in high-stress situations, we cannot afford to skimp on training when it comes to deadly force decisions.
It is important to note, however, that none of these concerns present much of a problem when the threat comes so quickly that the officer doesn't have time to do anything but react. Most lethal attacks against police officers fall into a very short time frame, but not all of them. Sometimes lethal threats develop over time, and when that happens, the officer has time to worry about the possible legal repercussions if his actions are questioned later, wonder if he should wait a little longer before pulling the trigger, question his own decisions or, as in this case, think about who is watching. Problem solving and decision making deteriorate rapidly under stress, and when these kinds of concerns have time to creep into the equation officers can be left with a dangerous level of indecision that can cost lives. On the other hand, we also don't want to overreact and shoot when it isn't necessary.
The best way to deal with this predicament is to simplify the decision-making process so you don't have to spend any more time than necessary wondering about when and if to shoot. The first step is to mentally draw a line in the sand, and then be committed to shoot as soon as the suspect crosses it. However, this can also present a problem, because it can be very difficult to determine where to draw that line when under the intense stress of an approaching threat on your life. Therefore, the decision-making process must be simplified further so that it will be applicable to as wide a range of situations as possible, and the best way to do that is to issue the proper verbal command as soon as you see the threat developing. Order the suspect not to move with the command, "Don't move, or I'll shoot!" This will firmly establish where the line has been drawn in your own mind, as well as his, and will make it very clear what will happen if he refuses to comply. It also warns any bystanders of the danger, clearly communicates to any witnesses that you are in fear for your life and makes it clear that you gave the suspect the opportunity to avoid gunfire by complying with your command. If he still chooses to move after that, any reasonable person would assume that he intends to attack.
Once you have frozen the action by ordering him not to move, you can start issuing other commands to further de-escalate the danger. These will vary depending upon the situation, but they should include clear step-by-step instructions, such as:
* "Don't move until I tell you to, and then do exactly what I say!" …
* "When I say, 'do it now,' turn around very slowly until your back is to me! … Do it now!"
* "When I say, 'do it now,' slowly put the gun down! … Do it now!"
Again, you must be firmly committed to take appropriate action if he attempts to attack at any point during this process.
Because of its no-nonsense approach to the problem, ability to allow officers to take command early on, simplicity and applicability to just about any situation, this tactic will go a long way toward enabling officers to handle slowly developing lethal threats more safely.
Resistance to Gunfire
Mettinger absorbed nine rounds from Borders' .45—six of which hit him in the torso and two more of which literally severed his right foot—without any significant effect on his fighting ability. This would have been remarkable even if Officer Borders had been firing marginally effective rounds, but he was using .45 caliber Gold Dot ammunition, which is considered by many to be the best man-stopper on the market.
Unfortunately, such resistance to gunfire is not particularly unusual in police shootings. The human body can stand up to an incredible amount of punishment, especially when fueled by alcohol, drugs, mental illness, anger or other strong emotion. In this case, Mettinger's near superhuman ability to take rounds appeared to have been bolstered by alcohol-induced rage, but sometimes the only identifiable explanation for such resistance to gunfire is sheer willpower. Regardless of the reason, it is alarming and distracting to face an armed assailant who seems impervious to your gunfire.
To combat this, it is important to recognize and accept the fact that, although firearms are unquestionably the most effective means for quickly stopping an attack, they are not 100 percent reliable. Even multiple hits to vital areas may not incapacitate an assailant as quickly as expected, so we must be ready to respond accordingly. Become as proficient as possible with your firearm so you can make every shot count, but also be prepared to keep shooting until your attacker is no longer a threat or to do whatever else it takes to win. If necessary, charge him and crush his throat with your empty gun, stab him through an eye with your pen or smash in his temple with your walkie-talkie. Do something. Inaction is your worst enemy, so doing something is always better than doing nothing. In some cases, your wisest option may be to retreat. Remember, there is no shame in making a tactical withdrawal that allows you to continue the fight, regroup, call for assistance and/or plan your next move.
Also, keep in mind that you can stand up to gunshot wounds as well as anyone. Far less than 10 percent of all gunshot wounds inflict mortal injuries, and most of those kill instantly, so the odds are excellent that you will survive if you are still alive after being hit. This is true even for head wounds, as evidenced by the fact that Officer Borders not only survived his, but was able to win the gunfight in spite of it. Unfortunately, he was eventually disabled by his wound, but it is not at all uncommon for people to overcome head wounds with little or no long-term impairment.
Human beings can take far more punishment than most of us realize, especially if they are determined to win and possess a strong will to live. Besides, worrying will distract you from the only thing that really counts—winning the fight. Ignore your injuries, stay focused on winning, and keep going no matter what.
High Volume of Fire
This was one of those unusual cases in which an exceptionally large number of rounds were fired by both parties. Although the vast majority of police shootings involve the exchange of only a few shots, high-volume gunfights occur often enough to seriously consider carrying a third spare magazine. It won't take up much room or weigh you down, and it can easily be slipped into a back pocket or under one of the straps of your body armor. Besides providing you with extra ammunition, this will serve as an important reminder to slow down if you have to use it. Because it must be drawn from a location other than your magazine pouch, the act of drawing it will alert you to the fact that it is time to conserve your ammo.
Backup Guns
Another important option in an extended gunfight is a backup gun. Although Officer Borders didn't need one in this case, he came dangerously close. Had it not been for the fact that he noticed that he was running out of ammunition when he did (which is not easy to do in the stress and chaos of lethal combat), he would have been facing Mettinger with an empty gun after just two more rounds. In that case, he would have been able to keep shooting because he always carried a Chief's Special on his ankle, but anyone less prepared would have been virtually defenseless. Interestingly, although Borders was aware that he might have to go to his backup gun, he was hoping it wouldn't be necessary, because he didn't trust the little .38 to stop Mettinger under the circumstances. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that even a single .38 caliber slug can be deadly, especially if well placed and/or delivered to an assailant who is already severely weakened by multiple hits from a larger caliber weapon.
While on the subject of backup guns, it is important to consider the fact that they have value that goes far beyond their ability to provide last-ditch firepower in an extended gunfight. They can save your life in a disarming and are irreplaceable if your primary weapon is lost, has a major malfunction or is disabled by an assailant's bullet. Further, if you choose to carry your second gun where it can be readily accessed with your support hand, it will provide you with a lifesaving option in the event that your gun hand is disabled, trapped in a car door by a motorist who is dragging you alongside his vehicle, being used to fend off an attack, etc. This last point is important, because it is very difficult and time consuming for most officers to draw their duty guns with their support hand, especially from high security rigs and/or when under extreme stress. If your backup is readily accessible with your support hand, you can use it instead of your duty gun if your gun hand is not available, which can save you crucial seconds in a gunfight.
Although they aren't needed very often, there is no substitute for a backup gun when you need one. No officer should ever work the streets without one.
