Walking Backwards Whilst Shooting

I'm not sure where or when this phenomenon started, but I'd love to know what tactical advantage walking backwards whilst engaging a threat, provides.

To create space? Yeah, ok, but that can be done by stepping left or right, right?

To create distance? Only if the threat is standing still - and we should all know by now that threats do NOT stand still, because if we're saying that threats DO stand still (and not closing the distance on you), then why are we walking backwards in the first place?

These are all questions I pose to students, on most of our Street Scene System of Training (SSST) courses.

If something doesn't make sense, why do it? If something isn't giving you a tactical advantage, why do it?

Before I get into the weeds of this, I want to confirm the 4 ways that one-on-one engagements occur:

1. Static Defender v Static Threat
2. Static Defender v Moving Threat
3. Moving Defender v Static Threat
4. Moving Defender v Moving Threat

Out of those 4 categories, the vast majority of firearms users, only train in Cat 1 and Cat 3, when they visit the range and my own personal opinion on why that is, is because (a) it's easy and (b) they wanna hit the threat (target). However, in terms of street engagements, that's not how these situations go down - the truth is that Cat 4, is the most likely and most probable situation that you will have to deal with, when faced with an armed threat.

The "go-to" and trending drill, seems to be walking backwards, whilst engaging a static threat and I cannot, for the life of me, think why?

Let me paint a simple picture (helped by Figure 1 below):

Figure 1

In this case, the threat could be a standing threat, in the street or a seated threat, who has been pulled over, in their vehicle, by law enforcement.

The threat (ether seated or standing) opens fire and you, the defender, return fire and start to walk "backwards", probably quite vigorously yes?

So, what are the problems with this?

1. You're still in the damn kill zone.
2. You cannot see behind you, as you're walking backwards - in a street.

Don't get me wrong, if you ever come under contact on a football field, the desert or the moon, then yeah, you could probably walk backwards for miles, without tripping over anything or bumping into something/someone.

But you CAN'T do that in the Street - you just can't: so why are so many people still training this way? It has absolutely no tactical advantage for you - it only serves the interests of the "static" threat.

Would it not be better to step left/right, to get out the kill zone? Much in the same way you should be getting AWAY from your vehicle, if you're getting brassed up - but "away" doesn't mean backwards, in a straight line - because you're still in the kill zone - it means out to the left or right. (every infantryman knows this).

Figure 2

The advantages of stepping left/right are:

1. You immediately get out the Kill Zone (that's gotta be a good thing no?)
2. You have still managed to create space, but you have created "tactical" space, as opposed to "distanced" space.
3. Being closer to a "static" threat isn't necessarily a bad thing, if we consider that the further back you walk, the greater distance you will be firing at, i.e. you might miss and hit someone else, other than the threat.
4. You won't trip over something/fall down something or bump into something/someone (because you're not blindly walking backwards - you are stepping left/right)

Walking backwards, whilst engaging a static threat, is an easy drill to set up on a range, but it doesn't reflect the reality of how these things happen in the street - therefore, it is not a functional drill - it serves no tactical purpose for you: in fact, walking backwards whilst engaging a static threat, will probably cause you more problems than it will solve.

If you don't believe me, trying blindly walking backwards from your fridge, in your own kitchen and see what you trip over first - kid, dog, bag, mop bucket, grandma...

Now imagine doing the same in a busy street...doesn't make sense now does it?