2 to the Body, 1 to the Head OR 3 shots to Center Mass?

C

Charlie Golf

New member
I have been trained both ways -- 2+1 and 3 to CM (actually shoot until the threat is stopped).

But if the intention is to stop the threat, do you think a jury would view the use of a head shot in a defensive shoot as "excessive force?" It seems to me that the intention of a head shot is to inflict a fatal injury (not that COM doesn't have that potential as well).

I'm just curious if most people would view it as "malicious." And of course, I realize I'm asking the wrong crowd too... :D

I realize that the adrenaline of an actual shoot makes the largest target the best target but I'm wondering how most people train for the day they hope never comes to pass.
 
Charlie Golf:
If you were taught this from a specific department (not sure if this is what you mean by "trained"), and you're following SOP you shouldn't have any problems. This is how we are trained as well, and I have not heard of any "issues" related to following this procedure as it relates to departmental policy. (That is 2 CM, 1 Head)
 
If you have pulled a handgun out and are shooting it you are already using deadly force....doesnt get any more lethal than that.

The object would be to keep shooting till he stops. If he had a waepon and you were afraid for your life most folks wouldnt see anything wrong with that.

now if you unload another magazine into him after he is down you could be in trouble.

If you got a head shot I wouldnt attribute it to any kind of marksmanship skill, just say you were aiming center mass and the shots went where they did

most qualifications dont give a score they just say pass or fail....so it doesnt give anyone a chance to second guess you on marksmanship skills.
 
What SERT said is also true if it is department policy.....you usually get into trouble by not following policy or orders.
 
If you were taught this from a specific department (not sure if this is what you mean by "trained"), and you're following SOP you shouldn't have any problems.
Click to expand...
+1

We are also trained that way. Used to be the odds of encountering someone with a vest were slim. Today, there's quite a few floating around out there, and along with following policy, the prosecutor will take that into account.
 
This thread is a copy of one on THR or some other forum- maybe here? The idea of a head shot and the mythology of shooting to stop vs. lethal force was thoroughly discussed. I'm too lazy to find that thread.

The gist is that someone who thinks that a headshot is excessive force as compared to shooting to stop has completely misunderstood the tactical and legal doctrines that are applicable.

Someone else can search for my sparkling analysis. :)

PS: I lied. I found my thread. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=127722&highlight=shooting+stop+head

It relates to the Tyler shooting discussion on THR where the same question as this thread was posted.
 
I wouldn't think a head shot would be first thing you would go for anyway even if courts didn't view it as "excessive force." After all, 1) the head is a much smaller target, 2) it moves. Both of these cases make it harder and less likely to hit. So unless I've shot the bad guy several times and found that he is wearing body armor or is pumped up on some drug that makes him unstoppable (but that sounds like something out of a movie than real life) I will stick with shooting his center mass.
 
But if the intention is to stop the threat, do you think a jury would view the use of a head shot in a defensive shoot as "excessive force?"
Click to expand...
They might; but under proper instruction and guidance in a courtroom they certainly should not - as any shooting is de facto deadly force which by nature can reasonably be expected to cause death or serious bodily harm.

The serious bodily harm is a mere possibility of chance in the case of a shooting - not an expectation.

If you are justified in using deadly force, you can simply shoot someone in the head first time around. And if you can do it, it makes perfect sense. On the otherhand, if you shoot someone and claim in court to be justified in using deadly force, but say you aimed to "wound" your attacker only, or otherwise avoid striking their vital tissue or organs - you are setting yourself up for a fall. Because if you were not prepared to kill your assailant, that implies that you did not believe - or might not have believed - that you were in imminent deadly peril.

Best to make sure you are justified in using deadly force before you use it at all. If you are, shoot in such a way as to best preserve your own life under the circumstances.

Clint Smith wrote an article about this subject in a recent rag where he examined the prospects of this, and the COM repetition. It seems that once the first strikes are made COM, if there are no immediate results repeating this might not be the wisest route. IMO the Mozambique drill makes good sense in most circumstances.
 
Are you addressing handguns only, or does this include double and triple taps using rifles and shotguns. What is it?
 
Last edited:
i realize you have training but if it were me i'd go for 3 shots to the chest. a bullet to the head is a surefire way to send a guy to hell, i know i'm showing my weakness but thats how it is. i would much rather see this guy clean his life up after he knows what its like to get bubba to f%^k him in the ass... when i was young i remember breaking into stores late at night and and occasionally mugging people, and i know i didnt want to die with my karma. but i digress...
 
One of the problems with continuious body shots (i.e. more then 2) is that supposedly after the 1st couple hits, the nerve/pain center in a person shuts down so he will not feel any further hits. Considering that there is a good chance even a lethal strike (other then CNS) will take a min. of 15 secs. or so to stop an attacker, if he is still coming at you it is better to turn him off NOW, with a head shot.
 
From theoretical reading only - the only reason I would attempt a head shot is if the person gets so close - I know I would not miss - 13 feet or less.

I train to shoot COM until target goes down. IF target gets closer than 13 feet and is still coming towards me - then a head shot is thrown in there for good measure.

Most of the SF folks that I speak to, are trained to fire COM until target goes down. That can be 2 rounds, or 20. :eek:
 
if you take a head shot, the intention is to kill. If you take COM shots then the intention is to stop the treat with an injury, but not trying to kill, but all it takes is one good shot to the body to kill also. I think if you are trying to stop a threat and your intention is not to kill them, then you would go for COM shots. I would agree the same if I was asked to sit on a jury.
 
R -

I disagree with your assesment. COM shots are meant to kill. Not to injure. Unless you are trying to hit the target in the shoulder, legs, arms and accidentally hit the COM.

Shoot at those body parts are no longer considered COM shots. How does shooting someone in the heart / spine / internal chest cavity considered "just to injure".
 
Actually from a Law Enforcement aspect ALL shots are meant to STOP THE THREAT, you are not trying to kill, maim, or injure anyone. Simply trying to stop the threat, based on the fact that you are in fear for your or another's life and/or grave bodily injury. Furthermore you are doing what you have been trained to do whether that be 3 CoM or 2 & 1. Stick with what you have been trained to do and you will be ok.
 
if you take a head shot, the intention is to kill. If you take COM shots then the intention is to stop the treat with an injury, but not trying to kill, but all it takes is one good shot to the body to kill also. I think if you are trying to stop a threat and your intention is not to kill them, then you would go for COM shots. I would agree the same if I was asked to sit on a jury.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be wrong on the jury, as well as on the board. A shot to COM with any projectile means a potential to hit lungs, heart, aorta, spine, liver, etc. Combine that with the knowledge that once a round gets in the body, it may be deflected and travel in any direction, and a shot to COM means the potential to sever the brachial artery, or even travel into the brain stem.

Simply put, anything that will stop the threat has the potential to kill said person. Use of a firearm is deadly force, notwithstanding where the bullet impacts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top