I personally, probably would fire CoM till they droped. That's unless ive put 4,5, or more there and their still coming. Then the head shot will follow. Course, if I hit the head it'll probably be an accident. In a situation im actually shooting someone i doubt i could hit the head.
2 to the Body, 1 to the Head OR 3 shots to Center Mass?
- Thread starter Charlie Golf
- Start date
BreacherUp!
New member
so many ways..
My team trains to shoot the head on all entries. However, only during movements (I.E. moving to your spot) do we shoot to COM, but then it's back to the head if required once in position. It comes down to the amount of training that you have and how comfortable you are with head shots. There are times when I just don't feel right and go for the rythm drill (6 shots in 3 secs) when using my pistol. Again, based on my judgement at that time. My bottom line, if you train to it, and can do it, go for it. If an SOP is established, stick with that (which in my case, there is - head shots).
My team trains to shoot the head on all entries. However, only during movements (I.E. moving to your spot) do we shoot to COM, but then it's back to the head if required once in position. It comes down to the amount of training that you have and how comfortable you are with head shots. There are times when I just don't feel right and go for the rythm drill (6 shots in 3 secs) when using my pistol. Again, based on my judgement at that time. My bottom line, if you train to it, and can do it, go for it. If an SOP is established, stick with that (which in my case, there is - head shots).
I'm thinking an uninformed jury could see a head shot as malicious or "shooting to kill". But once you get an expert in there to explain that you were shooting to stop, whether it was COM or not, you wouldn't have a problem.
Sum1_Special, if you're that concerned about killing someone, you shouldn't be shooting at him.
Personally, if someone is trying to kill me, I'm less concerned about their well-being than mine.
Sum1_Special, if you're that concerned about killing someone, you shouldn't be shooting at him.
Personally, if someone is trying to kill me, I'm less concerned about their well-being than mine.At least in central Ohio, . . . a head shot is perhaps SOP for LEO's when there is a situation requiring it.
Example: dude came in a nightclub with Beretta 9mm, muscled his way onto the stage, shot and killed the drummer and lead guitarist. Was trying to do some kind of hostage thing and if I remember correctly, . . . had pumped a few other rounds out for effect.
LEO arrived, took out his 870 with 00 buck, . . . shot bg in the face at something like 15 feet. Of course, . . . end of situation. Last I heard, the LEO was given a clean bill over it, . . . and I take that as tacit approval to use a head shot (at least in Columbus, Ohio) should the situation warrant it.
Just don't carry your CCW near the mayor, . . . he is an unapologetic lunatic when someone mentions firearms to him. He makes Sarah Brady look like an NRA vice president.
May God bless,
Dwight
Example: dude came in a nightclub with Beretta 9mm, muscled his way onto the stage, shot and killed the drummer and lead guitarist. Was trying to do some kind of hostage thing and if I remember correctly, . . . had pumped a few other rounds out for effect.
LEO arrived, took out his 870 with 00 buck, . . . shot bg in the face at something like 15 feet. Of course, . . . end of situation. Last I heard, the LEO was given a clean bill over it, . . . and I take that as tacit approval to use a head shot (at least in Columbus, Ohio) should the situation warrant it.
Just don't carry your CCW near the mayor, . . . he is an unapologetic lunatic when someone mentions firearms to him. He makes Sarah Brady look like an NRA vice president.
May God bless,
Dwight
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The question was whether a head shot would look bad in court, not whether all us tactical superstars can make them.
I think, to rope the thread in, the answer is that the initial concern is unfounded and a misconception of the term shooting to stop. It does not mean shooting to immobilize while minimizing harm.
That was the point. Head shots on moving folks are difficult to make. Unless you hit the right part of the noggin, they can be ineffective but that wasn't the question.
I think, to rope the thread in, the answer is that the initial concern is unfounded and a misconception of the term shooting to stop. It does not mean shooting to immobilize while minimizing harm.
That was the point. Head shots on moving folks are difficult to make. Unless you hit the right part of the noggin, they can be ineffective but that wasn't the question.
Para Bellum
New member
actually shoot until the threat is stopped
...ask your opponent when he personally will stop attacking you.
...ask your opponent when he personally will stop attacking you.
stephen426
New member
We need to clarify if we are talking about LEO or civilians...
Law enforcement have their badge and their training on their side. Unless there are witnesses or video evidence, winning a police brutality and any case against the state for that matter is not easy. There are some obvious cases where excessive force is use but the attorneys will say that the person was struggling while the the officer was trying to make an arrest and injured themself in the process.
The following is my opinion so please don't treat this as fact. If you are talking about civilians, I feel a head shot is more likely to bring about civil lawsuits from the deceased's family, even if the state rules the shooting justifiable. When you have to have a closed casket funeral because you popped some guy in the mellon (who I am sure deserved it), his family will make you out to be a cold blooded killer and sue you because his is not able to bring home the bacon he robbed someone of. Head shots require more skill and allows their attorney to paint you as a "gun nut" who was just itching to shoot someone. They will try to say that lethal force was not necessary and that you wrongfully killed their family member. Most importantly, they will want YOU to PAY FOR IT!!! Never mind that the deceased never knew who his daddy really was. His momma was so busy smoking that crack pipe and tuning so many tricks that even she ain't sure who the daddy is. The kid was probably beat several times a day and made to sell himself on the street so he could bring home some more drug money. The minute you ended his miserable existance though, you will see how much his family "loved" him and what a positive member of society he was... HIV positive is more likely. No matter, he will bring home the bacon one way or another... dead or alive and it will be your bacon they are after.
Enough ranting about this. Sorry if I got a little carried away. Shoot until the threat no longer exists. If that means one between the eyes, so be it. I just think a stupid jury and an scumbag attorney may end up feeling sorry for these poor people who lost their kid to some gun nut that was just looking to kill someone.
Law enforcement have their badge and their training on their side. Unless there are witnesses or video evidence, winning a police brutality and any case against the state for that matter is not easy. There are some obvious cases where excessive force is use but the attorneys will say that the person was struggling while the the officer was trying to make an arrest and injured themself in the process.
The following is my opinion so please don't treat this as fact. If you are talking about civilians, I feel a head shot is more likely to bring about civil lawsuits from the deceased's family, even if the state rules the shooting justifiable. When you have to have a closed casket funeral because you popped some guy in the mellon (who I am sure deserved it), his family will make you out to be a cold blooded killer and sue you because his is not able to bring home the bacon he robbed someone of. Head shots require more skill and allows their attorney to paint you as a "gun nut" who was just itching to shoot someone. They will try to say that lethal force was not necessary and that you wrongfully killed their family member. Most importantly, they will want YOU to PAY FOR IT!!! Never mind that the deceased never knew who his daddy really was. His momma was so busy smoking that crack pipe and tuning so many tricks that even she ain't sure who the daddy is. The kid was probably beat several times a day and made to sell himself on the street so he could bring home some more drug money. The minute you ended his miserable existance though, you will see how much his family "loved" him and what a positive member of society he was... HIV positive is more likely. No matter, he will bring home the bacon one way or another... dead or alive and it will be your bacon they are after.
Enough ranting about this. Sorry if I got a little carried away. Shoot until the threat no longer exists. If that means one between the eyes, so be it. I just think a stupid jury and an scumbag attorney may end up feeling sorry for these poor people who lost their kid to some gun nut that was just looking to kill someone.
I've been one to subscribe to shooting COM, and if that doesn't stop the threat, do the Pelvic Shot. A moving head is a small target compared to the rest of the body.
But, in the words of one of my shooting partners: "Always fire at least two warning shots to the chest before shooting them somewhere else."
But, in the words of one of my shooting partners: "Always fire at least two warning shots to the chest before shooting them somewhere else."
Mannlicher
New member
too many folks here worry WAY too much about what a jury might think or do. The ONLY thought that should be in your pea picking brain at 'crunch time', is stopping the guy trying to ice you. Whatever it takes, thats what ya gotta do. You can hire a damn attorney later to handle the fall out. Geez!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Sigh - what silly people are out there. I've said my piece before for the rationales. Do what you want.
Oh - the folks who are against head shots for 'legal beagle' reasons, might you let us know your level of tactical training and did you share your doctrine with your instructor?
Oh - the folks who are against head shots for 'legal beagle' reasons, might you let us know your level of tactical training and did you share your doctrine with your instructor?
If you've got legal justification to defend yourself with deadly force it doesn't matter whether you put three into the chest or two into the mellon. Hell, if you are legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, you could whip out old Ma Deuce and reduce the BG to a fine red mist. As long as you don't stand over the BG and put one into him while he's laying on the ground incapacitated or shoot him while he's running away (but these both go to the issue of justification). Remember the word "deadly" in the term "deadly force"? You're not going to face criminal charges because you intended to kill the BG with shots to the head as opposed to trying to incapacitate him with shots to CoM if you were otherwise justified. Both have the potential to be ineffective, and both have the potential to incapacitate or kill the assailant. Absent some other facts or circumstances any civil proceeding initated by the assailant is going to go the same way. Anyone care to cite a successful civil suit by an assailant (or his estate) where the victim was cleared of criminal charges based upon the justification of self-defense?
If you need to shoot, just make sure you've got legal justification then shoot as you've trained - whether that be two to the chest and one to the head or three to the head, etc. The instant they no longer present a threat for which you would be legally justified in shooting, STOP.
Para Bellum
New member
sorry
1.) In my country (Austria) gun incidents are rare although we have a very high number of legal private arms. A jewler shot a burgler in the head about a year ago. He wasn't even tried. The DA dropped the case. I repeat: The jewler shot him in the head, no COM, he went right for the brain.
The jewler was waiting in a back room of his shop because his steel rolling shutters were damaged the night beofre. His insurance told him he has to guard the shop until the rolling shutters were fixed or they won't pay in case he was hit. So he did it himself and slept in the back of his shop ready with his gun. Three burglars came back. He shot one right in the head. The others decided not to enjoy the view and left peacfully but rather FAST.
2.) I'd shoot COM until the threat drops or I realize that COM doesn't work (vest!) then I'd go pelvic or head, whatever my fear, adrenalin, skill and distance would make me do.
Stay safe and sound.
sorry for that rude post, I was in a bad mood. Now I'm calm and had a piece of cake.
1.) In my country (Austria) gun incidents are rare although we have a very high number of legal private arms. A jewler shot a burgler in the head about a year ago. He wasn't even tried. The DA dropped the case. I repeat: The jewler shot him in the head, no COM, he went right for the brain.
The jewler was waiting in a back room of his shop because his steel rolling shutters were damaged the night beofre. His insurance told him he has to guard the shop until the rolling shutters were fixed or they won't pay in case he was hit. So he did it himself and slept in the back of his shop ready with his gun. Three burglars came back. He shot one right in the head. The others decided not to enjoy the view and left peacfully but rather FAST.
2.) I'd shoot COM until the threat drops or I realize that COM doesn't work (vest!) then I'd go pelvic or head, whatever my fear, adrenalin, skill and distance would make me do.
Stay safe and sound.
otasan
I think his notion that to simply "keep shooting COM 'til they drop" encourages spray and pray might have much merit. As opposed to two quick COM, and if there is no immediate effect, slowing down a tenth and aiming for the nose/eyeline.
That's the one I erroneously earlier as being penned by Clint Smith. Had a dig through the local rag rack today and found it again.
I think his notion that to simply "keep shooting COM 'til they drop" encourages spray and pray might have much merit. As opposed to two quick COM, and if there is no immediate effect, slowing down a tenth and aiming for the nose/eyeline.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
At the NTI , we were face with several targets that were reactive and would drop dependent on the incidence of the hit.
I think the Tyler, TX shooting indicates that in today's world, shooting into COM until they drop is NOT a plan.
I think the Tyler, TX shooting indicates that in today's world, shooting into COM until they drop is NOT a plan.