I think people will aim at where they've trained. That being said, I'd rather start at the chest instead of the head as I would assume there is less danger to others as the rounds are heading down to the ground faster than if you were aiming at the head. That's why a groin shot is an interesting option, but if they're not responding to COM hits, then I think you should go to the head.
2 to the chest 1 to the head
- Thread starter gdeal
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
You can be the test case for shooting someone again after it looks like the threat was removed.
Got a test for you.
Have burglar break in. Have him incapacitated on the ground, obviously unconscious when the cops arrive.
Then shoot him in the head in front of the law.
Kentucky Deer Hunter
New member
+1 Glenn E. Meyer
Wharsmahummer ~
The jury will be instructed to ask themselves if you believed and did what a reasonable person would have believed and done in the exact same circumstances.
You must be able to clearly articulate exactly how your life was in danger at the very moment you pulled the trigger.
If you can, the court will find that it was a good shoot.
If you can't, the court will find that it was not.
pax
1. Most people would not think head or chest, they would just blaze away. (That does not make it right.)
2. You are not most people if you choose so.
The first step to dealing with a possible failure to stop is to really understand that it is entirely possible and have a plan of what to do should it occur. Those who have not done so will certainly fail to adapt to the situation. Those who have considered it seriously and practiced should be able to adapt to the situation. Most people will not do so, then again I believe most people are asleep and most have never seriously considered a lethal force encounter let alone a failure to stop.
Why not continue to throw lead into the chest?
There are two explanations.
1. Simple: As Dale Carnegie said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome."
If two rounds have failed to stop in the COM how many others do you want to try? How about all of them? If it still hasn't worked then what?
2. Detailed: People fight because they want to and because they can. The only sure stop is to either shut down the Central Nervous System or inflict enough damage that the target bleeds out to the point that he cannot function. (A third is breaking significant parts of the skeletal system to cause him to drop but that is very unlikely with a handgun and the bones needed to be broken.)
If hits to the torso are not stopping him because he is intent on murder and or is so medicated he does not feel them then you can give up on trying to convince him to stop through pain. You best option is to shut down the CNS which is located in his melon. More in the torso MAY result in a spinal chord break and will cause him to bleed out faster but between adrenaline after already taking two and any other factors mental or pharmaceutical he is not going to stop until he runs out of blood and that can take a long time when someone is intent on murder.
If hits to the torso are not stopping him because he has on body armor, which is FAR from unheard of on rampage killers and criminals these days, then more to the torso are going to accomplish nothing.
"Don't you guys ever get tired of fantasizing about shooting people? Either buy some video games, or stop playing the one you have.."
wow, maybe your lost... this is the tactics and training forum. this is the place where people with questions about what tactics work best for the rare chance that they may be forced to use their firearms
to defend themselves . apparently you either have all the answers or you look down on those with questions or concerns about using their ccw's in a real life situation. in any case it seems you are either lost or find the idea of discussing tactics immature - in which case you would in fact be lost... look to another site you may find more your speed www.pretentiouslowbrowfolk.com :barf:
wow, maybe your lost... this is the tactics and training forum. this is the place where people with questions about what tactics work best for the rare chance that they may be forced to use their firearms
to defend themselves . apparently you either have all the answers or you look down on those with questions or concerns about using their ccw's in a real life situation. in any case it seems you are either lost or find the idea of discussing tactics immature - in which case you would in fact be lost... look to another site you may find more your speed www.pretentiouslowbrowfolk.com :barf:GetYerShells
New member
If you talk to people who have been in firefights you will find some interesting information. The likelyhood of you actually hitting your target where you intend is very low. In a firefight you lose all fine motor skills, you will get tunnel vision, your adrenaline will be pumping, and if your target is on the move then you may not even hit it.
Talk to some police officers who have been in firefights and see how many shots they fired versus how many if any actually hit their targets. Some military Combat Arms Instructors put it this way. Say when you qualify with an M4 out of 40 shots, you hit 23 (which is the minimum the Army requires to qualify). If you can hit a stationary target, under optimul conditions, 23 times from the prone position then you translate that to a real world fire fight you would be lucky to actually hit your target even once.
So I say regardless of what your situation is if you can hit your target with a controlled pair in the chest and they are still able to move and you are confident to hit them in the head then go for it. However, the likelyhood of you missing and injuring an innocent bystander is much higher than you hitting them in the head where you intend.
Talk to some police officers who have been in firefights and see how many shots they fired versus how many if any actually hit their targets. Some military Combat Arms Instructors put it this way. Say when you qualify with an M4 out of 40 shots, you hit 23 (which is the minimum the Army requires to qualify). If you can hit a stationary target, under optimul conditions, 23 times from the prone position then you translate that to a real world fire fight you would be lucky to actually hit your target even once.
So I say regardless of what your situation is if you can hit your target with a controlled pair in the chest and they are still able to move and you are confident to hit them in the head then go for it. However, the likelyhood of you missing and injuring an innocent bystander is much higher than you hitting them in the head where you intend.
Of course you include all the people who never seriously thought they would be in a shooting and practiced in that category. This includes the majority of the LEOs I have known, including my own family members. Sorry but your analysis is about as valid as telling a person their chances of being bitten by a shark is infinitesimal based on a total population analysis while ignoring that the person is a regular surfer off the coast of FL.
Again, the vast majority of people never consider a lethal force encounter with any seriousness let alone a failure to stop along with practice. Just taking those items into account raises you to a completely different level than the masses of people for whom such statements as you make apply to.
Musketeer nailed it.
Unless you are not directly being fired upon, chances are your ability to actually aim and hit where you intend will be seriously degraded.
On the other hand, if the BG is focused on a 3rd party and you plant two in the X-ring to no effect, the first consideration is that he's armored up. This leaves you with the small, very mobile head as a target or the pelvis which moves less. A .45 Caliber circumcision or suppository is not the goal. The goal is to disable the BG's mobility by damaging the heavy pelvic bone, ball & socket of the leg or tearing up muscles and tendons that support the body.
Two to COM, two to the pelvis. If those are ineffectual, then the harder to execute headshot is your alternative.
Many years ago, a police instructor ran a semi realistic drill. The officer would run 100 yards as fast as possible, stop, pick up his weapon and magazine, run 5 yards to the shooting station, load and shoot at a jerkily moving target. In place of the head was a cataloupe. Instructions were two to COM and one to the head. On average it took something like 6.6 rounds to actually hit the head at 20 yards. But it only took 3 shots to hit the watermelon hidden behind the pelvic area.
Unless you are not directly being fired upon, chances are your ability to actually aim and hit where you intend will be seriously degraded.
On the other hand, if the BG is focused on a 3rd party and you plant two in the X-ring to no effect, the first consideration is that he's armored up. This leaves you with the small, very mobile head as a target or the pelvis which moves less. A .45 Caliber circumcision or suppository is not the goal. The goal is to disable the BG's mobility by damaging the heavy pelvic bone, ball & socket of the leg or tearing up muscles and tendons that support the body.
Two to COM, two to the pelvis. If those are ineffectual, then the harder to execute headshot is your alternative.
Many years ago, a police instructor ran a semi realistic drill. The officer would run 100 yards as fast as possible, stop, pick up his weapon and magazine, run 5 yards to the shooting station, load and shoot at a jerkily moving target. In place of the head was a cataloupe. Instructions were two to COM and one to the head. On average it took something like 6.6 rounds to actually hit the head at 20 yards. But it only took 3 shots to hit the watermelon hidden behind the pelvic area.
There are a few quick counters to this argument. The first is that it is a standard technique taught throughout academies, the military, training schools, etc. The second is that if you've trained in the technique, you can be expected to revert back to it during the fight. The court does not expect you to excercise perfect, flawless actions, just reasonable ones. The third, and most central point, is that if you can demonstrate a reasonable and subjective fear for your life that you led you to believe that deadly force was authorized and necessary, it's not supposed to matter how you apply that force. Granted, individual situations will vary a bit depending on the prosecutor and your facts.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you go to court:
1. You need to have acted reasonably.
2. Get a lawyer who is expert on the issues, with the appropriate supporting expert witnesses. Pay attention to jury selection processes.
This is well laid out in studies of jury responses.
1. You need to have acted reasonably.
2. Get a lawyer who is expert on the issues, with the appropriate supporting expert witnesses. Pay attention to jury selection processes.
This is well laid out in studies of jury responses.
David Armstrong
Moderator
This should be a place where tactics that help you avoid shootings, and tactics that reduce your chance of ending up in court or jail should also be quite accepted. The fact that so many posts here involve shooting when there is no real need, that it is OK to be dishonest as long as you don't get caught, how can you best skirt the law, and similar threads is disturbing to some of us.
"This should be a place where tactics that help you avoid shootings, and tactics that reduce your chance of ending up in court or jail should also be quite accepted. The fact that so many posts here involve shooting when there is no real need, that it is OK to be dishonest as long as you don't get caught, how can you best skirt the law, and similar threads is disturbing to some of us."
Absolutly!!! I agree with that statement 100%, however the question on this thread was about what technique would work if there was a need, (i.e. the badguy has body armor or is on drugs of somesort). I made my comment earlier in response to someone who offered no particular insight to the question asked by the op and who mocked all who offered advice to the op. In my opinion that was disrespectful:barf:. There was a time before I was a LEO, that I knew next to nothing about what the right tactics were and what kind of training I should get. in those times I looked to TFL for advice and most often I found honest and for the most part accurate advice, from others who have been there and done it. That is what this forum should be about as well.
like I said, I agree with you 100%. This forum is about tactics and training. which should and does include situational awareness, de-escalation, security measures, legal precautions, following the law, what to do before during and after an incident and so forth. as well as shooting and general defense techniques and tactics.
as a side note- failure to stop drill is standard in any training i've received.
good luck
Absolutly!!! I agree with that statement 100%, however the question on this thread was about what technique would work if there was a need, (i.e. the badguy has body armor or is on drugs of somesort). I made my comment earlier in response to someone who offered no particular insight to the question asked by the op and who mocked all who offered advice to the op. In my opinion that was disrespectful:barf:. There was a time before I was a LEO, that I knew next to nothing about what the right tactics were and what kind of training I should get. in those times I looked to TFL for advice and most often I found honest and for the most part accurate advice, from others who have been there and done it. That is what this forum should be about as well.
like I said, I agree with you 100%. This forum is about tactics and training. which should and does include situational awareness, de-escalation, security measures, legal precautions, following the law, what to do before during and after an incident and so forth. as well as shooting and general defense techniques and tactics.
as a side note- failure to stop drill is standard in any training i've received.
good luck