Best tactics in a kidnapping?

Ok, all I'm trying to say is after someone has the drop on you, any time. Do you comply?
Click to expand...
That is something that you will have to decide. If all indications are that they are herding people into the back to start shooing, or getting ready to abscond with a family member, compliance may not be a good idea at all.

Of course, you would be a whole lot better served to prevent someone from getting the drop on you in the first place. That's my strategy.
 
Compliance at this moment does not necessarily indicate long term compliance. In some circumstances compliance, at least in the very short term, is necessary to get the aggressor to let his or her guard down. There is also an assessment of motive. A mugger is likely wanting property (of little value on me) for some reason. It is unlikely he wants to get involved in a murder / assault investigation. Someone at your door, forcing his or her way into the house, or kidnapping you is an entirely different situation.
 
You use protective devices when working, driving, and boating. I wear my gun for the same reason, just in case it's needed. My wife and I have a plan in case of home invasion, what to do if one of us is being held as a hostage or shield, and what to do in the event of a car jacking. We have a place to go and a place to gather if we have to get away from a situation in a hurry. Safe rooms have communications built in. The extra cell phones are in case you have to use the escape route and let the police know what your location is.

Compliance provides an invader a sense of power and control. Denying him that compliance can do one of a few things. He can question his ability to complete his plan, he can become louder and more aggressive, or he might become violent. The confusion at the first sign of non-compliance can be used as a tool to gain the upper hand. Doing something completely unexpected - like dropping from a heart attack or fainting - can provide a couple of seconds to get the attacker. If the attackers are "professionals" you will know right away. It is difficult to rattle or confuse a professional. You are likely going to die anyway so you just work at getting someone away or getting word out to the police or anyone.
There will always be events that you simply can't come out on top. I just feel I would like to be prepared for what ever comes. That is why I get training, practice what I learn, and use the knowledge to plan to survive. Lke they say; "failure to plan is planning to fail."
 
Personally, the only time my gun is not on my person is if I'm in bed, or the shower. Even then it's at arms reach.
Click to expand...
Do I have a loaded gun near me while at home? Yes, within 20 feet or so, one downstairs and two upstairs. But carry continuously? Nope, not while I'm at home.
Click to expand...

The only difference between the original statement and the reply is that the person who replied finds on-body carry inconvenient and has both a home layout and sufficient mobility to assume that he will reach a pistol soon enough to make a difference. I wish we didn't ridicule other gun owners for their choices when they are so subtly different than our own, and especially when we don't know the full situation of health, mobility, family, economics, and so on.

Ok, all I'm trying to say is after someone has the drop on you, any time. Do you comply?
Click to expand...

One reply to this was to consider all the circumstances, and one element that should be considered is that the production of a firearm from a concealed location may well still effect an element of surprise to an assailant. There is going to be a short but measurable period of time that it takes the BG to recognize they are now seeing a weapon, to decide how to respond, and to act. It might be just the break you need to have a fighting chance in such a dire situation, and at that point a fighting chance is the only chance you have left. The harder and more decisively you press that slim chance, the more you can turn the odds in a favorable direction.
 
Last edited:
The only difference between the original statement and the reply is that the person who replied finds on-body carry inconvenient and has both a home layout and sufficient mobility to assume that he will reach a pistol soon enough to make a difference.
Click to expand...
An perhaps the respondent is less concerned about leaving a lethal weapon where it may be accessed by others.

Personally. I want my firearm under my control, and I prefer to keep it a lot closer than "Tueller distance" and where no intruder can get between me and my gun.

Inconvenient? Well, I do not have to put it on and take it off every time I leave the house and return.
 
Keep your awareness at a high level, and start shooting at the first opportunity, and don't stop until you are out of ammo or the threat is neutralized. I'm not going easy.
 
MG stated
Once someone ties you up though, there is nearly zero chance of getting away.
Click to expand...

If it's a SF group I'd agree but for the 99% untrained home invader, I'll disagree.
Look at how your tied up, ropes and lamp cords, zip ties or 2 pair of good cuffs + shackles?
1 guy or a pro team?
Duct tape or pro gags and hoods?

There are many tricks to make an invaders methods less effective, some are in books, many / most are not.
 
I don't wanna depend on my attackers ineptitude at tying knots.. I like my odds better before being tied up regardless.
You're probably not gonna know how they're gonna secure you until you've already surrendered.
Just like you're not likely to know their motives or plans for you either.

At the very least the odds of them finding and taking any weapon you have on you is extremely high.

Which would you rather do, try to sly your way out later which may not even work or fight while you're still in control of your self, and are probably armed.

Now obviously this is all moot if they somehow incapacitated you already.
 
Best tactics in a kidnapping?
Click to expand...

The "best tactic" is to avoid being taken at all costs.

As someone once said, "if you ain't cheating, you ain't winning."

Remember, ... if one or more strangers are forcibly trying to take you somewhere you don't want to go, that makes you the 'good guy'.

You do what you have to do, even if it means getting your hands dirty, or bloodied.
 
AGTMAN's post got me to thinking,

There was actually a very old German court case that hinged on a simplistic idea. "There is the right and there is the wrong. Never need the right yield to the wrong." Someone trying to force their way into your home or force you where you do not want to go is, with some exception, likely of ill-intent.

The comment on cheating and winning reminded me of some basis rules of non-consensual unarmed combat: A) Arm yourself and B) win
 
The "best tactic" is to avoid being taken at all costs.
Click to expand...
This statement contains too many absolutes for me to fully agree with it, but I have to admit that my position isn't far from it at all.

The potential outcomes for being taken prisoner in your own home with your family are pretty horrendous. Preventing a home invasion from being successful by breaking it up in the early moments, even at a relatively high cost, makes a lot of sense.
 
From what I've read in various places, and from the more recent news reports, the most likely targets of home invasions are those who are known to have cash or easily fenced valuables. When the stats say that the perpetrators are known to the victims, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's relatives, close friends, or business associates. If I remember correctly, Massad Ayoob made that point in one of his books - the perpetrator may be the supermarket bag boy who sees the victim always paying in cash; the clean up crew member who notes that the store owner takes the more valuable jewelry home with him, etc. These are all "known" but not close.
 
From what I've read in various places, and from the more recent news reports, the most likely targets of home invasions are those who are known to have cash or easily fenced valuables. When the stats say that the perpetrators are known to the victims, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's relatives, close friends, or business associates. If I remember correctly, Massad Ayoob made that point in one of his books - the perpetrator may be the supermarket bag boy who sees the victim always paying in cash; the clean up crew member who notes that the store owner takes the more valuable jewelry home with him, etc. These are all "known" but not close.
Click to expand...

Good point(s).
 
Honestly though, I've heard of just as many 'wrong address' break in's from some meth head who's 'sure' you're loaded with cash somewhere. Heck even the police kick in the wrong door fairly often...
 
JoeSixPack wrote:
You're never gonna know the "kidnappers" motives.
Click to expand...

I'm not?

I assert I certainly will - and I'll not only know it, but I'll likely know it in the opening seconds of the event. What's more is that in the same post you tell me I'm "never gonna know" their motives, you proceed to tell me exactly how I will know what their motives are.

My opinion is anyone wanting me to go with them instead of demanding property.. it ain't about money.. it's YOU they want...
Click to expand...

Robbery versus Murder, sure sounds like motives to me.
 
Last edited:
Lohman446 wrote:
...old German court case...
Click to expand...

In the United States, the decisions of foreign courts may be considered for their persuasive power, but they have no precedential authority. In pretty much every state, the legislatures have specified the circumstances under which deadly force may be used and the courts in those states have created a body of caselaw applying those statutes to specific instances.
 
hdwhit said:
I'm not?

I assert I certainly will - and I'll not only know it, but I'll likely know it in the opening seconds of the event. What's more is that in the same post you tell me I'm "never gonna know" their motives, you proceed to tell me exactly how I will know what their motives are.



Robbery versus Murder, sure sounds like motives to me.
Click to expand...
I didn't say murder, maybe.. and especially if you're a women they have worse things in mind for you.

But ya got me, Maybe you're worthy of ransom.. or maybe they'll just keep you captive and run you to atm to atm.. who knows what happens in the end.

You've uncovered my flawed logic.. by all means if a strange van pulls up and offers you candy go with them. ;)
 
Preventing a home invasion from being successful by breaking it up in the early moments, even at a relatively high cost, makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Well said!!! Home invaders/kidnappers are not benevolent guys with your best interest at heart. Take the fight to the home invaders/kidnappers right up front.

Decades ago my wife and i survived two home invasions. The first home invasion was by two career criminals who followed my wife home from work. They wanted her body.

Scumbags kicked in the front door, whereupon my wife shot the first one between the eyes with a .357 magnum. A piece of his skull the size of a half dollar was lying in the entrance way. i grabbed a loaded 16 gauge shotgun and shot the second guy who was trying to get his gun into play. He died in prison many years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top