Head Shots

"...the hostage taker will not be even thinking about shooting the hostage if you shot him in the head."

The problem is that there can be any number of non-voluntary physical actions following a head shot, including contractions of muscle groups.
Want to find out if that includes pulling the trigger?

Exactly what will happen to the neurological system and the muscles is not consistent.
One of the signs of brain death is the 'cerebrate disconnect' posture.
The person looks like they have 'put there hands up' as they lie there.
Hands may be clenched, but not always.
It means the cortex is not in control anymore, but the muscles work just fine.

This is not directly applicable if you hit the medulla, but no doctor is going to place a bet on the immediate repsonse of the muscle groups in the body.
 
The problem is that there can be any number of non-voluntary physical actions following a head shot, including contractions of muscle groups.
The problem is that you cannot predict what if any involuntary reactions will or will not occur. So, to base not taking the shot on that is no more supported by science than not. Although it would be interesting to see if there was any data to support it (actuall incidents, not extrapolation or theory). Assuming that the BG will pull the trigger is pure speculation and there is no way to determine if he can or will. However, what you can determine is that if you let the hostage taker leave, the situation is out of your control and the odds are against your loved one's survival.
 
Uncontrolled contractions of muscle groups following CNS injury is pretty well documented.
The more powerful muscle group typically overcomes others and the movement occurs.
You are welcome to volunteer for either position in the experiment.

Allowing a hostage taker to leave is a different issue.
 
Brick
My point is that you cannot predict what if any contractions or any other reaction will occur. Not that they don't or cannot. You don't know if they are going to drop like a sack of potatoes or flop like a fish. What I disagree with is the implication that if you shoot them they will pull the trigger. Your previous post summed it up well:
but no doctor is going to place a bet on the immediate repsonse of the muscle groups in the body.
 
Personally....knowing the human nature of the trash that has his arm around my loved one's neck and a knife to their throat....I would take the shot to the face.

I am going to guess that there is a 95% chance the BG will kill the hostage if I do nothing. I will take my chances that a good shot to the forehead will change his way of thinking and in my mind there is less of a chance that my loved one will be hurt by some muscle twitch than by his free will.

I think that reasoning with the guy in a calm manner and saying "if you put down the knife and don't harm ____ I will let you leave...I don't want to shoot you or anyone else". However, you aren't leaving with ______". I think that MOST bad guys will take the easy way out and drop the knife. After they did, I would shoot him several times for spite.

New
 
In any "Hostage Situation" time is on the side of the good guys.

Personally I wouldn't take the shot. I will contain the situation and let a negotiator "talk it out". It's not as "romantic" as the "Happiness is a Green Light" crowd, but in most instances it works.

The BG knows that if he kills his hostage all his bargaining power is moot. It is in his best interest to keep the hostage alive. Besides, there aren't many people around who have the skill to make a head shot in such a tense situation, and shooting paper is a poor imitation of reality.

Biker
 
Police tactics do not apply to civilians.
Sometimes they don’t, sometimes they do. I would suggest taking a head shot at an individual holding a hostage is pretty much taking a head shot at an individual holding a hostage. Doesn’t matter much if the shooter is a LEO or not.
The reason Police don't shoot IS because they control the situation.
No, the reason they don’t like to take the shot is that there is entirely too much uncertainty around that shot to try it if there are any other options.
I'd like to see evidence that supports the idea that letting a BG leave your house with a family member as hostage is wise.
I doubt there is any, and I don’t think anyone has suggested that as a plan of action.
You postulated 50% success rate from what I wrote. I postulated 100% when I wrote it.
You wrote “The odds are just as good that the BG will not be able to complete his action as he will.” That is a 50% rate. You cannot get a 100% success rate if the odds are just as good either way.
His first thought will be the realization that you just shot him, at which point in time the second round would be hitting him.
That is a heck of an assumption with very little to support it. In fact, I would suggest just the opposite, that the majority of the evidence indicates the shot would likely fail to achive the desired goal(s).
No one can guarantee that the BG will kill the hostage or not if he leaves either.
True. But nobody has said to just let the BG walk off with the hostage, AFAIK. There is a world of options between “shoot BG right now” and “open door for BG to leave with hostage.”
 
The BG knows that if he kills his hostage all his bargaining power is moot. It is in his best interest to keep the hostage alive. Besides, there aren't many people around who have the skill to make a head shot in such a tense situation, and shooting paper is a poor imitation of reality.
dingdingdingding! We have a winner, folks!
 
Quote:
Police tactics do not apply to civilians.

Sometimes they don’t, sometimes they do. I would suggest taking a head shot at an individual holding a hostage is pretty much taking a head shot at an individual holding a hostage. Doesn’t matter much if the shooter is a LEO or not.

I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the incident happens to a civilian and the choices are take the shot or let the BG escape with the hostage. If that is the case, my reply(s) is the same.

Quote:
The reason Police don't shoot IS because they control the situation.

No, the reason they don’t like to take the shot is that there is entirely too much uncertainty around that shot to try it if there are any other options.

Again, if the only options are to take the shot or let the hostage taker leave with the hostage,then they are going to take the shot. The only reason that other options are available is because the police control the situation, not because of the uncertainty of the shot. Taking the shot is a last resort doctrinally because of necessity. Some of the considerations are those which as a civilian I need not worry about like; what is the public reaction to me shooting him, have I exhausted all possible options before taking the shot, etc. If I read the situation correctly, it is you, him and the hostage. No police, no perimeter, no cavalry. In that case, IMO the answer is clear. There are no other options. It is either take the shot and risk him injuring/killing your loved one or let him leave.

As far as the BG's reaction; no one can predict what it will be.
 
I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the incident happens to a civilian and the choices are take the shot or let the BG escape with the hostage.
That is the first problem. Neither assumption is prescribed by the scenario.
Again, if the only options are to take the shot or let the hostage taker leave with the hostage,then they are going to take the shot.
But those usually aren’t the only options, LE or not.
Taking the shot is a last resort doctrinally because of necessity.
I don’t know where some folks get these ideas about how LE works. It is not a last choice shot because of necessity, it is a last choice because of unpredictability.
There are no other options. It is either take the shot and risk him injuring/killing your loved one or let him leave.
You seem to be the only one who has gotten hooked on this idea that the BG is trying to leave with the hostage. So yes, there are other options. ANd even if the BG is trying to leave there can be options in that situation, depending on a number of variables.
 
I think that reasoning with the guy in a calm manner and saying "if you put down the knife and don't harm ____ I will let you leave...I don't want to shoot you or anyone else". However, you aren't leaving with ______". I think that MOST bad guys will take the easy way out and drop the knife. After they did, I would shoot him several times for spite.

And knowing that is exactly why the bad guy won't give up the hostage easily. Why exactly do you think it's so hard for negotiators to get the bad buys to let hostages go? Because they know that once they do they lose all control over the situation.
 
Try as I might, I cannot recall a single instance of the police letting someone who has taken a hostage go free.

The moment they took another person hostage they also set in motion a chain of events that only has one of four outcomes:

1...He releases the hostage and goes to jail and nobody dies.

2...He dies and the hostage is rescued.

3...The hostage dies and he survives but goes to jail.

4...Both he and the hostage die.
 
Two Colt Peacemakers in 45 Cal. in a Roy Rogers style fancy holster. A Mod 92 Winchester is leaning behind the front door. Naturally, everything is loaded. As back up I have two dobermans and a pit bull. I also have a good attorney on retainer for when the gun play is over.

The only thing I hate about wearing that rig when I'm wearing my skivvies is that silver is very cold to the skin.
 
One thing you have also to take into account that although easy to do on a range, head shots are harder to do than we think.

From 3/7 (3rd Battalion, 7th Marines) AAR from operating in Al Qaim

Head shots sound great on the rifle range not as easy for a target running at full speed with an engagement window of 1 to 3 seconds. Also, not easy when fighting a religious zealot, adrenalin and whatever else pumped up, inside a house or building and you have to put five to ten rounds into him to kill him.
 
You got a lot of answers eh Freakdaddy?

While there are no guarantee's to anything I can almost guarantee you will never have to make that choice yourself, so don't worry about it. **** happens, plain and simple.
I agree with the others. This scenerio is fantasy. Even if you were a law enforcement officer in the very situation you described, the decision to shoot wouldn't be yours anyway. Your superiors would hold the responsibility of wether you take the shot or not.
 
I have thought about the situation and a true nightmare scenario for me is a one of my children or my wife being held by someone. FOr that reason I do practice some head shots at close reange (3 yards max) every time I am at the range. No more than 10% but enough to know I can do it with each of the guns I depend on for personal defense.

Would I take the shot? It depends. I would wait until the criminal's weapon was not immediately at my loved one's head. Time is normally on your side as the police should be on the way. As soon as the gun is off their head though I will take the shot.

I know what is said about fine motor skills under stress. I also know that in the two very near shooting I was involved in I sensed no loss of control during the incident. If anything I experienced what felt like hightenned clarity and focus. Immediately afterwards I shook uncontrollably, both times having bile come up into my mouth but managing not to completely blow chunks. I feel that if needed to I could take the shot.

The head shot is not the 100% stopper but it is the best we have. This is one reason I refuse to use something like a .22 or .32, I want enough power to punch through a skull (hopefully). Having to depend on a single headshot is NOT good, but then nothing about the scenario is good.
 
The way you train is the way you'll react.

I'm surprised to hear you invoke the name of Ayoob.

Haven't heard that name in years.

As for the thread, I'm a former Marine, head of security (SOG) at Camp David.

CQB (Close Quarters Battle), as we called it, is about 75% of all we did.

Weapons used include Mossberg 590 with first 2 rds. loaded as slugs, MP-5 variants, M-9 Beretta, M-16A2 (a few variants as well) and then a slew of much heavier weapons, on up to .50 cals and MK-19 automatic 'nade launchers.

We trained with all the gear, i.e., ANPVS (night vision), gas masks, MOPP gear, body armor, massive ammo and flash bangs.


Our guys were some of the best shooters in the world (IMO), and we frequently brought in outsiders up to our "hill" (Camp David is located on top of a mountain) to train us, a different guy every week. Our pool of trainers came from the FBI HRT, Maryland State Police, D.C. SWAT, etc. In addition to that, all of us went to CQB school in Virginia, as well as Basic and Advanced Security Guard school.

I went through 400- 800 rounds a week (each) for two years.

It is the best training I could possibly receive.


What did I learn regarding headshots?

First the standard answer: To stop a target, you want to place a double-tap on them and follow up with shots of opportunity: two to the chest, one to the head. We trained to scan the target, looking for opportunity. If he was wearing body armor, we shot 2 to the head, then 2 to the hip. If his head was low, while wearing a helmet, we'd go 2 to the hip. We had paper targets that depicted targets in various states of armor and dress.

Laying aside the matters of the CNS and autonomic responses, the key to being able to confidently engage a target under a high stress situation such as the one outlined above is TRAINING. If you aren't training with your weapon of choice, you won't be able to employ it in the time of need. If you have put the hours in at the range, then when the time comes, you won't even think- you'll react. And reaction is always faster than thought. Thinking involves weighing consequences, balancing fear, analyzing data with the conscious mind, debating within yourself. Reaction is fast and silent. When the target of opportunity appears, your body automatically does what you've trained it to do thousands of times before, and you eliminate the target. No thought involved.

In the case you described, with a hostage, and the only target of opportunity is a head-shot, lets describe it for what it is:

A skull is a sphere (irregular at that), not a pancake or steel target. Because of this, there is a much smaller impact area that can have the desired effect- roughly 2" X 2". If you hit outside that impact zone, directly in the center of that sphere, chances of deflection increase past the point of acceptability. That isn't to say that you can't take down a target with a head-shot at imperfect angles. Its just saying chances of deflection are higher if your aim isn't what it should be. The further outside of that desired center-mass you impact, the greater the chance of deflection. Think of it like pool (billiards) with a really small, fast cue ball, and your target is the 8 ball. :eek:

Now that we've put this in perspective, lets remember that if you are ever called on for a headshot, and you have to do it with a pistol/handgun, you'd better be dead on, aim center-mass, and squeeze it off smoothly. And take the shot twice (double tap).

PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE.:)
 
Back
Top