Playing Dead as Self defense - examples

I agree completely but playing dead completely negates any possibility of stoping the threat with an apporpriate amount of force.
Click to expand...

Apparently time and time again, the threat is stopped by playing dead. That was the point of the examples. The threat may move on, but the threat to you is stopped. When the threat does move on may be what gives you the opportunity to react, as pointed out, and to react at a point in time of your choosing such that your chances of success may be higher.

I had also started the thread on tackling an active shooter (and examples of both active shooters and those threatening to be active shooters). http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=436861

My point in looking at these alternative tactics was to see if they could be used effectively or not. Turns out, they can, despite some of the claims or perspectives that guns are the be all to end all when it comes to self defense. What good is a gun at times whe you don't have one. Far too often on this forum and others we read where folks proclaim that being unarmed (not having a gun, specifically) means being defenseless, but for many of us, being unarmed is a condition with which we are faced with some regularity. So are we really defenseless if we are unarmed?

That is an amazing perspective given that so many folks consider themselves as being "prepared" for such events where they might have to engage in self defense, but being prepared only seems to mean having a gun and being willing to use it if necessary, otherwise, they are "defenseless."

While it might be nice to be Bruce Lee or to have his skills, turns out that folks with all sorts of training and lack of training manage to effect a variety of times of self defense in lethal force encounters that work and work with surprising levels of success.

We like to say that the best defense is to be armed. It may be, or not. As a buddy of mine pointed out, the best defense is to not be where the threat is. However, somewhere along the way, many of us got the idea that "defense" means doing physical harm to the opposition. It is something of a strategy based on a good defense being based on a good offense. However, defense is just that, protection from attack. It does not have to mean doing harm to another person to stop the attack, but that is one venue. Defense encompasses a variety of considerations, one of which is playing dead which is a form of deception. You can run away. Maybe you are smart and can just avoid bad situations all together. Maybe you can hide, use cover (even if not hidden), etc. Even if without a physical non-biological weapon of your being (such as a gun, knife, stick, etc.), you can engage offensive defense where you take the fight to the opposition and people do this with equally surprising success without being Bruce Lee.

As the above scenario demonstrates, not every situation is appropriate to a "react with force" strategy.
Click to expand...

Right. Sometimes I think we are going to react ourselves to death. The critical thing is making the right decisions based on the situation. There were folks at Luby's, VT, and a couple of other mass shootings where folks reacted with force and got killed as a result. Force is great, but it has to be used appropriately. A lot of brave people are dead as a result of poor choices in their timing to use force.

Personally, I have never quite followed the logic of having a gun for self defense and then having the attitude that if I saw anything going wrong that I had to react with force, putting myself in grave danger as a result. That would seem to be counter to the notion of "defense."

Sometimes the best option is to not make yourself the most important target to the opposition.
 
If you're the specific target of a shooter, playing dead is useless and I'd think up another way to keep breathing ... in a mass shooting where everyone's a target, it might work better ... I realize you can't always be armed, there are places it simply isn't allowed ... but if you are, I'd far rather use my weapon than try and fool the shooter into thinking he's already taken care of me ...
 
Several thoughts come to minds concerning whether someone should use "playing dead" as a means of defense.

Assuming that escape is not option:

Whether the shooter will believe that you are dead because you were shot at, missed, but you fell down in a timely fashion so as to "sell" the impression that you were hit and are now dead.
Whether you are shot, hit and visually bleeding.
Whether there are other other factors to divide the shooter's attention, like other targets or threats.
Your ability to control your breathing while experiencing an the aftermath of a huge adrenaline dump.
Whether you have a viable means to fight back.
Your state of mind (this can run the whole spectrum from disbelief and denial to dinner bell).

While playing dead has reportedly been successful, how many victims are there who attempted to "play dead" and were unsuccessful? In most cases of those who tried and were unsuccessful we will never know because they did not live to tell of the attempt and failure.

This thread is definitely food for thought.

It leads me, again, to the conclusion that life is uncertain. Nothing you practice in preparation for a deadly threat can prepare you 100% for any and all eventualities.
 
It is a tactic; one of many. You would really have to be there to know what you would do; can't speculate on it. Playing dead might buy you time to do something else; like get out of the line of fire, create a diversion make eye contact with others and stop the BG somehow. Time will almost stop and you will have to do what comes to you. What is certain is that this is a situation in which no one wishes to find themselves.
As for just attacking, one would need to think through the risks of that given the circumstances of the instant.
There is a tread here about a MOB attack on GA train system, what a nightmare. BG's are out of control in many places...........
 
While playing dead has reportedly been successful, how many victims are there who attempted to "play dead" and were unsuccessful? In most cases of those who tried and were unsuccessful we will never know because they did not live to tell of the attempt and failure.
Click to expand...

Okay, I will play. Let's take the same sentence and apply to firearms.

While using a gun has reportedly been successful, how many victims are there who attempted to use a gun and were unsuccessful? In most cases of those who tried and were unsuccessful we will never know because they did not live to tell of the attempt and failure.

You can make the query about any method and as such by the way the query is framed, cast dispersions on the validity of the method.

Whether the shooter will believe that you are dead because you were shot at, missed, but you fell down in a timely fashion so as to "sell" the impression that you were hit and are now dead.
Whether you are shot, hit and visually bleeding.
Whether there are other other factors to divide the shooter's attention, like other targets or threats.
Your ability to control your breathing while experiencing an the aftermath of a huge adrenaline dump.
Whether you have a viable means to fight back.
Your state of mind (this can run the whole spectrum from disbelief and denial to dinner bell).
Click to expand...

The "sell" didn't work so well with Cho who was basically entrapped with his victims and went around and shot several that he had already shot previously. That probably isn't the best of circumstances to play dead.

Keep in mind that the "sell" may be greatly influenced by the intent, goals, or orientation of the shooter. Many of the mass shooters are wanting to cover ground and shoot as many people as possible. They know they have limited time and limited ammo and hitting targets is a goal, not necessarily standing over each person and taking a pulse to make sure they are dead.
 
If you want to play dead, go for it... IF you live great.. if not well dont say you werent warned.... Well you would be dead so I guess we got that part covered...
 
glad you just responded bgutzman...

...because I was just looking for this thread(I think I must've replied to it a ways back but your response just made it appear in the new posts).

the bottom line in my mind is playing dead can work and/or I should say: it is possible that you have no other seeable/viable option to save your life. As a last resort, playing dead is an option in my playbook. For me it is a last resort without a doubt though. Also, it can't be used because you are scared or frozen so to speak. You might be frightened obviously, but that would be a Bad reason to use the 'play dead' hailmary.
 
That my friend is where we disagree.. If I have no gun I have a brain to determine whatever partial protection may be available and hands and feet and given no other choices I will die on my feet.

Propose and feel as you wish, I’m not sure what your real point is, but were different people so its not unexpected to have differences.

My point is Id rather trust my fate to my own brain and hands than praying for luck that they think I’m dead. In my life I have found that bad people usually make more mistakes when you confront them then when you don’t.

In the military way back prior to 911 and all that stuff one tactic to break up an overwhelming attack was to assault the attack and get close to your enemy so they can’t shoot without risking shooting each other.
 
Last edited:
My point is Id rather trust my fate to my one brain and hands than praying for luck that they think I’m dead. In my life I have found that bad people usually make more mistakes when you confront them then when you don’t.
Click to expand...

Choose wisely. Al Gratia made this call as well at Luby's. IF you live great.. if not well dont say you weren't warned. See how easy it is to make the logic work both ways?

In the military way back prior to 911 and all that stuff one tactic to break up an overwhelming attack was to assault the attack and get close to your enemy so they can’t shoot without risking shooting each other.
Click to expand...

This usually isn't a problem for much such situations as noted in the OP. Usually, it is single shooters, not always, but usually. Even then, who says they care on iota if they shoot their partner or not.
 
From the Norway Utoeya Island attacks...
Adrian Pracon played dead after being hurt and hid amongst the bodies of others.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259772
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-norway-shooting-survivor,0,1060717.story

"He shot everyone in the group, one by one," the youth league leader told Aftenposten. "I lay on the ground and played dead. He came up to check that everyone was dead. He … was so close that I felt the warmth of his weapon."
Click to expand...

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/world/norway_shooting_survivor_played_dead_among_bodies/5cfd0026
 
Im not playing dead and getting popped in the back of the mellon. That is my opinion, the only time I would do it is to lull the BG into a false sense of security then fire on him with my weapon.
 
That is my opinion, the only time I would do it is to lull the BG into a false sense of security then fire on him with my weapon.
Click to expand...
Assuming you have a weapon. None of the kids on the island did. In fact it appears that no one on the island did.
 
Then I would just run and take my chances. Im not laying their waiting to be executed, I wil zig and zag and try not to get hit. If I do I will try and keep on going but I dont want to just lie still.
 
Then I would just run and take my chances.
Click to expand...
The island was about 550 yards long and less than 400 yards wide. Run to where?
I wil zig and zag and try not to get hit.
Click to expand...
How long can you run? The shooter had about 90 minutes of free reign before authorities showed up. Some tried to swim away and he shot them in the water.

The point isn't that playing dead is ALWAYS a great option. It's that SOMETIMES it can work. It's one more tool to keep in the bag of tricks, so to speak.
 
O I know, Im not saying its not an option and hasn't worked. But, I personally would not. However the size of the island and the amount of time he had it sounds like there was nothing much they could do. Id try some type of evasion.
 
Playing dead is a type of evasion. It is a form of essentially hiding in plain sight which is a passive evasion. Shooters tend to spend their time and energy with moving live targets. Downed targets, dead or perceived as dead draw much less attention. That is why the tactic seems to show up time and time again in these situations.

It is an option, often overlooked, but an option. All options in these situations come with risks. However, the more options you have, the greater your chance of having a viable option that will help you. If your choices of options are limited by your ignorance of possibilities, then you also limit your chances for success and survival.
 
According to the reports I read, the shooter was walking around putting coups de grace via shotgun into everybody, to ensure they were all dead. Witnesses indicated that this included several who were playing dead.

Apparently, some of the swimmers got picked up by a guy from a neighboring island, who heard the noise, learned what was happening, and took his boat to the scene, to rescue those swimmers he could find. There are things a Good Samaritan can accomplish, even without a gun.

I have no idea what the water temperature was around that island, so I'm not sure how long one could expect to survive in the water before running into hypothermia issues. I'm sure that boater saved lives, though.

I'd much rather take my chances with hypothermia, 500 yards out, than with bullets and shot at close range.

So far, I have not read anything that indicates a group rush was ever attempted against the shooter. That would have cost casualties in the short run, but might have greatly reduced the overall body count. Thing is, most people aren't wired to try that.
 
According to the reports I read, the shooter was walking around putting coups de grace via shotgun into everybody, to ensure they were all dead. Witnesses indicated that this included several who were playing dead.
Click to expand...
I heard the same reports. What's interesting is that at least one person still managed to use the "playing dead" tactic successfully even in a situation like this one where it seemed hopless.

Also interesting is the implication that witnesses were able to tell that some who were shot a second time were playing dead. If the witnesses could tell that they were only feigning death, it seems likely that the gunman could too. I guess if you decide that's your only option, you'd better do it convincingly.
 
According to the reports I read, the shooter was walking around putting coups de grace via shotgun into everybody, to ensure they were all dead. Witnesses indicated that this included several who were playing dead.
Click to expand...

I heard the same reports. What's interesting is that at least one person still managed to use the "playing dead" tactic successfully even in a situation like this one where it seemed hopless.

Also interesting is the implication that witnesses were able to tell that some who were shot a second time were playing dead. If the witnesses could tell that they were only feigning death, it seems likely that the gunman could too. I guess if you decide that's your only option, you'd better do it convincingly.
Click to expand...

Interesting that the shooter was using a shotgun (new gun to me as I had not read this) when the survivor was shot from a distance (his statement) of 1 meter with a rifle.

Laying still and wimpering or pleading with the shooter isn't the same as playing dead. As with any tactic, you need to be smart about it. If done wrong, your chances for success are not good.

He walked around shooting folks who were down? Like Cho? Being in a confined space with a trapped active shooter is a very dangerous place to be, no doubt.

Running away seemed to have been a great way to get his attention early on. Each strategy has shortcomings, no doubt. Each strategy worked, no doubt. Each strategy failed, no doubt.

However, this thread isn't about other tactics and strategies and what you would do, but about one particular tactic.
 
Fight-Flight-Freeze Response

It is in our genes. The Fight-Flight-Freeze response evolved within the human animal from prehistoric times. Some of those that have "played Dead" and survived (or not) may have done so, not out of choice but as a very basic genetically ingrained response to a situation where fighting or running did not appear to be available options.
This response has evolved within us for a reason. If we can't fight effectively and there is no available escape route. Playing dead may be better than pointless and ineffective running around aka dynamic inactivity. Movement attracts the predator's eye and makes us a target.
That being said; in the fight-flight-freeze trilogy, freeze is the least (IMO) desirable evasion technique but it is an evasion technique. It would not be a part of our evolved behavioral response to stress if it did not enable generations to survive and pass on the trait.

All the above aside: I train, practice, prepare and pray to God, that if the nightmare happens, I will be able to do more than play dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top