Head Shots

[BikerRN]

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

[David Armstrong]

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.”

[David Armstrong]

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!

[Lurper]

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.

[David Armstrong]

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.

[Axion]

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.

[Spade Cooley]

If I was the hostage and the dead eye marksman had a rifle, I say take the shot. Don't try it with a pistol.

[easyG]

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.

[Spade Cooley]

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.

[STLRN]

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.

[FS2K]

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.

[Musketeer]

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.

[eltorrente]

What does Ayoob say about this situation? I'm sure several people here have read his book(s).

[JoeBlackSpade]

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.

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.

[Musketeer]

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

Haven't heard that name in years.

He posts on this forum regularly and has columns in American Handgunner and Combat Handguns.

[JoeBlackSpade]

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

Haven't heard that name in years."


He posts on this forum regularly and has columns in American Handgunner and Combat Handguns.






- It's been a long time since I've picked up either mag- at least 6 years, since I've been overseas for that long. Before that, I was an avid reader of both mags, and I've read many of his articles from back in the '90's. As for his posts, I am looking forward to reading them, since I'm a noob and still learning my way around.

[DeathRodent]

Peoples body's are built to fall forward when they go unconscious.

Think about it - think about the ways your knees bend? The way your neck beds?

Only on TV do people faint get shot, etc, etc, etc, and fall backwards. So if you see someone faint and fall backwards its because they are faking it and don't want to break their nose.

Not to say you won't go backwards if you slip or are pushed but when the body goes unconscious the knees bend, the head droops downward and forward, and the body falls face first.

So if you get a stop shot to the head the BG will not fall backwards cutting the victims throat.

[Double Naught Spy]

Peoples body's are built to fall forward when they go unconscious.

Think about it - think about the ways your knees bend? The way your neck beds?

Only on TV do people faint get shot, etc, etc, etc, and fall backwards. So if you see someone faint and fall backwards its because they are faking it and don't want to break their nose.

Cause and effect...People's bodies are not built to fall in any direction. They may tend to fall in a given direction, but it isn't some sort of design parameter.

Your logic on the knees is weird. Based on how the knees bend, a person will fall backwards. The ankles are more prone to let you fall forward, as it the waist. With that said, what causes the direction of falling is based on a variety of parameters, not just the orientation of the joints.

Here is a nifty clip of where fainting people are shown falling in all sorts of directions....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQJombZDO8

Notice that not all fall on their faces.

In watching some of the posted sniper and battlefield videos, there are folks to drop like rag dolls when suffering a CNS hit, and crumple down on top of themselves.

[David Armstrong]

Notice that not all fall on their faces.

Right. And fainting is quite different from getting shot. the shooting also carries with it the bodies flinch and reaction muscle movement, which can cause all sorts of unusual movements/directions.

A n ote since it was touched on by our Camp David friend, head shots don't always work, the ability to get through the skull is dependent on a lot of factors. I worked a case once where the victim was shot in the face close enough to get powder burns with a 2" .38. When we go to the scene he was up walking and talking. At the hospital they pulled the slug out through his nose, as it had bounced off bone and come to rest in the sinus cavity.

[threegun]

If given the choice of either taking the shot or letting the hostage taker leave with the hostage, I would have to shoot. Provided that it was within my abilities.

If there are other options I certainly can't see them. For me its end the situation or let them leave and hope the badguy lets them go alive. Perhaps David can provide us with the other options. Remember Lurpers assumptions are a family member taken hostage and the badguy wants to leave the scene with hostage. No cops just me, my family member, and the badguy. What are the options?

[BikerRN]

Who says the hostage taker is leaving?

For grins and giggles let's pretend we are in my house and my wife is the hostage. The hostage taker IS NOT LEAVING WITH THE HOSTAGE!

I will contain and control the situation until the local LEO's get there. The hostage taker is free to go at any time but I will not let a hostage be taken to another location, nor will I relenquish my weapons.

If the hostage taker kills the hostage, guess what? As I said before, all his bargaining power is moot. As far as head shots go, I'm a pretty good shot but have missed paper target headshots in competition, so I wouldn't attempt it.

Fantasy is one thing, reality is another.

Biker

[threegun]

Going by Lurpers scenario Biker.

[DougO83]

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.

I would watch this kind of mentality in a public forum, New. I was previously addressed that it is possible to bring this information and discussion up in a courtroom. Though I am surely no legal expert, is it a good idea to spout that considering it could be used against you if you, God forbid, end up in this kind of situation?

[David Armstrong]

Remember Lurpers assumptions are a family member taken hostage and the badguy wants to leave the scene with hostage.

Let us also remember that Lurpers assumptions are very different than the original scenario. That is the problem with so much of this nonsense, there are an infinite number of paths in the scenarios and thus options depending on how each individual wants to make their own assumptions. For example, I might assume that in this situation I would have a box of small ball bearings that I could spread across the floor making it impossible for the BG to keep his balance when he tried to leave with a hostage. Hooray, problem solved!

For me its end the situation or let them leave and hope the badguy lets them go alive. Perhaps David can provide us with the other options.

Sure. There are lots of options that involve taking some action other than shooting. Shove the couch in front of the door. Lock the deadbolt and swallow the key. Pretend not to understand what the BG is saying, and talk back in a foreign language. Talk a whole lot. Again, the BG didn’t just take a hostage for the fun of it, he took a hostage for a reason. What is that reason? Can we meet that goal in a manner that allows all parties to avoid getting hurt? People tend to look at this sort of thing as black or white. It rarely is. There are usually a number of options and alternatives available. Biker sums things up pretty good.

[shy_man]

I witnessed several occasions about hostage taking. Some police made mistakes by firing at the hostage taker, the hostage got killed too.

In some occassions too, when the hostage taker plan to escape after long negotiation, then he was shot.

Lately, 1 bus full of kindergarten kids were hostaged by an idiot fanatics, through long negotiation and patience on the part of the police forces, none was killed. Everthing went well.

It depends on the situation on the area on what proper response to adapt or do.

Be patient, don't be a trigger happy policeman or le on the spot, you might put yourself, your teamleader or department in hot water. After the hostage taking resolve, then even you killed the hostage taker by a covert acts later on.

Well, in every country there are different approach. I am only speaking for my country Philippines.