Shoot at the pelvis to stop an attack?

[briandg]

I think that simple reflex will put the bullet in at center chest. You'll be looking at him and that gun will just level out right where it belongs as you bring it up. It's the other aiming points that are unnatural

Kiss. Your mental processing should be devoted to decision making, observing, action, let your training assert itself. If you've trained properly you can draw and be on target with very little disruption of other important processes.

That's what buck fever is all about. Locking every single neuron in on looking at the stupid thing and not devoting any to the process of shooting it. Gotta keep the mind moving.

[Double Naught Spy]

Where do you shoot?

Yep, finding either of the junctions where the femoral head meets the acetabulum is going to be tough to do intentionally on a stationary naked target given the amount of anatomy most folks know and the lack of external landmarks to denote such locations. The problem increases hugely when the intended target is clothed/clothed strangely and even more so when the target goes into motion.

[briandg]

Yes, several times since I first saw this thread, I've spent some time identifying the pelvis on people with really poor results. Best I can come up with is shoot at the belt or belt loops, Any one of them, to go through the bones that they hang on.

That will work for me, and maybe a fourth of all men during a few months of the year. Shirt and pants weather, normal jeans or slacks.

Best to just hose the lower belly with bullets and hope for a bit of luck, rather than spend more than one second trying to find the hip bones.

This is all just my thoughts, based on what I perceive of the world I happen to live in, and my skills. The last thing I ever want to do is find myself in a situation like this again.

Twenty years ago, I had a Rottweiler come charging up the block at me, growling, snarling, I might have shot him. That idiot had a tennis ball, and he just wanted to play fetch, but seriously, old floppy jaws had literally engulfed all but a tiny spot of that ball, I finally saw the speck of green.

Unpredictable. That stupid dog taught me a lesson.

[oldbadger]

Playing the game of “What If” here.
I have been watching this thread with interest and I think there has been an assumption made that is often made and is not quite complete. I can think of a situation where the bad guy is not actually facing you but is facing to one side or the other, such as if he is menacing an innocent. In addition one must clear the far side of the bad guy to avoid an over-penetrating round that strikes another innocent. That holds true almost all the time. I think it might be possible to have a situation where you want to angle your shot somewhat downward to decrease the risk of an over-penetrating round hitting someone else. In this scenario a pelvis shot might be the way to go. From the side an area that is about a hand span from the beltline down will target a lot of bone. If the badguy is wearing his belt in the traditional “banger style” a shot at the belt will put one in the target area. In short a shot in the pocket might do the trick. This does not take into account for the possibility of a ricochet off a bone. OK, I am not sure I could do this either, but it makes fun theory and food for thought.

[Ruark]

I've often contemplated this question. There are some types of "non-gun" attackers that you can easily put down WITHOUT a fatal shot. Myself, I could easily put a slug through the knee of anybody inside of 10 feet. Trust me, a half-inch hole through the knee will drop you in your tracks, not to mention an off-the-chart pain level.

Yet, I personally know some CHL instructors who say "shooting to wound" is a very, very bad idea that should never be considered, that you should either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. One perspective is that a prosecutor could take the position that if you didn't need to kill him, maybe you weren't justified in using deadly force in the first place.

Another view is what your priority is: to kill the attacker, or to stop the attack. I can think of many situations where it could be the latter. Again, though, there are many who draw back in horror at the mere suggestion of deliberately shooting to wound.

If some bad guy who was evidently unarmed was threatening me verbally, say walking towards me (with me displaying my weapon) saying "go ahead, shoot me, m---f---" say maybe he's drunk or stoned or just carrying a club or knife, I would have a hard time just slaughtering him, when I could drop him in his tracks with a knee shot.

[OldMarksman]

There are some types of "non-gun" attackers that you can easily put down WITHOUT a fatal shot. Myself, I could easily put a slug through the knee of anybody inside of 10 feet. Trust me, a half-inch hole through the knee will drop you in your tracks.

I'm afraid I'm extremely skeptical that, in any situation in which the facts and the evidence available after the event would justify the use of a weapon, anyone would be able to "put down" an attacker with a shot that did not entail a high risk of a fatality

Yet, I personally know some CHL instructors who say "shooting to wound" is a very, very bad idea that should never be considered, that you should either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all.

One cannot really shoot to kill if the perp is still a threat, nor can one shoot to wound. One can shoot, and the shots may result in a fatality,or maybe not.

One perspective is that a prosecutor could take the position that if you didn't need to kill him, maybe you weren't justified in using deadly force in the first place.

???

Another view is what your priority is: to kill the attacker, or to stop the attack.

Your only lawful objective is to stop the attack.

Again, though, there are many who draw back in horror at the mere suggestion of deliberately shooting to wound.

I cannot conceive of any way to go about "deliberately shooting to wound" if the attacker has the ability and opportunity to seriously harm me and I have reason to believe that shooting is the only way I can avoid an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

[pax]

Lots of misunderstandings above.

Legally, no matter where the gun is aimed (and no matter what the intent of the person pulling the trigger), using a gun against another person is using deadly force. Whether that force would be justified in the eyes of the law does depend on the person's intent -- whether the person being attacked uses the gun righteously only to stop the attack, or whether they unrighteously had the sole goal of killing the attacker. But in either case, using the gun is using deadly force.

As an example, here's a quote from RCW 9A.16, the chapter in Washington state law that covers defenses to homicide:

Originally Posted by RCW 9A.16

(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury. [ 1986 c 209 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.010.]

With minor variations, every state has a similar definition. And in every state as well as in federal courts, a firearm is considered a per se deadly weapon, which means that by statute, using a gun to shoot another person is always using deadly force.

The law is written that way because shooting someone often causes serious physical injury or death, no matter where the bullet lands. Even if the shot only hits an arm or a leg, the attacker could easily die from shock or blood loss. That is why shooting someone in the arm or leg is, legally speaking, every bit as serious as if we deliberately shot them right through the heart.

Those who cannot handle the thought of killing someone should not carry guns for the purpose of self defense.

Furthermore, if in the potential victim's opinion, the situation does not warrant a deadly degree of force, the gun is not the right tool for the job. Because the gun is deadly force, no matter where one aims.

We can talk about the practical issue of where to aim. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you can guarantee the assailant will stay alive if you "only" sever their femoral artery at the knee.

pax

[WIN71]

Assailant Dying because of a femoral artery broach. I do not know why this statement is in this discussion. On a rescue helicopter responding and landing on a medivac after a one hour time span I found the timber faller that had somehow cut through his femoral artery. He had pinched it off. I had to work hard to do the same so we could get him transported.
Bottom line, if a big one gets severed you better try to stop it from pumping.
If it keeps pumping you got about 30-50 seconds to keep fighting.
And that is why the CNS or pelvic breakdown may give you time. I'm not saying aim for it but if it get's hit you got some time.

[OldMarksman]

And that is why the CNS or pelvic breakdown may give you time. I'm not saying aim for it but if it get's hit you got some time.

Who has time?

[kyguy1]

I hope such a situation never happens, but if it did, more than likely, you'd have to make a split decision, unless in the event that an attacker or burglar broke in and you were lucky enough to barricade yourself in a room after calling 9-1-1. In a split decision, if I'm threatened, and I feel it's my life or theirs, I'm going to aim for the largest center of mass which is the general chest/torso. Ideally, you'd hit the main artery in the chest which ensures rapid death, but any decently placed chest hit is going to bring them down.
I would have zero qualms about killing an intruder.

I'm not going to be worrying if I kill them vs mortally wound them, if they are threatening me or in my house, I'm going to just aim to disable them as fast as possible whatever or how ever many shots that takes. If they fall after a couple shots, then great. If someone is threatening me and it's a fight or flight situation, I don't think many average people will sit and contemplate much else but stopping the threat. I'm going to shoot until they're down and not moving. I'd likely be scared as hell, and shoot to kill. I've thought about various scenarios in an intruder scenario, and if there were multiple intruders, that would be extremely scary. However, an advantage I do have is living on ground floor, and could escape through a window if I needed. I wouldn't want a situation where I'd have to be trapped in a room with no way out, and have to wait for police, and by then the intruder(s) could find me. In which case, I'd have to shoot. But I don't think I'd go looking for them myself, that would just be stupid. However, if I was forced to, I'd try and hide and if they came in and I felt they were going to discover me, and I could not escape through a window, I'd shoot them. I wonder about firing a warning shot first if they got too close, but they could be high on drugs or something, and so my inclination would be to try and avoid them at all costs and try and get out a window if I had time. My big worry would be that I'd be asleep and they awakened me and I would ave little to no time to react.

[OldMarksman]

I'm going to shoot until they're down and not moving.

Lest anyone take that too literally, it should be understood that the mere fact that someone is moving will not, by itself, indicate that that person has the ability and opportunity to present an effective and immediate threat of death or great bodily harm.

With gun in hand, yes, but DO NOT think that otherwise one would be lawfully justified in shooting until moment stops.

[briandg]

I know a guy who blathers on and on about his plan. Two to the chest then to the head when they go down. At one time I told him that it was one of the stupidest things that I have ever heard.

To shoot a man who is down and unable to continue the attack is murder or attempted, the least charge could or would be intentional manslaughter. It depends on circumstances, jurisdiction, local laws, other variables.

No matter where it lies in legal terms, if a person is down and unable to continue the fight, MORALLY SPEAKING, that is an execution.

The guy in question has a .357. And a .45, several of each for carry and home, and he intends to kill.

There was a case near here, a guy put the bad guy down and emptied the magazine into his back. Inexcusable, and he was prosecuted.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There have been cases where a person in a 'self-defense' shooting, fires two shots that would seemingly disable the person, removing the threat, and then fires another after a discernible pause. No, I'm no talking about the pharmacist case.

The shooter was charged with premeditated murder. The shooter also had other characteristics such as open carry, firearms training -and he went to the person's residence over a financial matter. While the first two shots might have been defensible, the time gap for the third and the obvious disabling of the opponent was the cause of his problem. The time gap was only a few seconds - but judged to be enough time to see the threat had ceased.

Thus, the finishing shot, so to speak, if after a pause - isn't going to look good.

All the circumstances go to the jury, so don't bother to say, that the shooter characteristics didn't make a difference because a good shoot is a good shoot.

[briandg]

Premeditation always seems to be, so to speak, a moving target. We've had a number of killings here that were supposedly people carrying guns and pointing them as a threat. Two of them involved estranged husbands. Both were threatening their wives and "the gun fired itself". I guess that first you would have to prove that the shooter deliberately fired the gun, then prove beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was carried to the scene of the killing with intent to use it to hurt the victim. Then, you have all of the legal hurdles, jurisdiction laws, and the actual findings during the trial.

I have pretty clear thoughts on what premeditation, but it's all relative to exact circumstances.

[briandg]

That case of the pharmacist was just about the most clear cut case of absolute stupidity I have ever seen.

It's also possible that he had very serious mental health issues.

[OldMarksman]

I guess that first you would have to prove that the shooter deliberately fired the gun, then prove beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was carried to the scene of the killing with intent to use it to hurt the victim.

What makes you think that the latter would enter into the question?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No, that is not how the premeditation went down. It was the actions during the incident that premeditation was determined to be present.

What one thinks and what the legal process thinks are not necessarily the same. This isn't a Law and Order episode.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by briandg

...I guess that first you would have to prove...

When it comes to legal issues, don't guess. Do the research.

Originally Posted by briandg

....I have pretty clear thoughts on what premeditation,.. .

Apparently not.

Let's look at some definitions of "premeditation" in the legal world:

1. The Law Dictionary:

   The act of meditating in advance; deliberation upon a contemplated act; plotting or contriving; a design formed to do something before it is done. See State v. Spivey, 132 N. C. 989, 43 S. E. 475; Fahnestock v. State, 23 Ind. 231; Com. v. Perrier, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 232; Atkinson v. State, 20 Tex. 531; State v. Reed, 117 Mo. 604, 23 S. W. 880; King v. State, 91 Tenn. 017, 20 S. W. 109; State v. Carr, 53 Vt. 46; State v. Dowden, 118 N. C. 1145, 24 S. E. 722; Savage v. State, 18 Fla. 965; Com. v. Drum, 58 Pa. 16; State v. Lludgrind, 33 Wash. 440, 74 Pac. 565.

2. Nolo Press:

   Premeditation
   
   Someone premeditates a crime by considering it before committing it. Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon.
   
   Deliberation
   
   A defendant deliberates by considering the act and its consequences (but not necessarily the punishment), and deciding to follow through with it. A deliberate act isn’t provoked or carried out in the heat of passion. But that a defendant was excited or angry doesn’t mean that she didn’t deliberate.
   
   Time Required
   
   Time alone doesn’t determine whether a defendant premeditated and deliberated. All premeditation and deliberation require is the time it takes to form the intent, ponder the crime, and then act. Defendants can premeditate and deliberate in a matter of minutes, as long as the thought process occurs before the act....

3. U. S. Legal:

   Premeditation is planning, plotting or deliberating before doing something. For example, murder by poisoning automatically includes an element of premeditation. Premeditation is an element in first degree murder and shows the element of intent necessary to convict of the crime.
   
   The amount of time necessary between the planning and the act to prove premeditation is judged on a case by case basis. Murder in the first degree consists of an intentional, deliberate and premeditated killing, which means that the killing is done after a period of time for prior consideration. The duration of that period cannot be arbitrarily fixed. The time in which to form a deliberate and premeditated design varies as the minds and temperaments of people differ, and according to the circumstances in which they may be placed.

Take special note of the fact that the necessary premeditation can occur in a short period of time.

[cloud8a]

Was Oswald shot in the stomach or pelvis? In the footage he screamed and dropped like a rock. Looked like he was unconscious by the time he was on the gurney. I cant remember if the ambulance was already down there in the garage or how long it took it to get there if it wasn't.

[Snyper]

Take special note of the fact that the necessary premeditation can occur in a short period of time.

So can the realization that the threat really hasn't ended just because they went down with the first shot or two.

All this is the dreaded "speculation" that gets threads locked or posts deleted in other places.

[cloud8a]

All this is the dreaded "speculation" that gets threads locked or posts deleted in other places.

Maybe we can save it and steer the post back in the right direction. Going back to the OP.

If we talk about center mass as a common tactical shooting concept, cannot center mass include the pelvis when we are talking center mass?

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of 2 to center 1 to head. Only because under major stress I fear attempting a head shot with the knowledge that if I miss the head there is a list of humans that die beyond that head.

What about a training practice of 2 to center 1 to pelvis? 2 to pelvis 1 to mass?

Or everything to mass and move hoping the bad guy doesn't get you all because you didn't get the head.

There was a shootout here awhile back between LEO's and a bad guy. The news story said that the bad guy was shot in the head. Later when I saw a mugshot of the LIVING bad guy with a bandage around his jaw I asked a LEO friend of mine "I thought they said he was shot in the head?" The LEO said the jaw is the head.

[OldMarksman]

If we talk about center mass as a common tactical shooting concept, cannot center mass include the pelvis when we are talking center mass?

I don't see how that makes any sense.

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of 2 to center 1 to head.

I don't like the idea either.

What about a training practice of 2 to center 1 to pelvis? 2 to pelvis 1 to mass?

What do you think you would likely hit with that pelvic shot? Consider this from a prior post:

"....finding either of the junctions where the femoral head meets the acetabulum is going to be tough to do intentionally on a stationary naked target given the amount of anatomy most folks know and the lack of external landmarks to denote such locations. The problem increases hugely when the intended target is clothed/clothed strangely and even more so when the target goes into motion."

[WIN71]

Did two to center of mass then one to the head come from? As a copper I was taught it because if 2 to the chest failed, discounting misses of course, maybe, just maybe, the guy had a vest on. I mean maybe if the bad guy is willing to shoot it out with a cop, the cop should shoot the third shot where there is no vest. The neck or head, is the second biggest visible hit area.

[johnwilliamson062]

The neck or head, is the second biggest visible hit area.

But it isn't, especially if you take into account the area where the vest is likely to fold. The lower abdomen, pelvis, and legs is a much larger target. Sure there is a gap between most guys legs, but it isn't that wide.

I don't know why people are so set on discussing single shots. Don't use a single shot.
'well, only 15% of shots taken n armed confrontations find the target'
A case of poor statistics. Look at the data and you will find that there are shooters who hit a high percentage and shooters who hit a low percentage. Box and whisker the data by shooter and you will see a difference.

[pax]

Originally Posted by win71

Where? Did two to center of mass then one to the head come from?

Originally referred to as "The Mozambique Drill," the concept was popularized by Jeff Cooper through his groundbreaking school in Arizona, which is now Gunsite Academy. To the best of my knowledge, Gunsite (founded in 1976) was the first defensive firearm training school for civilians. Cooper's work at Gunsite was also hugely influential on American law enforcement training, and is the source of many ideas that have filtered through LE over the years.

Here's what Cooper had to say about the concept:

Originally Posted by Jeff Cooper

As time passes we discover that there are a good many readers who have not been to school and who are puzzled by our reference to "The Mozambique Drill."

I added The Mozambique Drill to the modern doctrine after hearing of an experience of a student of mine up in Mozambique when that country was abandoned. My friend was involved in the fighting that took place around the airport of Laurenco Marquez. At one point, Mike turned a corner was confronted by a terrorist carrying an AK47. The man was advancing toward him at a walk at a range of perhaps 10 paces. Mike, who was a good shot, came up with his P35 and planted two satisfactory hits, one on each side of the wishbone. He expected his adversary to drop, but nothing happened, and the man continued to close the range. At this point, our boy quite sensibly opted to go for the head and tried to do so, but he was a little bit upset by this time and mashed slightly on the trigger, catching the terrorist precisely between the collar bones and severing his spinal cord. This stopped the fight.

Upon analysis, it seemed to me that the pistolero should be accustomed to the idea of placing two shots amidships as fast as he can and then being prepared to change his point of aim if this achieves no results. Two shots amidships can be placed very quickly and very reliably and they will nearly always stop the fight providing a major-caliber pistol is used and the subject is not wearing body armor. However, simply chanting "two in the body, one in the head" oversimplifies matters, since it takes considerably longer to be absolutely sure of a head shot than it does to be quite sure of two shots in the thorax. The problem for the shooter is to change his pace, going just as fast as he can with his first pair, then, pausing to observe results or lack thereof, he must slow down and shoot precisely. This is not easy to do. The beginner tends to fire all three shots at the same speed, which is either too slow for the body shots or too fast for the head shot. This change of pace calls for concentration and coordination which can only be developed through practice.

Note that it's not just changing your aimpoint that matters. The important part is mastering the change in pace required to get your hits when the size of the target changes.

pax