Shoot 'Em Til They Drop Theory...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I train two to the body, then two to the head. Continue to shoot until the threat is eliminated.
I train to shoot whatever I can hit and keep shooting until it doesn't need to be shot anymore. A Mozambique drill is of course optimal, but I will take whatever shot I can get, and as many of them as it takes. I don't think it is advantageous to limit myself.
 
I've been taught to 'shoot until the threat is stopped.' Now it was crystal clear to me that this was in response to two fallacies: 1) shoot to kill and 2) double tap, assess, double tap, assess, etc.

I have never seen a trainer who implies to his students that this will definitely work in all cases. Nor have I experienced a trainer who does not emphasize shooting and moving.

I've seen a good many people shot and stabbed in the ED. I've seen some miraculous survivals of both. People are tough and ALL handgun calibers are underpowered for the purpose of stopping people. 80% of people shot with a handgun survive. 20% of people shot with a rifle survive. I don't know what the figures are for shotgun shootings? Lee?

But I know personally people who have survived being shot in the brain with a .38 special. Remember the movie Serpico? And how he was shot in the face with a .22 and almost died from it? I know a man who was shot by a cop with a .357 in the same place(right besides the nostril) from a distance of two feet and is walking around with a dimpled scar on his face.

So, no, I don't expect someone to get shot and fall down or burst into flames. However, if I keep shooting him; I do expect him to fall down sooner or later.
 
anyone click on his sig line??

---no tool is guaranteed to take the combatant out of the fight--

true, and truly why one needs to have a lot of tools in their self-defense toolbox and practice variation--be adaptive. thus if one tool doesn't work you can transition to another thus staying in the fight and surviving.
 
Yes they do, but as someone who put four rounds of OO buck into one person, I can tell you they do not burst into flames.

Mercop...

My goodness..4 shots of 00 Buck before he went down?? Was the guy huge or HEAVILY under the influence of drug/alcohol???

Where did he got the shots??

Trying not to be graphic...but what was left of the guy?? :eek::eek:

That must be scary...the 00 Buck is considered the ultimate man stopper....
 
Last edited:
I am "new" to the forum, not this topic. Actually, only had one real life real time real threat situation, at least viewed from my eyes. Long story as short as possible. 1985'ish, I was sent to a service call to disable the mechanical systems on a building as it was going to be put into mothballs. These were my orders and that is what I attempted to do. What I was NOT told was that this was being done due to the building having been foreclosed on. (Yes I know this will most likely be heard of many times over in the near future). Anyway they also did not tell me that the person that had been forclosed on had only the day prior been forcefully removed from the property (by the local police) for the second time in a week.
I pulled up and as I stopped the truck, all of a sudden a guy with what I reconized as a 12 ga pump shot gun and informed me that he was the rightful owner to the property and that I was tresspassing. He also eluded to the fact that he was "small game hunting" and that is why the gun. Also made some comment about how difficult it would be for anyone doing my type of work to proceed and how painfull a shot to the knee cap would be. All the while the gun was pointed saflely to the ground but he was acting weird and had "that look" in his eyes and was aggitated. I could see this guy was a nutcase. I had a S&W 4516 45ACP which I carried legally and was in a holster strapped to my right side of driver seat when driving as it was in my way when driving. I eased my hand to the gun and just sat there and listened always watching his every move. After some weird conversation, I convinced him that I was onlt there to perform a service call , and that we would both be better off if I just left. Problem solved, thank God. He was arrested hours latter and they found he had a cache in the building. SORRY for lying about being short. Now the point.
I was ready, had made the decision both then and and upon deciding on 5 years earlier to use a weapon for defense, felt the rush and believe it or not remained calm. Took some guff from some of my blood lust range buddies as it seems that they talk big about what they would have done. I guess all they THINK they want to do is shoot someone. I do not, but I will if you know what I mean. All I am saying is be carefull guys. If you have been there you know, if you have not do not wish for it.

Be Safe,
Jeff
 
The fact that an attacker has not dropped doesn't automatically mean that there's legal justification to keep shooting.

The fact that an attacker has dropped doesn't automatically mean that you must legally stop shooting.

Conclusion: "Shoot 'Em 'Til They Drop Theory" is not based on the principles of legal self-defense.

The fact that an attacker has not dropped doesn't automatically mean that he is still a threat.

The fact that an attacker has dropped doesn't automatically mean that he has stopped being a threat:

Conclusion: "Shoot 'Em 'Til They Drop Theory" is not based on the principles of practical self-defense.
 
He had a little alcohol on board. Heavy winter clothing. He also sucked up some 9MM and 40 cal rounds. He lost a thumb so he could not hold the gun.

People also do not bleed like you see on TV due to vasoconstriction (the pooling of blood into the chest cavity...heart/lungs) kinda like shooting a sponge. As they die the blood runs out. The vast majority of this stuff is not as people think it is. There are four types of failures-

Psychological- mental, he just stops, eye trauma is great for this
Central nervous system- the fastest/easiest to get but can take a very long time to be effective, dead people are dangerous
Circulatory- most common but can take forever
Structural- destroying what they need to hold weapons and move, hands, elbows, knees and pelvic girdle. Often discounted by the gurus.
 
I was taught a statistic in my ccw class that I find misleading. They said 97% of all gunshot victims brought to the hospital survive. The reason I find this funny is simple. "Brought to the hospital". The ones that die on the scene are brought to the morgue!!! Not the hospital, thus eliminating them from the stat.
 
I don't know what the figures are for shotgun shootings? Lee?

Byron,

I don't have any reliable figures at hand- I'll see if I can find anything.

lpl
 
You know, in the overall picture does it matter? If you are the victim of a violent crime and it is the only one that has ever been committed in your town, then your case is the only one that matters. Don't rely on any one technique, tool, tactic or teaching. The best way to combat failure is with redundancy, the redundancy of continuing until what you do has the required results.
 
I was taught a statistic in my ccw class that I find misleading. They said 97% of all gunshot victims brought to the hospital survive. The reason I find this funny is simple. "Brought to the hospital". The ones that die on the scene are brought to the morgue!!! Not the hospital, thus eliminating them from the stat.
The numbers I've seen suggest the following:

80% of people who are shot with a handgun survive.
80% of people shot with a long gun (I'm assuming this means shotgun or centerfire rifle) do not survive.
 
JohnKSa,

I found your post on 'shooting until they drop to be sometimes not legally defensible' to be incomplete and misleading.

Why? It varies depending on the individual state's statutes on the justifiable use of lethal force. It is not the same everywhere.

In fact, there are states where the person being shot does not even have to pose a threat. Here in Georgia, besides the usual 'being in fear of death or grave bodily injury,' one can legally use lethal force against anyone who has forcibly entered a residence who does not reside there. There is not a requirement for anyone being threatened or even of the intruder being armed. The only requirements for the use of lethal force in this instance is (1) forcible entry, (2) the intruder does not live there, and (3) the person using lethal force must feel that doing so is necessary to prevent the commission of another felony. Also, by statute, your vehicles are considered to be extensions of your residence.

An off-duty policeman in Columbus, Georgia shot someone who was unarmed when that person broke into his personal vehicle about a year ago. The district attorney refused to seek an indictment against the officer citing these two statutes.

It is also lawful in Georgia to use lethal force to stop a forcible felony. Forcible felony is defined by statute. It is defined as any felony where force, or even the threat of force is used.

There are circumstances in Texas where lethal force can be used where no threat is present. Are you unaware of these statutes?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not promulgating 'shoot them all and let God sort them out' or any type of such idiocy. I am promulgating knowing the laws in your state and being aware that such laws differ state by state. A person might well hold themselves to an even stricter stance than their state law allows but, in my opinion, knowing those laws is paramount.

Now, my knowledge of specific cases where lethal force has been deemed justified here in Georgia is not voluminous. But the critical issue in Georgia seems to be not whether the fourth or fifth shot was justified but whether or not the first shot was justified.
 
Last edited:
It varies depending on the individual state's statutes on the justifiable use of lethal force. It is not the same everywhere.
Regardless of whether it's the same, there are NO places where the legal justification for the use of deady force is solely dependent upon whether the person is standing or has dropped.

An attacker who has dropped to the ground but is still shooting is still a threat and a defender may be able to legally return fire in spite of the fact that he is on the ground.

A bad guy who surrenders (or ceases the activity which justified the use of deadly force) and yet remains standing may not legally be shot even though he has not dropped.
...there are states where the person being shot does not even have to pose a threat.
That's not particularly relevant.

The point is that whether the attacker has dropped or not is never the only criteria for determining whether deadly force is justified. The determination is based on whether or not the attacker remains a deadly threat (or is otherwise involved in activity that justifies the use of deadly force) and not on whether the person is standing or has dropped to the ground.

In other words, the idea that one should shoot until the bad guy drops is inconsistent with any and all deadly force statutes that I am aware of. One can only shoot until the bad guy ceases the action which has created the justification for the use of deadly force. That may or may not involve dropping.

I will concede that my post implied to one extent or another that only an attack was sufficient legal grounds for the use of deadly force. Here's a more general version...

The fact that a bad guy has not dropped doesn't automatically mean that there's legal justification to keep shooting.

The fact that a bad guy has dropped doesn't automatically mean that you must legally stop shooting.

Conclusion: "Shoot 'Em 'Til They Drop Theory" is not based on the principles of legal use of deadly force.

The fact that an attacker has not dropped doesn't automatically mean that he is still a threat.

The fact that an attacker has dropped doesn't automatically mean that he has stopped being a threat:

Conclusion: "Shoot 'Em 'Til They Drop Theory" is not based on the principles of practical self-defense.
 
Last edited:
If the shoot ‘em til they are down (or dead) theory actually worked as well as people would like to believe, then the murder rate and the number of people killed by guns in self-defense shootings would rise greatly. The numbers for attempted murder (with guns) and those injured as a result of someone using a firearm in self-defense would decrease significantly.

Not really. Check with Grossman whom you have been quoting. In his books, he tells us that since medical care has advanced enough, that the death rates are not reliable signs of violent acts. He says to look at the rate of armed assault, attempted murder, etc to see if violent crime is rising or lowering.

If you shoot someone and they hit the ground, their chances of dying today in North America are very slim. They will be out of the fight most likely. But that does not mean that they will die. Most good guys are on the phone with 911 just after, or even before a shooting. So medical help is not long off.

I first had that pointed out to me when an NRA representative was on a talk show and said that firearms helped saved thousands of people every year from criminals. The interview was taped and before they aired it the producers tacked on a statistic that only about 500 deaths a year are defined as justifiable. The implications were that the guy was lying. But since medical care is so good now, few people shot by good guys end up dying.

So the murder rate is staying level not because people are being nice, but because people are more likely to survive being shot now. At the same time, the number of attempted murders are going up because in the old days their victims would have died and thus would have been classified as homicides instead of something "attempted."

There is a difference between shooting someone until they are unable to keep up their attempt to kill you and shooting someone until they die.

We do training for this with air soft guns and other simulations. One guy charges with a training weapon of some sort. He is shot. Sometimes he falls down, sometimes he keeps coming. If he drops to the ground or stops advancing and drops the weapon the shooter stops shooting him and takes a ready position. If he is still on his feet, weapon in hand and thus a threat, you keep pulling the trigger. Even if the guy is on the ground, he could still be a threat. Maybe he might then pull a firearm. The idea of the drill is to get people to shoot as long as it is needed, to determine if someone has stopped being a threat and stop when that point is reached.

Simple.
 
What I was referring to was once your heart rate reaches 145 beats per minute your forebrain shuts down and your midbrain takes over.
This is spurious pseudoscience. In untrained subjects, you do see people panic and lose their ability to function. It is entirely unrelated to heart rate. The tendency for this to occur decreases with training and exposure.
The basic premise of "shoot them 'til they drop" isn't that they will drop, but that they won't drop.
I agree with JohnKSa, though. You need to be able to justify every shot.
 
According to Lt. Col Dave Grossman’s teachings, most people who are shot don’t know they are shot because the body shuts down all secondary senses such as pain. So, even if you are able to inflict one or more fatal gunshot wounds on the adversary doesn’t guarantee that they will drop on the spot.

He's right, that's why when I was trained we were taught to spread the shots on body mass. The assumption is the shock of the bullet hitting again in the area doesn't do much good because the system has shut down but if you spread your shots in other areas of the body mass the likely hood of bringing them down is greatly increased.
 
Somebody has a tag line that I love.

"The one-shot stop is a unit of measure, not a tactical doctrine."

I think that sums it up pretty well. Any questions?

John
 
Here is an excerpt from one of ferfal's posts in his minion reports forum blog "Surviving In Argentina":

"One guy that got into a nasty shooting once at point blank told me:
'I thought I was missing, but I also knew it wasn’t possible because I was grabbing the guy and shooting at him at point blank. He was grabbing me while he tried to twist his gun in my direction to shoot me.
I emptied my Sig 220 45 ACP with Hydrashock ammo into his torso. He kept fighting a bit but then collapsed.
Then I saw the exit holes in his back. I could see the white grounded fat.'
You have to hit them until they go down. Shooting one or two rounds and then waiting to see what happens would be a terrible mistake."
 
He's right, that's why when I was trained we were taught to spread the shots on body mass. The assumption is the shock of the bullet hitting again in the area doesn't do much good because the system has shut down but if you spread your shots in other areas of the body mass the likely hood of bringing them down is greatly increased.

As I pointed out above, I could not find Grossman actually citing statistics for those who "know they have been shot" or not. Then again, does it matter if they know they have been shot? Not necessarily. Some folks know they have been shot and keep fighting because they figure their wound is inconsequential or that they can deal with the wound at some later time after finishing business.

As for spreading out shots on the torso to spread the shock, if you are talking about pistol rounds there isn't any hydrostatic shock to spread. The real benefit of not putting multiple shots in the same place is so that you don't simply damage already damaged tissue (hence opening up more wounds) and so that you increase your chances of hitting something vital.


What I was referring to was once your heart rate reaches 145 beats per minute your forebrain shuts down and your midbrain takes over.

This is spurious pseudoscience. In untrained subjects, you do see people panic and lose their ability to function. It is entirely unrelated to heart rate. The tendency for this to occur decreases with training and exposure.

Right, if 145 bpm was a magic number, or even just high heart rates, athletes would be in a world of trouble.
 
Honestly, I would just focus on aiming at COM. Chances are that you will spread your shots anyway if you do that, with a higher probability of a hit with each shot. If you attempt to spread your shots it will just slow you down and make you less likely to hit period.
 
Aim at what you can hit. A good hit to the foot is better than a miss to the head. If you can hit it, shoot it. Shoot the most significant thing you can hit, but don't skip out on a good shot just because it isn't COM or the head.
 
With one Attacker this theory is Prolly Sound, as seen in the Video.

However with More than one, that theory would have to be Modified.
In my Opinion, For instance 3 attackers are coming at you 1 or 2 rounds to Each attacker. Then Follow up Shots at each attacker in same Fashion until Threat is Neutralized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top