When a headshot may be your best option...

[JLStorm]

I have taken quite a few private and state sponsored classes since I have been carrying and one thing that has been covered again and again and again is that often one shot doesnt put someone down, often they can keep fighting for a bit due to the adrenaline after multiple shots. The other thing I have been taught repeatedly is that you always shoot center of mass, but what doesnt add up in my mind is how I am supposed to defend myself against an attacker with a handgun by shooting COM if the distinct chance exists that he can return fire while or after being shot. I know duck and cover, move and shoot, etc, but if the has already drawn down and is ready to fire, cover and moving may not be as much of an option as we imagine it would be.

The downside of a headshot even at close range under stress is that you could miss, but it seems the upside would be that there will be no return shots and you are much less likely to wind up dead trying to defend yourself by shooting COM when the attacker may very well be shooting back...quite possibly taking headshots himself. Due to everything I have been taught regarding the legal system this is more a hypothetical question than anything else, especially because I trust myself to make a COM under stress much more than I would ever trust myself to make a headshot, but I still wonder why it has never come up as an option in any of my classes especially if you are to close to an attacker to run or find cover, but close enough to make a reliable headshot?

I am just curious if I have fallen off my rocker or this method of thinking makes sense to you...even if you wouldnt do it yourself due to potential legal issues that may exist.

 

[Art Eatman]

You're not interested in killing or wounding. What the deal is, you shoot to stop. So, keep shooting until the Bad Guy stops being bad. And you have to do that while being aware of your surroundings and the possibility of bad results from a stray shot.

In order to make that head shot, though, you have to be in control of your own adrenalin as well as have the skill to move the front sight to proper alignment on the smaller target. Not easy without having worked in some manner of practicing (the old "Mozambique Drill", e.g.) and having given a good bit of thought to your (hoped-for) tactics.

Art

 

[Jeff White]

You may not get instant incapacitation with a head shot. The area where you have the best chance of getting a bullet into the brain is pretty small. And as you alluded to, the head itself is a small target and likely to be moving.

However, you can probably get him slowed down enough to make a better shot with a hit in the head that misses the brain box. Ever been punched in the face? Remember how stars flashed before your eyes, you involuntarily closed your eyes, your nose started running and you were stunned for a second or two? Even if you miss the brain, you will probably get those effects. Use the time to fix your bad head shot and put your opponent down.


Don't make your shot and stop and assess. If he's worth shooting once he's worth a few more bullets. I am a big fan fan of Pat Rogers' non-standard response drill. 5-9 shots as fast as you can control the weapon. Once you get your trigger control down you'll be surprised how fast you can accruately shoot.

Learn to shoot while moving. There is nothing in the rule book about standing and fighting. In fact there are no rules in the rulebook.

I'm glad that you posted this. It brings up a point that needs to be made. There is a world of difference between shooting and fighting. You can train to shoot, or you can train to fight.

If you are going to train to fight, you need to train to be very proficient in handling the gun you carry. You will never be able to out think your opponent if you are fighting the unfamiliar piece of steel in your hands.

Mindset

Manipulation

Marksmanship

Are often referred to as the combat triad. Everyone trains for marksmanship, which is the easiest skill to acquire. Putting 5 shots from your custom 1911 into a quarter size group at 25 yards is a nice demonstration of marksmanship, but it won't serve you well in a fight. Putting 5 shots from your 1911 into an 8 inch circle between the nipples of your target in about 2 seconds while moving is what's going to serve you well in a fight.

Almost no one trains for manipulation. Oh we all think we know the manual of arms of our carry weapon, but how many of us set up malfunctions so we can practice clearing them? Probably not many. It doesn't look cool. It's hard and when we practice we tend to practice those things we already do well because it makes us feel good to do well. We should be practicing those things we don't do well. Malfunction drills, speed loads and tac loads from the equipment we'll use on the street, unconventional positions, shooting while moving. All skills we will need to win a gunfight, but all things that for one reason or another we don't train on.

Mindset, this means book work. Study, talking with people who know...Again not a skill that's easy or fun to train on.

Being a good marksman is important, but in a fight it's not enough.

Jeff

 

[ar10]

Art is absolutely right, You always "shoot to stop" someone. That was pounded into our head for two weeks during training, sort of like one of the commandants.
In Ohio the attorneys and prosecuters, depending on which side you're on will try every means possible to get you to NOT say that statement. Even the OSHP interviewers after a justifiable shooting will try the same thing. And when you appear before the Grand Jury you always say "shoot to stop".

 

[JLStorm]

I have had the shoot to stop drilled into my head as well, Im not saying its the wrong approach, it just dawned on me that shooting to stop may not be as effective as we would like if the attacker is or will momentarily be shooting to kill from close range, especially if they are more emotionally detached from the situation through experience, drugs, or mental issues, etc. Then again, Im not a gunfighting expert either, so I could be way off.

 

[Tim Burke]

The other thing I have been taught repeatedly is that you always shoot center of mass

Not every trainer teaches you to only shoot COM. I've had over 20 trainers, and I don't think any of them have ever said to only shoot COM. OTOH, I believe all of them have suggested that is the most appropriate first target most of the time.

 

[phaed]

i'd suggest always shooting COM.

1. less likely to miss the target
2. prevents collateral damage
3. most likely to absorb all the energy of the projectile
4. if it doesn't stop the target completely, it will at least pause the target long enough to fire another round
5. keeps the training simple

it's best to just always train this way, and to do it quickly exactly how you train when it happens. don't try to stop and think up fancy stuff in the middle of a crazy situation, you don't have time for it.

btw, if the BG already has the draw on you, and is keeping a bead on you, you screwed up before it ever started. gotta keep up that situational awareness, and maintain 360 security at all times.

if it got to this point, i wouldn't recommend doing anything except exactly what the gunman says. you allowed him to be the boss. now you have to rely on your intelligence to be able to manipulate the situation to find yourself an opportunity. i'd much rather rely on my weapon than my intelligence and negotiation skills when it comes to dealing with a BG. don't give them this opportunity.

 

[BullfrogKen]

As Tim stated, I don't know any reputable trainer who teaches students to engage any mass of the body to the exclusion of others. Most do teach COM; that's the most reliable to stop the assault AND the easiest to hit.

Moving off the line of force is generally recognized just as important as the act of shooting under the circumstances you describe. Standing in place to exchange rounds . . . the best we can do is tie.


John Farnam commented at the NTI Roundtable that there is no BEST answer. We are chosing from the better of poor alternatives. That means our best choice still sucks. That's life.

You can do everything right and still die anyway.


Find ways to train yourself to respond to stimuli dynamically and in real time. If your solution isn't working, do something else. If COM hits aren't working, shift your aiming point someplace else. Or move big and attempt escape. Or do both.

 

[ar10]

It doesn't matter where you shoot the individual. It's what you say after the incident. I know a SWAT LEO for the PD who had 2 deadly encounters with bank robbers in seperate incidents. In one the BG was armed and the second the BG was not armed but said he was. Every statement he made and heard by the GJ was he shot to stop the BG.

 

[LAK]

JLStorm

I have had the shoot to stop drilled into my head as well, Im not saying its the wrong approach, it just dawned on me that shooting to stop may not be as effective as we would like if the attacker is or will momentarily be shooting to kill from close range

I dissent. This business of claiming to shoot to "stop" is all semantics to me. I'd like to know who was the person to first introduce this dangerous nonsense into popular use - and then established it as some kind of legal precedence. It is a vehicle for confusion; and confusion is not going to serve the interests of conscience - nor justice.

There is no such thing as (service type) handgun "stopping power". The vital tissue destruction necessary to effect rapid or instant phyical incapacitation (as opposed to a psychological stop) is very likely to cause death. The only reliable target for an instant or near instant physical incapacition is that of the central nervous system. That means the brain or very upper spinal cord; although a solid heavy blow penetrating or fracturing the skull or upper vertabrae can induce the same effects.

And there is no need for semantics here; most every reasonable person knows that if you intentionally shoot someone through the brain - you are going to kill them. There is a slim chance they may not die if your bullet connects as intended, but any reasonable person knows it is but a slim chance. While destruction of the heart, aorta etc will not necessarily result in instant incapacitation, it will likely mean death - killing them. Let's take semantics through it's possible course ......

"Did you intend to kill Mr. __________ ?"

"No, I only wanted to stop him"

"Then why did you shoot him through the heart if you only wanted to "stop" him?"

"I aimed for center mass ... his chest. The largest part of the body and recommended in training to produce a stop"

"You mean the center of the chest?"

".. um ... yes"

"And just which vital organs and tissue lie in the center of chest?"

"Um ....... "

"You do not not know which vital organs are located in the center of the chest? You are not going to tell the court that you do not know where the human heart lies in the chest cavity Mr. Jones are you? ..... You do know that the likely result of the destruction of the heart is death do you not? ... "

[..... and so on]

A justifiable homicide is a justifiable killing. The distinction between killing and murder needs to be understood precisely - both in moral (or whatever word one wishes to substitute) and legal terms.

While there are times when an individual in any given circumstance might choose to shoot arbritrarily at the largest presented target portion of an assailant in a deadly confrontation, let's not play semantics. If you are not prepared to kill your assailant - you are not justified in the use of deadly force.

Those who write legal advice columns suggest this "to stop" jargon supposedly to counter any notion planted in the minds of a jury that you are a "killer" (which implies - but does not equate to - murderer). Ask them what happens if you tell a jury you "didn't want to kill, just to wound" and they will abruptly about face and point out that this might lead to the planted notion that deadly force was not justified, in that you were not in sufficient deadly peril.

Deadly force means deadly force. A justifiable homicide is a justifiable killing.

In regards to head shots, I favor the mozambique drill. Not in every circumstance, and it is simply one of many shooting drills.

In some cases one might choose a head shot right off. If someone jumps you, has one hand round the back of your neck and shoves a knife into your middle; and you can draw, shove the muzzle into their face, head (or under their chin, up the side of the neck etc) and snap the trigger - you'd better do it. IMO. If someone appears at your driver's door in a parking lot with a big crowbar, and faster than you can say "bang" reduces the window to fresh air and thrusts the hook end in trying to pull you out or batter your head against the door post; and you can draw, point the muzzle in their face, and shoot. IMO you'd better do it. If you are engaged with a thug who is shooting at you and visible hits to their torso are not having a visible effect on their trigger finger I would aim for the head.

There is one particular situation where a head shot would be my sole option and that is a family member hostage scenario. That is a good topic in itself, and it is best to have some prearranged and practiced drills with each family member concerned.

While head shots do not always result in instant capacitation, they usually do so. Even when the bullet does not enter the brain or penetrate the skull. The same can be said for a solid hit anywhere to the face; there are some, but there are not many people that will take a service caliber handgun bullet to the head or in the face and be able or wish to continue a fight. If you apply a head shot and it has an effect, but not decisively so - give them another, as needed.

The closer an assailant, the more viable - and perhaps neccessary - a face/head shot might be. When practicing head shots remember that the eyeline is about center latitude. I would aim so that the eyes are just visible over the rear sight.

-----------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Double Naught Spy]

JLStorm, I think you have made the assumption with mixed terminology that head shots produce stops. Many do, but what you are wanting is actual physical incapacitation that you fear won't come fast enough from COM shots. There is nothing wrong with wanting such incapacitation.

However, first realize that "head" shots aren't necessarily going to do it. You want disruptive central nervous system shots. You can make head shots all day, but if the CNS isn't disrupted, then you still have a viable opponent.

Not that the entire head is not part of the CNS. Shooting through the face will often produce CNS misses, for example.

 

[buzz_knox]

I dissent. This business of claiming to shoot to "stop" is all semantics to me. I'd like to know who was the person to first introduce this dangerous nonsense into popular use - and then established it as some kind of legal precedence. It is a vehicle for confusion; and confusion is not going to serve the interests of conscience - nor justice.

It may be about semantics, but it's also about mindset at the time of a shooting, and establishing mindset to a trier of fact. Stating "I shot with the intention of killing this person who was threatening me" has a very different connotation these days than "I shot to stop the threat posed by this person." The former statement also has a great potential for confusion, because you are now required to counter the image that springs to mind that you wanted the person dead, and not simply the threat stopped.

 

[22-rimfire]

I have no experience shooting anyone. I have a mindset that if I or my loved ones are in danger, I will shoot at the center of mass if that location has the highest percentage of success (vs a miss). More than likely, I will hestitate after the first volley..... if the BG is still I threat, at that point, I'll do the head shot if I have to (same as any other dangerous animal). Note to BG: Don't continue to resist after being shot or your loved ones will be orphaned.

 

[Kingslayer]

I think people SHOULD train at headshots just as much as COM shots. I think everyone should have confidence they could place a headshot if necessary. It's not a preffered shot, it's not the recommended shot by anybody, but there is a good possibility it's the only shot you may have so why not train for it?

If you boil it down, you're not training on headshots per se, you're training for better accuracy. Aim small, miss small or something along those lines. I think training for smaller targets pays off because it makes hitting larger (COM) targets easier to hit.

I don't see how that could be a negative in any book be it target practice or self defence.

It may be about semantics, but it's also about mindset at the time of a shooting, and establishing mindset to a trier of fact. Stating "I shot with the intention of killing this person who was threatening me" has a very different connotation these days than "I shot to stop the threat posed by this person." The former statement also has a great potential for confusion, because you are now required to counter the image that springs to mind that you wanted the person dead, and not simply the threat stopped.

What is confusing is that saying you shot the person attacking you with the intention of killing them can get you in legal hot water yet we still call it "Deadly Force"...

 

[buzz_knox]

What is confusing is that saying you shot the person attacking you with the intention of killing them can get you in legal hot water yet we still call it "Deadly Force"...

Deadly force is determined by the type of injury that can result from an intentional action, not the intent. For example, pointing a weapon at someone without any intent whatsoever to actually use it is still deadly force. If you shoot someone in the foot to stop them without killing them, you have still used deadly force.

The reason every agency, reputable instructor, etc. went to "shoot to stop" is that that phrase embodies exactly what you are trying to do: stop the threat. The vast majority of statues don't say you can kill to stop a threat; they provide that you may use reasonable (or deadly) force to stop a threat. If death occurs as the result of stopping the threat and all other factors are met, then the law recognizes that homicide as justifiable.

 

[Eyesac]

I don't see anything wrong with practicing head shots, in fact, practice anything you want to practice. If you think it makes you safer to practice head shots, do it!

 

[ar10]

Semantics has everything to do with it after any shooting incident, whether it's by a civilian or a cop. Grand Jurys are made up of people who likely never carried a gun let alone shot some one. The last I heard the GJ is the body of people that return the recommendation on whether you go to trial or not. You may or may not be guilty but if you're not, saying "I used deadly force to kill someone who was trying to kill me" puts a whole different picture in their minds than "I shot the person to stop him/her from killing me".

 

[BullfrogKen]

LAK said: I dissent. This business of claiming to shoot to "stop" is all semantics to me. I'd like to know who was the person to first introduce this dangerous nonsense into popular use - and then established it as some kind of legal precedence. It is a vehicle for confusion; and confusion is not going to serve the interests of conscience - nor justice.

You're going to be dissenting often and for a long time then. The training community has nearly universal acceptance of the "shoot to stop" descriptor.

Words mean things. We do shoot to stop. If after being hit the assailant drops his weapon, falls to the ground from only minor injuries and periferal hits, and begs us, "Stop! I give up!!!" what do we do?

We have stopped the attack without killing our attacker. Guess what. The majority of victims shot by handguns survive their injuries. So not only is it what we are in fact trying to accomplish, it is also the more likely scenario to occur.

 

[Cosmoline]

As I've pointed out many times, the "shoot to stop" mantra is one of the most grossly misunderstood maxims of self defense. It serves to remind us to stop using deadly force when the threat of deadly force abates. But while one is under the imminent threat of unlawful deadly force, one may generally deploy deadly force in self defense. There is not and has NEVER BEEN a prohibition on shooting the head vs. the triangle. Claiming you were just shooting to stop not only won't get you out of trouble, it may well get you into more trouble.

And when you appear before the Grand Jury you always say "shoot to stop".

NO! You talk to an attorney before you say bupkus. You don't just keep saying you shot to stop. This is what happens when you rely on range instructors for legal advice.

You're going to be dissenting often and for a long time then. The training community has nearly universal acceptance of the "shoot to stop" descriptor.

The "training community" has no Esq. after its name. I do. "Shoot to stop" is grossly misunderstood, and should NOT be used as some sort of get out of jail mantra. If I were a DA I could rip someone using that purile verbal trickery to shreds. If you were shooting only to stop, why did you shoot him? Why did you use a lethal weapon if you were just trying to stop him? Did you ask him to stop first? Did you expect a supersonic bullet in his chest to merely stop him? Are you claiming that a handgun is not a deadly weapon? If you're trying to get a kid to stop before he crosses the road, do you shoot him? Etc. etc. Loads of fun for the DA, but not for you.

Words mean things. We do shoot to stop.

Yes, words do mean things. And stop does not mean putting bullets into someone's chest. WE USE DEADLY FORCE IN SELF DEFENSE WHEN FACED WITH IMMINENT AND UNLAWFUL DEADLY FORCE FROM THE AGGRESSOR. Comprende usted? For the love of pete, people. Read your codes and stop relying on some knucklehead shooting instructor for legal advice. If you kill a man, don't stand there repeating "shoot to stop" as if that's going to fix all your problems. Keep quiet, get counsel and think before you open your trap.

 

[Kingslayer]

Deadly force is determined by the type of injury that can result from an intentional action, not the intent. For example, pointing a weapon at someone without any intent whatsoever to actually use it is still deadly force. If you shoot someone in the foot to stop them without killing them, you have still used deadly force.

The reason every agency, reputable instructor, etc. went to "shoot to stop" is that that phrase embodies exactly what you are trying to do: stop the threat. The vast majority of statues don't say you can kill to stop a threat; they provide that you may use reasonable (or deadly) force to stop a threat. If death occurs as the result of stopping the threat and all other factors are met, then the law recognizes that homicide as justifiable.

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just saying it's a pretty dumb oxymoron to have out there. Call it "Stopping Force" or "Defensive Force" or what it should be "by any means necessary".

I think labelling it Deadly Force suggests death is imminent. Therefore someone deciding to use deadly force has decided to kill someone.

I'm really suprised some idiot prosecutor hasn't tried this yet.

 

[buzz_knox]

"Shoot to stop" was never intended as a mantra to get one out of trouble, or to prohibit taking head shots. It was just designed to put the emphasis, the mindset, and the language on the end goal: stopping the threat.

If taking a head/pelvis/genital/etc is the only way to stop the threat, go for it.

I think labelling it Deadly Force suggests death is imminent. Therefore someone deciding to use deadly force has decided to kill someone.

The label simply recognizes that death is a likely consequence of the action, not that the intent to kill is there. If you decide to fire a warning shot into the ground away from your opponent, you've still used deadly force because the gravity of the potential harm demands that it be treated as such.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Cosmoline said: Read your codes and stop relying on some knucklehead shooting instructor for legal advice.

You aren't suggesting folks like John Farnam and Tom Givens are knucklehead shooting instructors, are you?

Their legal advice goes along the lines of - "Shoot to stop the threat. If the threat becomes nullified before the Violent Criminal Actor is shoot dead, continuing to engage him becomes questionable. And don't make any statements without consulting an attorney first."


They both talk about instances when making head shots are necessary to stop the threat. I don't think I've heard any of them encourage anyone we shoot to kill, or even discuss the use of force in those terms.

He may die, but its not the intent of an armed citizen to specifically kill men. We want to stop the threat. If it becomes necessary to kill him to stop him, than that's what we must do.

 

[budney]

I dissent. This business of claiming to shoot to "stop" is all semantics to me. I'd like to know who was the person to first introduce this dangerous nonsense into popular use - and then established it as some kind of legal precedence. It is a vehicle for confusion; and confusion is not going to serve the interests of conscience - nor justice.

Others have commented on this, but it's worth repeating: killing and stopping are two different things. You can kill without stopping: even shot through the heart, a determined assailant has time to shoot you before he goes down. And you can stop without killing, obviously. Killing is hard: three out of four people survive being shot by a cop.

If you are confused about your goals, you widen the margin of error. Your intention is to stop, not to kill.

--Len.

 

[sm]

Guns and ammunition are fine and dandy, but they ain't the "end all - do-all"

Anatomy and Physiology , Laws and Political flavor, and Situational Awareness are other "tools" recommended.

So trouble occurs despite situational awareness.
Level of "defending" might depend of "level of threat", and how the interpretations of laws in a Jurisdiction are defined.

It might be the BGs gun, his elbow, or knee is the "largest" target to shoot.
So after you toss your cookies, tell the officers you don't feel very good and really would like to help, but would rather an attorney be present and SHUT UP.

Share with the attorney:
"BG would not quit shooting at me, and I was in fear of my life, and the only thing I could shoot at was his gun, knee, or elbow as it was exposed from the cover he was using...

He dropped his gun, yelled out in pain, and quit doing what he was doing so I quit shooting"

Just my take, I am probably wrong though...

 

[Cosmoline]

The vast majority of statues don't say you can kill to stop a threat

Of course you can kill to stop a threat. That's the very nature of deadly force. It's deadly.

Your intention is to stop, not to kill.

If you shoot a man in the chest with any intention other than killing him, you need to wonder if deadly force is realy justified. Your intent will be presumed from your actions. The intent to kill a man who's trying to kill you does not negate the defense.

Their legal advice goes along the lines of - "Shoot to stop the threat. If the threat becomes nullified before the Violent Criminal Actor is shoot dead, continuing to engage him becomes questionable. And don't make any statements without consulting an attorney first."

To the extent they are saying you MUST stop using deadly force the instant the threat is gone or abated, they are correct. To the extent they are saying you must subjectively intend merely to stop a man when you shoot him in the chest, they are incorrect. I think you guys are getting way too hung up on subjective intent. If a man is trying to kill you unlawfully, you'd better try to kill him first. It's that simple. Once the threat is abated, of course, you must back off deadly force.

He may die, but its not the intent of an armed citizen to specifically kill men.

If you don't intend to kill, don't shoot. You can't shoot someone in the chest and claim you didn't intend to kill him. It's laughable.

The bottom line here is that head shots are no different than chest shots from a legal point of view. Though as a tactical matter the head is both hard to hit and not as sure a lethal hit as people think.