He got it from the video, because it's what the SEAL guy recommended.
To the glass, it would make sense for it to be impact resistant; I had a storm door in my old house in Indy that could take an impact from a pretty well thrown rock with no issues.
Let's go back to solving this as a shooting problem though and look at platforms in the home: I'd immediately dismiss taking a shot with my shotgun in this situation, because my shotgun is loaded with buckshot. So that leaves me with pistol and rifle as options. I feel (subjective) that the rifle is the better choice here because I'm more likely to be able to get a hit on what is a pretty low-percentage shot.
As a shooting problem, we want to remove the barrier (glass) and reduce the difficulty of the shot as much as possible; so the strategy of "close and engage" seems pretty reasonable to me. Where I'm not really on board with the SEAL is the shooting at the ground/feet idea that he mentioned. In the example, the badguy has a lot of head and some upper thoracic exposed, and it would seem to me (again, subjective) that once I'd closed to a much closer distance, that's where I should be shooting.
Chad said he shot at his feet, therefore I also assumed it was the ground. I don't have children and I still wouldn't be comfortable with the tactic of shooting the ground given my knowledge base, which is why I'm offering my concerns for the sake of getting knowledge.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
If the kidnapper turns to run, the back is the target.
If the kidnapper faces about, it depends if he is merely holding the child or holding a weapon to the child. In the former, a pelvic shot might be a good idea. It will immobilize/stop the kidnapping with the least risk to the abductee. In the latter case, a shot to the fatal T is the only way to go.
Yes, thank you.
No worries. Glad I had my kitten fingers on the clarification setting.
I agree with your assessment here.
My major issue is that this is not just a shoot/no shoot, this is a dynamic human shield issue. Whereas I agree with the pursuing of said character in order to get a better shot on him, I'd like to add another option not mentioned, which is see him and then cut him off with my superior knowledge of the surroundings (ie my house) and bust through a different window, door, etc just when he thinks he's made some distance.
If stuck with his line of pursuit, other than not wanting to ruin his or his friend's house during the demo, I probably would have simply kicked through the window. That would have been my 'fire for effect' tactic during the pursuit rather than shoot at his feet/ground. He might not have known whether it was a gun shot from my gun or his gun, etc. I'd like to think that would be a bit disorienting.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
I would not want to lose sight of the kidnapper for even one second, which is a very real possibility if one goes looking for another way out of the house. Losing track of him carries to high a risk of losing him (and the child) for good.
A sliding glass door is very easy and fast to open and in this case one can do so while keeping eyes on the target.
Fair enough. More food for thought. Thanks for the input.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
I recall when I was in a fight in high school with friends. We went to a party where we weren't welcome and things went south. When it all started bubbling up, and I got that feeling in my tummy with tunnel vision; I remember distinctly that this kitten was standing on my right side yelling in short bursts "hit him!" It was deafening and as soon as I looked to manage that I was down. Bad analogy but point being Is I think this probably has some merit.
Although given that backdrop in the video, I don't see how shooting at his feet is any more effective than shooting off to the side since pedobear won't see the splash anyway. The distraction and psych. Impact of first to gunfire still exists. I would want to get close enough to put powder burns on him if he held my girls, too much is at risk.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
<Matthew 10:28>
Knee shot?
I would not shoot at the ground, for fear of a ricochet hitting my child. I would not shoot through the glass because I'm not a ballistics expert, or knowledgeable about deflection.
I would NOT let the mother kitten out of my sight with my kid.
So, the option I have left is to become an aggressor (if he seems hell-bent on abduction). In that case, in my inexperienced in these things opinion, my best option is to close and try to stop the threat (again, assuming he can't be persuaded to drop my child and move on).
My main concern with being the aggressor in this situation, is I'm now forcing him to make a decision as to what to do (not all bad, I understand that), and there are variables I don't know.
If he is a true killer, he may just kill my child to slow me from my attack, or, if he's not a dyed in the wool BG with a propensity for violence and murder, he may be a desperate BG thinking that harming my child will slow me down (self-preservation).
At the end of the day, in this situation and without the option to verbally diffuse, I'm likely going to try to overwhelm with violence. He more than likely would not expect me to do that with him holding my child.