Interesting

[gtmtnbiker98]

http://youtu.be/i_rjo62bC-A

[Alpha Sierra]

Purse, close the distance, eliminate the threat like a man possessed by Satan himself

[Alpha Sierra]

Allow me to elaborate.

If someone makes off with your child, he/she is as good as dead. In the situations posed by the video, the glass complicates matters. I agree that shooting through glass to make such an already low probability shot is foolish. Which IMO the right answer is to go past the glass and pursue. The kidnapper will be at a disadvantage while trying to run with a child in his hands. The pursuer will be HIGHLY motivated to close the distance. Once the distance has been closed to a reasonable amount, your target will be the kidnapper's back (both actors will be running so take the easist shot). Shooting him in the back has the bonus of providing the best prevention against a shoot through. The lower half of the back is preferred.

If the pursuer is lucky enough to achieve point blank range, a contact shot is indicated.

[BaiHu]

I don't know Jack, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, IANAL (lawyer or LEO), and I'm not a ballistics expert, however, if shooting the glass is a bad idea.....why is shooting at the ground a safer option? How can I guarantee that my shots don't deflect into my daughter? How can I guarantee that he doesn't drop my daughter as I shoot the ground? How can I guarantee that my shots don't get him in the feet/legs and then he falls with my daughter or separate from my daughter and my sympathetic response is still pulling the trigger?

Someone who has more sense than me, please explain. Interesting was the right way to title this though. I'm intrigued.

[jetfire]

Is the glass of a sliding glass door like that laminated? Not being silly, because I'd expect laminated auto glass to deflect a bullet, but not the stuff they make back doors out of. Also, an argument could be made from this one specific situation for having a long gun for home defense; while it's still not a great shot, a headshot at that range would be easier with an AR than a Glock, finger or otherwise.

[JV_]

Is the glass of a sliding glass door like that laminated? It's often impact resistant glass in hurricane prone areas.

[Mr_White]

I would expect a little or a lot of deflection of just about any service pistol bullet through just about any glass.

I think the big difference between laminated safety glass like a car windshield, and other glass, is that the laminated safety glass isn't going to just shatter and fall out, clearing the way after one shot.

[Alpha Sierra]

I don't know Jack, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn, IANAL (lawyer or LEO), and I'm not a ballistics expert, however, if shooting the glass is a bad idea.....why is shooting at the ground a safer option? How can I guarantee that my shots don't deflect into my daughter? How can I guarantee that he doesn't drop my daughter as I shoot the ground? How can I guarantee that my shots don't get him in the feet/legs and then he falls with my daughter or separate from my daughter and my sympathetic response is still pulling the trigger?
First off, I don't know where you got the idea of shooting into the ground. I know I would be shooting AT THE SAVAGE kidnapping my child.

If you wish to talk about guarantees, I guarantee you an abducted child will die if the abductor is not stopped in the act. So you can run through all that indecision in your head while the only chance to save your child flies away.

I don't know if I have more sense than you. What I do have is an only child and an irrepressible instinct to protect her at all costs.

Are you a father?

[Mr_White]

First off, I don't know where you got the idea of shooting into the ground. I know I would be shooting AT THE SAVAGE kidnapping my child.

If you wish to talk about guarantees, I guarantee you an abducted child will die if the abductor is not stopped in the act. So you can run through all that indecision in your head while the only chance to save your child flies away.

I don't know if I have more sense than you. What I do have is an only child and an irrepressible instinct to protect her at all costs.

Are you a father?

I think BaiHu is referring to the demonstrated action in the video of running down the abductor while shooting the ground at his feet.

[Alpha Sierra]

All this talk about the glass is mis-direction. Even if the door was not in the way, trying to make a head shot with a pistol at that distance against a man holding my child is not a shot I would take.

Hence my decision to close the distance and up the odds in my favor.

[Alpha Sierra]

I think BaiHu is referring to the demonstrated action in the video of running down the abductor while shooting the ground at his feet.
Is that how the video ends? If so my apologies to BaiHu for my comments.

[jetfire]

First off, I don't know where you got the idea of shooting into the ground. I know I would be shooting AT THE SAVAGE kidnapping my child.


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.

[BaiHu]

First off, I don't know where you got the idea of shooting into the ground. I know I would be shooting AT THE SAVAGE kidnapping my child.

If you wish to talk about guarantees, I guarantee you an abducted child will die if the abductor is not stopped in the act. So you can run through all that indecision in your head while the only chance to save your child flies away.

I don't know if I have more sense than you. What I do have is an only child and an irrepressible instinct to protect her at all costs.

Are you a father?
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.

[Alpha Sierra]

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.
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.

[BaiHu]

I think BaiHu is referring to the demonstrated action in the video of running down the abductor while shooting the ground at his feet.

Yes, thank you.


Is that how the video ends? If so my apologies to BaiHu for my comments.

No worries. Glad I had my kitten fingers on the clarification setting.


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.

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.

[Alpha Sierra]

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.

[BaiHu]

Fair enough. More food for thought. Thanks for the input.

[Sadmin]

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

[ACP230]

Knee shot?

[BoppaBear]

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.

[41magfan]

I realize we all view stuff like this through our own lens of experience but "interesting" wasn't a word that immediately came to mind after watching that nonsense.

[gtmtnbiker98]

I realize we all view stuff like this through our own lens of experience but "interesting" wasn't a word that immediately came to mind after watching that nonsense.
I was being nice:cool:

[BaiHu]

Now that we are done with the niceties, let's here some more intelligence for the goobers such as myself ;)

[41magfan]

Some random thoughts that immediately come to mind:

This is really just a hostage situation, nothing more and nothing less until you know more about his motives.

Hostage situations are resolved successfully all the time so don’t try and reinvent the wheel.

Most hostage situations end well as long as someone doesn’t do something stupid or try something outside their skill set.

Closing the distance of engagement generally benefits the unskilled. You’re the one that’s supposed to be skilled so if you’re going to engage him do it outside of his probable comfort zone.

If you as the sole rescuer are put out of action, who’s going to do the rescuing?

Delay, delay, delay …. generally speaking, the longer the standoff goes the more likely it is others will get involved and you won't bear the burden of pulling something off by yourself.

Every minute you delay the bad guy works to your advantage from a psychological standpoint. He likely just wanted to get in and out and now you’ve screwed that up by confronting him. Now all he will generally want to do is get away so convince him that "option" is available if he releases the hostage.

With the above mentioned factors in mind, if I was going to engage the guy with gunfire I would do it without warning from the opened doorway from a supported shooting position. Otherwise, if he moves, you’ll be forced to move with him using cover as best you can. If he’s slack enough for his OODA Loop to come unwound by advancing on him, you’d be better off waiting for another distraction to offer an opportunity to engage him.

The overwhelming majority of critical incidents like this are handled by isolating and containing the bad guy(s) until surrender or elimination can take place. Above all else, don't let the thing go mobile.

[jetfire]

I was being nice:cool:

That's putting it mildly.

I can honestly say I'm not interested in the video's macho "imaSEAL" posturing, however it did present me with an interesting shooting problem to solve. My first thought when watching the video was "that's not much more than 7-10 yards, the BG is moving really slow and exposing his head and upper chest, I take that shot 100% of the time."

I didn't think about the possibility of the glass deflecting my bullet. That makes it more interesting. Since I don't have kids, there's not emotional "gotcha" - it's an interesting shooting problem, where the right marksmanship solution and the "right" tactical solution may not be the same thing.

[Irelander]

This really hits home with me as I have a 1 year old just starting to run around at home. This presented scenario freaks me right out so I am glad to see the video and discussion to get me thinking about what I would do. Here are a couple of my thoughts.

I thought it was interesting that Chad shot at the ground near the kidnapper's feet. I immediately thought that presented a ricochet hazard to my child and dismissed it. But then I remembered watching a video just recently demonstrating how bullets ricochet parallel to a flat surface instead of ricocheting at the same angle they were shot at. This is all on a smooth hard surface like concrete. So maybe this is not that bad of an idea and I am sure it would disorient the kidnapper. Would it disorient him enough that he would flub and allow me to close the distance without shooting me or my child? I would guess that if I started shooting, the BG would also start pulling the trigger. Hopefully he would be disoriented enough to not hit me or my child.

I would not want to lose sight of my child so I would definitely rush the BG. See how Chad did not run straight at him but ran across the BG's line of sight. That would make it very difficult for the BG to hit him since he is already wrestling with a hostage and now trying to shoot a moving target from the hip.

I do not think it is realistic to think that an AR could be used to solve this scenario unless you always carry your AR around your home or have one sitting right by your patio door. You should be carrying your pistol around at all times.

This is definitely a scenario that I am going to simulate on the range.

[SailDesign]

<snippage>

I didn't think about the possibility of the glass deflecting my bullet. That makes it more interesting. Since I don't have kids, there's not emotional "gotcha" - it's an interesting shooting problem, where the right marksmanship solution and the "right" tactical solution may not be the same thing.

This article (http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/13/patrol-vehicle-cqb-instructor-course-review/) would seem to indicate that even car glass doesn't deflect things much, if at all.

Plus, it's an interesting read all over.

[Default.mp3]

This article (http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/13/patrol-vehicle-cqb-instructor-course-review/) would seem to indicate that even car glass doesn't deflect things much, if at all.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from?


And don’t even get me started on shooting through a windshield. A windshield’s effect on a pistol round can be nothing short of catastrophic.

...

What if I had fired through my windshield at a suspect standing right at my bumper? My first round would likely have deflected so badly I would have missed. And even if it did hit it would be so deformed, and would have lost so much mass as it traveled through the windshield, it would probably have been completely ineffective.

Glass deflection for vehicle windshields is huge, from the AARs I've read. Not so sure about a house glass window, where the bullet's path would probably be normal to the glass pane, but I'd certainly err on the side of caution and anticipate deflection.

[SailDesign]

I'm not sure where you got that idea from?



Glass deflection for vehicle windshields is huge, from the AARs I've read. Not so sure about a house glass window, where the bullet's path would probably be normal to the glass pane, but I'd certainly err on the side of caution and anticipate deflection.

Cr@p! Sorry, reading comprehension fail..... <I hate Fridays, mainly because they aren't Saturday yet, and my brain is already full>

[45dotACP]

Step 1: Get that plate carrier on!
Step 2: Run directly at the guy with the gun!
Step 3: Don't shoot him! But definitely believe that you shooting repeatedly at his feet will de-escalate!

But in all honesty, I think a hostage taker dragging a kicking and screaming child might be difficult enough that if I take my time to open the door and guarantee no deflection, the 10 yard (tops) headshot might not be such a bad option. I don't know the motivations or belief system of all criminals, but I've gotta think that most would be more willing to use a gun on me than my child, meaning the gun is away from my kid. That means I'm just shooting at a No-shoot partial. It just shoots back. Good thing I remembered that plate carrier!

If he tries to run with my kid, I'm fairly confident I'm in good enough shape to close the distance. At some point, he'd gonna slow down. He's carrying at least 40 lbs of deadweight that's kicking, screaming and crying. I will be faster, unless he's in phenomonal shape.

This may also be one of those situations where a laser helps. The intimidation factor could be a thing. If not, just shine it in his eyeballs and take the shot.

Just snowballing. But I'd probably be more inclined to do some killing over somebody trying to take my kid than some punk sticking up the local stop n rob.

[KevinB]

Seeing as I don't wear my PC around the house I do not see that as viable, I have armor in my vehicle, bedroom and office, but its going to take time, time you do not have.

Glass - is a double edge sword, its going to affect him shooting at you as well, but I'm not going to launch rounds at him through it if I can avoid it.

I'm honest to admit anyone trying to harm my kids is going to die --
I have Dog's so they are going to get lunch, wife will grab long gun, but with the dog's on him, I will close and kill him as quick as I can to retrieve my child.

[BoppaBear]

I'm honest to admit anyone trying to harm my kids is going to die --


^this.

[45dotACP]

Seeing as I don't wear my PC around the house I do not see that as viable, I have armor in my vehicle, bedroom and office, but its going to take time, time you do not have.

Glass - is a double edge sword, its going to affect him shooting at you as well, but I'm not going to launch rounds at him through it if I can avoid it.

I'm honest to admit anyone trying to harm my kids is going to die --
I have Dog's so they are going to get lunch, wife will grab long gun, but with the dog's on him, I will close and kill him as quick as I can to retrieve my child.
I was trying to make a funny about the SEAL apparently wearing his tactical gear around the house ;)

Close, fix, and destroy seems a logical plan.

[Chance B.]

...I will close and kill him as quick as I can to retrieve my child.

This. Other than taking a shot directly to my CNS I will have sufficient time to arrange for a face-to-face meeting between the POS and the hereafter.