gt -- You have to admit that in the specific situation shown in that video, the officers clearly made a poor choice to approach when there was literally the entire outdoors available. If you had no less-lethal option through which to disable, would you keep approaching an clearly agitated knife-wielding EDP?
As for pelvic shots, I've never met a single person who's been in a gunfight who claimed his victory occurred as a result of landing incapacitating wounds to the pelvic bone.
Dr. Fackler has written the following discussion on shots to the pelvis:
There are no doubts regarding serious mortality rates with pelvic wounds, the issue is whether wounds to he pelvis offer rapid enough incapacitation to reliably stop an adversary during a lethal force encounter. Obviously use a pelvic shot if it is the only target available, but it may not be the best primary target or failure to stop response target.Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.
“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:
-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.
The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.
Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”
While only a single incident the only time I've seen someone take a pelvic shot the result what fuck off shiny movie style impressive. Single round of 9mm ball struck the flat bone from the rear just low left of the sacro illiac (please excuse my spelling) scans show the bullet blew a thumb or so sized hole in the pelvis.
Shoottee hit the ground so fast she couldn't get her arms out to break her fall in time. Don't think it was a pschological reaction as she wasn't aware she had been shot. She felt a blow and went down. For the rest of the fight she was out of action.
Two years later my wife is still suffering the results of that one round.
IIRC Jim Cirillio Kelly McCann are/were bigs fans of the pelvic shot.
Welcome to Africa, bring a hardhat.
My first post, but reading this I felt the need to respond.
I've been shot in the pelvis region 3 times. It's no fun, no doubt about it, but I would not make it a point to aim at that area unless it was the best shot I had. I would always go high center of chest if that is available. That is your overall best chance at incapacitation in my opinion.
In a real gunfight you never know what you have to shoot at. You can't make rules. All gunfights don't happen in the wide open for one. Vehicles provide great cover against handgun rounds. My first shot I could actually use sights on was an ankle at one point. I missed! I ended the fight with multiple shots to the high thigh because that is the best shot that was available to me. I was shooting from under a vehicle and it was a split chance to end an aggressive and adrenalin souped fast moving crazy F'n A-hole. Sorry for the language, but seriously! You saw the guy in the video wielding the knife! I shot as high as possible and to the biggest target. If I had not landed the shots, I may not be here today. That is how a gunfight goes down.
Anything can happen in a gunfight, anything. Besides the first point blank shot at my face that I literally dodged, if the bullet paths penetrating through my body had been millimeters in difference, I may not be here. I had one bullet (.38 out of a .357 snub) that traveled from just in front of my left hip bone through my bladder and off my right hip bone and came back to rest directly between my femoral artery and femoral nerve. How lucky is that? Thanks to the excellent surgeons by the way! I will NEVER forget the feeling at impact or the pains that followed. Pelvic shots don't feel good, I can testify to that. To continue on, I next took a .357 shot to my right hip bone that glanced upwards and took my ureter off where it connected to my kidney. This shot completely made me lose ability to stand. All this happened very fast! My holstered gun also took a round to the slide. I hit the ground and as I was pulling my gun out I took another round (.22) to my upper right ass that went through the central region of my pelvic region. At this point I am still not worrying about any of it. I am only worried about stopping the attack and staying alive. Some people might slow down to think about it or panic and freeze, but the only thing that will stop me is a pure CNS hit. Seriously, that is how I rollFrom this point in the fight I am in control. It’s the only way I will have it.
Anyways, yes pelvic shots disable. I was temporarily disabled from the waist down. In pain, yes for sure. Was I unable to work my legs? Yes. Out of the fight? NO WAY. Grateful for life? YES.
I am fine today. I go through nerve related pain sometimes. It was unexplainable the first few months. I actually wanted to hack my foot off. My flexibility year’s later is still almost nothing from the waist down. It took me a year to be able to push off my right foot. Nerves grow at the speed of fingernails. All is good now though. I hear the other guy is worse off.
Aim for the biggest target and fight until there is no more fight. Then keep fighting until you die because it’s never over until it’s really over. I’m talking whether that is th enext moment or you are 90 years old on your death bed..
Please don’t PLAN on shooting people in the hips, legs, or other dumb places when your life is on the line. If that is your best opportunity then, yeah take advantage of it. It might be your last opportunity in life. Otherwise, I say go with the high center of the chest if it is an option.
this. like any area of the body its what is hit within that region that makes the difference whether it be the chest, pelvis, abdomen, etc.....we all know numerous scenarios where multiple rounds to the chest failed to incapacitate because timers not switches were impacted. regarding the video.....f'ing soup sandwich. carrying a rifle like a briefcase to confront a suspect and then trying to go hands on vs a butcher knife?WTF? as said this wasnt a shot placement issue this was a clear example of a tactical disaster. BTW i think the reason that only a few shots were taken was because of the giant chance for cross fire with their tactical "circle of death" staging. bogusOriginally Posted by CAW
That video was a dictionary example of clusterfuck. Knives scare me more than guns, I've seen so many bad knife wounds, and scars that last a lifetime that I would always consider a knife to be a deadly weapon and respond in kind. Pelvic shots are in vogue, training wise, up here right now, and its annoying to hear "experts" claim how awesome that shot is.
...and to think today you just have fangs
Rob Engh
BC, Canada
FWIW, I agree with everyone saying that shot placement was the least of the officers' problems in that video. It was just what spawned the topic after a couple of people very strongly insisted that the "best course of action" in a scenario where an attacker with a knife needs to be stopped is to go for the pelvis and "instant incapacitation."
Thanks to everyone here for being my confirmation bias and going along with my belief that the sane thing to do is put as many rounds as possible on the highest probability target available as fast as possible.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Lots of good info in this post.
People look at me strange when I say this, but I agree 100%.
With a gun, I'm acutely aware of how inaccurate most untrained shooters are. Things like cover and movement may potentially work to my advantage depending on the scenario. I certainly don't want to be on the wrong end of a gun, but I feel like there's at least some margin of error if I were.
With knives, if your attacker is close enough to use one, you are getting hurt. Period. And most likely badly. There's just no coming out of a knife fight a winner even if you win.
I remember very distinctly the first knife fighting class I ever took with Remy Presas back in the late 80's. the amount of chalk he left on me in just a few seconds scared the hell out of me. Years ago when I first got to work with Sims I was again reminded how much a knife just plain sucks to go up against. Guns up close seem to be easier to deal with, it still sucks, and I by no means think they are easy to deal with, but the knife, no matter what you do, you end up cut. If someone has a knife and I'm armed with a gun, I am going to be moving back and away as fast as I can whilst dropping as many shots onto the badguy as possible.
...and to think today you just have fangs
Rob Engh
BC, Canada
I'd like to know the backstory of that video, and the fates of those involved.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. -George Orwell
ditto.
I read a statistic several years ago that stated that wounds from service caliber pistols were more survivable than stab wounds from a 3 1/2" knife. I don't remember details like number of hits vs strikes or anything like that. It just always stuck with me that if someone came after me with a knife, I needed to create distance and stay away from the blade.
Men freely believe that which they desire.
Julius Caesar
Reply With Quote
