Dealing with, and practicing for, hostage rescue

[conw]

I was just reading a thread on another board where I was reminded of something. I role-played a hostage taker (my GF was the hostage) in a force-on-force class. Here is more info in an excellent write-up from MDTStraining in Syracuse. (I did not take part in the class written-up there.)

Anyway, I wanted to share some useful experience based insight, not to say I have the only solution or best solution.

It's a truism that you "don't clear rooms alone" and you let the police take care of shooting problems if possible, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of situations where one might need to shoot a BG who has a hostage, either in contact with gun out, or in the same room as a potential hostage with or without gun out.

So if we rule out the above and say you hear your kid cry for help, or whatever, and you need to take care of the problem - and you believe it may be a "shooting problem" - what is the best approach? I'm interested in hearing responses.

Below are my thoughts.

Just wanted to add a thought I had while watching the clip. I totally agree with Larry's post discussing forward movement shooting on the move. When I RPed as the bad guy in June '11 AMIS (Culpeper) the two guys who did "best" and really got some good hits, without getting pinned down, used that strategy.

As Seth mentioned, the 2 main responses are to get pinned down at the door (in Culpeper some guys even retreated back through the door only to have to re-enter) or arc outward without closing distance. A secondary response was the mutual circling.

Getting pinned obviously results in loss of initiative and a reactive deficit.

Arcing outward is at best a zero sum game all by itself... in a situation where there is a 3rd party who is in distress, and another BG coming up from behind it's clearly a sub-par approach.

As I wrote in my notebook at the end of AMIS..."Controlled aggression wins the fight." I am not saying Larry's strategy he posted is the absolute best solution to every solo entry problem...but I do think it's the best for the hostage problem, because:

-If you shoot it out with a guy who has a hostage at a distance, and when he has the initiative (or has equal initiative), you are basically in a losing proposition due to the fact that he presents a somewhat smaller target (proportionate to the degree he is making physical contact with the hostage)

-If you close distance you get the all-important Orientation Reset effect to some degree, and you close distance which allows for safer (relative to hostage), more precise shots...if you are skilled and lucky then the orientation reset + the fact that the BG is getting "bigger" (closer) as you shoot and move, you can pull off some fast hits as you close and he lags in reaction thinking "*** this guy is coming right at me and shooting."

It is also easier to shoot moving forward than sideways so you are more likely to get the hits on target.

Tom Givens' mindset lectures about gunshots wounds being statistically survivable, and shot placement/self-control/non-panicking being key, come to mind. So does a great quote from Craig: "Sometimes your [only...or best] cover is the muzzle of your gun."

Arcing out and getting pinned down are self-explanatory. Mutual circling is evinced in the clip referenced. Basically though it's the tendency (exhibited across dozens of participants) to get a "lock" on the bad guy and attempt to circle around him, while he does the same and attempts to circle around you. It's sort of a combination of trying to get precise shots, while trying not to get hit, and is a zero sum game: you give up just enough accuracy to suck while moving slowly enough to still get hit, and he does the same; in this scenario, it's really a poor strategy since he has your "wife" as a hostage, and an accomplice approaching within 30 seconds or so from behind you.

I will post the clip if I get permission...again it's not from my AMIS but it was from a recent one in AZ and is relevant.

Below is Larry's post outlining the strategy I now believe to be the best generally speaking.

One of the first techniques of CQB I learned was from Phil Singleton former SAS trooper and Princess Gate (Iranian Embassy) assaulter. At the time (late 80s early 90s) SAS CQB philosophy was, first guy in the room goes straight at the threat, and shoots, on the move, if necessary. The second guy would then go the opposite direction and look for other targets. The explanation was, it forced the terrorist to choose between the advancing trooper or the hostage. Not only did this cause hesitation (OODA disruption), but made them snap shoot, if they even got a shot off. It also closed the good guys range and made difficult head shots easier. Of course, this is easier with a SMG or rifle. SAS was using 9mm HK MP5s at the time.

This was a departure for us as we were using the button hook and X to clear rooms at the time. We trained it and really liked it FOF. We used this technique for about a year on live operations, in which time we never had to shoot. We then had an ST6 guy come in and point out some holes in the technique...like if the first guy misreads the first threat and gets his ticket punched by the actual shooter in the hard corner. We then went to penetrating to points of domination within the room.

The "light-heavy" technique is good for known threats...if you have the will to: A. Kill him and B. Ignore possible incoming fire from close ranges. I suspect SAS developed this as an assassination tool and modified it for hostage rescue.

Now I don't necessarily think this is the best strategy in an ambush/targeted assault where there may be multiples, and where you are in a shootout with a BG. In that case just being faster and more precise (IMO) is enough to win, whereas if the threat has established himself and taken a hostage, other means may be necessary to play catch-up and deal with the situation.

 

[conw]

I'd like to add that if you practice SOTM moving forward and placing precise headshot rounds using a target like these...

(link to tons of hostage targets - http://www.letargets.com/estylez_ps.aspx?searchmode=category&searchcatcontext=~010000~010100~010116)

...you are also, IMO, training a VERY useful combination skillset of precision, speed, and target awareness (shoot vs no-shoot, and importance of placing hits ON target rather than blasting haphazardly and potentially hitting bystanders).

 

[mgkdrgn]

Realistically, your chances of being personally involved in this situation are less than being attacked by a Polar bear, a Grizzly bear, and being struck by lightning .... all on the same day.

Your chances of successfully shooting your way out of the problem are even lower.

 

[ball3006]

I am a good enough shot to take the shot. However, I doubt if I ever will find myself in that situation....chris3

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Realistically, your chances of being personally involved in this situation are less than being attacked by a Polar bear, a Grizzly bear, and being struck by lightning .... all on the same day.

What you described is impossible, there was a recent shooting where a father had to save his daughter being abducted and had to make a hostage rescue. IT HAPPENS.

 

[X-Rap]

Why would one not want to practice and know your limitations at hitting small targets. There are quite a few situations that could require these needs.
Crazy ex
Active shooter in proximity to people
Robbery gone wrong
I see things like this in the news much more often than

being attacked by a Polar bear, a Grizzly bear, and being struck by lightning .... all on the same day.

Taking a s shot under these conditions require a different level of mindset because the repercussions if you fail will be very high but to displace them as impossible is wrong thinking IMO.

 

[Loosedhorse]

SAS was using 9mm HK MP5s at the time

Bet they were using body armor and helmets, too.

I would not rush a hostage-taker, unless I was part of such a trained, equipped team. I do not discount his ability to snap-shoot me dead-center, thus solving his problem.

Plan is to take up a concealed (hopefully covered), steady position to maximize accuracy.

It is disappointing that such targets are illegal in MA; if I had access to them I would not practice just head-shots. I see there an accessible hip, kidney, liver, knee, lung/axilla, etc., with the knee area gving me the best margin away from the hostage. Unfortunately, this target does not show me feet and toes--more good targets.

I suspect you've done a lot training with these targets, and you've seen how often initial shots land on or near the gun, which is the typical first area of attention--especially when it is pointed at you. In theory, the gun is not a bad point of aim, except that it would likely be even more mobile than the head.

Perhaps we will hear that you can't shoot the gun--"this isn't a TV show." I get that, but I also get that I am supposed to hit the brainstem--which is smalller than a fist. Take the target that you are given, while not giving him the target that he wants: you.

 

[leadcounsel]

And we have entered the world of fantasy land ---

Outside of those with professional training and careers, and absent all out warfare or EOTW scenarios, there is zero chance of most people being 1) put in this situation and 2) being required to resolve it.

Even the professionals rely upon the best of the best marksmen with scoped rifles from a benchrest/bipod to take these shots.

You do realize that as a civilian, you are never going to be put into a situation where you need to take this shot - and God save you if you fail. If you miss, think of the consequences... you could shoot the hostage (a family member perhaps?), miss entirely and hit someone else, or presumably be shot by the hostage taker... what are the consequences. Death, lawsuits for negligence, etc.

No thanks. Retreat. Allow the professionals who get paid to take these shots take them.

 

[Loosedhorse]

there is zero chance

you are never going to be put into a situation where you need to take this shot

Freely admitted: clairvoyance is superior to marksmanship or tactics.

For most of us, supposing that we will ever have to shoot an attacker at all is already entering "the world of fantasy land." So what?

 

[Bobson]

For most of us, supposing that we will ever have to shoot an attacker at all is already entering "the world of fantasy land." So what?

Agreed. If you're going to train for any type of SD/HD scenario, it doesn't hurt to train for every single scenario you can possibly imagine, even if it seems unlikely to ever happen.

It doesn't make any sense to jump aboard basic SD threads with no problem, but scoff and mock the OP when something like this comes up. That's like agreeing that something with a 50% improbability may very well happen to you, but something with a 99% improbability is simply never, ever going to happen. Obviously, both are at least somewhat unlikely; neither is fully impossible.

You would have to be a complete idiot to believe it's worthwhile to train for basic SD/HD, but training for hostage rescue is worthless.

 

[mgkdrgn]

What you described is impossible, there was a recent shooting where a father had to save his daughter being abducted and had to make a hostage rescue. IT HAPPENS.

And I'm sure somewhere, at some point, there was some zookeeper who was attacked by a polar bear, a grizzly bear, and struck by lightning on the same day too.

However, I doubt that you will find that scenario in many zoo employee training manuals.

Or if you do, it will be be the chapter right behind the one on preparing the zoo for the zombie apocalypse.

Your best tactic will probably be to shoot the hostage. Hey, it worked in the movies.

 

[Bobson]

And I'm sure somewhere, at some point, there was some zookeeper who was attacked by a polar bear, a grizzly bear, and struck by lightning on the same day too.

However, I doubt that you will find that scenario in many zoo employee training manuals.

Or if you do, it will be be the chapter right behind the one on preparing the zoo for the zombie apocalypse.

Your best tactic will probably be to shoot the hostage. Hey, it worked in the movies.

It must be nice knowing you live in a place where bad things only happen to other people.

Or are you of the mindset that if something bad does happen to you, oh well, because at least you deserved it?

 

[conw]

Loosedhorse...Bobson...sit down, I mean, take a deep breath and sit down, please don't hold anything that will break if you drop it...

I fully agree with you guys.

For most of us, supposing that we will ever have to shoot an attacker at all is already entering "the world of fantasy land." So what?

Agreed! I find the whole "fantasy land" concept an interesting, coincidental use of phrasing: visualization of remote eventualities is probably a great way to prepare oneself for whatever SD situation you do end up with. Practicing for abnormal situations simply makes sense, because all SD situations are dynamic, complicated, and statistically unusual. There is not really a "typical" SD situation, although there are certainly more-normal situations and outliers.

If we can agree that the "normal" situations are easier to prepare for, and the outliers may be extremely difficult to prepare for, but may result in a drastically negative outcome if we don't prepare as well as possible, and additionally, may help us prepare for the dynamic and unpredictable nature of SD in general, I think it's a no-brainer that we should be prepared for the unexpected, including hostage rescue and beyond.

Simply put, the more contingencies you prepare for, and the more diverse and deep your training, decision making, and skill-set are, the more likely you are to prevail in self-defense as a whole. I touched on this in my second post.

Let's zoom out for a moment to the "normal" self-defense scenario that Leadcounsel and mgkdrgn apparently prepare themselves for. Who is more likely to prevail in that scenario: a good guy who has prepared extensively for outliers that require greater marksmanship, more-dynamic decision-making, and greater overall skill and is confident in his abilities, or a good guy who has prepared for a "normal" SD scenario and is confident in his abilities?

 

[leadcounsel]

Look, do what you want, prep for what you want, etc etc etc.

Real world scenarios = home invasions, self-defense from breakins, concealed carry encounters such as gas station robberies, stickups, muggings, parking lot assaults, attempted rapes, etc.

Fantasy scenarios = you having to take a shot to an armed perp who has a hostage.

Train to shoot at deer with guns shooting back 'cause "it could happen." Train to shoot at badguys flying overhead in stolen helicopters if you must. Afterall, it could happen. Train to shoot at aliens, or at the Terminator who has come back from the future because I can't prove that it can't happen. Train to shoot at a Red fire breathing Dragon.

But this to me enters beyond the EOTWAWKI scenario -

Hostage situations in our 300,000,000 population country, where a civilian is one that shoots and kills the hostage - taker, is so unbelievably rare that spending time even discussing it is approaching absurd.

In my military infantry and officer training, we spent exactly ZERO time training for this 'event.' Police spend some time, but you won't see Officer XYZ executing that "video game" shot to the perp... Nope.

That shot is typically reserved for the true experts, not some amatuer with home defense 1911...

Just imagine for a second, pretend that you had the nerves to point a gun at a perp, who is 95% hidden behind your closest loved one (parent, spouse, sibling, etc.). You have a split instant to fire and get an instant kill headshot before the perp can shoot either you or the hostage... I doubt anyone here on this forum has both the nerves, training, and experience to seriously take that shot. And to say otherwise is highly suspect of being a Mall Ninja... Heck, why not train to shoot the gun out of the perps hand, and just disable the gun so nobody gets hurt!!!???

And, WHY are you taking this shot anyway?? Why not wait for the expert negotiators? Snipers? Are you really ready to risk lives on your "training" for what is effectively a luck shot with a small chance of success...??

Spend your time as you will, but you'd be better training for more realistic events, things that commonly happen such as your reaction to being in a convenience store hold-up, or a home invasion or break in for instance. Far more likely scenarios and far more likely there's something you can do about it from a SD standpoint.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Wow. leadcounsel just went to a lot of trouble to try to show us the error of our ways. I think he is well-meaning and sincere. My thanks.

Anyway, conwict, as I said: I am unlikely to approach. My goal would be to take whatever position best puts me in defilade and him in enfilade, so to speak. I would fire in very few circumstances (for example, to prevent the hostage-taker from leaving with the hostage).

We've talked before about allowing the hostage-taker to leave without the hostage; convincing him to do that would be my goal.

 

[conw]

LH, I copy you on that. Regarding shooting the weapon hand, it's one of the most common places for hits to occur in FOF and it's pretty commonly reported in officer involved shootings; however probably too low-probability a target to aim for (IMO) with a handgun.

It bears mentioning that different people are hearing different things when "hostage situation" is said.

I am/was thinking "in extremis" hostage scenario...literally you feel the person in the room with an armed person is in mortal danger, and you are solo with just enough info to know the level of danger. Clearly this is the worst case.

You seem to be thinking more drawn-out hostage situation where some form of communication/negotiation is occurring. There are more strategic considerations that don't involve use of shooting. Obviously it's also easier to call the police there too. I agree 100% (if police are out of the question for some reason, or there is significant risk of death of the hostage/innocent) that if you can take sufficient depth relative to visual concealment, and you can make a shot, that's the way to do it, not rushing in. Or negotiate if you feel that's wiser.

The rushing in concept IMO comes in when you have a very difficult problem, such as a BG at the end of a long rectangular room at the end of a hallway and you can't get any depth behind "cover"/concealment.

Leadcounsel seems to be more envisioning some type of cinematic scenario that I'm not sure I follow. LC, you mention "home invasion"...a true home invasion is quite rare, but generally involves some degree of contact between armed BG(s) and innocent(s). I'm surprised if you feel preparation for a home invasion is necessary, you don't also feel preparation for a low-percentage shot on a BG involving some type of dynamic movement is a good idea.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I doubt anyone here on this forum has both the nerves, training, and experience to seriously take that shot. And to say otherwise is highly suspect of being a Mall Ninja

...and you would be wrong, however you are free to suspect anything you'd like. While it does take some training and experience is always a good thing, it has very little to do with nerves and everything to do with a willingness to act

I will say that the situation we practiced for was within a very narrow set of circumstances, involved another officer as the hostage and was a coordinated effort between both officers. Hostage negotiation teams and SWAT were not an option in these circumstances.

When we explained what we were practicing to a Supervisor who inquired, his reaction was, "That's pre-meditated murder"...we replied, "Yes, it is pre-meditated"

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

Hostage rescues are a ballet best performed by groups skilled in that area, and silver-screen commandos. I used to be a member of the former and participated in a few as the Designated Shooter.

If you aren't in either group, don't even bother to consider performing such an act.

 

[Loosedhorse]

don't even bother to consider performing such an act.

We don't get to choose everything thrown our way. If, in my best judgement, a hostage (my family member) needs my help NOW, she's going to get it, rather than an explanation, "But this guy Internet Kevin told me not to consider it!"

If you're THERE when my family member needs you, Kevin, I will defer to your skill and judgment--and that of your team--with sincere relief and thanks. Since you won't be there, your "leave it to us" attitude has no traction, despite your experience as a hostage rescue ballerino.

"That's pre-meditated murder"...

Not sure I understand this comment. I have never considered premeditated murder as among my tactical options in responding to a hostage-taker.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Not sure I understand this comment. I have never considered premeditated murder as among my tactical options in responding to a hostage-taker.

He actually meant homicide...as murder would be unlawful. What he was appalled at was that we were planning, in detail, was how to expose the hostage taker to deadly gunfire as opposed to reacting out of a sense of righteousness to his action of taking a hostage. If you think about it, practicing tactics is premeditation

It wasn't as if we would not challenge and offer a chance to surrender, but if the offer were refused, the next progression was to end the standoff with deadly force.

 

[conw]

I interpreted 9mm's statement to mean that the "premeditation" is necessary to succeed but is sometimes frowned upon or poo-pooed (as in this thread), which was largely my point in creating the thread. Maybe I'm off base here but that's how I took it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

practicing tactics is premeditation

Absolutely.

When, after careful consideration of my finances, I donate to a non-profit cause, I suspect that qualifies as pre-meditated charity.

Perhaps even, "being generous in cold blood."

Premeditation, of course, simply means planning. Usually that's a good thing. When applied to criminal activity, it removes the claim of sudden impulse or temporary insanity.

Thanks for the explanation--with you now.

 

[conw]

"But this guy Internet Kevin told me not to consider it!"

 

[leadcounsel]

 

[Some Guy]

So I don't expect this situation to arrive but...

I've told my wife that if it's gun pointed at gun I'm going to ask "are you alright?". At that point she is to go absolutely limp at which point she should drop from the BG giving a more clear shot.

Yeah, I know, it may not be realistic but I think it's going to better than waiting for sharp shooters if we're at that point.

Jeff