Dealing with, and practicing for, hostage rescue

[Loosedhorse]

Until one has actually taken such a shot or at least received extensive training under extreme situations that induce great stress you have NO idea if you have the ability to make such a shot.

Well, let's see:

1) YOU may or may not have any idea. If you don't that doesn't mean that others have a similar lack of self-knowledge.

2) Mental preparedness is a big part of ability: if you've never imagined yourself in this scenario, or peremptorily dismissed the possibility, then the likelihood you'll be able to do anything while the hostage is killed or abducted is small.

3) The scenario I painted is dire: either you do something now, or the hostage gets shot or taken away, or you get shot. In that case, your ability is a secondary concern, as the cost of doing nothing is as high as the cost of your worst shot; probably higher.

 

[Sgt_R]

george - what factors resulted in "hostage" deaths, in your opinion?

This probably had something to do with it:

I was 25 when I went through hostage rescue training, the hostage takers were all special forces, the hostages were police recruits, the HRT were police recruits. Everytime we tried a rescue the hostages died.

As previously noted, the recruits were set up for failure from the beginning. It wasn't "training," it was an institutionalized circle-jerk to make the spec-ops guys feel superior and to make sure the new guys knew their place in the local food chain. Disgusting.

R

 

[GEM]

About rare events - that never happen.

1. Rare as being hit by lightning
2. Rare as being in a plane crash.

Well, I've been hit by lightning. A friend survived a DC-8 crash that killed the front half of the plane.

We were in class and the instructor said XY and Z were as rare as being hit by lightning or being in a plane crash. Guess who cracked up.

So, never happens. Was in Cracker Barrel. A bad guy comes in being chased by police who lost contact for a bit. I see the law enter. Say to wife - we are out of here. Why, she says. The law - I say - we evacuate. Then a slew of cars arrive and charge in. They drag out some gentleman waving and screaming. Now might said BG have grabbed the wife or kid, seeing the law arriving or before looking for a car and asked for your car keys. Started quite an argument on an old tactics list. Recall, that those who go to the second crime are usually dead.

Never happen. Naw.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
Until one has actually taken such a shot or at least received extensive training under extreme situations that induce great stress you have NO idea if you have the ability to make such a shot.

Well, let's see:

1) YOU may or may not have any idea. If you don't that doesn't mean that others have a similar lack of self-knowledge.

The others who don't have a similar lack of self-knowledge are those i described who have experienced it or had sufficient training to simulate such an event. There are plenty of accounts of people completely falling apart at first combat in spite of their self confidence. I like to think i could keep my cool in such a scenario but i don't pretend to know my reaction to something i've never experienced.

About rare events - that never happen.

If they never happen they are not rare, they are impossible. Somebody somewhere has experienced every event that qualifies as unlikely. But that does not in any way change actual probabilities. Knowing somebody who won the lottery doesn't make it likely to happen to you. And while relatively unlikely there are certainly far more americans who have been hit by lottery than needed to pull of headshots on hostage takers.

 

[Loosedhorse]

There are plenty of accounts of people completely falling apart at first combat in spite of their self confidence

And plenty of accounts of people who did not. Actually, I think there are more stories in combat about non-failure--don't you?

 

[JustinJ]

And plenty of accounts of people who did not. Actually, I think there are more stories in combat about non-failure--don't you?

Right. But since i'm not arging that you will certainly fall apart that is irrelevant. My point is that you don't know until you've experienced it or something similar. Not to mention that those in combat have generally at least been exposed to simulated warfare.

edit: If your nerves are causing you to shake you can still shoot at somebody. If your nerves are making you shake you probably shouldnt take a shot in which a few inches to one side or the other will kill a loved one.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If your nerves are making you shake you probably shouldnt take a shot in which a few inches to one side or the other will kill a loved one.

Ah--so you should watch them be shot instead.

I wonder: if you've never "experienced" watching someone you love being shot before, how do you know if you'll be able to take that?

 

[JustinJ]

Ah--so you should watch them be shot instead.

I wonder: if you've never "experienced" watching someone you love being shot before, how do you know if you'll be able to take that?

The rest of the world and i lack psychic powers so i'm not sure why you think not choosing to try a trick shot is choosing to watch a loved one be shot. Generally when a person takes another hostage and threatens to kill them it is in order to get something. So chances are their intention is not to shoot them or else they would probably just do that to begin with.

Wether or not you've experienced a loved one get shot is sort of irrelevant because wether or not you're good at it won't change the fact they got shot.

 

[conw]

Sgt_R, agreed.

Justin and others, I don't get how the idea of making a pseudo-hostage-rescue low-percentage shot is radical.

If you live with others, find yourself around others who are not criminals that need shooting right-that-second, and/or can see yourself needing to shoot someone while around other people for defensive reasons (most of us here fall into one of those 3 at least), I think being able to make a shot on a BG with someone nearby or in contact is a vital skill.

How is that radical or low-probability? It's not as if you are guaranteed to have a gunfight in the middle of a rural area, or in a warehouse with no one in it. Most likely someone will be nearby, maybe in visual range, maybe in touching range of the bad guy.

If you can make low-percentage shots and you have a strategy for dealing with the "worst case" bad guy with gun hostage scenario, you can more easily deal with the others, too.

There is also some kind of fallacy taking place here where people assume that there is going to be a media blitz any time a "hostage shot" occurs by a civilian. I'm sure there are plenty of defensive shootings that take place with these conditions in a home in some small town, say in Texas or similar, and all the details aren't released because it is an open and shut case.

Again I don't see how it's radical that we need to be able to hit a bad guy standing in close proximity to our family member.

 

[Loosedhorse]

so i'm not sure why you think not choosing to try a trick shot is choosing to watch a loved one be shot.

Because that's the condition I specified for my shooting: that I felt that if I did not shoot, the hostage would be shot, or taken away, or I would be shot.

See? No psychic power required. Just reasonable belief.

Say, don't you need "psychic power" anytime you would use your gun in SD? I mean, how could anyone possibly know what your attcker is about to do, before he does it?

Nah, better to wait for your attacker to shoot you, just to be sure you didn't shoot for no reason. And better to let him shoot the hostage, too.

Well, good luck with that. I'll make a different choice, even without psychic powers.

 

[JustinJ]

If you live with others, are around others who are not criminals, and/or can see yourself needing to shoot some for defensive reasons (most of us here fall into one of those 3 at least), I think being able to make a shot on a BG with someone nearby or in contact is a vital skill.

How is that radical or low-probability? It's not as if you are guaranteed to have a gunfight in the middle of a rural area, or in a warehouse with no one in it. Most likely someone will be nearby, maybe in visual range, maybe in touching range of the bad guy.

What strategy will account for the fact that extreme stress will very often dirsupt fine motor control? Such a level of stress as a gun pointed at the head of somebody you love is not something that can readily simulated. If i'm in a situation where a bad guy is super close to another person so that i'm not confident i can make the shot i'm not going to shoot at him unless he is actively shooting and people will die either way.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
so i'm not sure why you think not choosing to try a trick shot is choosing to watch a loved one be shot.

Because that's the condition I specified for my shooting: that I felt that if I did not shoot, the hostage would be shot, or taken away, or I would be shot.

See? No psychic power required. Just reasonable belief.

Say, don't you need "psychic power" anytime you would use your gun in SD? I mean, how could anyone possibly know what your attcker is about to do, before he does it?

Given that my concern is for the well being of the loved one instead of the bad guy, no, i don't need a psychic power to shoot at somebody when i have reasonable cause to believe they mean me harm.

Obviously if i believed the hostage taker was just going to kill us either way i would shoot. But as i said a hostage taker generally does so as leverage, usually to protect his own life and secure an escape, so the fact that he has taken a hostage rather than shoot means an alternative is availablne. I would not surrender my gun or even stop pointing it at him but i'm not going to take a Hollywood shot if more reasonable options exist.

 

[conw]

But as i said a hostage taker generally does so as leverage

My apologies for going down the rabbit hole we are in due to the title of the thread, but let's claw our way back up.

I assert that practicing for a pseudo hostage-rescue scenario and shot will allow one to feel more confident in a variety of fast-paced, difficult-shooting-problem situations, including the (presumably more plausible to you) low-percentage innocent bystander shot.

E.g. bad guy in your house, gun out, daughter/wife/mom/whomever in room behind/next to him, whether or not he "took a hostage."

I look at it like this...in FOF, you should practice extensively with 2 or 3 people in RP-based (they're "bad guys" and you're the "good guy") to hone your verbal skills and positional skills to be as good as possible in that situation.

Here's a little bit of my experience for you...VERY often 2 on 1 is unwinnable, or close to it. Sometimes the BGs are clever enough to close on you and by the time you are "justified" drawing it may be too late. But in that particular case there are lessons to be learned, e.g. position before drawstroke (or as they say in BJJ, position before submission).

I posit that if one attempts to learn how to deal with worst-case scenarios, it pays dividends to the "expected" 1 attacker, or non-hostage-shot, or whatever.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Obviously if i believed the hostage taker was just going to kill us either way i would shoot. But as i said a hostage taker generally does so as leverage, usually to protect his own life and secure an escape

I have already said I will give him escape; I have already said I will give him ANYTHING except the hostage, my gun, or a good shot at me.

So if I am going to shoot, it's because we are at an impasse: he refuses to go except with the hostage, or insists on taking my gun; and since I won't let him do either, he threatens to shoot. And eventually, I believe him. So I'm going to take the best shot I can, right then. Maybe with the hostage doing a pre-arranged drop; but even if not.

I'm not talking about some "if I bank it off the dining room mirror and off the moose antlers, I can get him right behind the ear" trick shot. I'm talking about understanding that I'm in a situation that I would have given almost anything to prevent. And then, acting accordingly.