House of worship security teams and the 25-yard head shot

[Double Naught Spy]

I would like to stress that we really aren't talking about head shots. We are talking about CNS shots. There is a big difference. About 2/3 of the head is non-vital structures. You can sometimes damage some non-vital structures sufficiently to secondarily damage the brain and maybe increase your target zone size to 1/2 of the head, but that isn't so much of a sure thing.

Do you have to hit the proverbial medulla oblongata? They make a big deal out about that with sniper shots and maybe if the suspect has his/her finger on the trigger of a gun and the gun held to a hostage's head, that might be critical. Otherwise, virtually nobody remains to be a functional threat with a bullet that goes through the brain. Are there exceptions? I don't know of any from gun fights where a person remained capable and continued to fight without any incapacitation.

The problem with shooting the medulla oblongata is making that perfect shot on a target you can't see that is on the interior of the head. I have been to the various gun schools that teach you where to shoot in the T to hit there, but that is on a perfectly frontal shot on a 2D target that involves absolutely no deflection of the bullet.

Being shot in the face, for example, is a 'head shot,' but may not actually hit anything People shot through the mouth/jaw, ears, grazing the skull, even though a single eye have been known to continue to fight.

So when you practice your "head shots," remember that you need make CNS shots, not head shots.

 

[Rexster]

Thoughtful article. Thanks for posting the link.

For the “Too Long; Did Not Read” folks, the article is not a How-To on making head shots inside houses of worship. I recommend reading the entire article.

A very important aspect, that was discussed, in the article, is that worshippers may run, or pop-up, into the intended path of the bullet, while the defender is intently focused on the sights.

My take-away is that it is much better for a defender to be much closer than 25 yards, when taking the shot, in a situation with no-shoots moving about. And, of course, a tactically knowledgeable defender, who may not be the best 25-yard shooter, is a more valuable asset than the bullseye champion who does not understand tactics. (That is not taking a swipe at bullseye shooters. One can shoot bullseye well, AND understand tactics, too.)

 

[upptick]

That's a stone cold negative on the entire concept of thinking its advisable, tactically required, or even possible to use handguns to pick off a moving target at 25 yards in a lecture hall full of panicked innocents without the foreseeable and therefore legally actionable risk of hitting one of said innocents. Hence, my church deploys an overwatch sniper team in the balcony for regular services, with a back-up team and a Rapid Reaction Force for baptisms and weddings.

I am, however, looking forward to the premier of the new Tom Clancy / Clint Eastwood production entitled

House of worship security teams and the 25-yard head shot

 

[old lady new shooter]

Enquiring minds want to know...

Do we know if the security guy in the White Settlement shooting was actually attempting a head shot or just got a lucky head shot?

Long-range proficiency should be just one tool in your tool box. Our church has MANY fields of fire that could necessitate such a shot- it's not a small country house of worship, and has solid brick exterior walls.

The problem with talking head statements like "only close range shooting is viable in a church encounter because of A, B and C" is that they don't work for a church with X, Y and Z, regardless of how many blog followers the poster has for their website or YouTube videos.

I watched a long interview with him, twice. First you should know he is a professional firearms instructor. In discussing the fact that he took a head shot, he said normally it's not recommended because it's a small target compared to COM, but he was concerned about the parishoners between him and the BG so he decided the head shot was safer. In the interview he did not mention the distance. Not sure if it was the same interview or a different one but he appears to have his own range where he can do things we can't do on a public range, like shoot while moving, shoot at multiple targets, etc.

Note that he fired exactly one shot, perfectly aimed. One big advantage he had was that BG had turned to look at someone or something else so did not see the shot coming. He mentioned this in the interview also.

Just for completeness, the shot was not from 25 yards, more like 15, which is of course still something many could not accomplish. You can watch the video at:
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article238811603.html

 

[old lady new shooter]

Thoughtful article. Thanks for posting the link.

For the “Too Long; Did Not Read” folks, the article is not a How-To on making head shots inside houses of worship. I recommend reading the entire article.

A very important aspect, that was discussed, in the article, is that worshippers may run, or pop-up, into the intended path of the bullet, while the defender is intently focused on the sights.

My take-away is that it is much better for a defender to be much closer than 25 yards, when taking the shot, in a situation with no-shoots moving about. And, of course, a tactically knowledgeable defender, who may not be the best 25-yard shooter, is a more valuable asset than the bullseye champion who does not understand tactics. (That is not taking a swipe at bullseye shooters. One can shoot bullseye well, AND understand tactics, too.)

The possibility of worshippers popping up between the defender and the BG really struck me. Just because someone didn't hit the floor or run away yet doesn't mean they won't decide to try exactly when the defender would want to shoot.

 

[Rexster]

The possibility of worshippers popping up between the defender and the BG really struck me. Just because someone didn't hit the floor or run away yet doesn't mean they won't decide to try exactly when the defender would want to shoot.

Some of our local tragic “blue-on-blue” shootings have been the result of an LEO moving into the line-of-fire of fellow LEOs. Part of our Active Shooter training has been the concept of assigning “priority of fire,” to minimize such shooting of fellow LEOs, but not much can be done about a student, teacher, or other person suddenly popping-up or otherwise moving into one’s line of fire, just as the shoot decision is being processed by the brain and index finger.

 

[Rexster]

Let us remember, that human reaction time comes into play, in making the decision to STOP pulling the trigger. That is enough time to fire multiple shots, even if the righteous shooter sees the innocent person appear in his sight picture. Perception is the first step in the “OODA” cycle. Observe. Orient. Decide. Act. A Korean War-era fighter pilot, named Boyd, coined the term. (Sorry, at the moment, I do not recall his rank, or full name.)

Let us also remember that “tunnel vision” occurs during Body Alarm Reaction. We are less likely to see things that would ordinarily be well within our peripheral vision. We also tend to tune out any sound that does not emanate from the area of our target. A screaming person, approaching from one side or the other, will probably not be perceived.

 

[shafter]

Who is liable if something goes wrong? The church, pastor, every member of the group? Is there insurance that covers this?

I'm all in favor of parishioners carrying to services but to me the idea of a dedicated team sounds like it could go really wrong. A church setting would be a complicated situation for a trained SWAT team never mind a scratch team of people of varying skill and ability.

 

[Blue Jays]

If feeling a balcony-seated rifleman plus congregation quick reaction force is needed...my inclination would be to go for a nice hike in the woods, a run along a lake, or country bicycle ride for quality meditation. In terms of strategy, tactics, and training one also must consider threat avoidance as a reasonable path, too.

 

[Armored farmer]

If feeling a balcony-seated rifleman plus congregation quick reaction force is needed...my inclination would be to go for a nice hike in the woods, a run along a lake, or country bicycle ride for quality meditation. In terms of strategy, tactics, and training one also must consider threat avoidance as a reasonable path, too.

The things you mentioned are definitely enjoyable and peaceful.
Christians are convicted to join together on the first day of the week. It has been a danger for over 2000 years.
I am in charge of security at my church.

 

[Blue Jays]

As one of similar faith I totally get it. Ignoring potential threats is certainly a wrong path to take.
At the same time, if it reached the point our church vestry had to consider this...I would be moving on.
If there is chatter/evidence/concern an attack is imminent, one would be wise to be situated elsewhere.

 

[Armored farmer]

A congregation should take measures to ensure the safety of its members, whether the threat be covid or something else.

Meanwhile, the Bible says "fear not" in 365 places. "Be courageous" 25 times......

 

[old lady new shooter]

Who is liable if something goes wrong? The church, pastor, every member of the group? Is there insurance that covers this?

I'm all in favor of parishioners carrying to services but to me the idea of a dedicated team sounds like it could go really wrong. A church setting would be a complicated situation for a trained SWAT team never mind a scratch team of people of varying skill and ability.

An official team should get appropriate group training.

 

[herrwalther]

Who is liable if something goes wrong? The church, pastor, every member of the group? Is there insurance that covers this?

Our congregation has a liability insurance policy up to 2 million dollars. A partial result of the security team. Prepared for active shooters is just one thing we prepare for. Most of our congregation is elderly. So we have doubled the number and training of AEDs during our meetings.

I'm all in favor of parishioners carrying to services but to me the idea of a dedicated team sounds like it could go really wrong. A church setting would be a complicated situation for a trained SWAT team never mind a scratch team of people of varying skill and ability.

Odd logic. By that measure only SWAT members should be armed, no "civilian" carry allowed at any time. In a group setting only well trained folk can shoot well in crowds. Based on cross training I have done with SWAT, no thanks.

 

[Sundance1908]

The goal is to stop the threat. Practice is going to give you the confidence, and the answer, to what you should do. Unfortunately, most ranges don't let you practice realistic scenarios.

The Army taught me center mass. At 25yds, I still think this is the most prudent approach. The greatest likelihood of a hit regardless of my situation. That first hit, should, I hope, stop the shooter from continuing to shoot at other innocent people. Hopefully, it gives me time to close the distance or allow another person to take shots from a different position.

Practice all your options and the changing situation is essential, even if dry-fire.

I bet dollars to donuts I can get two to four shots on center mass before I can get the headshot.

 

[huntsman]

Our Safety Team is classified as unpaid employees of church so church isn’t liable, I carry US Lawshield for myself.

As for practice we use a private outdoor range do unarmed drills in church and I in near future will start force on force at church

 

[Kleanbore]

Our Safety Team is classified as unpaid employees of church so church isn’t liable, I carry US Lawshield for myself.

That can adress legal expenses, but not liability.

 

[Rexster]

As one of similar faith I totally get it. Ignoring potential threats is certainly a wrong path to take.
At the same time, if it reached the point our church vestry had to consider this...I would be moving on.
If there is chatter/evidence/concern an attack is imminent, one would be wise to be situated elsewhere.

Two thoughts:

1. Every religious group seems to be hated by someone. Many hate all Americans, period, and have said so. If I am attending a church service, there is someone, somewhere, will will hate me just for being there. If I were to walk into a synagogue, or a mosque, there will be folks who will hate me just for being there.

2. Murderers do not, necessarily, make their intentions known to the intended victims, graciously setting an appointment. I will assume that an attack will come as a bolt, out of the blue.

Better buy a sword, even if I have to sell my cloak.

 

[herrwalther]

2. Murderers do not, necessarily, make their intentions known to the intended victims, graciously setting an appointment. I will assume that an attack will come as a bolt, out of the blue.

Yup. Much of the security measures I recommended have been implemented. Our worship complex is massive. Covering 3 floors and I don't even want to guess the square footage. We would have attendees come in through 9 or 10 different doors. That was reduced to two, with a police officer at each door to let people in. All the doors can be accessed from the inside only for emergency escape. We also have an underground escape tunnel that few people know exist let alone know where it is. Panic buttons, cameras etc. All the bells and whistles will help minimize a security threat as much as possible.

 

[old lady new shooter]

That can adress legal expenses, but not liability.

CCW Safe has an add-on for licensed concealed carriers, $1 million in liability. I took it. I think they might also have a preconfigured plan that includes it.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Our congregation has a liability insurance policy up to 2 million dollars. A partial result of the security team. Prepared for active shooters is just one thing we prepare for. Most of our congregation is elderly. So we have doubled the number and training of AEDs during our meetings.



Odd logic. By that measure only SWAT members should be armed, no "civilian" carry allowed at any time. In a group setting only well trained folk can shoot well in crowds. Based on cross training I have done with SWAT, no thanks.

I am typically armed at services although not a member of the official security team. I would only engage if I see the security folks are in trouble (which I think would be very unlikely if there were only one active shooter), and if my location is such that I could stop the threat without endangering innocents.

 

[Kleanbore]

CCW Safe has an add-on for licensed concealed carriers, $1 million in liability. I took it.

What do they claim it covers, and more importantly, what are the exclusions?

 

[old lady new shooter]

What do they claim it covers, and more importantly, what are the exclusions?

All the information is on their website.

 

[Kleanbore]

CCW Safe has an add-on for licensed concealed carriers, $1 million in liability.

All the information is on their website.

It appears to cover services only, and not civil liability, which was the subject of my comment.

 

[old lady new shooter]

It appears to cover services only, and not civil liability, which was the subject of my comment.

WRONG.

I didn't want to waste time going to the website, but you gave me no choice. The coverage is for CIVIL DAMAGES. Here is the exact language, emphasis added by me:

Civil liability coverage stemming from a Recognized Self-Defense Use of Force Incident offers coverage of $1,000,000 per incident, and $1,000,000 in the aggregate. Litigation fees and expenses are separate from the $1,000,000 liability coverage. For example, your $1,000,000 in civil damages protection is not consumed by the fees and costs of litigation. In states where a criminal conviction occurs, and where you are found guilty of a crime, and the law precludes the assertion of self-defense as a viable defense in a civil case, then the extent of liability damages protection is $100,000 per incident and $100,000 in the aggregate.
​

link to the page where the above appears:
https://ccwsafe.com/terms

​