Multiple Attackers: Neutralizing The Threats

Status
Not open for further replies.

Good Ol' Boy

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
2,936
Location
Mechanicsville, VA
I ran across a video that seems worthy of insight.

Granted this happened in another country and at a convenience store, the same could be said for your, or your families or friends home. Or anywhere else you might feel more obligated to intervene than perhaps a quick mart.

The issue at hand is multiple attackers. How do you go about intervening? Moving from one attacker to the next. Double/tripple tap as you go or drill the first until you are certain they are no longer a threat?


IMHO this video shows what can happen when you short rounds on target in a multiple attacker scenario.



 
I haven't seen the movie yet, but evidently nearly every kill he made ended with a head shot.

http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3336908/john-wick-kill-count-breaks-hundreds-head-shots/

From John’s house to the Red Circle, Church and Compound, this reddit user created the following “Kill Count” that breaks down all of those who stood in Wick’s way – and ended up with a bullet to the head.

67 head shots, 77 killed.


From another site:

John Wick kills, by my count, 78 people in the movie's 93 minutes, and he doesn't just kill them, he toys with them first like a cat with a mouse, delivering a stray bullet in the shoulder or a kick to the kneecap before offing his targets with two shots to the head, assassination-style.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...d-his-puppy-and-now-everyone-must-die/381921/
 
Last edited:
Do yourself a favor- watch the movie and skip that moronic review in The Atlantic.:cuss: I have never much cared for Keanu but he's great in this one and the film is a modern classic. And bonus points if you're an HK fan!:cool:
 
Not just short rounds, but a mistake in moving. It looks like the good guy was moving towards the front of the store so he could engage the two BGs off to the right. Momentum seemed to carry him almost on top of the bad guy he shot. He should have stayed back and used that narrow aisle where it turns to the right as a choke point and engage them there. In any case, the guy on the floor needed more rounds in him.
 
Well you could try it the John Wick way....

I haven't seen the movie either. But I am going to make some guesses here. The final shot to each attacker in the movie, the head shot. If the head shot is done execution style, or after a regular course of fire, that could be a very messy area from a legal standpoint in arguing self defense. Self defense in public, away from the home is murky anyway. Where we have families of the criminals pulling the "My poor boy didn't deserve to die." Most shooters train to shoot center mass, in the torso. So a final headshot, execution style, would be problematic.

The issue at hand is multiple attackers. How do you go about intervening? Moving from one attacker to the next. Double/tripple tap as you go or drill the first until you are certain they are no longer a threat?

That brings up another string of threads routinely gone over. Capacity and extra magazines. If you triple tap in practice and face multiple attackers like a stop and rob gas station, how many attackers can you take out with the very common single stack 9mm? 2 attackers, maybe 3 before a reload. Assuming a 100% hit rate as well.

Engaging threats comes from dozens of factors. All that have to be done within a few seconds, if not faster than that. How many rounds do you have in firearm? How many extra magazines? How far away are my targets? If I shoot one are the others likely to scatter and run? These questions would determine tactics. If you have 8 rounds in a single stack 9mm and you are about 25 feet from the most imposing and dangerous threat, can you make a head shot from that distance to stop the most immediate threat to save ammo and move onto the next?
 
One may not know whether more than one per is necessary or not. In the latter part of the clip, one observes running back to the first threat and then back and forth, demonstrating if they are still viable, the lead doesn't stop till they are. IOW, it's resolved, whether it's one each or moving back to one who's been tapped previously.
 
Some folks might occasionally have some unrealistic expectations about ...

... the "effectiveness" of handguns

... their own skillset and ability to accurately make effective hits under stress and duress

... their caliber/ammunition choices

... how people may react when different tissues, structures and organs are wounded by bullets fired by most handguns

... their own ability to direct their hits to the more critical tissues, structures and organs that might be more likely to produce an immediate cessation of an attacker's ability to continue to engage in voluntary actions (like their deadly force attack upon you or any innocent third person)

... a 'hi-cap' pistol magazine automatically having 'enough' ammunition to actually incapacitate an attacker, let alone 'multiple' attackers

... having enough time to actually be able to effectively use any of the ammunition in any handgun being carried, especially if caught by surprise

... their fired rounds not endangering innocent persons 'downrange' of their intended threat 'target'

... being able to consciously and effectively function when subjected to the physiological effects of the hormonal fear response ...

... being able to 'prevail' against overwhelming odds (multiple 'attackers') if they've never actually taken any training to prepare them for such a situation

... 'rising' to the occasion without any previous training and experience applying their skills in an unexpected dynamic, rapidly evolving and changing chaotic event

Then again, this is what some people like to fantasize about.

If someone is really interested in such things, perhaps a good place to start is to seek out at least some basic defensive handgunning training. Preferably something which includes some knowledgeable discussion and training in how the laws work and are commonly enforced when it comes to using force - especially deadly force - in different 'self defense' situations.

Maybe seek out some shooting classes or private instruction to better prepare themselves in how to really run their gun under conditions more demanding and stressful than just punching holes in paper while standing comfortably still, balanced and relaxed at the local target range. Think about trying their skills (and equipment) at a local IDPA or GSSF event?

Think about their method of carry to the same extent they do regarding their choice of handgun and ammunition?(Is it safe, of very good quality, as well as being practical and appropriate for their anticipated needs, using their preferred handgun, while wearing their clothing and engaging in their normal activities?)

Do they know how to clean and maintain their chosen handgun so it will actually function in an optimal, reliable manner if pressed into service in an emergency situation?

There are so many things to consider, and this isn't by any means something approaching a complete list. ;)

Some suspect not being "stopped" just because he/she was hit in some unknown part of their anatomy by a handgun round? How very unsurprising. Then again, cops have been killed after being wounded by a single .22 round.
 
Engage two steel targets from only 10 feet away? Definitely NOT me, brother! (And, yes, I noticed those steel targets were angled; but, still, not me!)
 
I think it would be a huge mistake to look at this and then "armchair QB" a specific plan (shot sequence etc.) to avoid it. This is a one-off situation and we have to train to handle whatever we may face w/o being able to predict what that might be.

If we decide the answer is more rds per target, well, we may be pumping multiple rounds into #1 while #2 & #3 are shooting us. Or, worse still, pump multiple rounds into #1 and this exact scenario happens anyway because there is nothing instant or magical about multiple rounds to the mid-section or chest (even the heart) that will instantly stop someone.

What about a head shot? Well, what about it? Maybe he gets his shot off before you are able to process he is still functional to take it. Head shots are great though, certainly train them!

This guy shot the nearest attacker to the ground. Bravo! I am not so naive to think that I would have been anticipating him shooting me after dropping him, I would have diverted my attention away from him once he fell as well (because of the other armed attackers, just him different story). We are talking about fractions of a second while under an adrenaline dump fighting for your life against multiple threats after all.

So how to train? First off....MOVE!!! There is far too little movement being trained. Always move, move while drawing, while shooting, while scanning, while reloading. Moving to cover is great, but just moving period is still ok even with no cover. Had he been moving, the BG would have had real difficulty acquiring him wounded in the prone.

There is also a best direction to move with the BG on the deck. The best direction is forward past them. Move to the side of the back of their head. Now, they either have to be an owl or move their whole body to re-acquire you. As you shoot them to the ground while moving and are going past them, feel free to stomp their throat, neck or head as hard as you can on the way past.

Train to shoot them to the ground while staying in motion, integrating H2H strikes as needed. JMHO, YMMV.
 
I agree with strambo that it would be a mistake to base an training program, or alter an existing training program, based solely on the situation in the one video. Situations in which deadly force are called for are so diverse and unfold in such an unpredictable way that there is no way to effecitvely train for them all.

Training should be developed from policies that will govern how the trainee responds to a situation.
  • Does the trainee engage the most exposed suspect, or the one most likely to cause harm to someone or the one who represents the greatest threat to the trainee as the responder?
  • Does the trainee fire one round and then pause to assess the situation, or two rounds, or three?
  • Does the trainee shoot for the head or torso?
  • Does the trainee continue to shoot a wounded suspect until neutralized or does the trainee move on to the next suspect?
And so on. When the answers to these "always do this" questions are resolved, then the training can be developed on how to respond to them. But the way i was trained was not intricate simulated situations, but training in certain actions that will allow the training to take over in a deadly force situation without creating expectations as to the flow of the subsequent actions.
 
To keep it in perspective; the guy in the OP video just stood over BG#1 like he was on the range and got shot (at? or hit?) for his trouble. He still survived and handled the situation. So, just train realistically and train something. You'll probably survive even if you "screw up." Violence of action right now trumps a perfect plan too late.
 
Just as a side note those of you watched the video should know that John at ASP releases a video for discussion a couple of times per week. He's a trainer and uses them as just one tool to help glean lessons from real violent encounters. Sometimes the situations are resolved without firing a shot, sometimes there are several magazines. Sometimes the good guy or gal prevails, sometimes they die. I think the point he tries to make is that you as a defender are generally at an initiative deficit and that you have to deal with the situation you're in, not the one you may have trained for. Some of the videos show situations most of us will never be in while others depict situations we're in literally every day (eg pumping gas, standing in line at the drugstore, getting cash from an ATM, etc).
 
There's a difference between firing to save your skin and firing outside the store where there's likely a decreasing threat.
Shoot and move away from the threats, not toward more trouble.
 
Actually guys Wick has some great training films just for situations like this...



Just don't do it in public....

Deaf
 
There's a difference between firing to save your skin and firing outside the store where there's likely a decreasing threat.
Shoot and move away from the threats, not toward more trouble.



That's a great point that no one has mentioned.

I understand adrenaline dumps and "heat of the moment" situations but for the purpose of taking away lessons from such scenarios Beatcop makes a valid point.

In any SD situation my thought is to be backing away as I'm shooting, not only from a "tactical" standpoint (moving, creating distance and/or trying to get to cover) but from a legal standpoint. It further shows you've exhausted all other options and are fearing for your life as you try to get yourself away from the threat/s.

If the guy in the video had been backing away instead of moving forward it seems reasonable that as he raised his gun to assess the fleeing threats that he would have had a better vantage of the guy that was down, instead of being basically over top of him and not having much of a visual or time to react to him still being in the fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top