Principal Incapacitation Mechanism: Fear

[LightningJoe]

Has there ever been anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances an encounter in which a handgun was used for self-defense by a non-LEO civilian and in which the outcome of the encounter was demonstrably affected by the caliber of the handgun used by the defender? If so, please describe the encounter.

 

[mete]

That goes with the 'sound of racking a shotgun ' to scare someone . I wouldn't count on it !! I think the size of the gun would have more influence than the caliber .

 

[LightningJoe]

That I wouldn't count on it !!

Yes, yes. But do you know from actual encounters? Hits to the medula oblongata with 50 BMG sound like they would be more effective than many other things, but what of data from actual encounters?

 

[pax]

Joe ~

Why stick with non-LEO? Seems to me that a BG getting shot is a BG getting shot ... no matter who pulled the trigger. Anyway, here's one.

Jim Cirillo tells the story of a BG who soaked up eleven shots of .38 -- all shots to the face & head. The BG went down, apparently dead. One officer got on the phone to report the shooting, started describing the guy: "I got a male, black, 6'2 or 6'3, weight 270 to 300 pounds, age, uh, ummm, 30 years..."

The supposedly dead BG suddenly opened his eyes and said, "???? man, I'm only 26. Hey officer, can I have a kleenex? I got blood in my nose."

When given a tissue, the robber blew his nose and a spent bullet fell out ... plop! ... onto the floor in front of him.

Then the BG walked to the ambulance, "without the slightest wobble or any sign that he was injured."

At the hospital, they found out that not a single round had penetrated the robber's skull.

The load used was 158-grain lead .38 special.

pax

 

[pax]

Here's another one, again from the police. Happened back in the early 1970's.

Officers Steve Chaney & Linda Lawrence entered an apartment which they were told may have been broken into by a BG. They saw nothing very convincing on the locks, but were clearing the place anyway.

As they entered the last unchecked room, they encountered a man who proceeded to soak up at least 9 shots from Officer Chaney's .38 over the course of a ten-minute struggle for Chaney's (and then Lawrence's) gun.

Linda Lawrence, a rookie, was killed, after the BG had been shot at least once (and if memory serves, more than once. But may be mistaken on that point.)

One of the shots was literally fired into the top of the BG's head with the muzzle of the gun against the man's skin. After that shot, the man kept coming.

Another shot was fired into the man's ribcage, again at skin-contact range, penetrating through the chest cavity from side to side. The BG then remarked, "You got me a good one that time," then picked up Officer Chaney and threw him bodily across the room.

What finally put the BG down was blood loss from multiple wounds, several long minutes after the encounter began.

pax

 

[rockstar.esq]

I don't know but I pack a .44SPL and a bug .32ACP. Looking at my PT32 more than one person has asked "is that really a gun"? Not that intimidation is the primary intent but I'd really prefer not to have to shoot and if the bore dia "negotiated" a non-violent end to the threat, so much the better!

 

[LightningJoe]

Joe ~

Why stick with non-LEO?

Pax:


People who fight LEOs are self-selected for characteristics that might tend to put them in the top 1% of combatants (well-armed, willing to die, berserk, etc.). Non-LEOs also encounter people in these categories, but with much lower frequency. People swimming in the Mississippi occasionally encounter sharks, but much less frequently than people who swim off the coast of Australia.

 

[pauli]

Principal Incapacitation Mechanism: Fear

dude, i gotta ask - what schools did you go to?

(yeah, yeah, i can't resist a pun)

 

[Rockstar]

Yeah, I'd like to know what kind of incapacitation mechanism his principal had, too.

 

[LightningJoe]

My Principal was fearless. He had to be at the school I went to.


I'm compelled to conclude, though, that it is the handgun's reputation as a weapon capable of inflicting mortal injuries that is principally what makes it effective. In those instances when that reputation is not sufficient to terrify or demoralize an opponent (as in those LEO encounters described by Pax), the handgun can prove woefully ineffective.

 

[Joejojoba111]

I think it might be a different part of the brain, that you're talking about. Maybe some really really practiced fighter might keep their cool 100%, but I bet most people get a little 'flustered'. When this happens your brain gets a little less blood, and your muscles get a little more. As a result your most important thinking areas keep working, while other secondary areas work less. So you're probably not into stuff like reasoning and deciphering, just reptilian stuff.

When Dirty Harry reasoned with the bank robber, the robber wasn't flustered. In real life you try to explain a complicated scenario like that, they won't wait to hear you out. "This is a .44...don't know how many shots fired...question you have to ask yourself..."

In my experience, when someone tries to be eloquent like that at the wrong time, you just don't care. Apathy, you sort of hear it, but you don't pay attention, don't care. The brain doesn't bother to analyse those sounds.

I figure maybe, based on that, it's the same with weapons. Pistol, knife, maybe no-one really cares when the weapon comes out, what caliber it is.

 

[LightningJoe]

Mete and Rock Star, Esq. both posted things that suggested that the competent appearance of the defensive handgun are important. That's consistent with my hypothesis.


The sheer number of .38 Special rounds Pax describes fearless criminals absorbing and the incapacitation mechanism that worked when fear did not (i.e. none or bleeding to death) suggests that in gunfights that are concluded quickly (without serendipitous shot placement) fear is the incapacitation mechanism.


Caliber would then be a relatively minor consideration, especially non-LEOs who are typically far less likely to encounter genuinely fearless criminals. In the case of the criminals that Pax describes shrugging off multiple head and torso shots, what handgun caliber would have sufficed? Myself, I carry .45 ACP, but is that caliber so much better than .38 Special?


My hypothesis is that unless your opponent mortally fears the destructive power of your gun or you can get in a quick shot to the top third of a moving opponent's head, you'll have to put a bunch of holes in your attacker and wait for him to bleed to death. I suspect, though, that fear is an effective incapacitation mechanism is the great majority of encounters in which a handgun is used for self-defense--so much so that nornally the defensive handgun does not need to be fired. When it is fired, the outcome of the encounter would be the same, whether the intended target were hit or not. In those instances when the intended target is hit, the severity of the injury inflicted may often not matter. When the severity of the injury inflicted does matter, shot placement will be more important than caliber.


Actually, that's why I don't carry .32 ACP anymore. Even though I decided caliber didn't matter, I was chagrined to think that my defensive handgun caliber was adequate for exactly the same reason in the mostly the same situations that blanks would be adequate.

 

[Beach]

Hi all, I just signed up, but I have been shooting for the last 18 yrs or so.

If a BG doesnt seem to be convinced that you can do alot of damage to him, simply aim and fire into his genital region. Even if you are fearless, you gotta protect the boys! I dont think they would even care if it was a .22.

 

[pax]

In the case of the criminals that Pax describes shrugging off multiple head and torso shots, what handgun caliber would have sufficed?

In both cases, there were "successful" head shots (eg shots that actually hit the head instead of missing this small & difficult target) -- and in both cases, the shots failed to penetrate the bony skull. In the incident Cirillo relates, at least one of the shots managed to penetrate into (but not through) the sinus or nasal cavities.

While the Chaney incident might be set aside, Cirillo's tale is a little harder to discount. The most germaine issue in that case was the simple failure of any of the eleven rounds fired to get inside the BG's skull. No one, after all -- no matter how determinedly inhuman -- can simply "shrug off" a penetrating injury to the medullah oblongata, and very few people can "shrug off" any kind of brain injury.

Cirillo's take on that, btw, is that roundnose is more likely to skip off the skull than a bullet with sharp edges -- such as a wadcutter -- and that there's nothing wrong with a .38 provided it's got some 'grab' to its leading edge.

pax

 

[LightningJoe]

No one, after all -- no matter how determinedly inhuman -- can simply "shrug off" a penetrating injury to the medullah oblongata, and very few people can "shrug off" any kind of brain injury.
to its leading edge.

pax

Yes, yes. But as I say, that's the top third of the attacker's head. Not an easy target to hit, especially since people keep moving around. Again, in those few instances in which the severity of the injury affects the outcome of the encounter, shot placement is more important than caliber. .22 LR can penetrate the skull. It's pretty effective through the forehead. .45 ACP might cause more damage through the forehead, but the outcome for the defender is unlikely to be any different. Likewise, .22 LR through the left elbow is unlikely to do much in the short term, but neither is .45 ACP unless the attacker is frightened by the prospect of injury.

 

[RyanM]

I cannot find the specific reference right now, but one paper I read documented a perpetrator being hit multiple times in the arms (and only the arms) with a .45, and instantly fainting dead away. Frame-by-frame analysis showed that the guy started to faint the second the first round hit, and was shot a few more times as he crumpled.

Yes, yes. But as I say, that's the top third of the attacker's head. Not an easy target to hit, especially since people keep moving around.

One of the shots mentioned was a contact-range shot fired vertically downward into the top of the perpetrator's head. If that's not the "top third," then nothing is. I think you mean the eye sockets or ear holes, instead. Those are probably the best bets.

 

[pax]

Yes, yes. But as I say, that's the top third of the attacker's head.

Joe, in both cases I cited, the bullets actually impacted the head. They didn't miss this small and difficult target.

In the Chaney incident, the head shot was taken at skin-contact distance, and that shot was fired from the top/front of the BG's head downwards & towards the back. If the round had gotten past bone, the fight would have been over right then no matter how determined the attacker was.

In the Cirillo incident, at least one of the rounds (probably several more; Cirillo tells a darn good tale but doesn't always give forensic details!) penetrated into the nasal or sinus cavities. That's precisely where you're supposed to aim in order to produce an immediately lethal effect (not just to the "top third of the head" -- you can blow off the top of someone's head and they may live through it -- but into the small triangle framed between the BG's eyes & nose.) Again, if that round had gone far enough, it wouldn't have mattered how determined the BG was, he'd have been DRT.

In neither case was the assailant deterred by the mere prospect of injury, but perhaps my vision is clouded because I disagree with your premise that ordinary people rarely encounter determined criminals and therefore needn't worry about them.

Determined criminals aren't all that uncommon. What's uncommon is when their chosen victims show the same determination.

Evidence?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=138637
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=12390
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=54027

pax

 

[Jeff White]

Joe,
You can't depend on fear to make your adversary back down. Many people feel no fear, especially when intoxicated on one or more of the popular legal and illegal substances in use today. The sober man who might back away from a Walther TP22 might charge right into the muzzle of a 90mm recoiless rifle when under the influence.

Everyone perceives the firearm differently. I have read reports where robbery victims described small handguns as huge and had other victims tell me it was a small silver automatic. Some can't even begin to describe the firearm that their assailant used.

If you intend to carry a firearm for self defense based on it's intimidation factor, I'd suggest that perhaps you should re-evaluate what it is you intend to do with the firearm. You need to be legally, morally and emotionally prepared to take that person's life every time you draw your weapon in a defensive scenario. Don't convince yourself that "I've got this big black gun and just presenting it is going to make my attacker back down." You have to develop the proper mindset before you're ready to carry a firearm for defensive purposes. You need to take a long look inside yourself and decide if carrying a firearm is really for you. You need to take your handgun and and truly understand that you are holding death in your hands. You need to know in your heart of hearts that if you have to remove it from your holster, that you are capable of pressing the trigger if need be. If you can't reconcile yourself to that, then perhaps a different defensive option is called for.

When the firearm is drawn, it's time for use. If the bad guy sees it and backs down, then that's a good thing, but it's never anything you should count on. You don't want to be standing there when he gets angry and charges you, with a dumbfounded look you face thinking, 'Doesn't he know this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow his head clean off."

We tend to get too focused on hardware. The combat triad consists of mindset, marksmanship, and manipulation. You can make it through with less then stellar marksmanship, but you need to be able to manipulate your chosen weapon when you lose much of your fine motor control after the adrenaline dump. You stand a very low chance of surviving and even a lower chance of winning the fight without the proper mindset.

To get started, I'd suggest you read, The Principles of Personal Defense by Jeff Cooper. It's a short book, you ought to be able to get through it in an evening.

HTH
Jeff

 

[LightningJoe]

Let me clarify. Here's my hypothesis: The principal incapacitation mechanism for handguns is fear. It's just an hypothesis. Might not be true. So I ask, does anybody know of any actual self-defense encounters involving civilians who are not LEOs in which caliber demonstrably affected the outcome of the encounter?


But why do I say civilians? Because battlefield encounters involve uniformed fighting men who are serving their countries. They are not normally criminals. They are average people, men of honor who will fight hard. They are not defective predators like criminals and may respond very differently to threats, injuries, and pain.


Why do I say non-LEOs? Uniformed LEOs are known to be armed. LEOs represent some level of government that will retaliate against anyone who harms the LEO. Physical resistance to LEOs is against the law. All these things constitute strong deterents against fighting LEOs. People who fight LEOs are self-selected for being crazy, emotionally out of control, intoxicated, having nothing to lose, or being unable to reason out the probable consequences of their actions. What I hypothesize to be the principal incapactitating mechanism for handguns (fear) is much less likely to work on this group of people self-selected for the aforementioned characteristics. Caliber probably matters more often when fighting the sort of people crazy enough to attack LEOs, because the principal incapacitation mechanism may not be working. Bad news for LEOs, because they'll need better shot placement or good cover while they wait for their opponents to bleed to death. And, as Pax points out, even what is normally thought of as good shot placement may not be enough. Non-LEOs also encounter crazy people, so I'm not excluding the need to incapacitate the sort of people who attack LEOs, just excluding a category of encounters in which such attackers are disproportionately represented.


So among the general population, does anybody know of any actual self-defense encounters in which caliber demonstrably affected the outcome of the encounter? If the answer is no or only a few, then my hypothesis derives some support from the lack of refutation. Non-LEO civilians use handguns for self-defense an unknown but large number of times every year. I suspect the sheer number of encounters in which non-LEOs use handguns for self-defense is far greater than the number of encounters in which LEOs do, just because the number of non-LEOs is so much greater.

 

[pax]

Joe ~

Try this one. The homeowner emptied a .32 into the BG, who died the next day. Meanwhile, if her husband hadn't come to her rescue, the BG would have killed her.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=12390

And here's another one. Homeowner shot the BG with four shots from a .25 and then took a heckuva beating during the hour it took for him to bleed out & stop. "The medical examiner concluded the first shot had entered his mouth, the second his heart, the third and fourth bullets his abdomen and groin. He had taken nearly an hour to bleed to death."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1966221&postcount=6

Lots more to be found at the civilian self defense blog. Unfortunately, it's a rare newspaper article that includes the caliber of gun or the location of bullet wounds.

pax

A very large percentage of people who carry a concealed handgun do not carry it as a weapon. They carry it as a good luck charm. They think of it as a magic talisman that wards off evil, or as a rabbit's foot. In that context, a .25 or a .32 works just as well as a major caliber sidearm. Personally, I carry a 1911 and 2 spare mags everywhere, all the time. It does not interfere with my life at all. -- Tom Givens

 

[mete]

A friend who killed an armed criminal was confused when the criminal didn't respond when told more than once to drop his gun .Now my friend understands that a sociopath with very high levels of alcohol and 4 drugs shouldn't be expected to respond !!! ...Assume the worst and hope for the best.

 

[Jeff White]

LightningJoe said;

Let me clarify. Here's my hypothesis: The principal incapacitation mechanism for handguns is fear.

There are two prinicple incapacitation mechanisims for any firearm, destruction of the central nervous system and exsanguination. Nature protects the central nervous system pretty well in most creatures including human beings. Hitting your opponent in the small target that is the CNS is problematic at best. Exsanguination, or lowering the blood pressure to the point that the subject can't remain concious and functioning is probably the most reliable method of incapacitating your opponent. Caliber can have a function in both methods. The thing about these is that they are somewhat quantifiable.

Fear is not a quantifiable factor. I'm certain that it factors into all encounters, but everyone reacts differently to it.

But why do I say civilians? Because battlefield encounters involve uniformed fighting men who are serving their countries. They are not normally criminals. They are average people, men of honor who will fight hard. They are not defective predators like criminals and may respond very differently to threats, injuries, and pain.

Criminals may be defective in that they choose to live outside the laws of our society, but we can't make a blanket judgement that because they are defective predators that they are necessarily cowards. Everyone from Mother Teresa to Charles Manson responds differently to threats, injuries and pain. Criminals are more likely to use chemicals that will alter their response to to threats, injuries, and pain.

Why do I say non-LEOs? Uniformed LEOs are known to be armed. LEOs represent some level of government that will retaliate against anyone who harms the LEO. Physical resistance to LEOs is against the law. All these things constitute strong deterents against fighting LEOs. People who fight LEOs are self-selected for being crazy, emotionally out of control, intoxicated, having nothing to lose, or being unable to reason out the probable consequences of their actions. What I hypothesize to be the principal incapactitating mechanism for handguns (fear) is much less likely to work on this group of people self-selected for the aforementioned characteristics.

What do you think is the trigger that causes these people to snap? You do know that most of the fights LEOs get into are with emotionally disturbed persons or EDPs? Professional criminals who have been through the system and know what to expect often don't resist at all when caught. A private citizen has just as great a chance of encountering an EDP as a police officer does. Another thing your hypothesis isn't taking into account is that many real criminals are pretty good at reading their potential victim's mental and emotional state, that's one of the things that makes them successful. So the law abiding armed citizen who carries him or herself confidently is going to make this type of criminal look for an easier victim. The kind of criminal who would attack a private citizen who didn't look like food would probaly attack a police officer.

What I hypothesize to be the principal incapactitating mechanism for handguns (fear) is much less likely to work on this group of people self-selected for the aforementioned characteristics. Caliber probably matters more often when fighting the sort of people crazy enough to attack LEOs, because the principal incapacitation mechanism may not be working. Bad news for LEOs, because they'll need better shot placement or good cover while they wait for their opponents to bleed to death.

Tell me if I've got this right. Private citizens don't need to carry an effective caliber or train to use it effectively, because the type of person who would prey on them would be scared off by vitually any resistance?

So how do you tell one type of criminal from the other if you are attacked? Aren't you betting your life and the lives of your loved ones on the fact that since you don't wear a uniform or carry a badge that you won't be attacked by someone who means to do you harm?

Everyone who carries a firearm for defensive purposes needs to select the one that gives them the best capability to use the primary physical means of incapacitation, rapid exsanguination, within the parameters of their skill, mode of dress etc. And everyone needs to train with that weapon.

I personaly think it's folly to expect anyone who would attack you to be incapacitated by fear when you resist. Big stong men have dropped like they were smote with a bolt of lightning when stuck by a .22 or .25. And other small in stature people have fought with almost superhuman qualities after sustaining multiple mortal wounds. I don't think you can tell how people will react to being shot in advance. So even though there is some truth to you hypothesis, I do believe that fear does play a role, I don't think knowing that is useful. If you prepare for a defensive encounter by counting on fear to do what you need to be able to do physically, then you aren't preparing.

Jeff

 

[ghost squire]

Emotional Fainting: An Involuntary Psycho-physiological Mechanism of Collapse

The unexplained magic of "energy transfer" is usually credited when a person immediately collapses unconscious after being shot in the torso with a handgun bullet. How else could someone be so quickly and decisively incapacitated, especially when the bullet didn't damage central nervous system organs, and the speed in which incapacitation took place precludes incapacitation by blood loss?

If you're a bullet company, you want people to believe that your product possesses unique powers to make bad guys instantly collapse. Energy transfer is popular belief, and you're going to tell your customers what they want to hear, despite the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever to support your claims or your customers' beliefs. If that's what the majority of your customers want to believe, then you're going to tell them that your bullets transfer more energy, and they do it faster and better than any other brand.

But if energy transfer isn't a mechanism of incapacitation, what is it that causes people to immediately collapse unconscious when other factors are ruled out?

In the last issue of Wound Ballistics Review, Fackler tackles this difficult question.¹ He identifies and describes a psycho-physiological mechanism of unconscious collapse called Emotional Fainting.

Fackler refers to Guyton2, and describes Emotional Fainting as "...[a] physiological mechanism, with an psychological cause, known as neurogenic shock — more specifically a type of neurogenic shock called 'Emotional Fainting'." Fackler explains:

"Strong emotions (such as fear) can cause widespread dilation of the body's blood vessels. These vessels have muscle fibers in their walls to allow them to constrict or dilate and thus vary blood flow as needed (in response to heat or cold, for example). The vessels are usually kept semi-constricted, but in Emotional Fainting, nerve impulses from the sympathetic nervous system can cause them to dilate completely. When this happens, the vascular capacity increases substantially and the blood available can no longer fill it. If the person is upright when this happens, gravity pulls the available blood into the legs and lower torso, starving the brain and causing the incapacitation."

Fackler continues:

"...the effects of Emotional Fainting, or some gradation of psychologically caused incapacitation (the gamut from surrender to Emotional Fainting), are either totally or partially responsible for much more of the observed reaction from bullet hits than is recognized. The practical result of this misinterpretation of the causes of reactions to being shot is overwhelming confounding effect on any attempt to compare efficacy of various bullets by observing, recording, and comparing the reactions of those hit."

Although Emotional Fainting appears to be a significant incapacitation mechanism, there's no evidence to suggest that any bullet characteristic (energy transfer, for example) triggers this reaction. While anecdotal reports of shootings seem to suggest that high-energy bullets are more effective in producing rapid incapacitation, these reports are tainted by the emotional bias of popular belief, which exaggerates stories that support the belief and suppresses those that do not.

Emotional Fainting is an unpredictable reaction and it is therefore unreliable. It is least likely to occur in people who are chemically intoxicated, psychotic, emotionally disturbed or acting with a single-minded determination to cause as much harm as possible before being stopped. It is probably most likely to occur in someone who is mentally unprepared to be shot or shot at.

Endnotes

Fackler, Martin L., M.D.: "Incapacitation Time." Wound Ballistics Review 4(1), Spring 1999; 4-8.

Guyton AC. Textbook of Medical Physiology, Eighth Ed., Philadelphia, PA. WB Saunders, 1992, p. 269.

from: http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs29.htm

In fact fear is the principal incapacitation factor in probably 90 percent of people shot. But don't go and buy a .22 and a loudener just yet, what if you run into the 10 percent or more who won't just faint away or give up or die when shot in the pinkie?

 

[svtruth]

Real put down

What do dangerous game hunters use? Presumably the critters don't get 'emotional incapacitation' and, I would guess, giving a charging cape buffalo or lion 5 minutes to bleed out would ruin your whole day.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Fear: don't count on it.

I have been hit in the face with a swimming pool (read the NO DIVING sign next time young man!)and come up saying 'ouch,' I've felt faint because I realized I stuck a toothpick through my hand.

Which one was life threatening? I'm pretty sure a broken nose and a an impact that made me see white hot stars ten feet underwater could have killed me if I'd lost conciousness... heck I didn't even get water in my lungs... though I'll admit to some up my nose. Bled all over... didn't feel the least bit woozy. Still have the scars. Don't recall that it hurt much.

On the other hand accidently spiking a toothpick through the web of my fingers made me all rubbery feeling. Sat down, yanked it out, puked.

Does that mean we should shoot bad guys with pointy sticks?

Nope. Use the biggest fastest heaviest bullet you can throw accurately.