Ye Olde Multi-Assailant "Delayed Mozambique" a la Collateral style

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

So in that awesome scene in Collateral where Tom Cruise's character is confronted by two assailants, the first of whom (or both?? ) point a gun at him, he does the following very quickly (after a blocking move to push the gun-toting assailant's arm up and away), in this order:

1a. Two to chest of Assailant #1

2a. Two to chest of Assailant #2

2b. One to head of Assailant #2 (steps 2a and 2b constituting a standard 'Zique')

1b. THEN, he goes back and gives one to the head, to be sure, to Assailant #1, to finish the Zique on him (hence the "Delayed Mozambique" name I've given to it)

Questions:

1. In the event that this had been 3 or 4 or more assailants, would /should the pattern still be the same, i.e. using 4 assailants as examples: Two-chest, two-chest, two-chest, two-chest-one-head - then back to #1-#3 - one-head, one-head, one-head? If the answer is yes, then what order do you go back and do the three 'one-heads' in? #3 guy second, then #2 guy, then #1 guy (reverse order), or go back and do 1, 2, then 3 ('replay order')? If the answer is no, then how should it vary, exactly, in your opinion?

2. Is this "technique" a standard one taught in handgun schools, or something Michael Mann dreamed up? If the former, does it have a name/description?

Thanks.

 

[Al Thompson]

Somewhat Hollyweird, IMHO. Remember, Cruise's character was supposed to be an amoral contract killer.

As far as multiple assailants, "Boarding House Rules" make the most sense to me, but every fight's a different fight. "BHR" is that everybody gets one before anybody gets seconds.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

"BHR" is that everybody gets one before anybody gets seconds.

LMAO, so benevolent of you! That is just plain funny, yet instructive and extremely efficient in conveying the idea.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I like the "BHR" theory. All things equal, it would probably be better to shoot as many assailants as possible before going back to give anyone a second or third serving.

...of course things are never equal. I would imagine in most cases that some threats are going to be more obvious and imminent that others.

 

[Cosmoline]

Obviously the coup de grace at the end is totally out of bounds for any lawful shooting. The first attacker had already been neutralized but Cruise's character was just making sure he would never be able to testify as to his identity. That's murder, of course.

But as far as dividing your shots up, I don't see how you're going to have the time to acquire the first target, evaluate, fire one round, shift, evaluate, lock in, fire one round, etc. then go back to the start. There are too many steps there for most mere mortals esp. when the guys are shooting back at you.

That makes me think training for a DT on each target in turn is the best course of action. The problem with waiting for the third Mozambique shot on the first target is that it requires some delay from the shifting of aim and re-evaluation of the target. So I'd limit it to two--two---two.

 

[Oyeboten]

May depend on one's Arm also...


If a J-frame S&W, and no Speedloader in ready, one would Spoon out according to the Serving Plate's holdings, I recon...

A P-35 FN Browning, everyone ( if four assailants, ) could get seconds, thirds...and even a couple fourths...and if a spare Magazine is handy, then...even more.

 

[David E]

The problem with "two, two, two" is that your 3rd assailant doesn't get shot until the FIFTH round. Let's say you get the drop on them with your first shot, (which is being pretty generous) so we'll start the clock then, at .000. Even if your splits are .15 with a .20 transistion, you're looking at nearly 3/4's of a second from the first shot before the 3rd guy gets his initial bullet. Since he's already presenting a deadly threat (let's say he's got a gun) thinking he's going to patiently wait in place for you to finally get around to him is pretty optimistic. Most people can't shoot .15 splits with .20 transistions, so the time would be closer to a whole second from first shot to fifth shot.

The average reaction time for someone expecting an imminent start signal is about 1/4 second. Startle response is sometimes faster.

In the situation presented, there was no "evaluation" needed past "These guys are going to kill me, so I better kill them first."

Had the scene with two badguys been a real incident, the better way to handle it would've been to one, one-two, one. IE; shoot the first guy once, doubletap the second guy, go back to #1 and give him at least one more.

 

[Fred Fuller]

A bad initial premise makes for a poor thread. Number one, using anything from Hollywood and indicating it to be instructive is 99.99999% certain to cause real people real trouble in the real world. Number two, executing people on the street is not legal, and it's usually called murder.

Yes, good defensive firearms trainers do train students on engaging multiple assailants. But not like that...

lpl