Violence Advisory: A person is killed in this video.
There was a church shooting not long ago where the perpetrator was shot in the head from several yards away. There's always a probabilistic component when shooting at a small moving target, but it's clear that there was skill required.
To help understand why the shot was so impressive, here's a counterpoint video that helps puts things into perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWWoNuBY10
The defender shoots three times. The first shot was taken at the longest distance--estimated muzzle to cranium distance is between 2 and 3 feet. Based on the attacker's reactions and other cues in the video, the first shot seems to hit the attacker in the hood of his jacket but does not significantly impact the attacker's head nor does it cause any apparent impairment.
I don't see how the second shot could have missed the attacker completely, based on his position and the position of the gun at the moment of firing, but it doesn't appear to have hit the attacker in the head (or at least not in the brain) as his body is still clearly under voluntary control after the second shot. The robber does not appear to be significantly impaired/injured by this shot. The second shot was taken at a muzzle to cranium distance of about 2 feet.
The third shot does the trick. It is fired at a muzzle to cranium distance of perhaps 3 to 6 inches. It quite obviously hits the attacker in the brain and things get calm very quickly.
Mr. Wilson, who took down the TX church shooter obviously had a skill set which does not come easily or automatically. He fired once at about 10 yards at a moving target and scored a brain shot which ended the encounter.
The defender in this video fired at a person standing next to him and didn't score a brain shot until the third shot -- fired with the muzzle just a few inches from the robber's head.
Both defenders got the job done, but the differences in the two scenarios made me ask myself two questions, each with two parts.
Question 1: Part 1: Based on the practice and training I have received and continue to engage in and based on the skill level I have achieved and work to maintain, which of the two defenders' performance am I most likely to be able to match? Part 2: If I don't like the answer, am I willing to do anything about it?
Question 2: Watch the shooting sequence a couple of times, carefully noting the robber's head movement. Watch how the orientation of his head and the hood's size combine to make the initial shot miss. Watch how the robber's movements result in the second shot missing at even closer range. Part 1: Was the defender wise to choose the head as his target? Part 2: Having seen this video is that what I would do in the defender's place?
One more question occurs to me. The defender expended 3 rounds neutralizing an attacker who was at arms length distance and who never fired on him. He appears to have scored a 33% hit rate at point blank range. This has interesting implications when it comes to capacity considerations, especially in situations where the marksmanship requirements are more stressing and/or there are multiple attackers.
There was a church shooting not long ago where the perpetrator was shot in the head from several yards away. There's always a probabilistic component when shooting at a small moving target, but it's clear that there was skill required.
To help understand why the shot was so impressive, here's a counterpoint video that helps puts things into perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWWoNuBY10
The defender shoots three times. The first shot was taken at the longest distance--estimated muzzle to cranium distance is between 2 and 3 feet. Based on the attacker's reactions and other cues in the video, the first shot seems to hit the attacker in the hood of his jacket but does not significantly impact the attacker's head nor does it cause any apparent impairment.
I don't see how the second shot could have missed the attacker completely, based on his position and the position of the gun at the moment of firing, but it doesn't appear to have hit the attacker in the head (or at least not in the brain) as his body is still clearly under voluntary control after the second shot. The robber does not appear to be significantly impaired/injured by this shot. The second shot was taken at a muzzle to cranium distance of about 2 feet.
The third shot does the trick. It is fired at a muzzle to cranium distance of perhaps 3 to 6 inches. It quite obviously hits the attacker in the brain and things get calm very quickly.
Mr. Wilson, who took down the TX church shooter obviously had a skill set which does not come easily or automatically. He fired once at about 10 yards at a moving target and scored a brain shot which ended the encounter.
The defender in this video fired at a person standing next to him and didn't score a brain shot until the third shot -- fired with the muzzle just a few inches from the robber's head.
Both defenders got the job done, but the differences in the two scenarios made me ask myself two questions, each with two parts.
Question 1: Part 1: Based on the practice and training I have received and continue to engage in and based on the skill level I have achieved and work to maintain, which of the two defenders' performance am I most likely to be able to match? Part 2: If I don't like the answer, am I willing to do anything about it?
Question 2: Watch the shooting sequence a couple of times, carefully noting the robber's head movement. Watch how the orientation of his head and the hood's size combine to make the initial shot miss. Watch how the robber's movements result in the second shot missing at even closer range. Part 1: Was the defender wise to choose the head as his target? Part 2: Having seen this video is that what I would do in the defender's place?
One more question occurs to me. The defender expended 3 rounds neutralizing an attacker who was at arms length distance and who never fired on him. He appears to have scored a 33% hit rate at point blank range. This has interesting implications when it comes to capacity considerations, especially in situations where the marksmanship requirements are more stressing and/or there are multiple attackers.
