That was a theme in Speed, wasn’t it?
Isn’t the hypothetical (tropular?) holding the hostage in front of them as a shield? If so, isn’t the bigger danger that the hero’s shot will miss and kill the hostage? If a sniper with a scope in a safe position can get the shot, THEN you have to worry about the reflex action. But the hero involved in the standoff can’t guarantee he’ll make the shot under pressure like that in real life, I would imagine.
Isn’t that sorta what happened with Bin Laden? One report said that when the Seals entered the room his wife was standing in front of him (protecting him?), so they shot her in leg then killed him.
J.
I won’t post links, but you can simply google “hostage taker sniped”.
You will see actual videos of what happens to hostage takers who eat a bullet with their forehead.
Suffice to say, hostage is fine. Hostage taker… Not so much…
Mal Reynolds handled this very well in Firefly (warning: TV Tropes link): When Agent Dobson takes River hostage in the pilot episode, Mal simply shoots him in the head as he boards the ship, without even breaking stride.
I think the correct solution to a hostage stand-off is to offer a battle of wits using iocane powder.
Keyser Soze didn’t hesitate for a second in such a situation. He shot and killed the hostages (his wife and children) then killed the bad guys. Of course you need balls of steel to pull this off (or be a fictional character, whichever is easier).
Not for the sake of argument. Protagonist is a highly trained operative, accustomed to working under extreme pressure and standing close that he’d make the shot with his eyes closed.
The famous example is Speed, where this was a plot-point.
Having done quite a bit of pistol shooting, that sort of shot would be very difficult to make unless you were a great shot. The average police officer would not be capable of reliably hitting the bad guy in the head from 15 feet away, especially if only part of the head was showing behind the hostage.
Eh, i don’t know what sort of pistol training cops go through, but I took the US Army’s Combat Pistol Course and we had a section that was a ten meter headshot behind a concealing body (well, dummy). I only recall one person hitting ‘granny’.
Well as long as we’re using film examples, one of my favorite moments using this plot point is in The Fugitive, where FBI Marshal Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones) is faced with a choice when one of the drug-crazed hostage-takers grabs Newman, one of Gerard’s young team members, shoving a pistol against his temple. Gerard hesitates maybe a second before dropping the hostage-taker with a single shot to the head only inches from Newman’s face.
Newman, shaken and also slightly deaf now thanks to the gunshot that whizzed by his ear, is later seen sitting by himself somewhat frightened and angry that his boss took such a risk with his life, without even bargaining. Gerard, while apparently sympathetic and making sure hsi team member is okay, leans forward and, on the pretense of “checking” Newman’s hearing, whispers: “I don’t bargain.”
Great bit of character revealing there, and also a nice moment for an otherwise fairly unimportant tertiary character like Newman.
Anyway, on topic, wouldn’t the force of the bullet’s impact shove the would-be hostage-taker a bit backward, probably losing his aim on his hostage? Certainly if it’s a knife in his hand, I don’t see a knife-carrying baddie being able to do any major damage IF the cop (or whoever) gets off a shot that successfully lands in the baddie’s head.
Your better choice of weapon as the hostage taker is a fragmentation grenade, pin out with a short fuse. If you eat a bullet you will release the handle, the grenade will probably get the hostage and the close-in shooter. There will be much more negotiating.
Not familiar with it. Did he then shoot himself to exact revenge for the killing of his family?
My favorite hostage-taker-takedown was near the end of “48 HRS”.
Yeah i think one of the issues is in the movies the hostage taker’s head is always pretty visible for cinematic effect. If they weren’t being filmed I’m sure their head would be much better blocked with them talking to the back of the hostages head rather then the normal over their shoulder conversations we always get to see.
No, it was just to demonstrate to any would-be challenger that was amorally ruthless to an absolute degree and not to be trifled with.
Then he put their heads in a box.
I can’t imagine it would. Remember, a bullet necessarily has no more force that the kick of the gun firing it (Newton’s Third Law, equal and opposite reaction). Indeed, the bullet probably imparts significantly less backward force to the bad guy’s head because a lot of that force is wasted (for the purpose of spoiling his aim, I mean) by ripping his head apart, and then more is never imparted to the body at all if the bullet passes out the other side of his head. Finally, to spoil his aim, we have to move his hand or arm, and the neck snapping backward will not impart much movement to the much heavier torso and then impart that movement on past to the arm before any twitch or clench reflex can get to the trigger finger.
I still think that a headshot bad guy will not typically succeed in killing the hostage after being headshot, but I do expect him to die with his aim more or less unspoiled.
Justified’s Deputy Marshall Raylan Givens, to a bad guy who is holding a gun at the belly of a pregnant worman, claiming he’ll kill the unborn child if Raylan attempt to draw his gun: “Jess, you ever hear about a spot snipers call 'the ‘apricot’? It’s where the brain stem meets the spine. Hit a fella there, he ain’t gonna pull no trigger. It’s just (click), lights out.”
Bad guy kind of chuckles and asks, “You think you’re that good?”
Raylan says, “Me? Nah…” and makes a glancing gesture off to the side, revealing that his marksman partner Tim has arrived on the scene and has his weapon aimed and ready.
Seconds later, apparently Tim was able to hit the ‘apricot’.
Anyway, more on topic, after I saw that episode I looked around and found that the ‘apricot’ thing actually is discussed on some military-related websites, but there seems to be a consensus that such precision isn’t really necessary in order to stop the subject being shot immediately. Any head shot would probably save your hypothetical hostage. Still, there is a lot of discussion on the best spots to aim for, for example:
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207887
Ha, good one!