We’ve all seen the scenario countless times on TV and in the movies where a bad guy is standing behind an innocent victim with their arm around their throat and a gun pointed at their head. The policeman usually has his gun drawn and pointed at the bad guy. How the story ends is up to the writers but typically, the police will drop their guns.
What would happen in real life in this scenario? Do the police actually drop their guns? :dubious: Do they try to shoot the bad guy in the face? They are experienced shooters after all.
There was a scenario played out in front of Union Station in Toronto a few eyars ago. A man wsa pointing a gun at a woman, standing behind her, with his arm crossing in front of her neck and the gun in his right hand. He was shot dead by a police sniper at an adjacent building, I believe it was a headshot.
ETA: Here is a photo of the situation. IIRC, he stepped had been standing closer to her body and then stepped back enough that the police sniper decided the he could take the shot without hitting the hostage.
Bah! Missed the edit on the second try. Here is a different angle. And I just noticed one story that said it was the first time a Canadian police sniper actually killed a bad guy.
Note: both links are safe and do not have anything gory, just a guy standing behind a woman.
When Ricky Gervais was on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross a few weeks ago, he mentioned that he had a bodyguard while he was visiting Los Angeles to promote his new movie. Gervais said that the bodyguard was a hostage negotiator with the LAPD SWAT team, which is fascinating of course, so he said he spent hours asking the guy questions. He said the negotiator said that if they were not able to negotiate a peaceful resolution, that his job was to get the hostage taker to a window, so that the sniper could attempt a head shot, aiming just over the upper lip and below the nose. That position would exit out the back of the head, destroying the brain stem and preventing the postmortem jerk from triggering the gun.
Though in the typical hollywood version of the scenario there are aren’t dozens of police marksmen around to save the day. Its courageous cop (possibly with courageous partner a few days from retirement ) and the bad guy in the drug lab, or whatever. Just as he is about to be busted the criminal grabs innocent passerby and tells cops to lay down their guns, which (being courageous) they do.
In real life of course what then happens is the bad guy shoots cops, then hostage, and calmly walks away. Which is why I’d imagine real life cops would NOT put down their guns. Whether they would “take the shot” I’m not sure, seeing as in real life a shot from a handgun has a fairly small chance of missing the hostage but instantaneously taking out the bad guy.
So bottom line, no police would not drop their guns. It would be unreasonable risk. They could put their guns down and the bad guy could start shooting and wound/kill a bunch of people before they picked up their weapons again.
Officers putting their guns down during hostage situations is the number two ridiculous thing that television cops do. Reading people their rights while they’re still fighting with them to get the cuffs on is number one.
*Harry Temple: All right, pop quiz. Airport, gunman with one hostage. He’s using her for cover; he’s almost to a plane. You’re a hundred feet away… Jack? Jack: Shoot the hostage. *
I train officers on this very subject. A) Surrendering your weapon is not a good idea. When a cop loses his gun bad things tend to happen. B) A well placed pistol shot in the eye, temple, ear canal will likely result in instant death. (A pistol shot to the area described in the above post will likely not result in instant death but rather bounce around/off of the bones in the face. A .308 rifle and you’re good to go) It must be a well placed shot, however. Some sort of distraction is recommended. Officers must train and be confident in their ability. In reality, this doesn’t happen that often.
I mostly agree with the above, taking only mild exception to “A well placed pistol shot in the eye, temple, ear canal will likely result in instant death,”: there are numerous incidents in forensic literature where even a major caliber round has failed to penetrate the skull due to an oblique contact angle, or has penetrated but failed to perform immediately debilitating damage. A large caliber rifle round like the .308 Winchester/7.62x51 mm NATO, or any of the .30 caliber or 7mm rounds normally used for sniper duty, however, will explosively ventilate the cranium as described from even an off-center hit due to the energy and hydraulic pressure developed.
Those who have experience in tactical use of handguns are well aware that it is very difficult, especially under stress, to place rounds with sufficient accuracy to guarantee a head shot, even at a distance of 21 feet or less, which is why most basic tactical training conditions the shooter to fire for the body center of mass. Only advanced training bears for the head, and nobody teaches officers to shoot guns out of the hands of a perpetrator or any other Hollywoodisms. No responsible officer would shoot through a hostage (the likelihood of permanently maiming or killing the victim is too great, and the effect of a jacketed hollowpoint bullet would be much attenuated after passing through the victim’s body), and it would be a pretty desperate circumstance that an officer would try to shoot around the hostage.
In no case that I can conceive of would an officer voluntarily divest himself or herself of their weapon; doing so not only deprives them of a means to react and defend, but also gives up the weapon to an opponent. As with swimmer or climber rescue, the last thing you want to do is create another victim, so you don’t want to hurry to jump over the cliff. Indeed, I know that part of LAPD training is that if the officer believes that the weapon will be taken away or that he or she may become unconscious, the officer should drop the magazine and discharge the round in the chamber, as the last thing you want to do is give up a loaded weapon to an attacker. Instead of dropping or lowering the weapon, the officer should continue contact, keep speaking to the suspect to keep him mentally engaged and focused (allowing another officer to get the drop on the suspect from another angle), and wait for the suspect to surrender or offer an opening.
About 98% of all the gun handling and tactics you see on the televisor and movie screen aren’t just wrong, but dead wrong, made up by Hollywood screenwriters who don’t know a gun muzzle from their nostrils. The few movies that get it correct can be listed on the fingers of one hand; off-hand all I can think of is Heat, Spartan, Ronin, and The Unit all of which had former special forces consultants who worked with the actors and a director who was insistent about getting the technique correct. Michael Mann actually had the actors train with Andy McNab–the pseudonym for a former SAS solider–daily for several months, which is why the gun handling and tactics displayed in the movie are highly professional, probably moreso than would actually be displayed by a band of criminals.
There was an incident in Chicago in late August, I think, where a crazy guy with a knife grabbed a hostage on State Street and the police didn’t hesitate to shoot him immediately. IIRC, the shooting officer also shot his partner in the vest. Partner was OK, knife-wielder died.
They don’t train for that but it happened on live TV here about 15 years ago. It wasn’t that dramatic though. A guy sitting in a chair on his porch had his elbows on his legs and a gun under his chin all nice and stable. A cop that had came around the side of the house had a clear shot from about 10-15 feet and asked for clearance. “pop”. For a few seconds, it appeared that nothing had happened. Then the guy looked down at the damaged gun and gave up.
Regardless of what you mouth at the officer, he should be doing what his training has taught him; to keep the suspect covered, take a shot if the center of mass is uncovered, but not to take any action which increases risk to the hostage unless the suspect becomes an immediate threat to him. An officer involved shooting in which the officer hits a bystander or hostage is a major liability to both the officer and the department, and it is inevitably followed by a public outcry and second guessing of the use of force, regardless of how dangerous the perpetrator may have been. There may be exceptional circumstances in which an officer has taken a head shot on a perpetrator who was otherwise concealed behind a hostage, but this is by far the exception and almost certainly out of policy.
Anyone who has done tactical shooting simulation will understand why this is so; under duress, all but the most experienced and regularly trained shooters will be unable to keep a round within the 4-5" circle with a duty pistol to place a reliable incapacitating shot, and the result of failing to do so in such a circumstance is that either the perpetrator or the officer ends up shooting the hostage (which, aside from in entertaining but improbable Keanu Reeves movies, is not recommended).
Police snipers are another story, but they operate from a fixed position with an accuratized rifle, precision optics, and the opportunity to obtain the tactical advantage, and even then, this is done only as a last ditch circumstance.
The best chance for the hostage is for the officer to maintain coverage of the perpetrator and try to talk him out, or at least get him covered from different angles by multiple officers so that if a clear shot is open an officer can take it.
) and the bad guy in the drug lab, or whatever. Just as he is about to be busted the criminal grabs innocent passerby and tells cops to lay down their guns, which (being courageous) they do.
