Florida Concealed Carry banner

21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,243 Posts
Isn't the Mozambique and the Failure Drill technically two different things, as well?

One has a pause, one does not?

-on Tapatalk
IMO only, the Mozambique is a 3 shot skill [ 2 to the body, one to the head ] with a stop after two rounds to assess. I DO NOT LIKE nor ever liked/thought the Mozambique was something of a go to, it locks one into making two and whatever assessment time then making the head shot. I shoot 4-5 rds a second, after a second or so if they've haven't fallen I'll move to a failure to stop mode and go high to attempt a head shot.

During the week long national tactical invitational, they had Teddy tactical 3D's as threats in various entry scenarios. We were instructed that some Teddy's would not fall to body shots, we were then to make a head shot to drop Teddy. Only 125 were invited the year I attended [ around 1997 or so ]. Not one attendee I saw decided to just mozambique all Teddy's just in case. IOW, not one entry leo used it all week long.

Mozambique history https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2017/5/18/the-mozambique-drill-a-history-and-how-to/

"Rousseau made a quick combat presentation with his pistol and planted two bullets in the area of his opponent's breastbone. In a fighter's worst nightmare, the soldier not only stayed on his feet, he managed to hang onto his rifle. Rousseau, having lowered his pistol to the ready position, assessed the situation and decided to deliver a third shot to the man's central nervous system. Aiming for the head, Rousseau either fired too soon or jerked the trigger, because his third shot hit his enemy in the throat. It did, however, sever the spinal column and neutralize the threat."

He asked Cooper if he could be allowed to call it the Failure Drill, suggesting the third shot was the solution for when the first two shots failed to stop the attacker. Mudgett said Cooper graciously told him to call it whatever he liked, the important thing was to teach it. At this point, the Mozambique/Failure Drill consisted of firing two shots at center mass, lowering the pistol to the ready position and assessing the need for the third shot.

Mudgett and Helms taught the failure drill to fellow officers and a number of other police departments. However, they felt officers might be wasting too much time in coming to the ready position after the two center-mass shots—time that could easily get them killed. They modified the drill so the shooter kept the handgun on target after the first two shots and transitioned for the head shot if the threat was still viable.

So what we affectionately know as the Mozambique drill is actually a modified Mozambique drill, but there's still that lag time of assessing after two shot, gun up or not, when they could still be putting lead COM. Hell, the first two shots may be a little errant and not take someone down, but a 3rd or 4th non errant shot may just do it. I don't like the idea of the gun barking, stopping to asses for any length of time, then resuming.

I'll plant 4-5 into COM and not hesitate to take the head shot IF by then they aren't succumbing to the shots. Looking at the odds on the streets, it's an extremely low percentage of running into turds wearing vests to begin with [ exceptions might be responding to bank robberies, armored car robberies and the like where the odds of a turd wearing a vest are slightly higher, but still very low odds. OMMV

Just like the speed rock as advanced and taught by Chuck Taylor in the 70's and 80's was thought at the time better than sliced bread, it's been discovered it's a very bad skill to use, putting one off balance. AND, it is no longer taught in law enforcement for a few reasons. Something thought to be great, turned into something not that good and discontinued in training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,609 Posts
It has always been my opinion that if you have to shoot someone then shooting them 5 times in rapid succession to center of mass is the way to go. I also believe that one should carry a high capacity mag of at least 10 or more rounds with at least 9mm caliber to accomplish the goal. If after the 5th round the threat is still a threat, a head shot would be warranted for the 6th shot. The 5 shots to center mass will hopefully enable one or two rounds to hit a vital area and stop the threat.

JMO, YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,177 Posts
All you need is a single shot handgun small enough to carry easily and hidden.
The gun will need to use a bullet like the AR-15 or AK-47 uses because Beto and his Dem O Rat buddies all say that the 223 bullet will explode on contact and tear anything it hits to shreds.
No large capacity "CLIPS" would be needed.
Just imagine how powerful a 223 would be in a gun smaller then a Sig 365 ETC.
These are all well educated people running our country so they must know what they are talking about.
Ronnie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,817 Posts
It has always been my opinion that if you have to shoot someone then shooting them 5 times in rapid succession to center of mass is the way to go. I also believe that one should carry a high capacity mag of at least 10 or more rounds with at least 9mm caliber to accomplish the goal. If after the 5th round the threat is still a threat, a head shot would be warranted for the 6th shot. The 5 shots to center mass will hopefully enable one or two rounds to hit a vital area and stop the threat.

JMO, YMMV.
No thanks. I’ll use the zipper to put four shots into the BG; first to the abdomen, next two COM, and the forth a head shot, in under a second and a half (including draw time).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Over the past year I have had numerous conversations with 3 different attorneys that defend members of one of the better known insurance/prepaid legal services about the issue of shooting an attacker more than once. All 3 felt that once you shoot and hit the bad guy more than 3 times you are making it very difficult to defend. Remember your only defense is to show that you had a reasonable belief that your life or someone else's life was in immediate danger. So if you decide to zipper the mfer with 5 shots a really good prosecutor can convince a jury that your intent was to kill and not stop the attack. In addition they said to be very careful in what you say on line because a prosecutor will use your posts to show frame of mind

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,609 Posts
No thanks. I’ll use the zipper to put four shots into the BG; first to the abdomen, next two COM, and the forth a head shot, in under a second and a half (including draw time).
Whatever works for you and gets the job done to stop the threat. :thumsup

Over the past year I have had numerous conversations with 3 different attorneys that defend members of one of the better known insurance/prepaid legal services about the issue of shooting an attacker more than once. All 3 felt that once you shoot and hit the bad guy more than 3 times you are making it very difficult to defend. Remember your only defense is to show that you had a reasonable belief that your life or someone else's life was in immediate danger. So if you decide to zipper the mfer with 5 shots a really good prosecutor can convince a jury that your intent was to kill and not stop the attack. In addition they said to be very careful in what you say on line because a prosecutor will use your posts to show frame of mind

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
I'm not so sure I agree but I'm not an attorney either. First of all in a panic and shooting, how will the average person that's never been put in that situation be expected to even know how many times s/he fired? Who is to believe all the shots will reach their intended target under stress? And if the other person is shooting at you.....also why I stated...stop the threat...

YMMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Whatever works for you and gets the job done to stop the threat. :thumsup



I'm not so sure I agree but I'm not an attorney either. First of all in a panic and shooting, how will the average person that's never been put in that situation be expected to even know how many times s/he fired? Who is to believe all the shots will reach their intended target under stress? And if the other person is shooting at you.....also why I stated...stop the threat...

YMMV
As sad as it is a prosecutor will be pounding into the jury that the law states that once the threat is over you have to stop shooting. If you continue to shoot you have broken the law. Remember you own the result of every shot you fire no matter what the circumstances are.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,243 Posts
Over the past year I have had numerous conversations with 3 different attorneys that defend members of one of the better known insurance/prepaid legal services about the issue of shooting an attacker more than once. All 3 felt that once you shoot and hit the bad guy more than 3 times you are making it very difficult to defend. Remember your only defense is to show that you had a reasonable belief that your life or someone else's life was in immediate danger. So if you decide to zipper the mfer with 5 shots a really good prosecutor can convince a jury that your intent was to kill and not stop the attack. In addition they said to be very careful in what you say on line because a prosecutor will use your posts to show frame of mind

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
A really good defense atty would demonstrate leo's no longer are taught two and assess and a head shot [ because the assess portion is dangerous to the defender if those two haven't stopped the threat. A really really good defense atty will be able to demonstrate how long it took to make the 4 shots in the zipper [ about a second ]. You see, to the attys, more than 3 sounds excessive and would expect anything over 2-3 rounds to take more than just a second and a fraction at best, but a really really good atty will also demonstrate cases where it took up to 10 shots to stop the threat. NOT kill him, but stop him from more aggression.

A really good atty could point to leo's who've had to shoot people multiples of times to get them to STOP their threatening/aggression. We have people in this discussion that haven't a clue when the zipper would be utilized, or how long it takes members who've learned it to get those 4 shots off.

Those attys for that prepaid legal services are simply generalizing, about a possibility, not a certainty. I'm not risking my arse on 3 attys who would ask me not to fire more than 3 shots at someone trying to kill me because a prosecutor may try some BS shenanigans in a court room. The DA/prosecutor can always claim anything. If it's a good shoot, it's a good shot. A good atty would negate all the DA's BS tactics with facts in evidence from previous lawful SD shootings by citizens and leo's.

As well, if more than three rounds might mean someone was trying to kill the person and not stop the threat, then any shooting of more than that could be argued the same way. I've not read any cases where charges were filed against the defender for firing more than 3 rounds. If there are any, they are statistically insignificant, and would have to have resulted in evidence that demonstrated the fight was over [ aggression stopped ] and more shots were then taken unnecessarily.

I wonder if those same attys could cite case law on convictions solely due to more than 3 rounds being fired with no other mitigating circumstances. My guess is they can't. If they're going to suggest more than 3 may be argued murder not lawful SD, they'll have to demonstrate cases where just that fact alone ended in a conviction of the defender.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
A really good defense atty would demonstrate leo's no longer are taught two and assess and a head shot [ because the assess portion is dangerous to the defender if those two haven't stopped the threat. A really really good defense atty will be able to demonstrate how long it took to make the 4 shots in the zipper [ about a second ]. You see, to the attys, more than 3 sounds excessive and would expect anything over 2-3 rounds to take more than just a second and a fraction at best, but a really really good atty will also demonstrate cases where it took up to 10 shots to stop the threat. NOT kill him, but stop him from more aggression.

A really good atty could point to leo's who've had to shoot people multiples of times to get them to STOP their threatening/aggression. We have people in this discussion that haven't a clue when the zipper would be utilized, or how long it takes members who've learned it to get those 4 shots off.

Those attys for that prepaid legal services are simply generalizing, about a possibility, not a certainty. I'm not risking my arse on 3 attys who would ask me not to fire more than 3 shots at someone trying to kill me because a prosecutor may try some BS shenanigans in a court room. The DA/prosecutor can always claim anything. If it's a good shoot, it's a good shot. A good atty would negate all the DA's BS tactics with facts in evidence from previous lawful SD shootings by citizens and leo's.

As well, if more than three rounds might mean someone was trying to kill the person and not stop the threat, then any shooting of more than that could be argued the same way. I've not read any cases where charges were filed against the defender for firing more than 3 rounds. If there are any, they are statistically insignificant, and would have to have resulted in evidence that demonstrated the fight was over [ aggression stopped ] and more shots were then taken unnecessarily.

I wonder if those same attys could cite case law on convictions solely due to more than 3 rounds being fired with no other mitigating circumstances. My guess is they can't. If they're going to suggest more than 3 may be argued murder not lawful SD, they'll have to demonstrate cases where just that fact alone ended in a conviction of the defender.
You make some valid points.
However, juries don't necessarily decide cases on facts. They decide innocents or guilt like they (including you and I) decide most things, on emotion. If you have a gifted prosecutor who can spin a good story facts are not as important. The same holds for a defense attorney. Just look at the verdict in the OJ Simpson case. Facts as clear as the noonday sun in Miami and yet OJ walked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,243 Posts
You make some valid points.
However, juries don't necessarily decide cases on facts. They decide innocents or guilt like they (including you and I) decide most things, on emotion. If you have a gifted prosecutor who can spin a good story facts are not as important. The same holds for a defense attorney. Just look at the verdict in the OJ Simpson case. Facts as clear as the noonday sun in Miami and yet OJ walked.
Those prosecutors were weak, his defense team was strong. Juries, when educated properly through testimony and actual case histories that are relevant to the case or case law usually weigh unsubstantiated allegations against evidence pretty well. A sharp defense atty would object and the judge would sustain the objection, if a DA/prosecutor ever tried to convince the jury you tried to kill that aggressor. That goes to mindset, objections are always sustained as neither the DA nor judge, without direct testimony from the defender can state what someone's mindset was at any given moment in time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Those prosecutors were weak, his defense team was strong. Juries, when educated properly through testimony and actual case histories that are relevant to the case or case law usually weigh unsubstantiated allegations against evidence pretty well. A sharp defense atty would object and the judge would sustain the objection, if a DA/prosecutor ever tried to convince the jury you tried to kill that aggressor. That goes to mindset, objections are always sustained as neither the DA nor judge, without direct testimony from the defender can state what someone's mindset was at any given moment in time.
You give far too much credit to intellectual prowess of people on a jury. These are the same people that vote for and elect our politicians.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
You give far too much credit to intellectual prowess of people on a jury. These are the same people that vote for and elect our politicians.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Now THAT is a frightening concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,243 Posts
You give far too much credit to intellectual prowess of people on a jury. These are the same people that vote for and elect our politicians.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Nah, I don't give them credit for intellectual prowess, all the more reason to have an atty who can dumb it down to the basic tenet of lawful SD. There's always a risk, but that risk can be mitigated by proper jury nullification by my attys. That's where it starts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,023 Posts
The OJ trial was a joke. The prosecutors were weak and incompetent in the face of a strong team. The judge was piss poor and star struck pathetic excuse of a judge. The glove that didnt fit was moronic and a good attorney would have chewed that to pieces. They allowed the LA detective to be branded corrupt. It couldn’t have been worse. I watched most of it on a daily basis at work.....fortunately he got what he deserved in Vegas with a no nonsense judge and prosecutor.....
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top