TexasCHLforum.com

Here's a link to an article some folks may find interesting. https://www.shootingillustrated.com/art ... 4.facebook

It discusses the origin of the Mozambique Drill (a/k/a Failure Drill). The drill has evolved to the point that the "assessment" phase after the two COM shots is greatly shortened or eliminated. As a result of the murder of Mark Wilson in Tyler in 2005, I now teach what I call the "no transition time" third shot. It is more of a mental change than a physical change, but it shortens the response to an existing threat.

Chas.

The problem I see with the Mozambique/failure drill is that in competition shooting where it is frequently used, competitors shoot it as fast as they can, no pause for assessment, because it's a game and they do it as fast as they can, because they can and speed wins.

The good shooting schools still teach the "down to the ready, move off centerline, pause, assess, then head box shot".

Competition in this case could ingrain bad habits that cannot be justified in an actual shooting. You are saying you are teaching little to no pause. Are you worried about justifying? In the case where you can clearly see body armor, why even go for body shots? I don't have an answer, just asking.

My .02 fwiw.

James

I also see a lot of people who will Warp Speed Mr. Sulu all three rounds and all three rounds will be ineffective hits.

The first two will not be in the "A Zone" and the third round will either barely graze the head or miss the head completely.

If you shoot a bad guy twice in the chest and he still has the ability to inflict death or serious bodily injury on you, you absolutely positively want that third shot to be in the triangle formed by the eyes and nose.

The pause between chest shots and head shot will help you make better head shots. Think pop pop, pop instead of pop pop pop.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I did not know the history behind this drill or the details presented here. I think an obvious way to get people to slow down to make that third shot would be to shrink the 0-down area on the target for that head shot. Make it an actual triangle inside of that circle for the head or the square like on IDPA targets. Everything else inside the head, but outside of the triangle is -1. If that doesn't start getting some separation and teaching/forcing folks to slow down for that third shot then increase the point loss.

And then there is this approach:

http://blog.suarezinternational.com/201 ... arget.html

and then there's this from Miami Vice...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK0yLjVk0eM

First place I heard about the Mozambique drill was on Magnum PI. A guest at the mansion was practicing it...in the bathtub, to Higgin's great chagrin. Season 2, episode 8, "Mad Buck Gibson".

Charles, one thing that would concern me is that teaching the elimination of the assessment pause entirely changes a "shoot to stop" into a "shoot to kill".......or at least, it would seem to be to be hard to argue otherwise. It doesn't bother me from a moral perspective. If I MUST shoot somebody, I've already made the determination that, if they die, it's on them, not me. But I wonder if you could make the "shoot to stop" argument in a courtroom, if your answer to a prosecutor about your level of training is that you were trained to go ahead and deliver the kill shot without assessment.

In your experience as an attorney, would that be a concern for someone involved in a defensive shooting? What are your thoughts?

Taking a pause between shot 2 and 3 never meant, to me, going to low ready. If I'm in a place where I've taken 2 shots at an assailant, I've got zero worries about covering their head while quickly assessing the need for another shot.

RoyGBiv wrote:Taking a pause between shot 2 and 3 never meant, to me, going to low ready. If I'm in a place where I've taken 2 shots at an assailant, I've got zero worries about covering their head while quickly assessing the need for another shot.

I have no problem with that. Heck, I have no problem with the old-school method. My point was entirely having to do with whether (or not) the old school method is more easily defensible in court than the new method, in the unfortunate circumstances of having to defend yourself in court if you're involved in a self-defense shooting where things proceed to an indictment. I took Charles's explanation to mean zero pause between 2nd and 3rd shots. Perhaps I was mistaken.

I'm not going into a detailed discussion of this issue in an open forum. If you want more detail, then come to one of my seminars. Some people are reading far more into my statement that is remotely warranted. I am not suggesting that one turn a self-defense shooting into an execution. What I am suggesting is that one should not plan a delay in their response to a deadly assault that far too often has resulted in the death of the intended victim.

If deadly force is justified pursuant to Chp. 9, Tex. Penal Code, then one is justified in using "force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury." TPC §9.32(a)(A) allows one to use deadly force only to "protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force" or to prevent certain crimes. No where in the code or case law is there a duty to use less-than-lethal force before using deadly force. You could fire one and only one round to the head of your attacker and Texas law does not change. Some seem to suggest that one or more rounds fired to the chest is somehow not "force intended" to cause death. That's not factually correct or legally significant.

The key point is whether one reasonably believes there is a threat, as opposed to continuing to engage someone when the threat is over. TPC §9.32(a)(2) allows one to use deadly force "when and to the degree" you reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary. When the threat no longer exists, the justification to keep shooting also ceases to exist.

I expressly stated that "t is more of a mental change than a physical change, but it shortens the response." To make a head shot, one must slow down and if the attacker is still a threat, then the third shot is taken. Again, it's a mental change that keeps one from getting shot while "assessing." Some seem to argue that there needs to be a period of assessment to see if an attacker will continue to press the attack. What precisely are you waiting for, incoming fire?

I have taken many top tier classes from top tier instructors and nothing I have learned is inconsistent with what I have stated. All have warned about the loss of higher order thinking, but that's more than I will discuss here. That's all I will say in an open forum.

Chas.

If his head is still where you last saw it, after two hits to center mass, it's a fairly safe bet the fight is still on.

When I was tought a double tap back in the 70s, it was one to the throat area and one to the head. This was by the head of the "tactical" team at my local PD.......didn't go by SWAT yet.

Charles, when is your next scheduled seminar? I want to attend and hopefully bring the son and DIL. Thanks