And lets not dance around this by inferring what the law might mean if you forget what the law says. In self-defence laws itself it doesn't invoke terminology like "lethal force". Lets take a look at Texas' law, I don't think anyone can accuse Texas of having too overly restrictive self-defence laws: "a person is justified in using force against ANOTHER when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the OTHER's use or attempted use of unlawful force." It talks about DEGREES of force, and clearly says it is directed against the other who used the unlawful force. So that means Dallas SWAT team can't find a bank robber's wife and threaten to harm or kill her to make the bank robber drop his gun. The force must always be directed at the perpetrator, but if you fire a shot into the air you should know that bullet could come down anywhere and hit anyone, you cannot kill a granny half a mile away and be immune by self-defence! You were just as reckless as if you had shot it as new year's celebrations. But there are other much safer warning shots like a shot into the soil the perp is standing on, or maybe you though you'd need a warning shot and had a blank round loaded. Now lets get back to what it says amount amount of force, even in Texas it says of the force used must also be "to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is IMMEDIATELY necessary" you may reasonably believe that it isn't necessary to shoot them. It may be that just drawing the gun and NOT aiming and NOT shooting is enough to stop their unlawful use of force which might just be shoving you. Unlawful use of force includes threatening with a weapon, so if someone is 50m away and walking towards you with a bloody knife, it's hard to justify you need to immediately shoot them, even if you reasonably believe they intent to use unlawful force by stabbing you or someone else, do you need to use it immediately. Now Texas law has written the law quite cleverly, it doesn't say you must use the force immediately before the unlawful force is used, just when it is immediately required. So if you see the crazed slasher is far away but about to step out of view into a house where defenceless people, you must IMMEDIATELY take the shot or by the time you run over there it will be too late. But if he is approaching towards you over and open field, you can't justify shooting him until he's so close you could reasonably say "if he really is a crazed murderer, I'd need to shoot him now to ensure he'll stop before he reaches me" This is a DANGEROUS MYTH that will put good people behind bars if they believe "I will only draw a gun to shoot them in the chest and/or head" that is absurd. It came from the ridiculous idea that someone might draw a gun but somehow be too afraid to actually use it... but it mutated from there into nonsense legal advice that if you draw a gun and DON'T immediately try to shoot them dead then that somehow "proves you didn't really fear for their life". That's another thing, I've heard this "fear for my life" be used very often as if it is some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. No, even Texas requires belief be REASONABLE. So if you have a belief that is UNREASONABLE, like "I could just tell he was a threat to me, I looked into his eyes, I could see he had no soul, he was totally evil and he was about to kill me with a concealed neutonium needle that I had read about on this conspiracy theory website" it doesn't matter if all the writings of the accused proved he really was in genuine fear of assassins... that's an UNREASONABLE belief so he has no defence. Any belief of (attempted) unlawful force against you must ALWAYS be reasonable.
What state are you referring to? Because it's hard to check all of them, but most states word the fundamentals of self-defence law the same as Texas (just Texas is different for tagging on some presumed-reasonable cases). A warning shot can, at least theoretically, be a part of the "degree" of force that they reasonably believe is immediately necessary. It's not hard to see a scenario, such as the perpetrator of unlawful force (i'll just call them the perp) openly says that they think your gun isn't loaded, or isn't a real gun, or whatever, it cannot fire bullets and is generally trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation despite. Firing a shot into the ground is a degree of force, it may be the degree of force to protect against the perp's unlawful force. Also, it may be necessary in another way, you cannot shout for help loud enough, but the sound of gunfire would summon help from nearby as they hear a gunshot and come a running, better they get there before the perp tries to hurt you. The only human being the force is remotely directed against is the perp who you reasonably are trying to deter from attacking you, not a shot into the sky which could come down on anyone, into the ground where at worst it hits a gopher. I don't see what part of any state law you are referring to where it could possibly be taken that a warning shot could not be covered under the "degree of force" that may be immediately necessary to protect from unlawful force.
This Drill's purpose is widely misunderstood. It was designed to train you to continually assess and re-evaluate your target zone and shot placement. Basically, to think and look for another option to end a deadly threat, if torso shots fail to get the job done quickly. While head shots would likely guarantee a quicker stop to a deadly threat, torso shots usually provide a larger target, increasing the probability you make hits. The head shot on this drill should always be taken as fast as the shooter can get the shot off, without missing the intended target. It's a valuable drill for its intended purpose. No matter what, in a deadly force situation, the most important goal is ending the threat posed as quickly as possible. It's irrelevant in these situations if your "target" lives or dies. Stopping the deadly threat as quickly as possible is all that matters. Good video.
"belongs in the new Expendables movie"...more like he needs to direct and produce the next movie. Didn't see a single reload in the last one. It was just...awful.
Love the Mozambique Drill. I practice it every time I go to the range. I don't always remember to do the threat assessment afterwards. I'll work on it.
It is actually semi illegal in America to not attempt to kill if using a lethal weapon. Shooting to injure or mame can be used against you in court, actually it will be used against you. They will argue that lethal force wasn't necessary otherwise you would have attempted to kill them. They can also sue you for medical bills in civil court and win.
The latest doctrine I heard being used is three to the pelvis, two to the chest and one to the head. This is done in order to counteract body armor being used by the enemy.
En Argentina depende del juez y del fiscal que te toque.. Pero siendo legítima defensa con un buen abogado se puede zafar del "exceso"... los 2 al pecho y 1 al frasco sería lo ideal para "incapacitar" definitivamente al agresor. Buen Video
Not having the right to shoot to kill to defend yourself is the greatest insult. The opponent already violated the NAP, and it's only fair that you take action to ensure the NAP is never violated again
Well, I can understand the point that shooting to kill is an action you want to avoid unless there is no option left. Shoot a criminal in self defense, but if you (on purpose or not) kill him/her, they can no longer be held accountable for their actions in court. And that's the point. If you shoot to kill, you're playing judge, jury and executioner. You'll be held accountable after an incident, and the other parties should be able to do so too, but by killing that is no longer possible.
I know even here in the liberal state of New York, when I was in law enforcement, we were trained with this drill, although it was never called the Mozambique (some of us knew it beforehand) but it was called either the Body-Armor drill or the Failure to Stop drill, so for us, it was part of the training, although we did it slightly differently. We would take the two shots to the body, then wait a second or so for the third shot. This was, as we were told, time to wait to see if there was a reaction from the target if indeed the real thing was to happen.
Here in Brazil the judge will say that you train to kill people and not to defend himself, so will be charged with murder and not for self-defense Good job guys! Tks from Brazil!!!!!
you can partly circumvent the intentional killing by rapidly assessing whether the target has been stopped by the first pair to the chest and follow up IF needed with a more difficult head shot that will instantly kill the target. To shorten it up: "two shots to the chest; assess; one shot to the head (if needed)"
The third tap is supposed to be a deciding tap, not an immediate follow-up from the first two. You double tap the opponent first, then assess to see if they are still a threat, and do your follow-up on the third one. Therefore there must be a pause between 2nd and 3rd tap. Otherwise it's not a Mozambique, it's just a triple tap.
Latest doctrine is to shoot for the pelvis, hips... it bypasses body armour and drops them. Rounds to the centremass are not reliable when they are high on drugs, adrenaline and/or wear a vest and/or webbing gear. Headshots are tricky.
Not true. This is a misconception that is only really continued by those who thought it was a good idea until the medical reality has been shown. A hit to the pelvis from the front does not have an immediately incapacitating effect, and even if the blood vessels are struck, the subject has mechanical function for long enough to continue applying force. A lateral bullet strike, one that goes from one side of the pelvis to the other, can be a very different story. The VAST majority of criminals do not wear body armor while committing crime, so it is still a much better idea to aim for the upper chest with the sternum as the primary target.
runawaygun762 Perhaps I was not clear. Mozam. drill is for soldiers.. I mean 5.56 mm to the hip joint for military combat where most people where body armour. They will go down.
runawaygun762 seriously? Reread what i wrote. Here... I will CAPSLOCK highlight parts "Perhaps I was not clear. Mozam. drill is for SOLDIERS.. I mean 5.56 mm to the hip joint for MILITARY combat where most people where body armour. They will go down."
runawaygun762 Sadly not generally reliable either. The only real thing to do is hit them in the head. More often than not, I've seen head shots ending the fights not body mass shots. There is a really chilling story out of IL a few years ago where an Officer got into a close range shoot out with a Armed Robber. Guy took 14 45acp hollow points, including 1 to the head, and he was still alive when they got him to the ER. The cop switched back to 9mm after that. Every hit was a "lethal" hit given "time." And I believe all of them were center to head. Pistols are just bad at killing people. When you rationally look at the actual "instant" stopping points on the human body in comparison to the size of a pistol caliber and every fucking thing else it could hit instead in the world, it's pretty clear that you're really just hoping to god you scare them off more than instantly kill them.
Some countries, like modern day Great Britain, do not recognize that you have ANY right to defend yourself with deadly force. I think this is at least as applicable in certain jurisdictions of the US as well. Shooting for the head is automatically proof that you intend to kill, as opposed to stop your adversary. FWIW, those of us less skilled than IZ should not attempt anything but a COM shot in most situations anyway.
i guess if you just happen to shoot in the head as you shoot "at them" it may be ok, oh and in the uk its "reasonable" force bullshit, as in if they are armed you basically have to wait for them to attack you
Technically not true... all countries signed up to UN Human Rights recognise right to selfdefence, including lethal force, even Nanny State UK. In fact we are allowed to in theory use lethal force in UK... just that the whole System is corrupt, evil and anticitizen, procriminal, so you in effect you are right... Pigs will nick you here for defending yourself. Judges send people to prison for affray, GBH, murder etc. when it is obvious they were good guys defending themselves. No justice.
Here in the US you could get into more trouble by not killing the attacker and open yourself up to a lawsuit. By not firing with intent to kill it shows, in a court of US law, the attacker did not show deadly threat and if he did not show deadly threat than it shows you had a chance to escape without the need to shoot them. If you are from the U.S. and you have to defend yourself with a firearm.....shoot to kill. Do not let the laws of backwards countries create training scars, open yourself up to possible incarceration or worse get you or your family hurt because you couldn't make the right decision. It's stupid laws like this in other countries that make people think they have no right to defend themselves.
Same theory, but you should never say, "shoot to kill". We instead say, "shoot to stop the threat". It may take on different looks, but it is appropriate to say that, "I shot until the threat had stopped being a threat". In the end, it doesn't matter if the attacker lives or dies, just that his deadly capabilities have been stopped.
ok. yeah, it's backwards that laws in other countries make criminals think how to do their crap with minimal effects.. and how there no one fears the police for over reacting or being corrupt. what a wonderful world it would be if everyone would think like you - that people should just kill everyone getting in their way. you control crime by fear of getting caught and fear of fellow citizens: getting your prisons full of people that will never become productive. in backwards countries they close prisons for lack of prisoners because they don't return there usually for the second time. maybe there is deeper meaning for you in having people to shoot around. small dick?
Really bro? You spout the whole " I don't have a clear argument so I'm just going to say Guns= small penis" response? Did you also just say your laws breed smarter criminals?
Marcus Aurelius the criminals are smarter because law creates better society. all people understand better the consequences of their actions. people naturally think more on the common good when they can trust in their fellow citizens. that being said, there's not really any organized criminal activity here. even the organized criminal motor gangs aim to have average life and better society.. and i'm sorry if my argument was too difficult to get. it just needed some basic ability connect different subjects. so, what you want to still talk about your penis?
I don't know where you went to get information on use of force, but you need to get your money back. There is no requirement whatsoever, nor will it help you, to distinguish between a lethal or nonlethal threat if you use a gun. You need to show that you are in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm to use deadly force. If you cannot demonstrate a reasonable fear of one of those two, you should not be applying deadly force, which is what using a firearm is. There is absolutely no recognition by any law in the US of shooting to wound as being some sort of lesser application of force than shooting to kill. Shooting anywhere, or for any reason, requires the reasonable fear of one of those two conditions. Furthermore, even in the ridiculous parts of the US that have the so-called "duty to retreat" laws, you are only required to make a reasonable attempt to flee.
This procedure might be excessive with my 10mm pistol and quality defensive ammunition. (If someone is attacking me and/or mine, am I supposed to allow them to kill us?)
Now try to say that in Italian or in every other foreign language (eeeveen viiit an accent?) Oh, That's right.. You can't, because you're an illiterate mong who likes to make fun of people. Don't say 'everyone speaks English'. No they fucking don't. English isn't as 'universal' as you guys make it out to be. I think everyone should make the effort to speak at least one foreign language fluently. Me? I've learned a number of foreign languages....So why don't you? It's fun, good for your brain, and opens up more doors in life for you.
Here in my contry Colombia is ilegal to defend in any way, that means you can't use lethal or non lethal force to defend yourself wherever the threat is. That is sad, if you defend yourself against robery or maybe someone trying to take your life, the only thing you can legally do is run, not punches no knife selfdefense no guns no sticks nothing, this is a shitty county, all that is illegal.
It's not just the laws in your country but the ones in the State the incident occurs in the USA. Hollow point ammunition the last time I checked is illegal in NJ. If I did the Mozambique or body, body, head in NJ or NY, I'd probably do prison time and lose a big civil suit. If I did it in Pennsylvania, Vermont or my home State of Nevada it would be legal. The legal argument should end if you're justified in drawing your weapon and discharging it. It doesn't in CA, MA, NJ OR NY to name a few of the most notorious right to die States. BTW, IZ, I'm stealing the term body, body, head since I will be very self conscious if I misspell Mozambique during a blog, comment or writing. You can contact my people for your royalty check. ;)
yo, super late to the party here, but which countries can you fire a weapon without using shooting to kill methods? Im in Australia, and maybe i didn't suss the comments far enough, but the inly time you can fire a weapon at a human or animal is a shoot to kill situation
In Mexico you can`t even shoot a home intruder unless the subject is 2 m or less from you and you've already shot a warning shot. And about the mozambique drill being illegal... well you can bleed someone to death but not kill him instantly... so much logic....
You can't just "use" the mozambique drill when some lanky dude is walking towards you. It's not even legal in some countries - some gravy seal is gonna mozambique someone and get the book thrown at them.
That was not the correct failure drill. There is supposed to be a pause then head shot. Its important to assess that the assailant is still a threat after the two body shots. Tac tac pause then tac. Not tac tac tac. Still impressive shooting though as always. Instructor Zero never disappoints.
In my Country a "spray and pray", could (repeat, could) be considered self defence, after a lenghty courtroom battle in which you give up all belongings to a lawyer, trying not to feed Bad Guy's family, relative, friends and aquaitances for the rest of your life... On the other hand, a straightforward body-body-head (with no pause between shots, as in video) would surely land you to life or nearby - as it shows intent to kill (always with lenghty battle mentioned above), as head is a small target and you REALLy want aim at. Something in between..? Let's talk about it but no guarantee...
sir I don't fully understand. we shoot to train and to defensively stop a threat.if death occurs than so be it. but if u fear for your life then is that not justifiable. I would think that would be world wide.
Not really. In many countries you can only apply equal force, so the fear you felt could be found unsubstantiated, or that you should only use enough force to stop the attack. After the two bullets to the chest, which could be meant to stop, it could be argued that you aimed a third at the head no longer for stopping but just to ensure a kill. This is a perilous ground to tread because a lot of countries don't have a strong self-defense culture or gun culture so most people really don't know what could happen in court. Maybe the prosecution won't care, maybe the prosecutor wants to make a name for himself or he has an axe to grind with gun owners and will argue the third shot makes one a murderer.
I was created in Mozambique for police using pistols with FMJ bullets. Pistols suck for stopping humans, so to be sure they stopped the threat without emptying the gun into the threat they went body, body, head. That's 3 rounds per stop.
I will never live anywhere but the US. As a policeman once told me, "Whatever the politicians say, it's still better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!" I live in a rural NY county. We made a decision as a community to only elect politicians who refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, but to overcome the lunatic left we ALL HAD TO VOTE in every race, no matter how small. In a neighboring county, a village mayor was elected by 2 votes in a 25 total vote race, and he's bankrupting the village...that doesn't happen here.
sho nuf, gods country. get to shoot people, great measure for where to live. ever thought that living in an environment that requires that kind of thinking may not actually be nirvana?
yarpos It's not the fact that we get to shoot people that makes gun loving Americans happy. Its the fact that we are given the right to use a powerful and effective tool to defend our neighbors, our families, and ourselves rather than entrusting our security and our families lives to a police force that has response time anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours depending on where you live. Its also the simple fact that we have more freedom than most countries. Even if we don't want to own a gun, its nice to know that you could if you wanted to.
your a different person starting a different discussion, I get what you are saying in your first para. the second para is just the continuation of the freedom delusion. The USA is the most over policed, incarcerated and violent 1st world countries. This type of thinking usually goes with the "best" legal system and "best" medical etc. My attitude is best summed up by a South African friend of mine. He made a simple statement when our families were out together one day...."I like it here, you dont have to take guns to a picnic". Its the overall culture and environment that matters, if certain freedoms create a toxic world to live in there is no point. All this btw from a shooters perspective. I actively shoot IPSC so I am no rabid anti gunner. Or anti US-er either for that matter, I haved lived there and found it great fun for a short stint.
Same difference, the first two shots make the bad guy leak out the 3rd scrambles his brains, ending all motor functions to the rest of the body. think of it as popping the tires on your sisters bicycle then cutting the chain, eather way she's not going anywhere. i can ride a bicycle with flat tires but no chain? nope.
It doesnt work in real situations. Its bullshit. Our Instructors tell us not to use this shit. Its possible on the range but not in a real life situation.
In the eyes of the law in the US, if you fire your weapon at them its deadly force weather you aim at there head or their foot.
Levi Downing Or even aim for the sky, a shot fired into the air is considered worse as it could come down almost anywhere and hit anyone.
And lets not dance around this by inferring what the law might mean if you forget what the law says. In self-defence laws itself it doesn't invoke terminology like "lethal force". Lets take a look at Texas' law, I don't think anyone can accuse Texas of having too overly restrictive self-defence laws:
"a person is justified in using force against ANOTHER when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the OTHER's use or attempted use of unlawful force."
It talks about DEGREES of force, and clearly says it is directed against the other who used the unlawful force. So that means Dallas SWAT team can't find a bank robber's wife and threaten to harm or kill her to make the bank robber drop his gun. The force must always be directed at the perpetrator, but if you fire a shot into the air you should know that bullet could come down anywhere and hit anyone, you cannot kill a granny half a mile away and be immune by self-defence! You were just as reckless as if you had shot it as new year's celebrations.
But there are other much safer warning shots like a shot into the soil the perp is standing on, or maybe you though you'd need a warning shot and had a blank round loaded.
Now lets get back to what it says amount amount of force, even in Texas it says of the force used must also be "to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is IMMEDIATELY necessary" you may reasonably believe that it isn't necessary to shoot them. It may be that just drawing the gun and NOT aiming and NOT shooting is enough to stop their unlawful use of force which might just be shoving you. Unlawful use of force includes threatening with a weapon, so if someone is 50m away and walking towards you with a bloody knife, it's hard to justify you need to immediately shoot them, even if you reasonably believe they intent to use unlawful force by stabbing you or someone else, do you need to use it immediately.
Now Texas law has written the law quite cleverly, it doesn't say you must use the force immediately before the unlawful force is used, just when it is immediately required. So if you see the crazed slasher is far away but about to step out of view into a house where defenceless people, you must IMMEDIATELY take the shot or by the time you run over there it will be too late.
But if he is approaching towards you over and open field, you can't justify shooting him until he's so close you could reasonably say "if he really is a crazed murderer, I'd need to shoot him now to ensure he'll stop before he reaches me"
This is a DANGEROUS MYTH that will put good people behind bars if they believe "I will only draw a gun to shoot them in the chest and/or head" that is absurd. It came from the ridiculous idea that someone might draw a gun but somehow be too afraid to actually use it... but it mutated from there into nonsense legal advice that if you draw a gun and DON'T immediately try to shoot them dead then that somehow "proves you didn't really fear for their life".
That's another thing, I've heard this "fear for my life" be used very often as if it is some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. No, even Texas requires belief be REASONABLE.
So if you have a belief that is UNREASONABLE, like "I could just tell he was a threat to me, I looked into his eyes, I could see he had no soul, he was totally evil and he was about to kill me with a concealed neutonium needle that I had read about on this conspiracy theory website" it doesn't matter if all the writings of the accused proved he really was in genuine fear of assassins... that's an UNREASONABLE belief so he has no defence. Any belief of (attempted) unlawful force against you must ALWAYS be reasonable.
What state are you referring to? Because it's hard to check all of them, but most states word the fundamentals of self-defence law the same as Texas (just Texas is different for tagging on some presumed-reasonable cases). A warning shot can, at least theoretically, be a part of the "degree" of force that they reasonably believe is immediately necessary. It's not hard to see a scenario, such as the perpetrator of unlawful force (i'll just call them the perp) openly says that they think your gun isn't loaded, or isn't a real gun, or whatever, it cannot fire bullets and is generally trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation despite. Firing a shot into the ground is a degree of force, it may be the degree of force to protect against the perp's unlawful force.
Also, it may be necessary in another way, you cannot shout for help loud enough, but the sound of gunfire would summon help from nearby as they hear a gunshot and come a running, better they get there before the perp tries to hurt you. The only human being the force is remotely directed against is the perp who you reasonably are trying to deter from attacking you, not a shot into the sky which could come down on anyone, into the ground where at worst it hits a gopher.
I don't see what part of any state law you are referring to where it could possibly be taken that a warning shot could not be covered under the "degree of force" that may be immediately necessary to protect from unlawful force.
"just shoot them in the knee."
1. They're never going to walk again.
2. Do you have any fucking idea how hard a KNEECAP is to hit?
@@Treblaine now can you do California? Lol jk
Mozambique. Totally legit in Texas.
+Phillip Mesa well if you can legally shoot them in texas you can legally kill them, and the only really i can see to shoot in self defence is to kill
This Drill's purpose is widely misunderstood.
It was designed to train you to continually assess and re-evaluate your target zone and shot placement.
Basically, to think and look for another option to end a deadly threat, if torso shots fail to get the job done quickly.
While head shots would likely guarantee a quicker stop to a deadly threat, torso shots usually provide a larger target, increasing the probability you make hits.
The head shot on this drill should always be taken as fast as the shooter can get the shot off, without missing the intended target.
It's a valuable drill for its intended purpose.
No matter what, in a deadly force situation, the most important goal is ending the threat posed as quickly as possible. It's irrelevant in these situations if your "target" lives or dies. Stopping the deadly threat as quickly as possible is all that matters.
Good video.
This is the best comment that explains the video
Zero looks like he belongs in the new Expendables movie.
i always want to say at the end of every one his videos. that he wants to "pump you up"
Glad I'm not the only one thinking that lol
"belongs in the new Expendables movie"...more like he needs to direct and produce the next movie. Didn't see a single reload in the last one. It was just...awful.
Yeah, the 1/4 mile tracks take two minutes to cross, and Honda Civics have 9 speed manual transmissions.
Took my first training course yesterday and this was one of the drills we learned
Love the Mozambique Drill. I practice it every time I go to the range. I don't always remember to do the threat assessment afterwards. I'll work on it.
"Make show you ounderstind the low in your cowtree"
I love Zero..it's like 'Allo 'Allo all over again:)
It is actually semi illegal in America to not attempt to kill if using a lethal weapon. Shooting to injure or mame can be used against you in court, actually it will be used against you. They will argue that lethal force wasn't necessary otherwise you would have attempted to kill them. They can also sue you for medical bills in civil court and win.
Wow I could understand everything he said perfectly. Getting better.
Your English is getting good IZ, keep at it.
Jon Asgaeroth I second that
The latest doctrine I heard being used is three to the pelvis, two to the chest and one to the head. This is done in order to counteract body armor being used by the enemy.
Pelvic area will surely disable the attacker o threat alive
Now this is instrumental instructions, we all need. Great information.
This is actually a drill you have to do in Sweden if you want to join the Swedish national guard.
Good here in the USA on that. If they make me have to fire my weapon, the end result is on them.
Stand your ground... Florida
En Argentina depende del juez y del fiscal que te toque.. Pero siendo legítima defensa con un buen abogado se puede zafar del "exceso"... los 2 al pecho y 1 al frasco sería lo ideal para "incapacitar" definitivamente al agresor. Buen Video
Not having the right to shoot to kill to defend yourself is the greatest insult. The opponent already violated the NAP, and it's only fair that you take action to ensure the NAP is never violated again
Well, I can understand the point that shooting to kill is an action you want to avoid unless there is no option left. Shoot a criminal in self defense, but if you (on purpose or not) kill him/her, they can no longer be held accountable for their actions in court. And that's the point. If you shoot to kill, you're playing judge, jury and executioner. You'll be held accountable after an incident, and the other parties should be able to do so too, but by killing that is no longer possible.
The triple tap is part of our qualification every 90 days.
I know even here in the liberal state of New York, when I was in law enforcement, we were trained with this drill, although it was never called the Mozambique (some of us knew it beforehand) but it was called either the Body-Armor drill or the Failure to Stop drill, so for us, it was part of the training, although we did it slightly differently. We would take the two shots to the body, then wait a second or so for the third shot. This was, as we were told, time to wait to see if there was a reaction from the target if indeed the real thing was to happen.
Yo homie! That my briefcase?
some of the Michael Mann movies feature this drill, like Collateral, which is a nice touch
been practicing this drill quite a while. its so fun
Here in Brazil the judge will say that you train to kill people and not to defend himself, so will be charged with murder and not for self-defense
Good job guys! Tks from Brazil!!!!!
Esperemos que Bolsonaro cambie eso.
Alive and doing time might be better than dead and free. You decide
very interesting point, Zero!
i never thought about legality of this
Thanks!
Awesome shades.
Instructor Zero is awesome
Thank you!
One of the best videos. Short and Everybody can understand it
The Mozanbique Drill also known as the Djibouti Shooty.
you can partly circumvent the intentional killing by rapidly assessing whether the target has been stopped by the first pair to the chest and follow up IF needed with a more difficult head shot that will instantly kill the target.
To shorten it up: "two shots to the chest; assess; one shot to the head (if
needed)"
He is a prodigy at what he does!
I have learned to do it on Systema classes
This drill was one of the highlights of the film "Collateral".
The Law in my Country says..... You want to have a Gun.... No!!!!
What do they say about airguns? You should see some of the new technology coming out in that category
GOOD TO GO IN NC.
The third tap is supposed to be a deciding tap, not an immediate follow-up from the first two.
You double tap the opponent first, then assess to see if they are still a threat, and do your follow-up on the third one.
Therefore there must be a pause between 2nd and 3rd tap.
Otherwise it's not a Mozambique, it's just a triple tap.
The way I see it, what ever it takes to stop a threat.
THE SPEED IS PERFECT BUT I DONT SEE HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE SCAN o swept WAS GOOD.
Latest doctrine is to shoot for the pelvis, hips... it bypasses body armour and drops them. Rounds to the centremass are not reliable when they are high on drugs, adrenaline and/or wear a vest and/or webbing gear. Headshots are tricky.
Not true. This is a misconception that is only really continued by those who thought it was a good idea until the medical reality has been shown. A hit to the pelvis from the front does not have an immediately incapacitating effect, and even if the blood vessels are struck, the subject has mechanical function for long enough to continue applying force. A lateral bullet strike, one that goes from one side of the pelvis to the other, can be a very different story. The VAST majority of criminals do not wear body armor while committing crime, so it is still a much better idea to aim for the upper chest with the sternum as the primary target.
runawaygun762 Perhaps I was not clear. Mozam. drill is for soldiers.. I mean 5.56 mm to the hip joint for military combat where most people where body armour. They will go down.
Daniel Skipp Most of who wears body armor?
runawaygun762
seriously? Reread what i wrote. Here... I will CAPSLOCK highlight parts "Perhaps I was not clear. Mozam. drill is for SOLDIERS.. I mean 5.56 mm to the hip joint for MILITARY combat where most people where body armour. They will go down."
runawaygun762 Sadly not generally reliable either. The only real thing to do is hit them in the head. More often than not, I've seen head shots ending the fights not body mass shots. There is a really chilling story out of IL a few years ago where an Officer got into a close range shoot out with a Armed Robber. Guy took 14 45acp hollow points, including 1 to the head, and he was still alive when they got him to the ER. The cop switched back to 9mm after that. Every hit was a "lethal" hit given "time." And I believe all of them were center to head.
Pistols are just bad at killing people. When you rationally look at the actual "instant" stopping points on the human body in comparison to the size of a pistol caliber and every fucking thing else it could hit instead in the world, it's pretty clear that you're really just hoping to god you scare them off more than instantly kill them.
Where can we get that black jacket?
Some countries, like modern day Great Britain, do not recognize that you have ANY right to defend yourself with deadly force. I think this is at least as applicable in certain jurisdictions of the US as well. Shooting for the head is automatically proof that you intend to kill, as opposed to stop your adversary. FWIW, those of us less skilled than IZ should not attempt anything but a COM shot in most situations anyway.
i guess if you just happen to shoot in the head as you shoot "at them" it may be ok, oh and in the uk its "reasonable" force bullshit, as in if they are armed you basically have to wait for them to attack you
***** same in australia
Technically not true... all countries signed up to UN Human Rights recognise right to selfdefence, including lethal force, even Nanny State UK. In fact we are allowed to in theory use lethal force in UK... just that the whole System is corrupt, evil and anticitizen, procriminal, so you in effect you are right... Pigs will nick you here for defending yourself. Judges send people to prison for affray, GBH, murder etc. when it is obvious they were good guys defending themselves. No justice.
isnt the UN pretty much anti gun though
sam emerson its anti freedom in general and is little better than a fascist organisation
Regardless where you aim, you are shooting to stop the threat. If the results are fatal then the attacker chose the wrong victim.
Here in the US you could get into more trouble by not killing the attacker and open yourself up to a lawsuit. By not firing with intent to kill it shows, in a court of US law, the attacker did not show deadly threat and if he did not show deadly threat than it shows you had a chance to escape without the need to shoot them. If you are from the U.S. and you have to defend yourself with a firearm.....shoot to kill. Do not let the laws of backwards countries create training scars, open yourself up to possible incarceration or worse get you or your family hurt because you couldn't make the right decision. It's stupid laws like this in other countries that make people think they have no right to defend themselves.
Same theory, but you should never say, "shoot to kill". We instead say, "shoot to stop the threat". It may take on different looks, but it is appropriate to say that, "I shot until the threat had stopped being a threat". In the end, it doesn't matter if the attacker lives or dies, just that his deadly capabilities have been stopped.
ok. yeah, it's backwards that laws in other countries make criminals think how to do their crap with minimal effects.. and how there no one fears the police for over reacting or being corrupt. what a wonderful world it would be if everyone would think like you - that people should just kill everyone getting in their way. you control crime by fear of getting caught and fear of fellow citizens: getting your prisons full of people that will never become productive. in backwards countries they close prisons for lack of prisoners because they don't return there usually for the second time. maybe there is deeper meaning for you in having people to shoot around. small dick?
Really bro? You spout the whole " I don't have a clear argument so I'm just going to say Guns= small penis" response? Did you also just say your laws breed smarter criminals?
Marcus Aurelius the criminals are smarter because law creates better society. all people understand better the consequences of their actions. people naturally think more on the common good when they can trust in their fellow citizens. that being said, there's not really any organized criminal activity here. even the organized criminal motor gangs aim to have average life and better society.. and i'm sorry if my argument was too difficult to get. it just needed some basic ability connect different subjects. so, what you want to still talk about your penis?
I don't know where you went to get information on use of force, but you need to get your money back. There is no requirement whatsoever, nor will it help you, to distinguish between a lethal or nonlethal threat if you use a gun. You need to show that you are in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm to use deadly force. If you cannot demonstrate a reasonable fear of one of those two, you should not be applying deadly force, which is what using a firearm is. There is absolutely no recognition by any law in the US of shooting to wound as being some sort of lesser application of force than shooting to kill. Shooting anywhere, or for any reason, requires the reasonable fear of one of those two conditions. Furthermore, even in the ridiculous parts of the US that have the so-called "duty to retreat" laws, you are only required to make a reasonable attempt to flee.
Doesn't matter about "kill" its to stop the threat. Never think of it as "kill".
What Jacket Is That?
In the U.S. South this is encouraged in a self defense shooting.
This procedure might be excessive with my 10mm pistol and quality defensive ammunition. (If someone is attacking me and/or mine, am I supposed to allow them to kill us?)
Anyone know the brand and model of shades IZ is wearing?
I raally leik yur vadeos, intructur serow!
Now try to say that in Italian or in every other foreign language (eeeveen viiit an accent?) Oh, That's right.. You can't, because you're an illiterate mong who likes to make fun of people. Don't say 'everyone speaks English'. No they fucking don't. English isn't as 'universal' as you guys make it out to be.
I think everyone should make the effort to speak at least one foreign language fluently. Me? I've learned a number of foreign languages....So why don't you? It's fun, good for your brain, and opens up more doors in life for you.
I spak maany lanuages !! !
Bob Vogel approves.
I got it master!
Here in my contry Colombia is ilegal to defend in any way, that means you can't use lethal or non lethal force to defend yourself wherever the threat is. That is sad, if you defend yourself against robery or maybe someone trying to take your life, the only thing you can legally do is run, not punches no knife selfdefense no guns no sticks nothing, this is a shitty county, all that is illegal.
I think this is also called the Djibouti Shooty.
Never hurts to know the laws of your count-tree like your ABCs
All you have to say is that you aimed three shots at the chest, after the first two hit him he ducked into the third.
Zero is such an outstanding shooter
It's not just the laws in your country but the ones in the State the incident occurs in the USA. Hollow point ammunition the last time I checked is illegal in NJ. If I did the Mozambique or body, body, head in NJ or NY, I'd probably do prison time and lose a big civil suit. If I did it in Pennsylvania, Vermont or my home State of Nevada it would be legal. The legal argument should end if you're justified in drawing your weapon and discharging it. It doesn't in CA, MA, NJ OR NY to name a few of the most notorious right to die States. BTW, IZ, I'm stealing the term body, body, head since I will be very self conscious if I misspell Mozambique during a blog, comment or writing. You can contact my people for your royalty check. ;)
I always thought Mozambique was 2 to the pelvis to anchor the subject and then apply final threat solution
There is a way arround it.
I was told it in advanced LE class
to all studends: Mr. ZERO get on desk! plase open your ears!
yo, super late to the party here, but which countries can you fire a weapon without using shooting to kill methods? Im in Australia, and maybe i didn't suss the comments far enough, but the inly time you can fire a weapon at a human or animal is a shoot to kill situation
Animals don't carry any kinds of firepower but wild animals can kill you so what're u gonna do if u see one of those and u have a gun?
Ma sei in italia o in USA?
Eyes.... contact... distraction.... action.
In Mexico you can`t even shoot a home intruder unless the subject is 2 m or less from you and you've already shot a warning shot. And about the mozambique drill being illegal... well you can bleed someone to death but not kill him instantly... so much logic....
you can worry about that AFTER you shoot the narco. those punks deserve no mercy
You can't just "use" the mozambique drill when some lanky dude is walking towards you. It's not even legal in some countries - some gravy seal is gonna mozambique someone and get the book thrown at them.
That was not the correct failure drill. There is supposed to be a pause then head shot. Its important to assess that the assailant is still a threat after the two body shots. Tac tac pause then tac. Not tac tac tac. Still impressive shooting though as always. Instructor Zero never disappoints.
Interesting accent; where are you from?
Сразу наглухо вали.
Mr Zero Where do i get That Holster whit Laser/Light Combo for my Glock 23?
Thanks 😁
Safariland?
In my Country a "spray and pray", could (repeat, could) be considered self defence, after a lenghty courtroom battle in which you give up all belongings to a lawyer, trying not to feed Bad Guy's family, relative, friends and aquaitances for the rest of your life...
On the other hand, a straightforward body-body-head (with no pause between shots, as in video) would surely land you to life or nearby - as it shows intent to kill (always with lenghty battle mentioned above), as head is a small target and you REALLy want aim at.
Something in between..? Let's talk about it but no guarantee...
What country?
@@libertyandjusticeforall6435 Italy
sir I don't fully understand. we shoot to train and to defensively stop a threat.if death occurs than so be it. but if u fear for your life then is that not justifiable. I would think that would be world wide.
Not really. In many countries you can only apply equal force, so the fear you felt could be found unsubstantiated, or that you should only use enough force to stop the attack. After the two bullets to the chest, which could be meant to stop, it could be argued that you aimed a third at the head no longer for stopping but just to ensure a kill. This is a perilous ground to tread because a lot of countries don't have a strong self-defense culture or gun culture so most people really don't know what could happen in court. Maybe the prosecution won't care, maybe the prosecutor wants to make a name for himself or he has an axe to grind with gun owners and will argue the third shot makes one a murderer.
Why is it called the Mozambique drill?
I was created in Mozambique for police using pistols with FMJ bullets. Pistols suck for stopping humans, so to be sure they stopped the threat without emptying the gun into the threat they went body, body, head. That's 3 rounds per stop.
Look up Mike Rousseau, police did not create the djibouti shooty.
Cool im in usa
We call this the body armor drill.
.38 quicker !
Is this illegal in NJ
no
Does anyone no what kind of ears those are?
Thank you nice vid .... not everyone is blessed to live in ...TEXAS were we don't even worry about this kinda stuff...lol...
lel @ "international law"
is that a G19 or G17?
+Kenzaki1010
G19
G17 and i think its gen 3
I will never live anywhere but the US. As a policeman once told me, "Whatever the politicians say, it's still better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!" I live in a rural NY county. We made a decision as a community to only elect politicians who refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, but to overcome the lunatic left we ALL HAD TO VOTE in every race, no matter how small. In a neighboring county, a village mayor was elected by 2 votes in a 25 total vote race, and he's bankrupting the village...that doesn't happen here.
sho nuf, gods country. get to shoot people, great measure for where to live.
ever thought that living in an environment that requires that kind of thinking may not actually be nirvana?
yarpos It's not the fact that we get to shoot people that makes gun loving Americans happy. Its the fact that we are given the right to use a powerful and effective tool to defend our neighbors, our families, and ourselves rather than entrusting our security and our families lives to a police force that has response time anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours depending on where you live.
Its also the simple fact that we have more freedom than most countries. Even if we don't want to own a gun, its nice to know that you could if you wanted to.
your a different person starting a different discussion, I get what you are saying in your first para.
the second para is just the continuation of the freedom delusion. The USA is the most over policed, incarcerated and violent 1st world countries. This type of thinking usually goes with the "best" legal system and "best" medical etc.
My attitude is best summed up by a South African friend of mine. He made a simple statement when our families were out together one day...."I like it here, you dont have to take guns to a picnic". Its the overall culture and environment that matters, if certain freedoms create a toxic world to live in there is no point.
All this btw from a shooters perspective. I actively shoot IPSC so I am no rabid anti gunner. Or anti US-er either for that matter, I haved lived there and found it great fun for a short stint.
You said you will never live anywhere in the US, but you live in NY. Please tell me how this doesn't contradict.
Bobby Guzman think he said "I will never live anywhere but the US. "
Why is it called "Mozambique" drill ?
are you algerian??
Yes I am
salam 3likoum ana youcef men setif
because A Rhodesian(Mozambique in 21c) soldier developed that technique
Thank you
I still can't nail down where ZERO is from. I think he's french or south African.
Italian i think
you can not use this drill in thailand
Dump a full mag, cops are trained to do it
Moot fucking point about int'l law and sounds a whole lot like the "50 BMG can only be used on material and not people" law/myth
Cauonty
its triple tap
Same difference, the first two shots make the bad guy leak out the 3rd scrambles his brains, ending all motor functions to the rest of the body. think of it as popping the tires on your sisters bicycle then cutting the chain, eather way she's not going anywhere. i can ride a bicycle with flat tires but no chain? nope.
I can't stand it when people do that stupid shit when they turn their head from one side to the other after shooting.
N1
Anyone no what kind of ears those are??
Peltor SWAT Tac or Comm Tac
+irvan36mm thanx
Русскоговорящие есть?
It doesnt work in real situations. Its bullshit. Our Instructors tell us not to use this shit. Its possible on the range but not in a real life situation.
First
must be legal in the USA. cops put 9 in a 22yr old over a trafic stop..its happened before
Soverign Cold-Steel cry more, emo SJW
I'm sorry but...where is the analysis!! This is not an Mozambique drill!