Thugs in the Dark--A Low Light Scenario

HOUSTON 17 July 2018 – Police say a husband opened fire on two home invasion suspects as they tried to hold his wife at gunpoint as she arrived home around 10:30 p.m. According to the Houston Police, it started when the man’s wife pulled into their driveway. Two armed suspects ran up and tried to rob her. They took her purse and then tried to force her into the house. However, her husband heard the commotion from inside the house, grabbed his gun, and ended up exchanging gunfire with the intruders. Fortunately, the couple weren’t hit; however, the husband shot one of the suspects in the head, the other suspect took off running. 

Damn—I wish this guy was one of my students. This almost perfectly describes one of our low light scenarios. In part 1, I discussed some of the drills and a decision-based scenario we completed in our final low light practice session for 2017/18. This completes the 5th year for our low light curriculum and the shooters who have taken these classes and continued with practice sessions have noticeably improved in most low light shooting tasks.

One of the participants requested some decision-based scenarios for the last practice of the season so we conducted two. The decision based-scenarios we use are a surprise where proper target recognition, flashlight techniques, movement, and marksmanship are critical to success. We use photo realistic targets with a mix of threats and non-threats.

Scenario #2 is an attempted carjacking that turns into a kidnapping—a police officer sees the commotion and stops to intervene as well. Prebrief: I ask the participants the name of their wife, mother, or other family members to personalize the scenario.

Situation: The participants were at home expecting their spouse or other family member accompanied by a young child to arrive soon. Headlights appear in their driveway; however, their family members do not come in the house. The participant steps outside to determine the cause for delay; but, cannot see past the headlights. The participant calls out to their family member who immediately responds with cries for help.

The first participant quickly scanned the scene using his flashlight from cover and sees the bad guy holding his wife hostage. He engages this individual and the individual attempting to enter the driver’s side of his wife’s car. He continues to fixate on these two individuals despite the fact that other bad guys are threatening to kidnap his grandson. He does not continue to scan with his light and therefore does not see nor does he engage the other bad guys.

The second participant quickly scanned the scene using his flashlight from cover and sees the bad guy holding his wife hostage. He engages this individual and the individual attempting to enter the driver’s side of his wife’s car. He continues to scan in response to other bad guy’s threats to kidnap his son and sees the bad guy holding his son hostage. He engages this individual and the individual to the hostage taker’s left. He then sees the police officer; however, fails to recognize her even though she is yelling police.  He engages the police officer as well with a nice shot to the head. Oops.

The third participant quickly scanned the scene using his flashlight from cover and sees the bad guy holding his wife hostage. He engages this individual and the individual attempting to enter the driver’s side of his wife’s car. He then pauses and does nothing. In response to another bad guy’s threats to leave with his son, he scans and sees the bad guy holding his son hostage. He does not engage this individual however, and instead begins trying to negotiate with the hostage taker. As the hostage taker states he is departing with the boy, participant three shifts his pistol to his left hand, digs his phone out of his pocket, and attempts to call 911.

The fourth participant quickly scanned the scene using his flashlight from cover and sees the bad guy holding his wife hostage. He engages this individual and the individual attempting to enter the driver’s side of his wife’s car. He then pauses, in response to other bad guy’s threats to leave with his son, he scans and sees the bad guy holding his son hostage. He does not engage this individual however, and also begins trying to negotiate with the hostage taker. As the hostage taker states he is departing with his son, he keeps trying to talk the hostage taker out of departing with the boy until the scenario ends.

I determined that participant five’s initial techniques were unsafe and likely to cause him injury so I stopped the scenario before he engaged any bad guys.

This was the first decision scenario for one participant (#5). The other 4 had completed decision scenarios previously; however, not for 2+ years. For all of the participants, low light tactics, techniques, and procedures went completely out the window. Several shooters managed to avoid hitting targets that were well within ten yards even though they fired several rounds. Others misidentified non-threat targets and engaged them with enthusiasm. The stress associated with the scenario was a challenge as well with all semblance of good tactics drifting away as soon as the scenario began.

Participants found the decision scenarios very demanding with the two biggest challenges for the shooters were identifying and then hitting the threats—something the husband mentioned in the introduction did very well. 

As we start the 2018-19 Low Light season, I plan to do more of the low light decision-based scenarios.  These are challenging and I had gotten out of the habit of including them because they were so difficult for most students. However, I see their value and plan to do more.  I also plan to add force-on-force with airsoft for the more advanced students to add a little more realism. 

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.