His entire mas was moving forward. Gravity would not reverse that momentum.
A close up shooting - warning bad language, how many is enough
- Thread starter GEM
- Start date
- Status
Elkins45
Member
You’ve never seen someone get clotheslined?
Certainly not the same thing, in terms of force and moment.
No one has mentioned that this dude is wearing a Night Stalker shirt from the 160th Spec. Ops. Aviation Regiment.
"Night Stalkers Don't Quit!"
https://www.google.com/search?q=nig...BAgSEAE&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=z1nqIT6tve-nOM
What possible bearing can that have on the incident?
Elkins45
Member
I disagree. It’s a problem of angular momentum and center of mass. Slow the top half of the zombie and the inertia of the bottom half throws it off balance. But we shall never know in this case.
Most prosecutors have never had to fire a gun to save their life. I don’t give a damn if he shot him with an 88mm artillery gun. Once he started swinging the stick he forfeited his life.
But how many rounds should you shoot before you adapt your tactics? All of them? At any point before running out of ammo should you try something else?
Last edited:
Angular and linear momentum and the amount and direction force that could have been applies by a smaller man moving backward, along with the ability of the attacker to disarm the defender and that of the defender to prevent it.
Just startingtp swing would not have justified that much force, had he stopped.
The only thing I would suggest is moving off line.
I was referring to this:
Given the fact that the aggressor was so crazed and energized that the first few rounds did not stop him , it is not logical to think that punching him in the face would end the threat. In addition , a cease fire - however brief - combined with physical contact between the officer and the assailant puts the officer at greater risk. The cop would have to be extremely close to land an effective punch , and the risk of getting wrapped up with the bad guy would be significant.
Maintaining separation is paramount.
Last edited:
Not to mention the taser.
Indeed.
Absolutely.
I cannot imagine why anyone would switch from deadly force to non-deadly physical force in that situation,
Elkins45
Member
You don’t have to imagine it. You saw it in the video. Deadly physical force wasn’t working.
Are any of you guys ever going to admit the plainly obvious fact that the gun wasn’t being immediately effective?
Guns, especially handguns seldom are immediately effective. Despite what Hollywood says. That’s why training changed from “shoot two and assess” to “shoot until the threat stops”.
It did not work as quickly as it does on Gunsmoke, but it did work.
Elkins45
Member
I’ll ask one last time because nobody seems to be answering: how many times do you shoot someone center mass without effect before you reassess and change tactics? Every round you have? After the second mag?
That guy wasn’t wearing a vest but he very well could have been, and it sure seemed like he was until he finally fell. If he had been then once that deputy shot to slide lock his eyes would surely have been gouged out by his bulletproof attacker.
That guy wasn’t wearing a vest but he very well could have been, and it sure seemed like he was until he finally fell. If he had been then once that deputy shot to slide lock his eyes would surely have been gouged out by his bulletproof attacker.
Unless he appears to be wearing a vest, as many times as it takes.
Would you have expected a more immediate result in this case? Why?
We see numerous cases in which quite a number of hits are needed, sometimes fom multiple officers. That's the way things work.
Elkins45
Member
After about the 8th shot with seemingly no effect I would concluded he appeared to be wearing a vest. I would have expected him to at least show some indication of being shot, which I didn’t see. What I saw was defiance, practically a dare to keep shooting him as if the guy knew he was bulletproof. I would have concluded the bullets weren’t penetrating. Even when he was on the ground there was just the barest trace of blood visible on his pants.
So you are saying you would put every round you have into the area that didn’t seem to be working? On this we shall have to disagree.
How many seconds elapsed between the first and the 8th shot? It appears the deputy was moving away, backpedaling and shooting. I doubt he was counting his shots. If you are going to be cool enough in that situation to switch tactics to a failure drill that’s great. I think that’s an unlikely outcome unless you’ve trained to for that though.
Commader47
member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2020
- Messages
- 48
I have studied this and read every post. I am also very familiar with the Fort Campbell "Night Stalkers" and what they did in the Gulf. I am also no stranger to armed conflict. Having said all that:
1. The Deputy did a great job under the circumstances. Especially considering the political climate today. Did anyone else read the part where he happened to upon this scene while on his way to work!!!??? Well, he did. . There is a lot we don't know in this scenario, but you have to wonder how much did the Deputy know? Two miles of carnage this guy left behind him.
2. The Deputy stumbles upon a scene, and obviously tries to talk to this guy. I believe most officers would do the same under the circumstances. The perp does not appear armed at the beginning of the video, but rather drunk, or high, or something. Was there any reason for the Deputy to apply the Tueller principle? I don't believe so. There doesn't appear to be a weapon until he lifts the branch and strikes the officer, who tases him and pulls his weapon.
3. In my humble opinion, the Deputy shows incredible restraint not firing sooner. In fact, he takes another blow from the branch before opening fire. The first few rounds don't seem to stop his advance, and the Deputy then unloads until the perp drops. The Deputy might have tried shooting below a vest into the pelvic area and then the head. They were very close and it would be hard not to hit your target.
4. I believe this "Night Stalker" was pumped up on adrenaline, drugs, alcohol and maybe on a combat high when he attacked the officer. He was probably already dead, or well on the way, after the first couple 9mm rounds to center mass. I agree with the sentiment that the Deputy should have changed his aim point.
5. In my opinion, my snubbie .38 would have done just fine. But I definitely would have done it differently. Hindsight is 20/20, but I do believe that my training would have gotten a different response. The "Professor" would be just as dead, just a little sooner.
6. At the end of the day, from what I see on the video and little information I found, the Deputy made the best of a bad situation. He shot center mass, as training would dictate. I also believe the Deputy should have changed his aim point. Shot placement and a 38 would have been fine. In fact, shot placement with a .380 would have gotten the job done IMHO. I guess you could say a Bazooka would be better.
1. The Deputy did a great job under the circumstances. Especially considering the political climate today. Did anyone else read the part where he happened to upon this scene while on his way to work!!!??? Well, he did. . There is a lot we don't know in this scenario, but you have to wonder how much did the Deputy know? Two miles of carnage this guy left behind him.
2. The Deputy stumbles upon a scene, and obviously tries to talk to this guy. I believe most officers would do the same under the circumstances. The perp does not appear armed at the beginning of the video, but rather drunk, or high, or something. Was there any reason for the Deputy to apply the Tueller principle? I don't believe so. There doesn't appear to be a weapon until he lifts the branch and strikes the officer, who tases him and pulls his weapon.
3. In my humble opinion, the Deputy shows incredible restraint not firing sooner. In fact, he takes another blow from the branch before opening fire. The first few rounds don't seem to stop his advance, and the Deputy then unloads until the perp drops. The Deputy might have tried shooting below a vest into the pelvic area and then the head. They were very close and it would be hard not to hit your target.
4. I believe this "Night Stalker" was pumped up on adrenaline, drugs, alcohol and maybe on a combat high when he attacked the officer. He was probably already dead, or well on the way, after the first couple 9mm rounds to center mass. I agree with the sentiment that the Deputy should have changed his aim point.
5. In my opinion, my snubbie .38 would have done just fine. But I definitely would have done it differently. Hindsight is 20/20, but I do believe that my training would have gotten a different response. The "Professor" would be just as dead, just a little sooner.
6. At the end of the day, from what I see on the video and little information I found, the Deputy made the best of a bad situation. He shot center mass, as training would dictate. I also believe the Deputy should have changed his aim point. Shot placement and a 38 would have been fine. In fact, shot placement with a .380 would have gotten the job done IMHO. I guess you could say a Bazooka would be better.
Shot placement was a matter of chance and could only have been measured after the fact.
armoredman
Member
I hope the deputy gets the proper counseling and support for the after action trauma. From my partially trained viewpoint, it looked 100% justified.
lemaymiami
Member
The moment several center of mass shots didn't seem to have the slightest effect... My next action would be to either aim at his eyes -or about six inches below where most body armor protects... Nothing very nice about it - or very sporting but on the street it's up to you to survive - no one's coming to your rescue. The entire scenario is why I always had my shotgun in hand if I knew in advance that I was going into a situation where weapons might be needed. I must say as well that many, many times you just didn't know it was a hot call until you were in it (no shotgun in hand....). Very, very glad I never had to use a pistol on the street (and in fact never fired a single shot with a sidearm in 22 years when I was in many close encounters...).
One other point to mention is that sheer numbers of officers on a problem call would have changed the incident from a shooting fatality to a hand to hand wrestling situation. That's why the cardinal rule for young (and not so young) officers is "Wait for your back- up"... I'll add that there are too many times when waiting just isn't possible but that's the world officers live in (and it is a lot different than the one an armed citizen lives in..). I can testify that, if I'd been by myself on more than a few calls - I'd probably been forced to use a firearm on some of the crazy, drunk, high, or completely deranged individuals you can come into contact with but with a backup or two we resolved the situations while only needing minor medical care afterwards... for either an officer or the offender...
One other point to mention is that sheer numbers of officers on a problem call would have changed the incident from a shooting fatality to a hand to hand wrestling situation. That's why the cardinal rule for young (and not so young) officers is "Wait for your back- up"... I'll add that there are too many times when waiting just isn't possible but that's the world officers live in (and it is a lot different than the one an armed citizen lives in..). I can testify that, if I'd been by myself on more than a few calls - I'd probably been forced to use a firearm on some of the crazy, drunk, high, or completely deranged individuals you can come into contact with but with a backup or two we resolved the situations while only needing minor medical care afterwards... for either an officer or the offender...
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,836
does anyone know the story about this case? why was the contact made? what was the initial call? what if any drugs was the guy on, mental instability? lost his job, got divorced just said screw it? what?
also, so many people are saying how many shots before reassessing, this was over in a few seconds from first to last shot. I'd lay money that many here would still be fumbling for an extra magazine and stuttering before they thought about reassessing...
also, so many people are saying how many shots before reassessing, this was over in a few seconds from first to last shot. I'd lay money that many here would still be fumbling for an extra magazine and stuttering before they thought about reassessing...
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,171
I am not sure I agree that shot placement is by chance. There is a reason we normally only point firearms in safe directions. I imagine training had more to do with where he was aiming than chance.
Seeems to me that officer is waiting on the “stop” to change what he is doing vs thinking “well, this isn’t exactly an expedited method, perhaps I should try something else that I wasn’t taught....”
I could armchair this one and say he could have pulled out some paper and crayons and really bonded with the guy in a non threatening way and everyone walks away happy.
Or just look at the reality of the situation and say that he took an action after being assaulted and did what he had to to avoid serious injury or worse to himself. Ideal? No. No ideal, even before the video started. Functional for intended purpose? Yes.
Seeems to me that officer is waiting on the “stop” to change what he is doing vs thinking “well, this isn’t exactly an expedited method, perhaps I should try something else that I wasn’t taught....”
I could armchair this one and say he could have pulled out some paper and crayons and really bonded with the guy in a non threatening way and everyone walks away happy.
Or just look at the reality of the situation and say that he took an action after being assaulted and did what he had to to avoid serious injury or worse to himself. Ideal? No. No ideal, even before the video started. Functional for intended purpose? Yes.
The fellow had crashed into a couple o cars and attacked the occupants.
I think the officer just happened along.
One can compare hitting vital organs to drilling for oil in a fast-moving area.
Consider the timing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
