Indiana firefighter shoots neighbor 4 times in the chest and he lives- Gun type?
- Thread starter matt35750
- Start date
- Status
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
Not sure. I wouldn't avoid a certain firearm or caliber because a particular person didn't drop another person with it. Seemed to me in the video they were both open carrying and antagonizing one another. One drew to threaten, the other fired. I like not having neighbors.
MedWheeler
Member
Bring up any handgun caliber, and someone will find you a four-time "shootee" that survived it, and was still standing. Soldiers have been torn apart by rifle fire and shrapnel and still made it to cover.
In this case, the person shot remains in critical condition. These two had an ongoing feud. The man shot was riding a lawn tractor and could not flee as readily as your typical street criminal will once fired upon. He also had less motive to flee, given that he lives there and because of the nature of the dispute. Once he was shot, the shooter was largely out of danger, or easily could have been by breaking off (the way we should the first chance we get.) The "shootee" got off a few, poorly-aimed rounds after being hit, but it appears they would have been easy to avoid, and he probably could no longer even see his target, having fallen behind the tractor.
From what I could see, the muzzle end of the gun in question is about the same size as a typical "CC-type" 9mm pistol but, of course, it could have been chambered in something smaller. Whatever it was, it worked.
In this case, the person shot remains in critical condition. These two had an ongoing feud. The man shot was riding a lawn tractor and could not flee as readily as your typical street criminal will once fired upon. He also had less motive to flee, given that he lives there and because of the nature of the dispute. Once he was shot, the shooter was largely out of danger, or easily could have been by breaking off (the way we should the first chance we get.) The "shootee" got off a few, poorly-aimed rounds after being hit, but it appears they would have been easy to avoid, and he probably could no longer even see his target, having fallen behind the tractor.
From what I could see, the muzzle end of the gun in question is about the same size as a typical "CC-type" 9mm pistol but, of course, it could have been chambered in something smaller. Whatever it was, it worked.
Telekinesis
Member
Depending on what study you look at, handgun wounds typically have a survival rate of 70-80%. That's why we focus so much on marksmanship - because no matter what round or bullet you shoot it has to hit the right spot to achieve the goal of incapacitating an attacker.
If you're worried about it, either go out and practice more or step up to a rifle (which has much better terminal ballistics).
If you're worried about it, either go out and practice more or step up to a rifle (which has much better terminal ballistics).
Doesn't make a bit of difference. There is no such thing as a gun/ammo combination that is effective 100% of the time.
With modern ammunition you are best served with any gun/caliber combination .38 special or larger. Choose the action type and caliber that fits your style of carry and that you shoot the best.
THERE ARE NO MAGIC BULLETS!
Training is the key to prevailing in the fight. Being able to make hits and having the will to stay in the fight until it's over are what counts. Caliber and bullet type are largely immaterial and irrelevant.
In the real world (as opposed to what Hollywood portrays) people don't always drop dead immediately upon being shot. Sometimes they might not even be aware they were shot until much later.
A study of actual shootings will give you examples of people who were shot multiple times with large caliber weapons and who even received fatal wounds and continued to function for a long time after they were hit.
And on the other hand you will find plenty of examples of people who were shot with .22s and .25s who dropped immediately dead.
There are simply too many variables that go into what some people consider "stopping power" to make any real conclusions about what is the best round to carry.
The best we can do is select the pistol/ammo combination that we handle the best and train with it.
FL-NC
Member
Accuracy is final, and there's a reason modern handguns hold more than 1 round.
George Dickel
Member
Wow, what a pair of brain dead morons!
MTMilitiaman
Member
You are operating on the false premise that a different caliber or round would have had a different effect. It may have, there is no guarantee. While inflicting a fatal wound on a human is not difficult it can be very difficult to stop a determined adversary. I've seen hrs of combat footage and self defense videos, read pages of first hand accounts, and studied terminal ballistics intensely as a shooter and a hunter all my life. I've heard a first hand account of a 100 lb VC soldier taking a .50 BMG round to the thigh/hip, and still dragging himself to his weapon, sitting upright, and firing his B40 towards his killer. I've read multiple first hand accounts of people taking 12 gauge rounds to the chest at indoor distances and remaining combat effective for fifteen to twenty seconds--an eternity in a gunfight.
Handguns are particularly inconsistent stoppers. The difference in wound cavity between a 9mm and a .45 these days is so small that even trained pathologists that see hundreds of GSW over the course of their careers usually can't tell the caliber of the round unless they recover the projectile with enough of its base in tact to get calipers around it. We were only ever talking about fractions of an inch. There is not enough difference in most pistol cartridges to appreciate. Handguns are handguns. If someone is hopped up on adrenaline and has the mindset to stay in the fight, they can take a lot more damage to stop than it takes to kill them. That is why regardless of whether you carry a 10mm Auto, a .45 ACP, or a .38 Special you should train to engage an assailant all the way to the ground and it might behoove you to train for failure drills/CNS hits at some point. If you watch enough of these defensive firefights you realize an extra round or two in the magazine seems to help more often than an extra .1 inch in caliber, which might be why the FBI led to charge converting back to the 9mm.
But bottom line, if dude just takes several 9mms or 40s, the chances that a .45 are going to be any more effective are very slim.
Nanook
Member
Back in the early '80's, an Illinois State trooper shot a criminal 15 times with an early 'wonder nine'. The guy kept coming.
I don't remember if he finally died, but imagine emptying your magazine and the guy doesn't stop.
I don't remember if he finally died, but imagine emptying your magazine and the guy doesn't stop.
CoalTrain49
Member
The dispute seems to be settled for now.
I guess when you pull a gun on somebody you better be prepared to use it.
I guess when you pull a gun on somebody you better be prepared to use it.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
This being S & T the lessons learned should be.
Don't get into gun fights over stupid stuff. No matter the caliber.
Either one of these yahoos could have chosen to avoid this. There can be no one in fear if only one person is there. Which brings in the avoiding stupid people, doing stupid things rule.
Some time discretion is the better part valor.
Just my .02 YMMV
Don't get into gun fights over stupid stuff. No matter the caliber.
Either one of these yahoos could have chosen to avoid this. There can be no one in fear if only one person is there. Which brings in the avoiding stupid people, doing stupid things rule.
Some time discretion is the better part valor.
Just my .02 YMMV
CoalTrain49
Member
That's one of the reasons.
less recoil, lower cost (both in ammunition and wear on the weapons) and higher functional reliability rates (in FBI weapons). Faster shot strings and better accuracy are two more reasons.
The miss rate in shootings by LEO is 70-80%.
Elkins45
Member
Maybe waving your gun in the air isn't the best way to communicate with your neighbors?
I'm curious about the presence of a video camera during this event. Why did he have a camera set up there?
I'm curious about the presence of a video camera during this event. Why did he have a camera set up there?
JTHunter
Member
Elkins45 - the camera may have set up there as that was the fence about which the guy on the tractor was complaining.
The strange part of it is that "tractor man" did NOT own the property on which he and the tractor were located. He rented a room in the house on that property!
The strange part of it is that "tractor man" did NOT own the property on which he and the tractor were located. He rented a room in the house on that property!
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
That was my first thought too. Its like it was just laying in the grass. Seems like he knew something was going to go down and chose to stick around and cover his own arse. Course that's pure speculation.
papaairbear
Member
IDK the calibers used, but here's an interesting report from the perspective of an emergency room physician.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/we...opping-power-myths-legends-and-realities.aspx
Aim small, for an area guaranteed to stop an actual threat, and be proficient enough to hit the spot.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/we...opping-power-myths-legends-and-realities.aspx
Aim small, for an area guaranteed to stop an actual threat, and be proficient enough to hit the spot.
redneck2
Member
Years ago I had a friend that worked in the hospital in Gary, IN. Had a guy that got shot 7 times with a 9mm.
Walked 2 blocks in the snow and collapsed in their ER. He was discharged 2 days later
Had another friend that got shot at point blank range in the back of the head. Bullet glanced and went around his skull under the skin
Walked 2 blocks in the snow and collapsed in their ER. He was discharged 2 days later
Had another friend that got shot at point blank range in the back of the head. Bullet glanced and went around his skull under the skin
....and the shooter will get into lots of trouble.
FL-NC
Member
Does anyone know where the rounds ended up hitting? As in location on the body? To me, THAT is the first question to ask.
I don't want to hijack a thread, so if the OP (or moderator) would rather I start a new thread, please say so and I'll copy/paste this into a new thread and delete the body of this entry. The other thought was to not have a second thread on the same subject. Kinda darned if you do, darned if you don't. But the below certainly doesn't answer the OP's question on what caliber was used. I certainly don't know.
I'm not going to pass final judgement on the shooter based on what I know of the event(s). Bottom line is this event probably shouldn't have happened. The shooter's wife being in the area complicates my understanding of who was in danger. But I'm not on a jury, so I don't have to decide. I just think, from what I know, that the whole incident was avoidable.
But, we have a video that we can analyze. And it seems we should. There is probably a lesson to be learned if we exclude the two personalities and the history between the two. I'd like to focus just on the events shown in the video. Yes, what I'm suggesting is a form of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't want to prosecute or defend the actual event. The legal system will do that. I want, as a group, to learn as much as we can from the video. Think of it like a training video for a self defense course.
I have some pre-conceived ideas of self defense, duty to retreat, and stand your ground (I hate the name "stand your ground"). Those ideas may well be wrong. First off, Indiana doe have a stand your ground law that states, in part, the following:
Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-41-3-2
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
We may have to take the person's wife out of the picture for our discussion. We don't have enough information on her location and how much jeapardy she was in. (That's also the reason I don't want to make a final judgment on the person who shot. Seems like some ego and bad blood was involved in this incident, but I wasn't there and I haven't been charged with the responsibility to determine guilt or innocence).
After the man on the tractor pulls his firearm I count 4 seconds before the person shooting extracts his weapon and there seems to me to be the opportunity for him to retreat. And he does not.
I could be wrong on the following preconceived idea, but in the days before stand your ground a prosecutor might charge the person who shot based on the possibility of retreat. In other words, he could be justified in the shooting based on what happened first, but because he didn't take advantage the possible retreat he was guilty of a crime. And I thought that was the reason for "Stand Your Ground". To prevent a prosecutor or jury from determining that there was a path of retreat even though it wasn't thought of by the person shooting. Basically giving the person involved who doesn't have the time to ascertain all of the options the benefit of doubt that he did what he thought he had to do. Even if someone decides, with hours of research, that there was another way out. Kind of swing the pendulum in favor of the person defending himself.
Aren't there states that still have the duty to retreat? And if this occurred in one of those states, wouldn't the person shooting be in jeapardy of being charged with a crime being that he had 4 seconds before he pulled his weapon that he could have used to retreat from danger?
Personally I would have moved away quickly as soon as the firearm was displayed. That could be different if my wife was 10' away. That's the reason we have to take the wife out of this training lesson. We just don't/can't know how much jeapardy she might have been in.
The man on the tractor seemed to only display his handgun. The commentators in the linked newscast made mention that the man on the tractor made a separate aggressive gesture just before the first shot was fired that I don't see in the video. Unless someone else sees the added gesture, Then please bring it up. I don't necessarily want to discuss display vs. point unless someone thinks it is important. My position is, for now, pulling and displaying a weapon is the same as pointing it at me. I don't think most people would feel they have the time to decide IF you are going to point it at them. If someone thinks that is important to the discussion, pleas say so. And we'll discuss.
I'm not going to pass final judgement on the shooter based on what I know of the event(s). Bottom line is this event probably shouldn't have happened. The shooter's wife being in the area complicates my understanding of who was in danger. But I'm not on a jury, so I don't have to decide. I just think, from what I know, that the whole incident was avoidable.
But, we have a video that we can analyze. And it seems we should. There is probably a lesson to be learned if we exclude the two personalities and the history between the two. I'd like to focus just on the events shown in the video. Yes, what I'm suggesting is a form of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't want to prosecute or defend the actual event. The legal system will do that. I want, as a group, to learn as much as we can from the video. Think of it like a training video for a self defense course.
I have some pre-conceived ideas of self defense, duty to retreat, and stand your ground (I hate the name "stand your ground"). Those ideas may well be wrong. First off, Indiana doe have a stand your ground law that states, in part, the following:
Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-41-3-2
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
We may have to take the person's wife out of the picture for our discussion. We don't have enough information on her location and how much jeapardy she was in. (That's also the reason I don't want to make a final judgment on the person who shot. Seems like some ego and bad blood was involved in this incident, but I wasn't there and I haven't been charged with the responsibility to determine guilt or innocence).
After the man on the tractor pulls his firearm I count 4 seconds before the person shooting extracts his weapon and there seems to me to be the opportunity for him to retreat. And he does not.
I could be wrong on the following preconceived idea, but in the days before stand your ground a prosecutor might charge the person who shot based on the possibility of retreat. In other words, he could be justified in the shooting based on what happened first, but because he didn't take advantage the possible retreat he was guilty of a crime. And I thought that was the reason for "Stand Your Ground". To prevent a prosecutor or jury from determining that there was a path of retreat even though it wasn't thought of by the person shooting. Basically giving the person involved who doesn't have the time to ascertain all of the options the benefit of doubt that he did what he thought he had to do. Even if someone decides, with hours of research, that there was another way out. Kind of swing the pendulum in favor of the person defending himself.
Aren't there states that still have the duty to retreat? And if this occurred in one of those states, wouldn't the person shooting be in jeapardy of being charged with a crime being that he had 4 seconds before he pulled his weapon that he could have used to retreat from danger?
Personally I would have moved away quickly as soon as the firearm was displayed. That could be different if my wife was 10' away. That's the reason we have to take the wife out of this training lesson. We just don't/can't know how much jeapardy she might have been in.
The man on the tractor seemed to only display his handgun. The commentators in the linked newscast made mention that the man on the tractor made a separate aggressive gesture just before the first shot was fired that I don't see in the video. Unless someone else sees the added gesture, Then please bring it up. I don't necessarily want to discuss display vs. point unless someone thinks it is important. My position is, for now, pulling and displaying a weapon is the same as pointing it at me. I don't think most people would feel they have the time to decide IF you are going to point it at them. If someone thinks that is important to the discussion, pleas say so. And we'll discuss.
IMO the guy that "defended" himself should have left and just called the cops instead of staying and arguing. It also seemed to me as if the fireman started to walk away or retreat when the gun was starting to be pulled from the belt but decided to fight.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I have been told repeatedly that the best way to avoid being murdered is to avoid having arguments or otherwise associating with quarrelsome people who have given you trouble in the past.
HankR
Member
But tomorrow's Monday and we all gotta go back to work...
News story I saw said no charges would be filed. It looked to me like the guy who was on foot knew what the mower guy would do, and set him up so he'd have an excuse. This has probably started to happen a few times before (hence the camera). Not that mower-guy was in the right, but pedestrian guy had a chance to walk away, and even acted as if he was going to do so for a moment. Of course, I don't know "the rest of the story".
Mn Fats
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 2,372
My thoughts as well. It seemed somewhat predetermined. Speculation doesn't go far but, come on now. Its plain as day this could have been avoided. Two hot headed idiots.
- Status
