Watch your mirrors

Status
Not open for further replies.
a friend of mine posted this vid earlier on FB.
I normally carry in condition 3. This makes me want to re-consider that stance. There simply was not enough time to rack the slide there.

*graphic video warning* btw
 
raddiver said:
a friend of mine posted this vid earlier on FB.
I normally carry in condition 3. This makes me want to re-consider that stance. There simply was not enough time to rack the slide there.

*graphic video warning* btw
Click to expand...
Same way at home, I used to keep the .45 acp with nothing in the snout. No more, if in the middle of the night, I do not want to be wake up badly spooked and trying to rack one in.
 
I wouldn't make changes to your normal routine without the proper training based on this video. If you can't have the presence of mind to rack the slide before you start shooting, hang fire, you might want to consider things a little more closely.
 
In Illinois, our "container carry" provisions allow us to carry in a case, fanny pak, etc., BUT the magazine can't be in the gun and none in the chamber.
:banghead:
 
CSG

I don't think you watched the video too closely. Perp #1 did not have a round in the chamber, when he broke free after he got shot, he tried to work the slide, but too late. The only thing that saved the victim's life was he grabbed the free left hand of perp #1, preventing him from working the slide on his pistol before he got his into action.

And you may consider for yourself, you know nothing about me, so spare me the advice. I knew long before this video, when nano seconds count, don't waste a single one racking the slide.

It is the same for when the wife and I carry, both pistols are in condition 1.
 
Last edited:
Don't understand why the bg didn't have a round chambered, maybe he wasn't planning on shooting. Glad it turned out that way. One thing I'm not sure about is the victim kicking the bg's gun away, I thought it was a bad idea to mess with the crime scene.
 
At 06:22 on February 3rd (if that's how they display their Month/Day), the world became a slightly safer place.

Kudos for cleaning up the trash, mystery man.
 
Another observation:

The perp changes his mind and is trying to flee, but the guy in the Jeep keeps shooting. A good prosecutor would invite an American jury watching this video to consider whether the perp (he'll say "victim") would still be alive (assuming he is dead) if the Jeep driver had adhered to the principle of shooting to end the threat.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that it's questionable that he needed to keep firing at the perp's back.
 
Continue the attack? Not likely. That might make a defense that would stand up to the reasonable doubt argument, but if I were a juror I'd be unconvinced by it.

The attacker(s) clearly did not expect their target to fight back, let alone with a gun. Like most street thugs, these guys were cowards intent on leveraging their guns to get their way. That obviously doesn't work when the target is armed and prepared to defend himself.
 
Last edited:
A good defense lawyer, could also point out that the threat was NOT gone, when the perp. attempted to move away from the line of fire.

Simply moving away from the line of fire cannot be constituted as "fleeing". He also still had a firearm (weapon) in his hand = an active threat.

Remember, he was the aggressor. What guarantee is there, that his attack was ending?

He could easily have been trying to get to a better vantage point to shoot back.

Who's to say that once the perp. got to that protective building corner, that he and his buddy-accomplice, were not going to double their efforts and attack again (both of them armed) = 2 against 1, utilizing cover advantage.
 
Last edited:
One should also point out that the video clearly shows an accomplice, who disappeared back around the corner.

The man took on the threat and continued engagement until he had positively verified the threat no longer existed. This is the way we're supposed to react when it comes to deadly force. We engage with deadly force when required and, when the engagement permits, we scan the area looking for additional threats. Only after positively verifying those threats do not exist do we stand down.

Yes, I've no doubt that a jury MAY be swayed that the perp was fleeing and should not have been shot. However, a decent defense attorney can easily counter that by the simple demonstration of the physical and time constraints involved in the method of attack and defense.
 
hang fire said:
I don't think you watched the video too closely. Perp #1 did not have a round in the chamber, when he broke free after he got shot, he tried to work the slide, but too late. The only thing that saved the victim's life was he grabbed the free left hand of perp #1, preventing him from working the slide on his pistol before he got his into action.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are seeing either.

I have watch the clip multiple times and I don't see BG #1 making any attempt to rack the slide.

When he broke free, he was falling and his left hand just happens to cross his body...possibly to break his fall or push himself back up.

What saved the victim was that BG #1 expected more intimidation value from his pointing a gun in the victims face. You can tell he wasn't trying to rack the slide of his gun, because he was using his left hand to fend off the hand the victim extended out the SUV window...which he also didn't expect
 
While I was out and about, t occurred to me that it was odd that the victim didn't have his gun already drawn...as he obviously saw the gun approaching in his mirror. That way he could have met the first appearance of the BG's gun with gunfire.

Depending on your location and local laws, a good course of action would be to draw your gun and hold it beneath window level, across your body and pointed toward the door. When you see the BG's gun, all you have to do is lift the muzzle above the door panel and onto target.

If there is no threat, the gun is still out of view and can be re-holstered after he walks away.
 
Watching this earlier and having on my mind on and off all day makes me want to practice more weak hand. I'm a lefty, and that scenario is harder left handed.
 
Watching the early part of the video makes me suspect that the victim noticed the silver car that passed slowly and apparently parked just out of sight.

I think that a longer section of video would likely show that car circling the block waiting for the victim to leave.
The perp changes his mind and is trying to flee, but the guy in the Jeep keeps shooting. A good prosecutor would invite an American jury watching this video to consider whether the perp (he'll say "victim") would still be alive (assuming he is dead) if the Jeep driver had adhered to the principle of shooting to end the threat.
Click to expand...
Things happen VERY fast in a situation like this. While one is required to stop using deadly force when the threat no longer exists, the defender is not required to have superhuman abilities, nor is instantaneous response mandatory.

The entire situation from the time the attacker arrived at the car door until the last shot was fired lasted perhaps 5 seconds and the defender was essentially shooting over his shoulder for most of that time as opposed to getting a clear view of what was going on. It would be, in my opinion, very difficult to sell the idea that he kept shooting too long to a jury. With more than one attacker and ready cover just a step or two away for the primary attacker, it wouldn't be wise to assume that the attacker is simply going to run away. It would be perfectly reasonable to make the assumption that he was retreating to cover since to do otherwise could put one's life in jeopardy.

Furthermore, shooting one or two more shots than some might consider to be perfectly ideal in the heat of an exchange like the one in the video is very understandable and I have a hard time believing a jury would think otherwise.
 
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that it's questionable that he needed to keep firing at the perp's back.
Click to expand...

If the criminal still has a firearm, and is in range, then he's likely still a threat. It would be another matter if the criminal put up his hands, threw down the gun, and THEN ran. But it seems clear that the citizen had to kick away the firearm from the body, indicating that it was in the perp's hand right up to the end.

In short, just because someone is running away does not mean he can't shoot behind himself, or twist slightly and kill you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Cop in Melee with Gun Drawn
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Quaamik
Q
T
  • Locked
A Challenge for Those Who Are Interested: Single-shot Speed Shooting
Replies
9
Views
512
1911 guy
1911 guy
P
  • Locked
Where Do You Put Your Trigger Finger?
2
Replies
34
Views
800
JoeSlomo
J
P
  • Locked
Shooting the Bad Guy Off Your Gun & Other Stuff
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
mortablunt
M
P
  • Locked
AAR Video: Close Range Gunfighting class w/ Suarez Intl and Michael Swisher
Replies
1
Views
194
Al Thompson
A
Back
Top