Body Armor: ridiculous or prudent?

[Chindo18Z]

Davis packed things like phone books or a stack of magazines under his vest to help further spread the blunt force trauma.

True, but this was at a time when he was essentially a one-man road show spreading the gospel of soft body armor (then a relatively new concept). Getting hit is no fun. Deliberately hitting yourself several times a week while attempting to generate sales? I can understand him "cheating" a little bit. Otherwise, he'd have been on bed rest recovery after a just few demonstrations.

His graphically demonstrated point was that armor would save your life and that you could still fight back after being hit...a point proven repeatedly in later actual saves of law enforcement and military. He also dispelled the myth that bullets would physically knock you down.

I had an instructor who was not a fan of body armor (late '70s) tell our class about a Federal agent in Chicago who took a center chest hit from a .44 Magnum (on very early light armor) and whose sternum was supposedly split. Our "expert" served that anecdote up as proof that blunt trauma was completely disabling and we should not even consider wasting time with armor.

I asked him what he thought would have happened had the guy not been wearing it? The agent had survived the shooting, BTW.

 

[DammitBoy]

All this talk about body armor has me wondering how many home invasion crews wear body armor?

Does the possiblity of a home invader wearing body armor cause any change to your home defense tactics?

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

Short answer: No

There are no home invasions going on in my section of the state, and certainly no "crews" doing that within driving distance. I wear body armor at work because my department requires it. The odds are it will never be needed. And if the odds are I won't need it at work, the odds are too great for me to ever need it at home.

I am more likely to be killed from a fall, getting struck by lightning, or from lethal x-rays due to not wearing a tinfoil hat.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

True, but this was at a time when he was essentially a one-man road show spreading the gospel of soft body armor (then a relatively new concept). Getting hit is no fun. Deliberately hitting yourself several times a week while attempting to generate sales? I can understand him "cheating" a little bit. Otherwise, he'd have been on bed rest recovery after a just few demonstrations.

Doesn't matter if he was a one man show or not. His demonstrations were representative of what happens to a person shot while wearing body armor and he was claiming that they were. The packing of the magazines and phone books eliminated the blunt force trauma that he otherwise would have experienced.

His graphically demonstrated point was that armor would save your life and that you could still fight back after being hit...a point proven repeatedly in later actual saves of law enforcement and military. He also dispelled the myth that bullets would physically knock you down.

It was known that body armor could save our life before Davis came along. Body armor has been around for several hundred years. He didn't dispell the myth that bullets would physically knock you down. When you pull the trigger on yourself, the action and equal and opposite reaction are occurring within a closed circuit.

As far as myths go, I liked Davis' myth that zylon was a superior material to kevlar despite knowing that zylon broke down considerably with heat and moisture and officers were getting penetrating wounds (one died) wearing zylon vests from Second Chance.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Second Chance went from being a great and innovative company to being one beset with fatal flaws and greed. They went out of business (for a time) as a result of their ineptitude and deserved their legal fate. The officers wearing Zylon didn't deserve theirs.

As far as the history of armor goes, Davis was almost singularly responsible for the widespread introduction of soft Kevlar armor into mainstream LEO circles in the USA...regardless of the fact that certain armor types had been occasionally worn by military or police in previous decades. Wear of Ned Kelly armor was an outlier...not a sustainable trend.

Prior to Second Chance's introduction of affordable Kevlar concealable vests, for practical purposes, American Law Enforcement patrol officers did not wear armor. Davis' efforts (obviously driven by profit motive) changed that universe. That process took decades, but I can remember when LEOs couldn't conceive of wearing armor and actively resisted efforts requiring them to do so. Same with .mil.

Second Chance didn't invent armor. They made it wearable, affordable, and acceptable. They created the market for practical armor and then supplied it.

 

[Hugo]

Interesting post Chindo18Z. I didn't know Second Chance went under for a time. They certainly did improve body armor a lot and make it practical.

I can understand Davis for putting magazines or phone books under the vest. Not a medic but getting shot every day or week over and over would probably kill you soon from very severe bruising alone. That or the repeatedly cracked ribs finally breaking and spearing your heart, major artery, or lungs. He probably had no choice but to do that.

Today lots of good and stable companies make body armor. Honeywell makes armor that even floats (at least the inserts).
Disclosure. I do own Honeywell stock. (40 whole shares, yay )

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

There was a poster in one of the first pages that mentioned that if armor were more available, it would become far more normal. True you can buy it online, but some places restrict to LEO, some don't. And I can't think of a single LGS that sells body armor except maybe a few flak jackets as war trinkets. If there were more stores selling it, it would probably be used and respected a lot more by civilians.

 

[Chindo18Z]

I think brick & mortar shop availability varies by state. I can pickup used but serviceable vests in almost any Army/Navy store or pawn shop in my area.

 

[cincinnatislim]

While I realize in most places there is no duty to flee danger in your own home I'm wondering what kind of legal repurcussions donning armor would have. Without a doubt the defense lawyer would argue, "The homeowner put on body armor before grabbing his gun and then going after my client. It was as if he wanted to kill someone and he geared up for battle before doing so. He obviously wasn't in fear of his own life anymore. He was looking for a fight at that point."

 

[Sam1911]

Without a doubt the defense lawyer would argue

That's the sort of argument that tends to make the lawyer look like a fool when any competent opposing counsel shreds him for such a statement. Or, when the judge calls him into chambers and requests that he stop wasting the court's time.

 

[cincinnatislim]

You don't think it would add a layer (no pun intended) of protection when they try to point out you were never in any danger?

 

[Sam1911]

I'm not sure I understand. If you had reason to grab a deadly weapon (gun), you certainly have cause to try to protect yourself as well. Don't see any way to "spin" the donning of a garment -- which would be almost impossible to harm anyone with -- into a more aggressive or inappropriate response than picking up a shotgun.

And them showing that you were never in real danger isn't the point. The point is that you establish that you, as a reasonable and prudent person, THOUGHT you were in danger, and that your belief was reasonable. In a great many states, the fact that someone has broken into your home is all the proof the court needs to accept that you were in danger. The fact that you put on a vest -- or boxers, or slippers -- doesn't enter into it. If anything, it helps to establish that you were quite convinced you faced a grave threat of death or grievous bodily injury.

I mean, really, does this pass the "sniff test?"

 

[cincinnatislim]

If you put on your body armor and your electronic muffs, do you have reason to be in fear of your life? Aren't you "protected" at that point?

I realize it's all situational and every incident is going to be different. But, I can see someone going to court after a home defense situation and being touted as "Rambo" looking for a criminal to shoot. "He heard something go bump in the night and instead of calling the police, he put on body armor, electronic ear muffs, and grabbed a shotgun before doing a tactical sweep of his house. If he was truly in fear for his life, your honor, wouldn't he have taken cover and called 9-1-1?"

I know this is far fetched, but there are probably prosecutors out there who could make the swtich from "home defense" to "opportunity to shoot."

While I'm not personally against it - I'll have my armor on! - I believe someone putting on armor and electronic muffs before they sweep their house leaves them open to prosecution.

 

[stumpers]

"protected"? From getting shot in the face? Or stabbed? Or choked to death?

Open to prosecution for wearing body armor when otherwise justified in a shooting doesn't even pass the laugh test.

"Gearing up for battle" against a violent aggressor in one's own home is totally legit in my mind, and anywhere with Castle Doctrine.

 

[Sam1911]

If you put on your body armor and your electronic muffs, do you have reason to be in fear of your life? Aren't you "protected" at that point?

Are you serious? With all due respect, do you own a gun? Do you shoot? This is not the kind of question someone should be asking if they are very familiar with firearms.

You know how many soldiers and police officers die every year while wearing soft armor -- or even hard armor? Plenty.

Like I said, this argument will be evicerated by the opposing counsel. The lawyer who tries this will be farther behind than if he'd just kept his mouth shut.

I realize it's all situational and every incident is going to be different. But, I can see someone going to court after a home defense situation and being touted as "Rambo" looking for a criminal to shoot. "He heard something go bump in the night and instead of calling the police, he put on body armor, electronic ear muffs, and grabbed a shotgun before doing a tactical sweep of his house. If he was truly in fear for his life, your honor, wouldn't he have taken cover and called 9-1-1?"

Well, he SHOULD take cover and SHOULD call 911. And from a "smarts" point of view, he SHOULDN'T go sweeping his house. The bad guy who caps him in the head as he passes a blind corner won't even notice the body armor until it's too late.

I know this is far fetched, but there are probably prosecutors out there who could make the swtich from "home defense" to "opportunity to shoot."

If you want to worry about that, you are free not to use armor. But it is a non-issue. If you have good counsel on your side, that horse won't get out of the starting gate.

 

[JustinJ]

You don't think it would add a layer (no pun intended) of protection when they try to point out you were never in any danger?

As stated already i think body armor is beyond 'reasonable security measures' for average american citizens however legal liability has nothing to do with my stance. I've read of cases in which prosecuting attorneys or civil lawyers have argued that a defendant was looking to kill because his weapon was loaded with hollow points. The obvious counter arguement being that unless almost all cops are blood thirsty it is unreasonable to say hollow points indicate any such thing. The exact same would apply to body armor.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I live a mile south of Detroit and I don't have body armor, at least not yet. If for some reason I lived in the inner-city, I wouldn't be without it. It's value is certainly not overstated.

 

[twofifty]

a helmet instead?

Much more likely to be life saving would be to wear a motorcycle helmet while driving a car to work or the mall.

 

[JustinJ]

Much more likely to be life saving would be to wear a motorcycle helmet while driving a car to work or the mall.

That's actually a very good point. Wearing a helmet while driving a car even would certainly do far more to protect somebody from harm, statistically speaking.

Speaking of risks and perspective, how many talking about spending money on body armor eat poorly or are too sedentary? Heart disease and cancer are far more likely to harm one than a home invader is to shoot them. I have to wonder if much of this security overkill is done simply because people enjoy doing it as opposed to because of realistic threat assesments.

 

[mbt2001]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs

Above video shows LA riots in '92. At 2:44 you will see one of the Koreans in a PASGT vest. While it might never get used it is something that is worthwhile to have. I am sure that guys friends thought that he was a loon when he bought that vest, but when the riots were going down and anything at all could happen I will guarantee that all his friends wished they had bought one too.

BTW, the point is that if you are interested in something, then there is nothing wrong with exploring it. People often want to draw lines about what is "acceptable" and what isn't. Life is to short, in the main, for that. I have some old kevlar vests and LBV gear, MOLLE gear, and so forth. Not because I ever really intend of using it, but because I have been interested in some of that gear at one time or another. I also like to buy vintage craftsman tools...

 

[X-Rap]

Above video shows LA riots in '92. At 2:44 you will see one of the Koreans in a PASGT vest. While it might never get used it is something that is worthwhile to have.

People who like them lived through it or watched and learned don't have such aversion to SHTF. It happens and in that case there wasn't a heck of a lot of notice or knowledge of how serious it would get.
I think there is a preparedness scale/continuum and armor is probably a few steps away from the basics but it is a relevant item that is worth considering.

 

[JustinJ]

Above video shows LA riots in '92. At 2:44 you will see one of the Koreans in a PASGT vest. While it might never get used it is something that is worthwhile to have. I am sure that guys friends thought that he was a loon when he bought that vest, but when the riots were going down and anything at all could happen I will guarantee that all his friends wished they had bought one too.

Is it not possible the guy works at a convenience store or other business prone to robbery so got it for the late night shifts?

 

[mortablunt]

I'm the guy who sees no problem with using a battle rifle for HD or as an everyday carry gun, and I think that body armor is ridiculous. I wouldn't advocate body armor at all unless you are in a troubled area with a gang problem or a crime problem. I wouldn't advocate for the hard plates type of armor unless you live around drug war territory. Now if you've got the money to put some basic Kevlar armor into a piece of clothing you wear frequently, like say a suit jacket, then that's acceptable. I'm thinking of how insane it would be to buy dedicated armor for in case of a break in. In general, if it requires taking extra kit, then it's at least a bit mad. Just one last thing to think about: there is also the fact that we all must deal with what the neighbors think, and that in case if you are every charged with anything, having what a vindictive prosecutor might dub an "arsenal" could be a serious liability.

 

[Sam1911]

Now if you've got the money to put some basic Kevlar armor into a piece of clothing you wear frequently, like say a suit jacket, then that's acceptable

Uh, we weren't really talking about going around every day wearing body armor in public just in case.

More like, if things are getting "insane" enough some evening that you would pick up a lethal weapon -- which obviously means you're contemplating and preparing for the possibility that you will KILL someone -- how can it possibly be a bad thing to slip on a simple soft-armor vest to maybe keep yourself from being killed?

In general, if it requires taking extra kit, then it's at least a bit mad.

Er...like maybe a gun and a flashlight? If you can slip on a soft vest in a couple of seconds, even more easily than you'd slip on a bathrobe, where is the "madness?"

there is also the fact that we all must deal with what the neighbors think

I don't think we were talking about wearing it out where the neighbors would see. Unless your neighbors are breaking into your home, in which case, I don't care what they'd think about it.

and that in case if you are every charged with anything, having what a vindictive prosecutor might dub an "arsenal" could be a serious liability.

Yeah. We kind of talked about that up a few posts back. You've got FIREARMS and AMMUNITION, and that's going to be reasonable, but if you add a soft vest -- like the kind they hand out to every police officer or sheriff's depute from NY City to Podunk, Utah -- that's going to make you look bad on the stand? Naaah. I don't buy it.

If it's dangerous enough that you might have to kill someone, it's certainly dangerous enough to warrant putting on a small piece of gear that might keep you alive.

You know we're talking about this:

Right?

Not this:

I'm the guy who sees no problem with using a battle rifle for HD or as an everyday carry gun

I'm not sure that's helping your credibility, really.

 

[Chindo18Z]

I'm the guy who sees no problem with using a battle rifle for HD or as an everyday carry gun, and I think that body armor is ridiculous.

Interesting observation.

Now if you've got the money to put some basic Kevlar armor into a piece of clothing you wear frequently, like say a suit jacket, then that's acceptable.

To whom?