centurion94
Member
Saw this in training a while back. Above poster is correct - this was a gang-on-gang shooting. This was shown in part to demonstrate an unwillingness to surrender and a commitment to keep fighting.
Raw footage: 2 vs 1 in mall (WARNING: Graphic violence)
- Thread starter conw
- Start date
- Status
I think the tool-centric mentality exhibited in this thread ("maybe if someone had more gun, maybe if they had a better holster," etc) is more or less what got this guy killed. He went for his gun when he should have been doing other positional things, and fighting things.
I will grant that he may have been partially immobilized but I doubt it.
I will grant that he may have been partially immobilized but I doubt it.
Mindset & skillset are important, no doubt, but if the dead thug had a proper toolset at his disposal (gun belt, proper holster), he may not have ended up dead.
If shooter #1 had a reliable firearm, the gunfight wouldn't have turned into a melee.
If shooter #2 had enough gun, he could have ended the melee with the contact shot to the head. If he'd had a knife, he could have ended the melee with significantly less risk to his friend.
Gear isn't the only consideration here, obviously, but it's worth examining.
R
If shooter #1 had a reliable firearm, the gunfight wouldn't have turned into a melee.
If shooter #2 had enough gun, he could have ended the melee with the contact shot to the head. If he'd had a knife, he could have ended the melee with significantly less risk to his friend.
Gear isn't the only consideration here, obviously, but it's worth examining.
R
royal barnes
Member
After looking at the video several times I realized the victim was shot last by his own gun!
JustinJ
Member
I think that is a very important aspect to consider given that being attacked in such a way is extremely unlikely if not involved in gang or other criminal activity.
Michael R.
Member
Do you think if this gentleman could have been carrying a cane he could have whacked the BGs in the head and hurt them, which would in turn allow him to get his gun? Pepper spray would have been nice to have too, but in situations like that it is hard to reach for something while you are being beaten/shot to death.
Ankeny said:
Clearly he should have given up; I guess he fought too long, and could have saved the effort by just rolling over and dying.
What do you want me to say, that he should give up, or that we should cultivate an attitude of failure? The guy was struggling pretty hard after being shot (and there is reason to think it was .380 instead of .40, which I don't really care about anyway); I think he was scared out of his mind, and didn't have any kind of foundation on which to make decisions.
Gunshot wounds are quite survivable and he clearly had a lot of fight in him until he was shot with his own gun. Ergo he would have been better off NOT drawing the gun. HAD he drawn the gun from a better position, he might not have had it taken.
If we take for the sake of argument that he couldn't get up, and couldn't have avoided following down, there is a most-excellent way of shooting from the retention position in a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu guard (somewhat ironic actually), which allows you to tie up and imbalance a standing person while using your own gun successfully (i.e. not having it taken).
No one will probably ever know whether he could have gotten up or used his legs to grapple better, but we can learn from his mistakes or inability. And I can say from having taken some very high quality force on force classes that all of his responses are very common untrained ones, so it's not very productive to say "Well this wouldn't happen to non-gang-members," or "He didn't have a chance, he was center-punched." Fact is that trained responses could have saved his life, and it never hurts to be over-prepared.
As others have said this is what a FIGHT can look like...if your training doesn't include scenarios like this you are not a well-rounded SD practitioner. I don't care if they're unwinnable, and I'm sick of people suggesting we should roll over, pee, and die in "unwinnable" situations.
Here is the most reliable account I have found, which was confirmed by a Portuguese-speaking acquaintance who had seen the video, also. This was apparently translated BTW.
He was accused of being involved in the murder of a woman, and this happened. I guess now, we'll be hearing that "This wouldn't happen in the USA," seeing as we can no longer comfort ourselves by saying he was surely a gang-member. It's possible, but I'll stick with the null hypothesis.
Last edited:
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
This could absolutely happen in the USA and I have no doubt similar events already have. With the rise of Central American gangs like MS13 and the Zetas, brutal violence from many against one is going to keep rising, especially in border states. A well rounded self defense training program is really the only way to give yourself the best chances if something like that happens to you. Obviously an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but if the prevention fails and you do find yourself in a situation like that, it would be best to have at least some plan and some practice to back it up. I'm not saying every gun owner here needs to start working out and training like Special Forces. But clearly a few rounds at stationary targets from the ol' .38 isn't quite up to speed. There has to be something in between being a Ranger, and being a Fudd-type gun owner who has no plan and no training to fall back on.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, my take away is that even with a gun already in his face, the guy on the ground needed a good, clean draw more than he needed a fast draw.
beatledog7
Member
Brutal, and very real. Gangs often reward their members for carrying out killings such as this, and even consider such rituals as rites of passage.
Once the deceased was targeted, there was never going to be a path to survival.
Once the deceased was targeted, there was never going to be a path to survival.
Averageman
Member
I think by the time the two came in the door the deal was pretty much done.
My understanding was he was shot multiple times before the door opened and the two on one started.
It's pretty hard to give an opinion when most of the action occured out of view.
That guy needed time (to draw) and space (to draw and or get out of Dodge) and his atacker gave him neither.
I would like to think, I could have, would have used my legs to kick him back far enough to draw and fire from the floor. Hard to tell if you already have a couple of bullets in your ten ring by that time.
My understanding was he was shot multiple times before the door opened and the two on one started.
It's pretty hard to give an opinion when most of the action occured out of view.
That guy needed time (to draw) and space (to draw and or get out of Dodge) and his atacker gave him neither.
I would like to think, I could have, would have used my legs to kick him back far enough to draw and fire from the floor. Hard to tell if you already have a couple of bullets in your ten ring by that time.
Marlin60Man
Member
Okay, this is what I saw...
Between 10-12 seconds the man enters the store and stumbles to the ground, with a large pool of blood hitting the floor before him.
At 14 seconds the gunman in white ( WHD ) experiences a jam, and you can see the victim struggling to get to his firearm.
At 16 seconds WHD notices the victim trying to retrieve a firearm, and unable to clear his own weapon, simply begins to beat and keep the victim from getting his weapon.
At 20 seconds you can see WHD's pistol slide across the floor where his partner in green (GHD) picks it up. Did he drop it or did he give up possession so he could have better control of the victim's hand?
At 22-24 seconds you can clearly see WHD maintaining control over the victim's arms, presumably keeping him from using his firearm. At this point GHD comes over and attempts to shoot the victim in the head, but was off by a little--you can even see the victim grasp his head where it must have grazed or got burned by powder.
At 34 seconds the victim is clearly losing strength, but WHD is still struggling to get possession of his weapon. GHD is standing close by, apparently at a loss of what to do, presumably unwilling to shoot at this moment in fear of hitting his partner.
At 40 seconds GHD sees a clean open shot and proceeds to take it 3-4 shots to the victim's torso, the victim finally loses control of his gun. WHD follows up with 6-8 more shots to the upper body and possibly the head. The victim finally loses consciousness.
What I find important about this is that the victim spent too much time trying to maintain his weapon. In all the time he spent struggling trying to maintain control over it, he was being shot. He could have instead used that time to try to gain distance between he and the attackers. That's about the only thing I could think of he could have done differently, and even then is only really apparent in hindsight. If it was me on the ground and I had to choose between keeping my gun and fighting or letting it go and trying to run I'm not sure which I'd choose.
It also points out how unpredictable "shot placement" is even at ridiculously close ranges. GHD had the pistol almost touching the victim's head and each shot was only a grazing wound at best--at least there was no obvious disruption of the CNS and an instantly-dead-guy, there's no telling what damage those shots may have actually done.
Between 10-12 seconds the man enters the store and stumbles to the ground, with a large pool of blood hitting the floor before him.
At 14 seconds the gunman in white ( WHD ) experiences a jam, and you can see the victim struggling to get to his firearm.
At 16 seconds WHD notices the victim trying to retrieve a firearm, and unable to clear his own weapon, simply begins to beat and keep the victim from getting his weapon.
At 20 seconds you can see WHD's pistol slide across the floor where his partner in green (GHD) picks it up. Did he drop it or did he give up possession so he could have better control of the victim's hand?
At 22-24 seconds you can clearly see WHD maintaining control over the victim's arms, presumably keeping him from using his firearm. At this point GHD comes over and attempts to shoot the victim in the head, but was off by a little--you can even see the victim grasp his head where it must have grazed or got burned by powder.
At 34 seconds the victim is clearly losing strength, but WHD is still struggling to get possession of his weapon. GHD is standing close by, apparently at a loss of what to do, presumably unwilling to shoot at this moment in fear of hitting his partner.
At 40 seconds GHD sees a clean open shot and proceeds to take it 3-4 shots to the victim's torso, the victim finally loses control of his gun. WHD follows up with 6-8 more shots to the upper body and possibly the head. The victim finally loses consciousness.
What I find important about this is that the victim spent too much time trying to maintain his weapon. In all the time he spent struggling trying to maintain control over it, he was being shot. He could have instead used that time to try to gain distance between he and the attackers. That's about the only thing I could think of he could have done differently, and even then is only really apparent in hindsight. If it was me on the ground and I had to choose between keeping my gun and fighting or letting it go and trying to run I'm not sure which I'd choose.
It also points out how unpredictable "shot placement" is even at ridiculously close ranges. GHD had the pistol almost touching the victim's head and each shot was only a grazing wound at best--at least there was no obvious disruption of the CNS and an instantly-dead-guy, there's no telling what damage those shots may have actually done.
I will play devil's advocate since so many here know exactly what would have been the perfect solution while safely watching it from a great vantage point:
I think the victim did a pretty good job, even though he lost and didn't take an attacker with him.
He was running from two men armed with handguns. Apparently he was on a bike before falling and having these two men chase him, perhaps he started being shot from his bike?
He is clearly shot at entering the doors, and in real life bullet holes to a torso rarely immediately start pouring out that kind of blood especially with clothing to absorb blood, which leads me to believe he had already been shot some time prior to being shot at the doorway.
He went down, and went for his gun.
Now with perfect hindsight we know the primary attacker's weapon jams at this point, leaving more time for some sort of action, and the second attacker didn't follow up immediately thinking his partner had the execution of the downed individual covered not expecting his gun jammed.
However had that not happened, had the first attacker's gun continued to fire the victim had only a second to react, and going for his gun was a good choice of action.
Now we know that wouldn't have mattered because it took him so long to get his gun out from his sweater that he would have been executed if the first attackers weapon was not jammed.
However from what he knew with 2 armed men closing on him, had he been faster, going for his gun was an option of greater success than spending a couple seconds trying to get back up wounded before going for his gun.
If those two had continued to close on him as they were at the start, and one not backed off and the other had their gun jam, he would have been executed on the ground a second later.
This means in hindsight doing something else besides going for his gun on the ground would have have been a better course of action for the victim, but without those key factors he was unaware of and which typically wouldn't have happened, it may have been more likely to get him killed.
We have a greater vantage point up high to see what is happening than the shot victim with an earlier adrenaline dump, tired, who just ran a distance and got shot multiple times, and who is seeing what is happening from the ground, with a body may not be doing things exactly as he wants due to multiple bullet holes...
He then is trying to get up while fighting for his gun, grabbing his attacker and moving his feet, but is slipping on his blood and cannot gain enough traction to get his feet planted on the ground without giving up his gun.
Things you could do normally might not work with several rounds in you, a hole in your lung, and who knows what injury just from his falls.
He did a good job, if he had been able to get to his gun he may have done better.
Now the first attacker in white also showed some critical thinking. Unable to quickly clear his jammed weapon, after using it as a club, he threw it to his thug buddy, removing it from the fight and freeing up his second hand to allow him to keep from being shot by his victim. That is someone who was thinking on the move, because the last thing many people would do is relinquish their weapon.
That shows someone used to teamwork, as he then was relying on his thug buddy to get in there quickly and put an end to their victim who was trying to shoot him with a gun they were fighting over.
His thug buddy was at first slow, and that could have easily resulted in the first attacker's death had the victim managed to get off some shots with his gun. But his thug buddy didn't disappoint and quickly got in shots without hitting his partner, including the obvious one to the back of the head. Keeping his partner from getting killed by the gun they were fighting over, and eliminating the chance of the victim turning the tables and regaining control of his weapon.
While I can certainly cite many better courses of action as a spectator after the fact, in perfect health and with clear thought, one must acknowledge what was accomplished by victim and attackers in the situation.
There is things to consider from both victim and attacker's perspective in this.
From the victims perspective is obvious, as it pertains to self defense. But from the attacker's perspective, an officer pursuing a suspect could find themselves in a very similar situation, with the suspect going for a gun, their gun jammed, lost during the pursuit jumping over fences, or their own gun even the gun in the criminal's hands after they took it form their holster etc A split second decision and less than optimal circumstances are part of reality.
The second thug buddy could just as easily have been a second officer, trying to keep his partner from being shot by the gun the suspect and officer are fighting over. In which case quickly maneuvering for a shot to stop the fight before the suspect manages to shoot his partner, without hitting his partner with his own gunfire, would also be necessary.
Likewise family or friends could find themselves in a situation with a home invader or other criminal with a loved one struggling with the criminal over a gun, and need to take a similar quick course of action. The sooner that course of action the less likely the tables are turned and the loved one gets shot.
For those saying the victim should have had a holster, yes that may have helped. However also keep in mind he may have lost his gun before that point with many common holsters. He both fell from a bike, ran a distance, and then hit doors and the ground before then. I can easily see a gun coming out of many holsters and sliding across the ground under those circumstances.
I think the victim did a pretty good job, even though he lost and didn't take an attacker with him.
He was running from two men armed with handguns. Apparently he was on a bike before falling and having these two men chase him, perhaps he started being shot from his bike?
He is clearly shot at entering the doors, and in real life bullet holes to a torso rarely immediately start pouring out that kind of blood especially with clothing to absorb blood, which leads me to believe he had already been shot some time prior to being shot at the doorway.
He went down, and went for his gun.
Now with perfect hindsight we know the primary attacker's weapon jams at this point, leaving more time for some sort of action, and the second attacker didn't follow up immediately thinking his partner had the execution of the downed individual covered not expecting his gun jammed.
However had that not happened, had the first attacker's gun continued to fire the victim had only a second to react, and going for his gun was a good choice of action.
Now we know that wouldn't have mattered because it took him so long to get his gun out from his sweater that he would have been executed if the first attackers weapon was not jammed.
However from what he knew with 2 armed men closing on him, had he been faster, going for his gun was an option of greater success than spending a couple seconds trying to get back up wounded before going for his gun.
If those two had continued to close on him as they were at the start, and one not backed off and the other had their gun jam, he would have been executed on the ground a second later.
This means in hindsight doing something else besides going for his gun on the ground would have have been a better course of action for the victim, but without those key factors he was unaware of and which typically wouldn't have happened, it may have been more likely to get him killed.
We have a greater vantage point up high to see what is happening than the shot victim with an earlier adrenaline dump, tired, who just ran a distance and got shot multiple times, and who is seeing what is happening from the ground, with a body may not be doing things exactly as he wants due to multiple bullet holes...
He then is trying to get up while fighting for his gun, grabbing his attacker and moving his feet, but is slipping on his blood and cannot gain enough traction to get his feet planted on the ground without giving up his gun.
Things you could do normally might not work with several rounds in you, a hole in your lung, and who knows what injury just from his falls.
He did a good job, if he had been able to get to his gun he may have done better.
Now the first attacker in white also showed some critical thinking. Unable to quickly clear his jammed weapon, after using it as a club, he threw it to his thug buddy, removing it from the fight and freeing up his second hand to allow him to keep from being shot by his victim. That is someone who was thinking on the move, because the last thing many people would do is relinquish their weapon.
That shows someone used to teamwork, as he then was relying on his thug buddy to get in there quickly and put an end to their victim who was trying to shoot him with a gun they were fighting over.
His thug buddy was at first slow, and that could have easily resulted in the first attacker's death had the victim managed to get off some shots with his gun. But his thug buddy didn't disappoint and quickly got in shots without hitting his partner, including the obvious one to the back of the head. Keeping his partner from getting killed by the gun they were fighting over, and eliminating the chance of the victim turning the tables and regaining control of his weapon.
While I can certainly cite many better courses of action as a spectator after the fact, in perfect health and with clear thought, one must acknowledge what was accomplished by victim and attackers in the situation.
There is things to consider from both victim and attacker's perspective in this.
From the victims perspective is obvious, as it pertains to self defense. But from the attacker's perspective, an officer pursuing a suspect could find themselves in a very similar situation, with the suspect going for a gun, their gun jammed, lost during the pursuit jumping over fences, or their own gun even the gun in the criminal's hands after they took it form their holster etc A split second decision and less than optimal circumstances are part of reality.
The second thug buddy could just as easily have been a second officer, trying to keep his partner from being shot by the gun the suspect and officer are fighting over. In which case quickly maneuvering for a shot to stop the fight before the suspect manages to shoot his partner, without hitting his partner with his own gunfire, would also be necessary.
Likewise family or friends could find themselves in a situation with a home invader or other criminal with a loved one struggling with the criminal over a gun, and need to take a similar quick course of action. The sooner that course of action the less likely the tables are turned and the loved one gets shot.
For those saying the victim should have had a holster, yes that may have helped. However also keep in mind he may have lost his gun before that point with many common holsters. He both fell from a bike, ran a distance, and then hit doors and the ground before then. I can easily see a gun coming out of many holsters and sliding across the ground under those circumstances.
Last edited:
Mikhail Weiss
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 508
Well, here's what I see.
(1) Staying on the ground is fatal. Victim never got back to his feet after stumbling inside. Thus he could not move effectively – run away, for instance – and was killed for it. (Yes, maybe his initial wound(s) made it impossible to get on his feet.)
(2) Cowering is fatal. Victim could neither see the threat nor respond effectively to that which he did not see, e.g. White Hoodie Guy (WHG) walking up behind him with loaded gun and, later, entry of Accomplice. (No, he was not oblivious all the time, but the times during which he was may have been put to better use.)
(3) Slow access to weapon is fatal. Victim's weapon is not instantly available. He takes about 3 seconds, trying to draw the thing, while WHG, standing but one step away, tries to get his own gun working.
(4) Failure to seize opportunity is fatal. While WHG tries to make his own weapon operable, Victim has opportunity to jump and run but does not, remaining on ground. If Victim were incapable of jumping and running, kicking WHG off feet may have created opportunity for Victim to successfully draw his own weapon, and use it.
(5) Absence of fighting skill is fatal. Victim is unable to control WHG when WHG notices Victim's attempt to draw weapon, falls upon him, and commences to wrestle for weapon. Victim is further unable to control WHG or position himself when armed Accomplice closes to shoot him.
(6) Absence of backup weapon is fatal. Victim engages in a struggle for control of weapon, when having another readily available may have made the former less important, and may have saved him.
(7) Getting ambushed by multiple assailants is bad news.
(1) Staying on the ground is fatal. Victim never got back to his feet after stumbling inside. Thus he could not move effectively – run away, for instance – and was killed for it. (Yes, maybe his initial wound(s) made it impossible to get on his feet.)
(2) Cowering is fatal. Victim could neither see the threat nor respond effectively to that which he did not see, e.g. White Hoodie Guy (WHG) walking up behind him with loaded gun and, later, entry of Accomplice. (No, he was not oblivious all the time, but the times during which he was may have been put to better use.)
(3) Slow access to weapon is fatal. Victim's weapon is not instantly available. He takes about 3 seconds, trying to draw the thing, while WHG, standing but one step away, tries to get his own gun working.
(4) Failure to seize opportunity is fatal. While WHG tries to make his own weapon operable, Victim has opportunity to jump and run but does not, remaining on ground. If Victim were incapable of jumping and running, kicking WHG off feet may have created opportunity for Victim to successfully draw his own weapon, and use it.
(5) Absence of fighting skill is fatal. Victim is unable to control WHG when WHG notices Victim's attempt to draw weapon, falls upon him, and commences to wrestle for weapon. Victim is further unable to control WHG or position himself when armed Accomplice closes to shoot him.
(6) Absence of backup weapon is fatal. Victim engages in a struggle for control of weapon, when having another readily available may have made the former less important, and may have saved him.
(7) Getting ambushed by multiple assailants is bad news.
Mikhail Weiss said:
Had the first attacker's gun not jammed, and or the second attacker not stayed outside at first, the victim spending a couple seconds getting to his feet would have just resulted in him being shot multiple times, in the back or in the front depending on whether he tried to run away or attack.
He already had bullet holes in him, and would have just got some more in him in rapid succession.
Only because of those two circumstances, the gun jam of one attacker, and the second attacker not following indoors initially do we get to say getting to his feet would have been a better option.
Clearly it would have been, because everything just fell into place for that course of action, but he didn't know that was the case when he had to make his split second decision.
So in this case it would have allowed him to better engage the threats, but we must realize that is only because we can Monday morning quarterback with the benefit of hindsight and know he had several seconds to react, and not only .5-2 which was more likely.
His initial cowering was certainly a waste of time and didn't allow him to see what was going on, but that was his natural untrained human reaction thinking the final mag dump was coming at that second. Which it would have been had the other guy's gun not jammed.
Had the first attacker's gun not jammed, and or the second attacker not stayed outside at first, the victim spending a couple seconds getting to his feet would have just resulted in him being shot multiple times, in the back or in the front depending on whether he tried to run away or attack.
He already had bullet holes in him, and would have just got some more in him in rapid succession.
Only because of those two circumstances, the gun jam of one attacker, and the second attacker not following indoors initially do we get to say getting to his feet would have been a better option.
Clearly it would have been, because everything just fell into place for that course of action, but he didn't know that was the case when he had to make his split second decision.
So in this case it would have allowed him to better engage the threats, but we must realize that is only because we can Monday morning quarterback with the benefit of hindsight and know he had several seconds to react, and not only .5-2 which was more likely.
His initial cowering was certainly a waste of time and didn't allow him to see what was going on, but that was his natural untrained human reaction thinking the final mag dump was coming at that second. Which it would have been had the other guy's gun not jammed.
Last edited:
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
Those two men were trying to kill that third plain and simple. For whatever reason, gang related, I don't care, that was a hit. The third guy, he should have tried to get that pistol out faster, he might still be alive. He took a lot of lead before giving up though, a LOT. They stole some stuff off of him, but it was after the fact really. Probably because a hit would mean death because it would most definitely be premeditated, but how they did it, as a robbery, they can claim the murder "just happened" and get life or whatever. That's what I get from watching it a couple of times.
Let that be a lesson for you small calibre believers too. Unless you are a good shot under stress and know anatomy well, that small calibre pistol isn't the lighting bolt you think it is. These guys were TRYING to kill a man on the ground at point blank range with what look like maybe a 9mm and it took a while. It also looks like he got shot with his own pistol too, I could be wrong but that is what looks like happened during that struggle.
What the guy should have done differently? Have a holster and a plan to push the aggressors away while you draw and shoot. Don't give up your pistol EVER! The attacker's pistol failed --it looked like he was killed with his own pistol in the end. Lessons learned? Oh yeah, you betcha! And whatever happened outside, he should have drawn then, because I have a hard time believing that violence/robbery/murder/hit happened just like that. Follow your gut, always follow your gut. Judging by how long it took him to draw, I'd say he ignored his gut, took a few blows, then lost so much energy, mental and physical, to defend himself properly.
Thanks for posting that up. Some folks on here really needed to see that. My wife was upset, but I told her she needed to learn from it and not be emotional about it, you can't change it but you can learn from it. That's what real violence looks like folks, and that, in case you wondered, is how so many cops get killed with their own weapon, struggles just like that.
We need more videos like that to discuss on here, it is really the best way to learn. These hypothetical what if scenarios just don't cut it like this does. This happened, and it could happen to me and so what should I learn from this? That is a better way to learn, plus everyone is on the same page, no sematics involved.
Let that be a lesson for you small calibre believers too. Unless you are a good shot under stress and know anatomy well, that small calibre pistol isn't the lighting bolt you think it is. These guys were TRYING to kill a man on the ground at point blank range with what look like maybe a 9mm and it took a while. It also looks like he got shot with his own pistol too, I could be wrong but that is what looks like happened during that struggle.
What the guy should have done differently? Have a holster and a plan to push the aggressors away while you draw and shoot. Don't give up your pistol EVER! The attacker's pistol failed --it looked like he was killed with his own pistol in the end. Lessons learned? Oh yeah, you betcha! And whatever happened outside, he should have drawn then, because I have a hard time believing that violence/robbery/murder/hit happened just like that. Follow your gut, always follow your gut. Judging by how long it took him to draw, I'd say he ignored his gut, took a few blows, then lost so much energy, mental and physical, to defend himself properly.
Thanks for posting that up. Some folks on here really needed to see that. My wife was upset, but I told her she needed to learn from it and not be emotional about it, you can't change it but you can learn from it. That's what real violence looks like folks, and that, in case you wondered, is how so many cops get killed with their own weapon, struggles just like that.
We need more videos like that to discuss on here, it is really the best way to learn. These hypothetical what if scenarios just don't cut it like this does. This happened, and it could happen to me and so what should I learn from this? That is a better way to learn, plus everyone is on the same page, no sematics involved.
I didn't even imply that kind of nonsense. I have never believed in just giving up. Your sarcasm is misplaced. I just wanted to know what other positional and fighting things he should be doing rather than going for his own gun in an effort to return fire? It seems to me like he took what he thought was the best option and it just didn't work out. I doubt many would have thought, "Oh heck I better not draw my gun right now or I'll have it taken away and shoved up my behind."
Just so you know, I have been an incident commander (fire) for many years. I have seen dozens, make that hundreds, of deaths from trauma. I can not count the number of times I have watched people swirl the drain and die right in front of me. Level of consciousness, loss of motor skills, fear, adrenaline dumps, and so forth can really raise hell with decision making skills and the ability to physically continue the fight to survive. By all means, continue the fight, but the lesson to be learned here is when you are that far behind the curve, you are in it deep.
How on earth would you know that to be a fact?
Marlin60Man
Member
So... I'll offer up my armchair-warrior advice. He should have kept moving away while he was trying to get to his pistol. The attacker's weapon jammed and he was distracted, if he would have had even a few more feet of distance he may have been able to draw and fire before the attacker realized he was going for his weapon and closed in.
Even then I think at that point the guy was pretty much on the losing end even if he was able to get to his gun, so a little too little, too late.
Even then I think at that point the guy was pretty much on the losing end even if he was able to get to his gun, so a little too little, too late.
Mikhail Weiss
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 508
Nah. Two killers on Victim's heels are what makes flight seem a better option than remaining on the floor.
That he remained on the floor makes me think that he couldn't do otherwise, either due to wounds, or the discombobulation of extreme duress.
Yep. That was bound to happen no matter what he did. But running seems to offer a chance of getting shot less than remaining on the floor. Unfortunately, the victim didn't or couldn't run.
Thus immediate counterattack seem like a good idea, except Victim was not in a position to monitor activity of villains while he went for his own weapon, which was not readily available. This again makes me think he was either cursed with the most rotten of luck, debilitated by his wounds, or discombobulated by extreme duress. Probably the latter two.
Pretty much my thought as well. Unfortunately for the victim, things sure didn't pan out.
It seems like the victim retained his gun until the end. The pistol that rolled away was the jammed gun from white hood guy. The victim appears to be holding on to the snub revolver until the end.
The lesson here from the victim's perspective is practice your draw. The lessons from the assailant's view is know your gun, if you are going to rely on a junk gun might as well make it a revolver.
At such close range swinging a sharp folder would have created some distance for the victim to use the snub.
The lesson here from the victim's perspective is practice your draw. The lessons from the assailant's view is know your gun, if you are going to rely on a junk gun might as well make it a revolver.
At such close range swinging a sharp folder would have created some distance for the victim to use the snub.
jerrybegay
Member
thanks for the video, thanks for the imput, i've learn something from this site.
ColdDeadHand
Member
The lessons to be learned:
1) Always be ready.
2) What mall was that? DO NOT GO THERE.
3) DO NOT GO to any place like it.
1) Always be ready.
2) What mall was that? DO NOT GO THERE.
3) DO NOT GO to any place like it.
- Status