Self defense failures?

[Loosedhorse]

A single car door offers NO protection against handgun rounds.

I didn't specify car doors in the quote you used. As has already been mentioned, perhaps the most likely aim point at a police car would be the windshield, which is sloped, laminated glass. One would expect at least significant deflection (and maybe defeat of the bullet, depending on the round).

As to the car door test: was the window retracted into the door? Was the door at an angle to the shooter? Were hollow-points (other than .45) used, or calibers below 9mm? What was the gel penetration (standard way we judge wounding potential) of the rounds that got into the interior?

If the tester sets up a worst possible scenario, that can be instructive--and nobody advocates using a car door as chosen cover. As "it happened to be there when the shooting started" cover, it's better than standing out there in the air.

Episodes of handguns fired into police cars are (thankfully) rare. Here's one from NY, 1995:

At the same time, the suspect fired at least 5 shots through the passenger-side open window with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. The officers returned fire; however, they did not hit the suspect. Three of the bullets fired by the suspect were embedded in the door on the driver’s side of the police car; one bullet went through the car’s rear left door, and one bullet grazed the bottom metal window rim of the driver’s door and then struck the victim officer in the left torso between his protective vest panels. [emphasis added]

So it seems, at least in this case, 3 rounds that hit the driver's door (from the inside, having been fired through the opposite open window) could not penetrate. Not sure I would rate that as "NO protection."

But your point is taken, and appreciated.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Loosed horse
DID YOU READ THE Box-O-Truth page???

Yes, there is
SOME
heavy metal support frames (well 3/16th bent sheet metal supports...)
but the car is skinned in a steel sheet that is measured in hundredths of an inch
it's kept thin for weight reduction, or in quite a few cars, it's plastic now.
then you have support/frame structures, the most consistent part of a car door is the plastic interior panel and upholstery.

point is, there's rather alot of room for a bullet to miss anything to stop it.
I can remember at least 2 stories of cops being saved by a metal pen carried in their breast pocket. But you won't find me wearing one and claiming to be bullet proof.

 

[MachIVshooter]

A slug is probably less lethal after traversing a car door, but it won't stop a bullet.

One of our test vehicles was a lowly Honda civic coupe, 1997 model.

We fired at it with .22 pistols, .22 rifles, .25 ACP, .380 ACP, 9x19mm, .40 S&W, 10mm, .45 ACP, .45 Colt, .454 Casull, .50 AE, .17 HM2, .223 Rem, .308 Win and .50 BMG.

I say again, of the common handgun rounds, they were stopped just as frequently as they penetrated. Obviously, the more powerful, higher velocity cartridges had higher success. Rifle rounds almost always got through (.223 were stopped a couple times).

There's a lot of junk inside a car door. Lot's of angles, too. If the bullet happens to impact a place where all it hits on the way through is the outer sheet metal (18-24 ga. usually) and the interior panel, it'll probably get through. But there aren't many places you can aim where that's all it'll impact. Even if the glass is up, there are still window regulators and motors, door handles and linkage, cross braces, etc. Newer cars have far more of this clutter than older ones, even though the body metal is thinner.

I wouldn't want to rely on a car door for ballistic protection, but

As "it happened to be there when the shooting started" cover, it's better than standing out there in the air.

is a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[Shadow 7D]

actually, behind the front wheels, or behind the rear wheel on the opposite side is the preferred place, the rubber and that distance between provide the most consistent concealment. The engine and two tires (only place were your legs are protected) stop more than a door.

 

[MachIVshooter]

actually, behind the front wheels, or behind the rear wheel on the opposite side is the preferred place, the rubber and that distance between provide the most consistent concealment. The engine and two tires (only place were your legs are protected) stop more than a door

Yes, if you can put the entire car between you and incoming rounds, you're pretty well protected.

Seems that, given the opportunity, engaged officers will usually do just that; They move to the rear. But, in many of the clips we see, the officer is engaged before he's completely out of the vehicle. Putting fire on the bad guy ASAP is probably the best tactic, and that probably means ducking behind the open door, as it is the nearest and most accessible "cover" that doesn't involve leaving him/herself completely exposed for a time.

 

[JERRY]

only the top notch police agencies do NOT look at the bottom dollar for patrol equipment. if product A is the best on the market that has been prooven, they get it.

every other agency picks the cheapest they can that will meet the bare minimum of an expected level of performance for gear.

 

[MachIVshooter]

only the top notch police agencies do NOT look at the bottom dollar for patrol equipment.

Oh, I think they still do. Some are just in very affluent communities and have a lot of money to play with; Lonetree, CO PD has Hummer H2's for patrol vehicles

 

[conw]

Guys...I know the Box O Truth isn't "scientific"...but it is enough to refutethat cars "do pretty well with handgun rounds."

Regarding the supposedly contrasting anecdote: Okay, fewer than half of the rounds someone shot into a car penetrated, there was deformation, etc...I thought we were talking about the viability of cars for preventing injury; I don't think that sounds like a very sound strategy, does it? If we are talking about trying to STOP someone when WE (the good guy(s)) are on the OUTSIDE of a car, I can understand calling that significant reduction, but it's nowhere near significant enough to try to say cars make good cover.

The example of 1 round out of 163 hitting a bad guy through a car is meaningless. You can find similar examples of (in)accuracy without the car even being in the equation.

BTW - The windshield, when shot from the outside, deflects rounds downward. If you shoot out of the windshield the rounds deflect upward.

 

[conw]

Putting fire on the bad guy ASAP is probably the best tactic, and that probably means ducking behind the open door, as it is the nearest and most accessible "cover" that doesn't involve leaving him/herself completely exposed for a time.

I agree with the first part. Unfortunately you can't simultaneously put fire on the bad guy and duck behind a door. That's a good way to get pinned down (as well as shot through the door). IMO decisive aggression, such as shooting through the windshield, is the preferred tactic when engaged from outside a car. Get HIM to move and stop shooting, then you get out of the door that makes the most sense and go from there.

 

[MachIVshooter]

but it's nowhere near significant enough to try to say cars make good cover.

Oh, I'd be pretty confident if I had the vehicle length-wise between myself and the shooter, or if I was on the opposite side of the engine compartment.

Shooting from the front of that Honda, not one round fired below windshield level made it to the rear of the car. That includes the .50 BMG AP rounds. Engines, transmissions, batteries, steering gears, wiper motors, master cylinders-all very good bullet stoppers.

If you've looked under the hood of a car lately, you'd see what a poor chance a bullet (even a rifle bullet) has of making it out the opposite side. The odds that the bullet won't hit something substantial that stops or completely deflects it are very, very slim.

Unfortunately you can't simultaneously put fire on the bad guy and duck behind a door.

The windshield, when shot from the outside, deflects rounds downward. If you shoot out of the windshield the rounds deflect upward.

That is also not a rule that holds fast. It all depends on the angles, the bullets, the velocity and the glass itself. Sometimes they do just the opposite, gouging the glass a ways before actually penetrating, and they are deflected upward when shooting from outside. We also had plenty of handgun bullets deflected completely by the windshield. Rifle bullets tended to zip through with very little (if any) deflection in our testing.

If there's one thing you can predict about the outcome of bullets vs. cars, it's that the outcome will be completely unpredictable.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Conwict, play paintball, you can use suppressive fire while moving to cover, short of a dead run, and even then I have been hit, and hit others going over BAD ground (25% grade with rocks from fist size to small car size)

Also when you hear people talking about maintaining the force of violence, I have seen a guy pull a rambo, and get away with it, I have also seen a 'rambo' stopped with one well aimed round.

So get the door open, retreat to the wheel, and then find the NEXT place to move.
Or you pull a delta, which is REALLY impressive, you get out, and proceed to unload in controlled, aimed fire as you advance forward at a measured pace (never run, you'll trip) util the perp stops moving or you gun locks back and all your mags are on the ground marking your path.

I believe that the second option is JUST as survivable as the first.

 

[lemaymiami]

Shadow, what you're advocating is what we used to describe as "John wayning" it. Tombstone courage works occasionally but most days it's a good bet to end you in the position of that great old actor -- six feet underground. Exchanging fire with an armed opponent while you're out in the open is very bad stuff (unless you're playing and everyone afterwards can go get a beer and talk about how it worked out...).

Yes a vehicle can make pretty good cover, but in a firefight your vehicle will be the focus of fire - particularly if you've put yourself into a hasty ambush scenario... We taught our officers to return fire from behind the vehicle until they could either move the vehicle out of the kill zone, or you could leave the vehicle and go to better cover. Remember that in an urban area your vehicle will mosly be on hard paved surfaces. Unless you're specifically behind a nice steel wheel a competent shotgunner or someone with an assault weapon can take you down with skip shooting or grazing fire from the other side of the car, even if most of your body is sheltered (hard to win a fight if your feet get shredded...). Since at one time I specifically trained for that situation I know I can reach out and touch anyone behind a car sitting on pavement if I know where they're standing.... That's another reason we taught our officers in a serious survival situation behind the wheel of a car to use the car as a barricade with the door opened to only a 45 degree angle, and their feet still inside the car. In use all you can see from the front of the car is a small portion of the officer's head and their weapon pointed in your direction. From this position you can return fire while being mostly sheltered if you opponent is in front of you, until you can reverse at high speed and clear the danger zone (most of this sort of stuff is in reaction to someone exiting a vehicle in front of you and trying for a hasty ambush...).

As a matter of conditioning I never wanted to be inside a car if I had someone in front of me that stepped out of their vehicle. I wanted to be on my feet and at least have a chance if things got ugly... I was very, very lucky that in my early years with only minimal training I never ran into anything life threatening (very lucky). A lot of offices go through an entire career without firing one shot on the street. As I matured and actually became very well trained I spent all my efforts encouraging my guys (and gals) to operate as safely as possible. Wait for your backup, always stop a bit short of where trouble is and try to give yourself the advantage at all times. Little things can make a big difference if the balance is tipped in your favor. I met many a serious offender that later said that they would have resisted but thought the odds weren't on their side. In my early years I started more than one fight by an aggressive attitude. Towards the end of my career I could walk up to someone facing a heavy felony arrest and usually have them crying on my shoulder before my officers came on the scene - even though blood had been spilled and the guy was facing serious time... It was all in the approach and knowing when someone would stand down and when they would only go the hard way...

Very glad I'm out of that world. One last thought about shooting into an occupied vehicle... the worst thing about it is that it's usually not justified on the offier's part. I've seen more than a few cars shot full of holes where no one was injured (and that was a pretty good thing since it would have been very hard to justify at the time). I've also seen that magic bullet, only one round fired - but someone died as a result... The only time you fire at a car is when you're justified in killing a particular individual (and if they're in a car they're probably not shooting at you....).

 

[Loosedhorse]

Loosed horse
DID YOU READ THE Box-O-Truth page???

Yes. Did you read my post?

But you won't find me wearing one and claiming to be bullet proof.

Just as you didn't find me claiming that car doors were bullet-proof. If you're done straw-manning...

I don't know. I say a car (as a whole) offers "pretty good" protection against handgun rounds. I even say that if we armor cars, we might concentrate on "the cockpit area, including the driver's side door." And I receive as a response, "What do you mean? Car doors aren't bullet proof!" Makes about as much sense as saying: "What do you mean? A .25 ACP is a handgun round, so car engine blocks and wheel wells ARE BULLET-PROOF."

I didn't say either that car doors will stop every handgun round, or that engine blocks won't stop .25 ACP rounds; I said what I said.

it is enough to refutethat cars "do pretty well with handgun rounds."

Your opinion. Mine is that it is enough to refute the statement that "Under test conditions that maximize the penetrative potential of incoming fire, car doors offer good protection against FMJ 'duty' handgun calibers and .45 ACP HPs."

That statement is refuted. It is a statement that I did not make.

Funny: I gave a fairly long post, giving technical details of various available armored glass (for example). No post of "nice summary, thanks for the info." Just someone twisting one sentence of mine into saying what I did not say, so it can be "shown wrong."

I guess everyone needs a hobby.

fewer than half of the rounds someone shot into a car penetrated, there was deformation, etc...I thought we were talking about the viability of cars for preventing injury

Funny. Different perspective. I thought we were looking at your claim that car doors offer NO protection from handgun rounds. I did not realize there was no middle ground between NO protection (which you claim), and perfect protection (which you seem to demand).

shooting through the windshield, is the preferred tactic

Try it some time, with a target on the other side of the windshield at a "reasonable" threat distance. Even though it will detract from the "reality" of your simulation, I'd advise eye and ear protection.

I never wanted to be inside a car if I had someone in front of me that stepped out of their vehicle. I wanted to be on my feet and at least have a chance if things got ugly

I understand this, but consider that while in your car you have (unless the car is blocked) a great get-away potential, and a lethal weapon. If someone got out of their car to get to me, I'd LEAVE (if I could)--and I have. If someone got out and started to draw a weapon, the fastest defense might be to use my car as a lethal weapon.

I understand that mine is a non-LEO perspective.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Here's what my old 1SG used to tell

"doc, shut up and drive"
point being, I was the driver, behind the wheel, no matter what else was going one, my job was to drive

Unlike the LEO, most of us will have NO reason to get out of a vehicle, so
and this is the important part
IF you can drive, no matter what else, just shut and and drive, it's a pretty impressive weapon, even in the only thing I've taken out with it was a stray dog. (I swerved, and swerved and swerved, but he kept running infront of me, so guess it was his time)

I don't disagree that a car can stop some rounds, I just state that you shouldn't count on it.

once you stop, the game changes and you should get out, sitting in the car does nothing to help you.

 

[lemaymiami]

One of the worst problems cops face in any encounter (peaceful or otherwise) is that however they turn out, things usually start out in an ordinary fashion. Even a stone shooter will try at first to slide away without a confrontation (it's when they reach under their clothing or run back to the car that things turn out a bit differently than you had expected). It yould be really nice if all the dangerous street types were required to wear black hats, but that's not what you get. I do remember a time when a certain type of street thug would dress in fatigues or cammies when they were breaking bad - but that never worked very well for the bad guys I came into contact with (a guy in combat dress in the big city does tend to stand out...).

Since 99% of all encounters never involve weapons, you won't be reaching for yours until the circumstances justify it (no matter how many funny cop movies you've seen). Doing otherwise, will find you looking for another job...

So, as much as you'd prefer it otherwise, ordinary street cops still have to stop and evaluate (or approach) a wide variety of folks day or night while doing their jobs. If you don't you probably aren't earning your pay.

 

[bobby68]

The original post was self defense failures. A couple that i recently watched:

1. Off duty police officer robbed of motorcycle. I believe this was a Chicago officer, i recall a similar story. What did this man do wrong? Should he have shot instead of trying to arrest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_61EtSZH87g

2. I think it was a Texas Highway Patrol officer (Langford?) who was tackled by smaller hispanic/alien men then shot at traffic stop.

3. Central Valley (Modesto?) family/children killed by pitchfork weilding psycho. While parents absent, they had locked firearms to comply with new CA law aimed at gunowners if minors access and misuse firearms. Oldest daughter survived when seeking help/firearm from neighbors, but the other children were all murdered.

 

[Deanimator]

There was a very pertinent one on the old A&E show "Cold Case Files" with Mike Curtiss.

A guy and his wife were at home one night when they thought they heard someone in the house.

The husband retrieved a baseball bat and went looking for the possible intruder.

The intruder killed the husband with a knife, raped the wife and set the house on fire.

For a long time the police treated the woman as the killer.

Years later, the real murderer was apprehended and sent to prison.

The woman finished the show by stating that she wished that she'd been killed in the attack.

If they'd locked themselves in the bedroom WITH A GUN and dialed 911, the husband would likely still be alive.

Whenever I see somebody claim that they don't need a gun to defend themselves in their home, and especially that a baseball bat is sufficient, I tell them this story.

 

[Sam1911]

Whenever I see somebody claim that they don't need a gun to defend themselves in their home, and especially that a baseball bat is sufficient, I tell them this story.

Or, for that matter, when someone says they need to go "check out a noise" in the house, or that they've got the "home turf advantage" over any home intruder.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Or, for that matter, when someone says they need to go "check out a noise" in the house,

When you have children in the home, it is your duty to ensure their safety.

If something goes bumb in the night, I'm not locking my wife and I in the bedroom and leaving our little girls to their own devices.

 

[Deanimator]

Or, for that matter, when someone says they need to go "check out a noise" in the house, or that they've got the "home turf advantage" over any home intruder.

Sometimes you don't have much choice.

I live in a two bedroom apartment, with only one way in or out.

One night I heard a huge crash in the living room. What was I going to do? Lock my bedroom door (which a five year old could kick in) and call the cops?

I have to be IN the living room in order to even let them in the building, much less let them in the apartment.

It turned out that a cheap fiberboard bookshelf failed, dumping a bunch of books and other items on the floor.

I can't call the police and have them kick in TWO doors every time I hear something, even something as loud as all of those books hitting the floor. Besides, with as little distance as there is between the front door and the FARTHEST point ANYWHERE in the apartment, an intruder is going to be AT my bedroom door, kicking it in before I can even DIAL 911, much less talk to anyone.

In MY situation, the police are a PURELY after the fact consideration. Their primary function will be to draw a chalk outline around somebody, be it an intruder or me.

 

[Rail Driver]

When you have children in the home, it is your duty to ensure their safety.

If something goes bumb in the night, I'm not locking my wife and I in the bedroom and leaving our little girls to their own devices.

This. Someone without kids of their own simply can't understand this.

 

[Sam1911]

I have four kids. I certainly understand this. As we've gone over many times, there are ways to prepare and plan and act that limit your and their exposure. It wasn't my intent to rehash those discussions, but to reiterate that the provided example is a textbook chapter on why you don't have an advantage while "clearing" your house, and why anything you can do to protect what is most valuable to you without going burglar hunting is the far better plan.

 

[Fred Fuller]

"Going to secure the kids" IS NOT the same thing as "clearing the house solo." We go through this same nutroll every time the issue comes up. It gets tiresome.

Once again - the only reasonable excuse for leaving a place of safety in the likely presence of an intruder (not "something the cat knocked over") is to secure family member(s) in their room(s) elsewhere in the house. Doing so should be part of your home defense plan, and rehearsed and acted on accordingly.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Once again - the only reasonable excuse for leaving a place of safety in the likely presence of an intruder (not "something the cat knocked over") is to secure family member(s) in their room(s) elsewhere in the house. Doing so should be part of your home defense plan, and rehearsed and acted on accordingly.

That's the point, though: How do you know if it's an intruder or just something an animal knocked over without investigating?

If you're single or married without kids, you have the luxury of sitting in your room, armed, and listening/waiting for the next indicator that something is going on (or not). With kids depending on your for protection, you are obligated to make sure they're safe.

I don't come flying out of bed with gun in hand over every noise I hear. I'm not that paranoid. But I am a light sleeper, and I do wake up easily to even relatively soft noises (good in this respect, but sucks most of the time). When awakened, I listen very carefully for a few minutes before relaxing. It's easy to tell if it's an animal moving about or a human being, especially with hardwood floors in an older house that creaks a bit; It'd be practically impossible for any adult to walk through this house silently. If I'm ever concerned that there is an intruder, my first priority is cautiously but swiftly moving to the girls room.

 

[Sam1911]

"Going to check out a noise" is a kind of odd proposition. In essence you're gambling against yourself. You want to make sure that noise wasn't "something bad." If it is "something bad" then you've put yourself at a huge disadvantage by moving to its location/ambush and should have stayed at a defensible point and let it come to you. The only way it makes sense to move toward the potential danger is if it really IS nothing worth going to investigate in the first place, in which case -- if you're sure enough that it was nothing that you're willing to risk your life -- why bother going at all?

How do you know if it's an intruder or just something an animal knocked over without investigating?

I think you answered this well with the last paragraph. Use your ears and whatever other tools you might have at your disposal (dog!, cc tv monitors (cheap these days), remotely controlled lighting, etc.). And, if you have loved ones to protect which aren't in the same room as you, execute your plan for getting to them and securing your safe zone -- where you recommence the auditory reconnaissance (listening, being patient) to see if danger really is coming your way.

There must be a last-ditch safety perimeter you can control. It doesn't have to strictly be only your own bedroom if that doesn't fit your family and house arrangement. (It doesn't in my own home.) But it shouldn't necessitate traversing your entire home (unless it is very small/compact), or trying to defend wide open spaces.

Maybe your "perimeter" is the entire upstairs of your home because you can quickly move to and defend the only reasonable approach from near the top of your stairs. Maybe your "perimeter" is the cul-de-sac end of the main hallway where all the bedrooms are located -- open your bedroom door, take a low cover position behind the door frame and command the entire approach. When we say "hunker down and stay put" that doesn't absolutely require that you freeze in your bed. Brief, purposeful movement to your over-watch point makes total sense.

(Hopefully you don't have an arrangement wherein the kids are located at the extreme opposite end of the house, or in the basement when your room is on the second floor. If so, that's about the worst situation you could face, as it makes the entire defensive situation more complicated and more risky on several levels. Think very hard about how -- and if -- you can reasonably defend your family with your home arranged in this manner.)

Plan to be able to secure your family within your small perimeter quickly and with a minimum of exposure. Anything worth killing for -- anything worth dying for -- is behind you, within the zone you'll defend. Anything outside that zone is replaceable "stuff." Don't wander out to find if Meth-Head Jimmy really is hiding behind the kitchen door with a knife or gun. If he needs you're attention, he'll come find you, at your defensive strong point where you hold the advantage. Don't leave that which is precious to you undefended -- now, in the moment, or forever ... because you lost your bet.