MedWheeler
Member
Ten years and a day ago, I posted this in a similar thread:
Shooting through auto glass
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
Choctaw
Member
I'm not a private citizen but I was ambushed by gunfire in my car at a red light by a dufus parked next to me. There was no place for either one of us to go. He thought he would take me out in one shot. His round hit the window, deflected and lodged right above my head. This is also a plausible scenario a private citizen could face and a very good reason to shoot into the bad guy's car.
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
He needs to work on his reloads but he did the job needed of him. He was a calm driver and looking around to make sure he would not hit anyone with his car, he ended the fight in the end without hurting any innocent people, the man had cajones to do what he did, he had seconds to do what we will have years to think about doing , not exactly a fair thing to critique him when he accomplished the mission.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
He made sure to not hit anyone with his car, but he didn't seem to have the same restraint when firing. As for being fair, learning from other's mistakes isn't about being fair or unfair, whether the mission was accomplished or not. He won. It doesn't mean he could not have done better or that a person can't learn from this incident and apply the information to future situations. When we stop being critical in our analysis of what has transpired, we cut off a significant portion of the learning process.
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
Never said not to take what you can from it, but the needless monday quarterback brigade stuff is useless. He won and that's what matters.
If he had killed half a dozen innocent people spraying lead all over the place shooting from one moving car at another moving car would "winning" matter at all? sheer luck that no innocent lives were lost. and really no good reason to be shooting at them in the first place while chasing them.
the Monday morning quarterbacking is the most critical part of an incident like this. that way you can sit back in comfort with time to think and not have to make decisions on the fly about when one should and should not exercise restraint. there probably should have been some kind of GO banning shooting at moving cars to begin with. It is just not a safe thing to be doing.
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
Playing things "safe" gets people killed. He took the actions he felt he needed to and came up on top . What you think you will do and what you will do I'm those situations can be extremely different.
playing safe is the safe choice. it always is. he is just lucky he did not kill someone with his antics. just becasue he got lucky and no innocent person was killed does not make it the right choice. it is like playing russian roulette. you will "win" most of the time. the only way to win all the time is not to play that game.
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
You don't get to decide when you have to play that game. Situational awareness can only get you so far when a someone has you as their target in mind and won't stop even when you fight back.
JeffG
Member
The criminals being chased were ALREADY a huge threat to the community. They had to be arrested, ergo the pursuit. The were shooting the officers; how many rounds do you take as an officer before you shoot back? The rounds the bad guys were shooting and MISSING were endangering the public also. BTW this was a highly trained response, not just a spur of the moment thing to do.... I feel this was excellently handled.
armoredman
Member
Please watch the 1985 movie, Deadly Weapons: Firearms & Firepower, for some interesting looks at glass/car penetration. Although dated in many respects, it still has a lot of good stuff. Discard the entire first segment of shooting into water jugs, though. The ending is great.
luzyfuerza
Member
Do you suppose that this officer has spent a lot of time after this event thinking about what he did well and what he could have done better? I'd bet that his fellow officers and supervisors in LV Metro are also considering these questions. Brother and sister officers in other departments around the country are probably doing this, too. Why do you believe that here on the High Road we shouldn't do the same?
Carefully thinking about what went well and what didn't makes winning possible in future events like this one. Which is the FIRST (but not only) thing that matters.
To learn from our own and others' experiences is hardly needless/useless monday quarterbacking.
Last edited:
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
I'm sure he is going to think about it the rest of his life the way men that have been in that situation often do (myself included). I stated for you to take what you can from it, dissect it, think what you would've done and train that way, but you do not get to say that his actions and tactics were not up to YOUR standards when you were not in that situation. To your last comment, winning is the only thing that matters there is no such thing as a second place winner in a gunfight.
MachIVshooter
Member
Shooting through the vertical or nearly vertical flat glass panels generally encountered on the military trucks of the world is quite different from the curved, angled windscreen of any typical automobile or light truck made since the 1950s. If you shoot at the bottom of the latter, you're putting bullets into the instrument panel, not the occupants.
luzyfuerza
Member
Additional facts can be found in LVMetroPD's press conference on this event, found here:
The suspect vehicle was reported to have been seen fleeing the scene of a shooting at 0724 that morning. I'm sure that every officer Metro had on the streets that morning was alerted to be on the lookout for this vehicle. The chase began at 0931 and ended at 0935. It looks like the entire chase was presented in the video.
Lessons that I've taken from this incident and video:
1) Officer Umana has a warrior mindset. He was not going to allow the bad guys to get away, and once they started shooting at him, he was not going to let them continue to endanger other officers or the public. "Heroic" is a misused term these days; Officer Umana's actions fit the true definition of this word.
2) LV Metro has a policy against firing from or at moving vehicles, with the rare exception of cases when this action is "...absolutely necessary to preserve human life..." AND "...deadly force is the only option to preserve innocent lives." Officer Umana correctly determined that the suspects created a risk to the public, to him, and to other officers. Given the compressed time frame, the speeds reached once the pursuit began, the collision risks that the suspects' driving posed to the public, the serious nature of the crimes that the occupants were suspected to have committed, the suspects' use of deadly weapons against him, and Officer Umana's warrior mindset, it is difficult to disagree with his decision that shooting from a moving vehicle at a moving vehicle was justified under this policy.
3) Officer Umana's driving and pursuit skills looked great to me as a non-expert. Does anyone disagree?
4) Once Officer Umana lit up the suspect vehicle and the suspects began firing, the aggressive pursuit really became his primary option. Pursuing a vehicle with dangerous occupants without backup has to be done sometimes. However, it would seem prudent, if possible, to attempt to gather additional resources, prior to initiating such an aggressive pursuit. There is no evidence I've seen to indicate that Officer Umana either did or didn't do this. I hope that he did, but that the suspects somehow forced his hand.
This lesson might at first glance appear to apply specifically to police. However, consider that it has become a truism that it is risky for citizens to clear their dwellings or property on their own following a "bump in the night", and that its better to gather additional resources (spouses-armed or not, calls to 911, security camera feeds, information from alarm sensors, preparing response plans beforehand, etc.) which can help reduce this risk. This lesson applies to other situations that both citizens and police commonly face.
5) Officer Umana's grip (support thumb behind the slide both while shooting through the windshield and after he had left his vehicle), poor trigger discipline during his reload, and the botched reload itself indicated that he had not mastered the use of his handgun in stressful situations. Lesson learned: everyone who uses a firearm for self defense, officers and citizens alike, needs to do everything they can to gain and maintain mastery of their chosen tools in stressful situations.
6) It seems fair to say that shooting a) through your own windshield, b) at suspects in a moving vehicle c) that appears to be between 10-30 yards away from you, d) while driving your own vehicle, is unlikely to produce a high percentage of incapacitating hits on the suspects (see the first 46 posts in this thread). Note that Assistant Sheriff Tim Kelley said that Metro's policy on shooting at/from moving vehicles indicates that such fire is not to be used to disable a vehicle, only to incapacitate a suspect. Officer Umana fired 31 rounds during this event. Of these, 18 rounds were apparently fired from his moving vehicle and these rounds failed to incapacitate either suspect. Thirteen were fired at Miranda after Officer Umana left his vehicle. Officer Solomon fired his shotgun once, presumably also while outside his vehicle, immediately following Officer Umana's 13 rounds. These 14 shots did incapacitate Miranda, who later died.
Lesson learned: marksmanship matters. Those first 18 rounds that were unlikely to incapacitate the suspects (and which in this case did not incapacitate them) did land somewhere, and did put members of the public at risk. "Know your target and what's beyond it" is a universal rule of safe shooting for a reason, and applies to both citizens and officers. The doctrine of competing harms seems to apply, but the balance doesn't appear to tilt the right way for these shots.
Furthermore, the shots through the windshield and side window and the 13 round sequence looked a lot like "spray and pray". We write here regularly about training and practicing to improve our chances of "making each shot count" if we ever have to take a shot for real. And some of us actually do train and practice! This incident illustrates why everyone who uses a firearm for self defense, officers and citizens alike, needs to know that they have a good chance of "making the shots" that they choose to take.
A final comment: this video strengthened my gratitude to Officers Umana and Solomon (and their brother and sister officers around the country) for being willing to risk their own lives to protect me and my fellow citizens by removing dangerous individuals from free society. Both responded without hesitation to a very dangerous situation focused on protecting the innocents around them. Incredible. But, I think, not unusual.
The suspect vehicle was reported to have been seen fleeing the scene of a shooting at 0724 that morning. I'm sure that every officer Metro had on the streets that morning was alerted to be on the lookout for this vehicle. The chase began at 0931 and ended at 0935. It looks like the entire chase was presented in the video.
Lessons that I've taken from this incident and video:
1) Officer Umana has a warrior mindset. He was not going to allow the bad guys to get away, and once they started shooting at him, he was not going to let them continue to endanger other officers or the public. "Heroic" is a misused term these days; Officer Umana's actions fit the true definition of this word.
2) LV Metro has a policy against firing from or at moving vehicles, with the rare exception of cases when this action is "...absolutely necessary to preserve human life..." AND "...deadly force is the only option to preserve innocent lives." Officer Umana correctly determined that the suspects created a risk to the public, to him, and to other officers. Given the compressed time frame, the speeds reached once the pursuit began, the collision risks that the suspects' driving posed to the public, the serious nature of the crimes that the occupants were suspected to have committed, the suspects' use of deadly weapons against him, and Officer Umana's warrior mindset, it is difficult to disagree with his decision that shooting from a moving vehicle at a moving vehicle was justified under this policy.
3) Officer Umana's driving and pursuit skills looked great to me as a non-expert. Does anyone disagree?
4) Once Officer Umana lit up the suspect vehicle and the suspects began firing, the aggressive pursuit really became his primary option. Pursuing a vehicle with dangerous occupants without backup has to be done sometimes. However, it would seem prudent, if possible, to attempt to gather additional resources, prior to initiating such an aggressive pursuit. There is no evidence I've seen to indicate that Officer Umana either did or didn't do this. I hope that he did, but that the suspects somehow forced his hand.
This lesson might at first glance appear to apply specifically to police. However, consider that it has become a truism that it is risky for citizens to clear their dwellings or property on their own following a "bump in the night", and that its better to gather additional resources (spouses-armed or not, calls to 911, security camera feeds, information from alarm sensors, preparing response plans beforehand, etc.) which can help reduce this risk. This lesson applies to other situations that both citizens and police commonly face.
5) Officer Umana's grip (support thumb behind the slide both while shooting through the windshield and after he had left his vehicle), poor trigger discipline during his reload, and the botched reload itself indicated that he had not mastered the use of his handgun in stressful situations. Lesson learned: everyone who uses a firearm for self defense, officers and citizens alike, needs to do everything they can to gain and maintain mastery of their chosen tools in stressful situations.
6) It seems fair to say that shooting a) through your own windshield, b) at suspects in a moving vehicle c) that appears to be between 10-30 yards away from you, d) while driving your own vehicle, is unlikely to produce a high percentage of incapacitating hits on the suspects (see the first 46 posts in this thread). Note that Assistant Sheriff Tim Kelley said that Metro's policy on shooting at/from moving vehicles indicates that such fire is not to be used to disable a vehicle, only to incapacitate a suspect. Officer Umana fired 31 rounds during this event. Of these, 18 rounds were apparently fired from his moving vehicle and these rounds failed to incapacitate either suspect. Thirteen were fired at Miranda after Officer Umana left his vehicle. Officer Solomon fired his shotgun once, presumably also while outside his vehicle, immediately following Officer Umana's 13 rounds. These 14 shots did incapacitate Miranda, who later died.
Lesson learned: marksmanship matters. Those first 18 rounds that were unlikely to incapacitate the suspects (and which in this case did not incapacitate them) did land somewhere, and did put members of the public at risk. "Know your target and what's beyond it" is a universal rule of safe shooting for a reason, and applies to both citizens and officers. The doctrine of competing harms seems to apply, but the balance doesn't appear to tilt the right way for these shots.
Furthermore, the shots through the windshield and side window and the 13 round sequence looked a lot like "spray and pray". We write here regularly about training and practicing to improve our chances of "making each shot count" if we ever have to take a shot for real. And some of us actually do train and practice! This incident illustrates why everyone who uses a firearm for self defense, officers and citizens alike, needs to know that they have a good chance of "making the shots" that they choose to take.
A final comment: this video strengthened my gratitude to Officers Umana and Solomon (and their brother and sister officers around the country) for being willing to risk their own lives to protect me and my fellow citizens by removing dangerous individuals from free society. Both responded without hesitation to a very dangerous situation focused on protecting the innocents around them. Incredible. But, I think, not unusual.
Last edited:
luzyfuerza
Member
I had to look this reference up. Fokker I remembered, but Garros' story was new for me.
http://www.france24.com/en/20150605-roland-garros-aviator-world-war-french-open-fokker
Those of you who have an interest in shooting through auto glass should check out chapter 8 of Michael Haag and Lucien Haag's book titled "Shooting incident reconstruction"
https://www.elsevier.com/books/shooting-incident-reconstruction/haag/978-0-12-382241-3
https://www.elsevier.com/books/shooting-incident-reconstruction/haag/978-0-12-382241-3
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I have to wonder if that the cops won and that is "all that matters" carries the same sentiment for the family of Melyda Corado. I am sure her family is pleased with the cops not playing it safe. Everybody was heroes until it was realized that the bad guy didn't shoot her.
Quite the book! Our library does not have it. I looked for the online google version and while it has some insights, it is missing some key sections as well, which is no surprise for a book currently in print.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6...ed_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=auto glass&f=false
These are also insightful.
http://www.freereferral.com/newslet...rmination_for_bullet_holes_in_windshields.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27b4/fd6ff8dca44d93b673a424b6ff56feee0bd6.pdf (historic reference)
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a283575.pdf (MS thesis on rifle bullet deflection through auto glass)
https://www.tactical-life.com/lifestyle/tactics/science-shooting-through-glass/ (neat diagram including shooting from inside)
https://www.drtindall.com/2017/06/13/fundamentals-of-shooting-through-glass/ (also information on shooting in and out)
Michael Haag has also been very helpful on the AFTE public forum: he and other AFTE members helped me with windshield perforation questions back in 2007.
Jim Watson
Member
Anybody can learn from failure. It is much harder to learn from success. Stirling.
The bullets had to land somewhere, but I found his microphone handling to be about as scary. Using a push to talk hand microphone during a running gunfight sure looks like distracted driving. And distracted shooting. Can we not do better on com gear?
- Status
Similar threads
