Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
While researching various handgun calibers, I happened across a verified account of a Trooper (Virginia or one of the Carolinas) in the 80's that fired all 6 rounds from his .357 Magnum into the chest area of a perp, who then returned fire killing the Trooper. The perp is still alive and well, serving out his prison sentence. The point is - I can see needing to fire multiple shots to stop a given threat... The count, while seemingly high, is believable if all the cops made the decision at or about the same time. Each firing multiple shots and evaluating the need for more. Maybe some hard facts will come out later and shed some more light on exactly what the shot count was and why they fired as they did.
On the comparisons of Marines doing better, maybe one of our LEO members can confirm, but I'd imagine that they (Marines) have more training of various forms and intensities?
This is very true - you fire until the threat is stopped. How many rounds is that? Might be several good shots to the center mass...that's why the high-capacity autos have become standard issue for police departments.
There was an FBI shootout in Miami in the 80s - the perps were strong, young, former army, wearing winter clothes. They took several rounds of 9mm and .357 to the head, to the chest and body, they were bleeding, they were wounded, but still firing - still lethal and took out 2 agents during the shootout in which over 145 rounds were exchanged.
Forensic analysis on that event led to the development of the FBI 10mm round - which proved to be too hot for some agents, so it was shortened, and the .40 S&W was created, but that's another story...
Multiple rounds on target and the perps were still firing...that's why you fire, on target, until the threat stops.
Personal approach is two to the center, one to the head, sights back on center, repeat until threat is down/stopped...might empty the whole magazine before I see threat stopped...might reload and keep firing...depends on the THREAT.
Folks don't understand - you can be shot, but you don't always die or stop moving instantly. Even people with fatal gunshot wounds (major organs/blood vessels) can still be firing at you, still standing, still wielding a weapon...they won't live long, but they still present the same threat...there have been plenty of Texas Border Patrol (I'm thinking of Bill Jordan..."No Second Place Winner"...great book) and other LE who have taken a round in a gunfight, returned fire, killed their assailant and lived to tell about it.
Good thing for those officers that their assailants didn't have LE training (shoot until the threat is stopped)...good thing, for them, that their assailants had a Hollywood approach - "I shot him, I won".
You are now being completely ridiculous in an attempt to justify this shooting. You continue to use examples which have absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand. You're as off-base as those with whom you're arguing, even though you're doing it with better grammar...
This guy didn't have a gun. He wasn't shooting back. He wasn't shooting anything. You seem bent on obfuscating the facts of this case (which are more clear than you'd like to admit) in an attempt to convince either others or yourself that this was an appropriate response.
BTW, I'm all for finding out all of the facts in the case, but the biggest issue is that there doesn't appear to be much transparency in the investigation (at least that I've been able to see). When you have government entities investigating themselves, releasing limited information and then saying "it's OK", it's not surprising that people have questions.
Hold on JOD...completely ridiculous? Where? I explained a bit more about combat, to clear up what were a few obviously held misconceptions that came up in this thread. Clearly, I wasn't talking about this case per se, I was talking about other topics that have come up in the thread.
In no way did I take sides, render judgment, justify or condemn the actions of the officers in this "hobo"
shooting. Where was that in my post?
Unless you deliberately misconstrued the antecedent for officers (it should have been clear that I was talking about the officers in the other cases that I discussed, like the 1986 Miami shoot out), it was crystal clear that my discussion was about gunfights, not this "hobo" shooting...
My intent all along has been to educate in this thread - there are so very many folks with preconceptions and misconceptions about lethal force, rules on the use of force, how people perform in actual stress/combat situations, that I felt it worth discussing other cases as illustrations of the points I have been making: threat triangle, assessment of the threat, "shoot" decision, shot placement, shot assessment, and performance in combat. These are things that have to be understood before you can begin to legitimately discuss shooting.
I tried once to explain Physics 101 on a BITOG thread...it was an exercise in futility...and this thread is taking on the same futility, since folks, like you, want to interpret my attempts at education as taking sides or arguing. I am glad that you appreciate the grammar - I have been trying to be both clear and logical, though I have obviously failed if I was interpreted as being argumentative and partisan.
I have not, in any of these posts, taken sides, so there really is no arguing about this case on my part...I have pleaded since the first thread for people to reserve judgement - that is still the right thing to do in this case until all the facts are known.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
While researching various handgun calibers, I happened across a verified account of a Trooper (Virginia or one of the Carolinas) in the 80's that fired all 6 rounds from his .357 Magnum into the chest area of a perp, who then returned fire killing the Trooper. The perp is still alive and well, serving out his prison sentence. The point is - I can see needing to fire multiple shots to stop a given threat... The count, while seemingly high, is believable if all the cops made the decision at or about the same time. Each firing multiple shots and evaluating the need for more. Maybe some hard facts will come out later and shed some more light on exactly what the shot count was and why they fired as they did.
On the comparisons of Marines doing better, maybe one of our LEO members can confirm, but I'd imagine that they (Marines) have more training of various forms and intensities?
This is very true - you fire until the threat is stopped. How many rounds is that? Might be several good shots to the center mass...that's why the high-capacity autos have become standard issue for police departments.
There was an FBI shootout in Miami in the 80s - the perps were strong, young, former army, wearing winter clothes. They took several rounds of 9mm and .357 to the head, to the chest and body, they were bleeding, they were wounded, but still firing - still lethal and took out 2 agents during the shootout in which over 145 rounds were exchanged.
Forensic analysis on that event led to the development of the FBI 10mm round - which proved to be too hot for some agents, so it was shortened, and the .40 S&W was created, but that's another story...
Multiple rounds on target and the perps were still firing...that's why you fire, on target, until the threat stops.
Personal approach is two to the center, one to the head, sights back on center, repeat until threat is down/stopped...might empty the whole magazine before I see threat stopped...might reload and keep firing...depends on the THREAT.
Folks don't understand - you can be shot, but you don't always die or stop moving instantly. Even people with fatal gunshot wounds (major organs/blood vessels) can still be firing at you, still standing, still wielding a weapon...they won't live long, but they still present the same threat...there have been plenty of Texas Border Patrol (I'm thinking of Bill Jordan..."No Second Place Winner"...great book) and other LE who have taken a round in a gunfight, returned fire, killed their assailant and lived to tell about it.
Good thing for those officers that their assailants didn't have LE training (shoot until the threat is stopped)...good thing, for them, that their assailants had a Hollywood approach - "I shot him, I won".
You are now being completely ridiculous in an attempt to justify this shooting. You continue to use examples which have absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand. You're as off-base as those with whom you're arguing, even though you're doing it with better grammar...
This guy didn't have a gun. He wasn't shooting back. He wasn't shooting anything. You seem bent on obfuscating the facts of this case (which are more clear than you'd like to admit) in an attempt to convince either others or yourself that this was an appropriate response.
BTW, I'm all for finding out all of the facts in the case, but the biggest issue is that there doesn't appear to be much transparency in the investigation (at least that I've been able to see). When you have government entities investigating themselves, releasing limited information and then saying "it's OK", it's not surprising that people have questions.
Hold on JOD...completely ridiculous? Where? I explained a bit more about combat, to clear up what were a few obviously held misconceptions that came up in this thread. Clearly, I wasn't talking about this case per se, I was talking about other topics that have come up in the thread.
In no way did I take sides, render judgment, justify or condemn the actions of the officers in this "hobo"
shooting. Where was that in my post?
Unless you deliberately misconstrued the antecedent for officers (it should have been clear that I was talking about the officers in the other cases that I discussed, like the 1986 Miami shoot out), it was crystal clear that my discussion was about gunfights, not this "hobo" shooting...
My intent all along has been to educate in this thread - there are so very many folks with preconceptions and misconceptions about lethal force, rules on the use of force, how people perform in actual stress/combat situations, that I felt it worth discussing other cases as illustrations of the points I have been making: threat triangle, assessment of the threat, "shoot" decision, shot placement, shot assessment, and performance in combat. These are things that have to be understood before you can begin to legitimately discuss shooting.
I tried once to explain Physics 101 on a BITOG thread...it was an exercise in futility...and this thread is taking on the same futility, since folks, like you, want to interpret my attempts at education as taking sides or arguing. I am glad that you appreciate the grammar - I have been trying to be both clear and logical, though I have obviously failed if I was interpreted as being argumentative and partisan.
I have not, in any of these posts, taken sides, so there really is no arguing about this case on my part...I have pleaded since the first thread for people to reserve judgement - that is still the right thing to do in this case until all the facts are known.
Last edited:
