PDA

View Full Version : Okay SMEs, what should this woman have done?



BaiHu
06-25-2013, 10:23 AM
This happened 2 towns east of me in a very upscale neighborhood. The owner of AZ Iced Tea lived nearby this incident (dunno if he's still there) for example.


Police in New Jersey are using nanny cam footage to track down a robbery suspect who punched and choked a suburban mom while her terrified 3-year-old daughter watched.

At 10:30 a.m. Friday, the suspect kicked down the locked door of a Millburn, N.J., house and assaulted an unsuspecting homeowner.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/millburn-home-invasion-video_n_3495317.html


http://youtu.be/dvvHMM6TF50

LittleLebowski
06-25-2013, 10:39 AM
I am not an SME but if she won't wear a gun (not that I recommend that for the untrained) and doesn't have one within reach, a good dog can change things dramatically. But, don't take my word for it, read this story (http://www.pantagraph.com/news/beloved-german-shepherd-saves-woman-from-sexual-assault/article_e739eff2-9a4a-5fc0-8e38-48933861458b.html) of an untrained, young German Shepherd saving the day.

David Armstrong
06-25-2013, 10:44 AM
No SME here, but it illustrates one of those issues that just drives me crazy. Nobody should be able to kick down an exterior door. It just doesn't cost that much more to buy and install a decent door that is sturdy enough to take a fairly normal attack without giving way.

Jay Cunningham
06-25-2013, 10:46 AM
Interesting that it was a lone guy and that he kicked in the door. I wonder how that lines up with "typical" hot home invasion scenarios?

ETA: Also wonder if it was a planned hot home invasion, or a planned cold invasion gone wrong?

Kyle Reese
06-25-2013, 10:48 AM
How much trouble would this woman be in today had she employed deadly force against this intruder?

LittleLebowski
06-25-2013, 10:50 AM
How much trouble would this woman be in today had she employed deadly force against this intruder?

I doubt much, even in NJ given the camera footage.

Sadmin
06-25-2013, 11:08 AM
No SME here, but it illustrates one of those issues that just drives me crazy. Nobody should be able to kick down an exterior door. It just doesn't cost that much more to buy and install a decent door that is sturdy enough to take a fairly normal attack without giving way.

Great place to start. In addition to a heavier, sturdy door, we had our front entry door installed to swing outwards as well to aid in that scenario.

TCinVA
06-25-2013, 11:29 AM
Interesting that it was a lone guy and that he kicked in the door. I wonder how that lines up with "typical" hot home invasion scenarios?

ETA: Also wonder if it was a planned hot home invasion, or a planned cold invasion gone wrong?

I'm willing to bet a box of 9mm that he didn't just kick in a door at random. I'm willing to bet he watched the house for at least a little bit before kicking in the door. He went right at her from the getgo.


How much trouble would this woman be in today had she employed deadly force against this intruder?

Even in NJ, not much. I'm sure every police officer who watched that footage had the thought of driving that bastard to the Pine Barrens and digging him a hole.

jetfire
06-25-2013, 11:44 AM
It's telling that she said she made the conscious decision to not fight back. There's a bit in the tape where the attacker very calmly closes a cabinet door so he doesn't catch his hand on it during the backswing of kicking her ass.

This is based on nothing more than a hunch, but this doesn't look like a home invasion gone wrong, it looks like an intentional beat-down gone right (for the guy doing the beatdown).

Ray Keith
06-25-2013, 11:46 AM
And now that she has been beaten half to death, but survived, how long under New Jersey law will it take her to obtain a handgun in the event he decides to come back and finish the job? I'm sure they have some sort of waiting period and other intentional red tape.

TCinVA
06-25-2013, 11:56 AM
And now that she has been beaten half to death, but survived, how long under New Jersey law will it take her to obtain a handgun in the event he decides to come back and finish the job? I'm sure they have some sort of waiting period and other intentional red tape.

When I lived there getting a handgun purchase approval took months. My 8th grade science teacher bought a .44 magnum for an Alaskan hunting trip and it took him 6 months to get approval to buy it.

NEPAKevin
06-25-2013, 12:12 PM
read this story (http://www.pantagraph.com/news/beloved-german-shepherd-saves-woman-from-sexual-assault/article_e739eff2-9a4a-5fc0-8e38-48933861458b.html) of an untrained, young German Shepherd saving the day.

My favorite, a story with a happy ending. :)

TGS
06-25-2013, 12:25 PM
And now that she has been beaten half to death, but survived, how long under New Jersey law will it take her to obtain a handgun in the event he decides to come back and finish the job? I'm sure they have some sort of waiting period and other intentional red tape.

There's no waiting period, but you do have to submit for a purchase permit. For long guns, it's good for life. I can go buy an AR15, shotgun, ect whenever I want and be out the door as quick as NICS comes back.

For pistols, you have to obtain a purchase permit for each pistol. Here in Trenton where the cops are fairly pro-good guy, shoot-the-bad-guys-for-us, this took me 3 weeks......Where BaiHu lives, the cops seem to be equally good at getting it processed. Some places are horror stories though, as the permit process is abused by overzealous government officials who use it as a defacto ban on guns, taking a good 9 months to process a pistol permit.

Or, you could just find a union shop member with an Italian surname and have whatever you need in an hour or two.

rob_s
06-25-2013, 12:26 PM
I am a single dude that lives alone, but if I ever find myself in the provider role with family members at home that cannot (or will not) defend themselves again I cannot imagine any other choice than shelling out the cash for a trained guard dog. I have several friends that have them and the dogs behave as members of the family every day just as any other dog (although better behaved overall) so I would not have any concern about the dog turning on the family. Even if the dog winds up sacrificing itself for the humans to escape, that's better than a wife or child being the brunt of this kind of thing.

TCinVA
06-25-2013, 01:13 PM
I am a single dude that lives alone, but if I ever find myself in the provider role with family members at home that cannot (or will not) defend themselves again I cannot imagine any other choice than shelling out the cash for a trained guard dog. I have several friends that have them and the dogs behave as members of the family every day just as any other dog (although better behaved overall) so I would not have any concern about the dog turning on the family. Even if the dog winds up sacrificing itself for the humans to escape, that's better than a wife or child being the brunt of this kind of thing.

The video would have been significantly better had Mr. Home invader quickly become a chewtoy for a Belgian Mal.

Coyotesfan97
06-25-2013, 01:31 PM
It's nice knowing when I go to work a retired Belgian Malinois stays at home with the family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tamara
06-25-2013, 05:42 PM
This happened 2 towns east of me in a very upscale neighborhood. The owner of AZ Iced Tea lived nearby this incident (dunno if he's still there) for example.

Upscale neighborhoods tend to have spacious lots with the houses arranged and lawns landscaped so the front doors have a measure of privacy from the neighbors. Additionally, the prevalence of two-income families in suburbia mean that neighborhoods like this are ghost towns from 9-5 on weekdays.

In Caleb's old stomping grounds here in Hoosieropolis, there were subdivisions where multiple front doors were getting kicked in in one day by crooks who could be fairly certain nobody would be home. Would they have reacted like this to intimidate an unexpected witness found during their "work shift"? Dunno.

hufnagel
06-25-2013, 06:00 PM
BaiHu is apparently very close to me, as Milburn is about 10 miles from me.

jetfire
06-25-2013, 06:11 PM
In Caleb's old stomping grounds here in Hoosieropolis, there were subdivisions where multiple front doors were getting kicked in in one day by crooks who could be fairly certain nobody would be home. Would they have reacted like this to intimidate an unexpected witness found during their "work shift"? Dunno.

Man, I remember the Great Fishers Home Invasion Scare. Good times.

LittleLebowski
06-25-2013, 06:26 PM
It's nice knowing when I go to work a retired Belgian Malinois stays at home with the family.


Any thoughts on this from your perspective as a street cop?

cclaxton
06-25-2013, 08:02 PM
If this was a guy victim would it have got the same media attention?

I think not.
CC

Al T.
06-25-2013, 08:14 PM
I think not.

I'm not at all sure what your point is, perhaps poor reading on my part, but I'm OK with that. I'm a die hard "woman and children first"* person myself. As one of my favorite peace officers wrote many years ago, his first Sheriff asked him "can you take a whoopin?" during the interviewing process. I've given a few and taken a few.





* Unless it's Tam, then I'll just get the mop and club soda out. :cool:

Byron
06-25-2013, 08:34 PM
If this was a guy victim would it have got the same media attention?

I think not.
CC

Do I care?

I think not.
BG


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

41magfan
06-25-2013, 09:15 PM
Most victims are “victims” because they look and act like victims.

But setting this reality aside, most people feel pretty safe behind locked doors and have never entertained the idea that someone could kick open a door and be on top of them in just a few seconds. If you haven’t made some provision (mentally & practically) for that possibility - well in advance of it happening - there’s a decent chance you will do just what she did ..... take it and hope for the best.

cclaxton
06-25-2013, 09:53 PM
I'm not at all sure what your point is, perhaps poor reading on my part, but I'm OK with that. I'm a die hard "woman and children first"* person myself. As one of my favorite peace officers wrote many years ago, his first Sheriff asked him "can you take a whoopin?" during the interviewing process. I've given a few and taken a few.

My point is that the media discriminates against men. If Zimmerman was a woman, would she even be on trial?

When it comes to THE LAW women and men should be treated equally. When it comes to MEDIA COVERAGE, they should treat women and men victims equally.

Now when it comes to social courtesies, I certainly hold the door for women and bow to female prerogatives.

But if a man or a woman was being threatened or attacked and I had a moral obligation to act, I would treat them both the same. If a man were getting a beating I would behave the same as if it were a woman or child getting a beating.

The MEDIA needs to feel the pressure of treating men more fairly as victims or perps.

CC

TCinVA
06-25-2013, 09:54 PM
If this was a guy victim would it have got the same media attention?

I think not.
CC

Society rightly frowns on breaking into the home of a woman with children and then beating her half to death in front of her little kids before throwing her down the stairs.

Criminal violence of any sort is repulsive, but criminal violence aimed at women and children is considered especially abhorrent in civilized societies...and for good reason.



When it comes to THE LAW women and men should be treated equally.


The law quite rightly recognizes that the average man is easily able to overpower the average woman and thus women tend to have a slightly wider strike zone in terms of escalating force in the effort to protect themselves.

You're picking a pretty bizarre story to get worked up over.

Nik the Greek
06-25-2013, 10:11 PM
This is based on nothing more than a hunch, but this doesn't look like a home invasion gone wrong, it looks like an intentional beat-down (...)

Maybe we're both just kittened up cynical people, but there it seemed that there was something "off" about it to me too. Sickening, regardless.

Tamara
06-25-2013, 10:11 PM
1577

If they only show 2/3rds of her curb-stomping, will that make everybody* happy? :rolleyes:

*and by "everybody", I mean "the guy whose knickers are all in a twist".

Nephrology
06-26-2013, 06:01 AM
My point is that the media discriminates against men.

Irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and completely uninteresting. A trifecta of posting excellence.

Byron
06-26-2013, 07:05 AM
My point is that the media discriminates against men. If Zimmerman was a woman, would she even be on trial?
You're really far off in the weeds, huh?

It really says something interesting that your first inclination upon seeing graphic video of a citizen assaulted in her home is, "Men are being persecuted!"

But hey, let's go back to your original... well... let's call it a "point" to be generous:

If this was a guy victim would it have got the same media attention?

I think not.

You may have heard of a popular saying in news: "If it bleeds, it leads."

This may come as a shock to you, but they aren't talking about the menstrual cycle.

If a man is brutally assaulted, captures his own assault on video, then offers it to the media (as was the case with this woman) then yes, it would indeed get media attention. How can I be so sure? Because it happens!

Here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKp1H-HOHvk&feature=youtu.be

Here's just one news story about it (of which there were a ton):
http://www.wect.com/story/19495990/surf-city-cab-driver-attacked

Go ahead and call 10 news agencies. Tell them you have a video of yourself being brutalized by a home invader. I bet you $10,000 that every single one will jump at the chance to air it. If one of them says, "Hm, you sound like a man. We're not interested," then make sure that you made a proper domestic call, and not a long distance call to Imagination Land.

In any regard, maybe you at least have the decorum to start a new thread on your perception of gender bias in the media and how it affects news stories. I'm not saying gender plays no role whatsoever, but your laser-like focus on this one issue is really out of place for this thread, and also shows me you don't understand much about why this video is so visceral for many people.

News sells fear. It's how they stay in business. A person (whether male or female) at home with young children, in an affluent neighborhood, catching his/her own home invasion / assault on video? That's media gold right there.


If they only show 2/3rds of her curb-stomping, will that make everybody* happy? :rolleyes:
Well, at least it's better than a 3/5 compromise.

(Edited because I first did the math backwards like an idiot)

cclaxton
06-26-2013, 08:00 AM
Irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and completely uninteresting. A trifecta of posting excellence.

Hmmmm...
First, I think this is a bit harsh. I don't go after your postings and call them irrelevant and uninteresting.
Secondly, You thought it was relevant enough and interesting enough to comment. So my post about media discrimination is at least a little relevant and interesting.
Thirdly: It is fair to ask for substantiation, not really fair to state that it is unsubstantiated...that is subject to further documented evidence of media bias. But that is a valid criticism.

Also, just so you know, I work in the broadcast industry..

Thanks,
CC

Chuck Haggard
06-26-2013, 08:35 AM
Most doors in the US are what I call "one kickers", one half assed kick and you are in. The lock is for show, not to actually stop anyone.

With less than $50 worth of hardware and maybe an hour's work you can have a door that would take the average SWAT breecher several hits from a ram to get through yet still looks like a normal door and frame to the untrained eye.

That is the difference between being able to get to your blaster in the approved child safe pistol vault, or the gauge from the closet, or not.

Of course, having the gun on you is better, having the gun on you and being able to draw while your pup is chewing on the bad guy is optimal, should they get in that is.

I am strongly betting that burglar dude kicked the door in and went into kick the victim's ass mode because he wasn't expecting anyone to be home.

SecondsCount
06-26-2013, 09:18 AM
Maybe we're both just kittened up cynical people, but there it seemed that there was something "off" about it to me too. Sickening, regardless.

I don't want to sound cynical or take anything away from the evil that happened in that video but I am in agreement.

A good friend of mine was a bail enforcement officer and he spent a lot of time around criminals. He said that whenever you hear of a home invasion on the news that you could almost count on some kind of criminal activity going on with the people that lived there, typically drugs. These criminals know that somewhere in the dealers home on Monday, after a big weekend of partying, there will be a big wad of cash.

Maybe these people are good honest people that happened to be a victim of random violence or maybe someone that is close to them is a drug user, owes somebody money, etc.

I knew a really nice couple that seemed to have it all together. Kid's, good jobs, lived in a nice house in suburbia. One day the husband gets caught with 1,000 pounds of marijuana in his company's service truck. He was moving the stuff for a dealer to make some money on the side and his wife had no idea this was going on. He went to prison and she ended up moving away because she was in fear for her life. I guess drug dealers don't just write off the losses on their taxes.

Chuck Haggard
06-26-2013, 09:32 AM
I don't want to sound cynical or take anything away from the evil that happened in that video but I am in agreement.

A good friend of mine was a bail enforcement officer and he spent a lot of time around criminals. He said that whenever you hear of a home invasion on the news that you could almost count on some kind of criminal activity going on with the people that lived there, typically drugs. These criminals know that somewhere in the dealers home on Monday, after a big weekend of partying, there will be a big wad of cash.

Maybe these people are good honest people that happened to be a victim of random violence or maybe someone that is close to them is a drug user, owes somebody money, etc.

I knew a really nice couple that seemed to have it all together. Kid's, good jobs, lived in a nice house in suburbia. One day the husband gets caught with 1,000 pounds of marijuana in his company's service truck. He was moving the stuff for a dealer to make some money on the side and his wife had no idea this was going on. He went to prison and she ended up moving away because she was in fear for her life. I guess drug dealers don't just write off the losses on their taxes.

While the vast majority of home invasions I have seen were in fact dealer vs dealer dope rips, this one doesn't look anything like those cases at all.

Tamara
06-26-2013, 10:00 AM
I don't want to sound cynical or take anything away from the evil that happened in that video but I am in agreement.

A good friend of mine was a bail enforcement officer and he spent a lot of time around criminals. He said that whenever you hear of a home invasion on the news that you could almost count on some kind of criminal activity going on with the people that lived there, typically drugs. These criminals know that somewhere in the dealers home on Monday, after a big weekend of partying, there will be a big wad of cash.

Maybe these people are good honest people that happened to be a victim of random violence or maybe someone that is close to them is a drug user, owes somebody money, etc.

I knew a really nice couple that seemed to have it all together. Kid's, good jobs, lived in a nice house in suburbia. One day the husband gets caught with 1,000 pounds of marijuana in his company's service truck. He was moving the stuff for a dealer to make some money on the side and his wife had no idea this was going on. He went to prison and she ended up moving away because she was in fear for her life. I guess drug dealers don't just write off the losses on their taxes.

I do not think this was intended to be a home invasion at all.

Doors get kicked in and valuables taken in peaceful, nice suburbia in broad daylight All (http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Police-nab-masked-home-burglary-ring-in-the-act/Fk8dS_yF8U2ssNmhVedzeA.cspx). The (http://www.morningjournalnews.com/page/content.detail/id/514192/2nd-burglary-ring-broken-up.html?nav=5019). Time (http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/suspects-charged-in-quad-county-burglary-ring/nGmrs/).

It's fairly low-risk because Champion's Downe McMansion Acres Estates is emptier than Will Smith's Manhattan in I Am Legend for eight hours a day. The MO is simple: they kick in the door, walk in and get the jewelry and electronics. Lather. Rinse. Repeat (http://www.wthr.com/story/14038651/daytime-burglaries-concern-fishers-residents).

I don't think this guy expected to find anybody home, and what was captured on film was meant to be a witness intimidation beatdown.

41magfan
06-26-2013, 10:15 AM
Personally, I haven't seen or read enough to conclude that this act of violence was completely disassociated or not, but in my mind it really isn't relevant.

This poor woman’s reaction and body language before the fact coupled with her comments after the fact makes her the stereotypical personality the anti-gun folks characterize as being a danger to herself by possessing a gun. Indeed, folks like this don’t need to own a gun as it would likely be a liability instead of an asset.

This woman clearly has no "fight" in her and simply owning a gun isn't going to alter that dynamic in a meaningful way ....... in my opinion.

jumpthestack
06-26-2013, 10:19 AM
Most doors in the US are what I call "one kickers", one half assed kick and you are in. The lock is for show, not to actually stop anyone.

With less than $50 worth of hardware and maybe an hour's work you can have a door that would take the average SWAT breecher several hits from a ram to get through yet still looks like a normal door and frame to the untrained eye.



More info on this?

TCinVA
06-26-2013, 10:20 AM
This woman clearly has no "fight" in her and simply owning a gun isn't going to alter that dynamic in a meaningful way ....... in my opinion.

Facing an attack you can't stop is a bit different than facing an attack when you know there's something useful you can do about it.

41magfan
06-26-2013, 10:42 AM
Facing an attack you can't stop is a bit different than facing an attack when you know there's something useful you can do about it.


My comment is based on what little has been revealed; she didn't fight, she didn't run (he went upstairs and left her alone more than once I understand) and after all the smoke clears she has an alarm system installed. I just don't think that owning a gun would have changed anything; then or now.

Changing your mind causes you to prepare - preparation in and of itself doesn't change your mind.

lindertw
06-26-2013, 10:46 AM
With less than $50 worth of hardware and maybe an hour's work you can have a door that would take the average SWAT breecher several hits from a ram to get through yet still looks like a normal door and frame to the untrained eye.


More info on this?

also interested...

Jay Cunningham
06-26-2013, 10:48 AM
Entry Point Hardening (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?8283-Entry-Point-Hardening&highlight=door)

...perhaps?

Tamara
06-26-2013, 10:50 AM
My comment is based on what little has been revealed; she didn't fight, she didn't run (he went upstairs and left her alone more than once I understand).

Did you have the sound turned off?

She couldn't run because her kid was in the room and a toddler was sleeping upstairs.

She took an ass-whipping in silence so her kid wouldn't start screaming.

41magfan
06-26-2013, 10:51 AM
Did you have the sound turned off?

She couldn't run because her kid was in the room and a toddler was sleeping upstairs.

She took an ass-whipping in silence so her kid wouldn't start screaming.

The initial link I saw on another Forum didn't include all that - my bad. The 3 yr old in the room was the only child mentioned.

* I looked back at several news sources that originally reported the incident and they failed to mention that there were two children in the home. I assumed that was accurate reporting - and you know what happens when you assume things.

Maple Syrup Actual
06-26-2013, 11:09 AM
If this crime gets more attention and upsets more people than a similar crime against a man, then society is not nearly as kittened as I thought.





Flawless, sub-moa fit and finish...all day long.

ToddG
06-26-2013, 11:14 AM
Societies have understood the difference between man hits man and man hits woman for the whole of recorded history.

Also to answer the thread title question: She should have shot him.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-26-2013, 11:19 AM
Also to answer the thread title question: She should have shot him.


Another acceptable answer: Open his femoral.

BaiHu
06-26-2013, 11:28 AM
Another acceptable answer: Open his femoral.

So make the perp carry AIWB without training him and hope for the best :p

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

David Armstrong
06-26-2013, 11:31 AM
From TC:
Criminal violence of any sort is repulsive, but criminal violence aimed at women and children is considered especially abhorrent in civilized societies...and for good reason.
As a FWIW, that is a fairly new concept in the world, and primarily reserved for more traditional Western civilizations.

Tamara
06-26-2013, 12:01 PM
Do you get some kind of alert if a thread is successfully brought back on-topic? Seriously.

LittleLebowski
06-26-2013, 12:07 PM
Societies have understood the difference between man hits man and man hits woman for the whole of recorded history.

Also to answer the thread title question: She should have shot him.

Is it realistic to expect her to have shot him in that situation, say armed with a pistol and the training an NRA basic safety course provides? I'd wager most males would have a hard time with that guy and fighting to get to a gun or fighting to be able to draw.

41magfan
06-26-2013, 12:10 PM
Well, none of the responses so far (including my own) have answered the OP’s question; what should she have done? I’m going to assume the original question is being asked as a hypothetical without the benefit of hindsight or alteration of the facts. If I'm wrong about that, someone will correct me I'm sure.

Option #1: Do nothing.
Option #2: Fight back.
Option #3: Flee with the 3 yr old child.
Option #4: Flee without the 3 yr old.
Option #5: Flee with both children.
Option #6: Flee with neither child.

Are there any other reasonable/feasible options that I’m overlooking? I’m mildly curious as to the “how” and “why” details of executing these options or any others presented.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-26-2013, 12:35 PM
Is it realistic to expect her to have shot him in that situation, say armed with a pistol and the training an NRA basic safety course provides? I'd wager most males would have a hard time with that guy and fighting to get to a gun or fighting to be able to draw.

No.

She's in a bad situation, and it would be difficult for most people to handle the situation.

That doesn't negate the fact that the only reasonable, effective response in that situation is a violent response.

TR675
06-26-2013, 01:37 PM
Somewhat disagree. Any violent response in this particular situation is going to have to be effective, i.e., either incapacitating or enough to scare off the attacker. She didn't have the means or opportunity to do that. I have a hard time imagining how an ineffective violent response is going to make her safer as opposed to escalating the violence of the attacker.

If Quentin Jackson decides to slap me around one day and I don't have some kind of force multiplier on me, at some point going fetal and riding it out seems like a better solution than feebly sticking my thumb in his eye and then getting beaten to death.

My real life fighting experience peaked in 9th grade though, so if our more street savvy folks have different opinions I'd love to hear them.

ETA: On re-reading Mitchell's post I see that he used the word "effective" - I'm not sure if that statement assumes that the violent response will be effective or how he quantifies that.

BaiHu
06-26-2013, 01:42 PM
I'm going to attempt to answer my own query.

There wasn't anything she could do at that point. It proves that there are points of no return when you are completely unprepared for a reality that you don't believe exists.

The next real question to ask would be: what will her and her husband do now, if anything, since reality came crashing through the door this past week?

Erik
06-26-2013, 02:04 PM
I'm going to attempt to answer my own query.

There wasn't anything she could do at that point. It proves that there are points of no return when you are completely unprepared for a reality that you don't believe exists.

The next real question to ask would be: what will her and her husband do now, if anything, since reality came crashing through the door this past week?

There are points of no return period. At bottom, all you can do is your best to push those points out further by improving prevention and preparedness.

41magfan
06-26-2013, 02:09 PM
I'm going to attempt to answer my own query.

There wasn't anything she could do at that point. It proves that there are points of no return when you are completely unprepared for a reality that you don't believe exists.

The next real question to ask would be: what will her and her husband do now, if anything, since reality came crashing through the door this past week?

One of the News Networks I saw initially showed footage of an alarm system being installed in the home. If that is a layer in her newly found awareness and action paradigm, that's a good thing. If it's their only response .... well, I hope it works out for them.

Mitchell, Esq.
06-26-2013, 03:25 PM
I mean effective in the sense of, "Clean up. Isle 4. Please bring mop & bucket."

Things like central nervous system destruction, exsanguination & limbs rendered inoperable. Crushed ribcages are good too.

You know...effective...like a bad guy might want to continue the fight, but no matter what he wants its just not happening.

LittleLebowski
06-26-2013, 03:39 PM
I'm going to attempt to answer my own query.

There wasn't anything she could do at that point. It proves that there are points of no return when you are completely unprepared for a reality that you don't believe exists.


Agreed.

I haven't found anything that dissuades me from my answer of "dog."

Kyle Reese
06-26-2013, 03:42 PM
Agreed.

I haven't found anything that dissuades me from my answer of "dog."

Nothing would have pleased me more than seeing this fine gentleman being a new chew toy for a trained guard dog...

RoyGBiv
06-26-2013, 03:45 PM
There wasn't anything she could do at that point.

I assume you're speaking specifically about this woman, since she was defeated psychologically the instant the assailant came through the door.?? I'd agree with you in that context.

There are plenty of things that could have been attempted, from fleeing to call for help to the use of a hard object as a weapon, or even a chair to create space and allow a few extra seconds to act or flee. From the video it appears there was opportunity to flee or at least escape to a locked room. This woman was made powerless primarily by her own mind, the preconditioning that she accepted, the pussification of "civil society".

orionz06
06-26-2013, 03:46 PM
Get a dog, active protection for those who don't seem to care.

NEPAKevin
06-26-2013, 04:33 PM
One of the News Networks I saw initially showed footage of an alarm system being installed in the home. If that is a layer in her newly found awareness and action paradigm, that's a good thing. If it's their only response .... well, I hope it works out for them.

If not, they will probably sell the home and buy a McMansion in a development in eastern Pa. The guy will commute and the wife will still be alone at home with the kids in a bigger house that is expensive to heat with slower police response but at least their property taxes should be lower.

BaiHu
06-26-2013, 04:40 PM
Yes RGB, you hit my nail on the head ;)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Coyotesfan97
06-26-2013, 05:15 PM
Any thoughts on this from your perspective as a street cop?

I think others have mostly covered it. Cops see the aftermath of this all the time. This is why I laugh when burglars are called "non violent offenders". He went from a property crime to a violent aggravated assault in a split second. The only thing that saved her was his decision not to kill her. That's not a position I would like to see anyone in.

I think this absolutely demonstrates the need to harden your home like TPD said. I like having outward swinging security doors too. There are plenty of other homes that aren't secured. If it isn't easy to get in most burglars will move on.

I really like the idea of a 65+ Mal, Dutchie, or GSD dog jumping and barking at the door. Kick the door and hear the impact of the dog hitting the door from the inside along with the sound of a Mal in drive trying to get out? It's time to move on bro. Talon wants you to come in!

I saw on the news they were putting in an alarm. I'd harden the entry points first and then get an alarm if a dog wasn't an option.

The hardened entry points give you time to decide what you're doing. In the case of PF members its deciding what gun to grab!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tamara
06-26-2013, 06:14 PM
Well, none of the responses so far (including my own) have answered the OP’s question; what should she have done?

Given the facts as presented? I dunno, it was pretty Kobayashi Maru, there.

Given what's presented in the video, it's hard to say how long it took from the sound of his foot hitting the door to the time he was on top of her; he just kind of appears from stage right.

Given that she was up from the sofa and moving to meet him at the time he entered the frame (IIRC), one would have to assume that, were one in her position, one would have had time to pull one's gat and go to work, if only from the retention position.

But given the totality of the circumstances, if one found one's self inside that victim's head at the moment it happened and keeping his attention away from the kids was Job One? I don't see many other ways for it to have played out.

ToddG
06-26-2013, 06:31 PM
Is it realistic to expect her to have shot him in that situation, say armed with a pistol and the training an NRA basic safety course provides? I'd wager most males would have a hard time with that guy and fighting to get to a gun or fighting to be able to draw.

He didn't just magically appear in her living room. She clearly saw him coming.

41magfan
06-26-2013, 09:51 PM
To put these types of crimes into some perspective; I visited my Mother‘s home yesterday (mid-morning and unannounced) while one of my brothers was there visiting for the week.
We had recently serviced the electric garage door and they didn’t hear it open. I slipped my key in the door that leads from the garage to the kitchen and when I opened it, they were both standing there in a state that can be best described as Titanium White.

My brother admitted that just as he heard the door knob turn he looked towards the bedroom where his Glock 19 was located and realized it might as well have been on the moon if I had intended them harm. But just before he did that, he embarrassingly revealed to me that he had reached for the .380 he usually carries in his front pocket and realized it wasn’t there. Having recently moved to another state he is currently in a state of limbo between issued a lawful carry permit.

I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions regarding the what, when and where of being armed is really all about, but I happen to believe it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome. Feel free to disagree .... I hope your choices work out for you.

Chuck Haggard
06-26-2013, 09:59 PM
Oh, and another thing STOP LEAVING GARAGE DOOR REMOTES IN THE FREAKIN CAR PARKED IN THE KITTEN DRIVE WAY!!!!!!!!

That is all for now.

Tamara
06-26-2013, 10:13 PM
Feel free to disagree ....

Why do you think anyone here is going to disagree?

(Out of curiosity, if you were the woman in the video, what would you have done?)

41magfan
06-26-2013, 10:51 PM
Why do you think anyone here is going to disagree?

(Out of curiosity, if you were the woman in the video, what would you have done?)

I'm not dodging the question, but I'm not that woman and interjecting my views or thoughts into her life experience is pretty pointless. I think the real learning point to be made from watching real-life footage of violence like this is asking yourself the question(s); Are my preparations adequate to handle a situation like this? If not - what can I do to fix it.

I believe there's a time and place to be compliant, but in a situation like this where he held all the cards, going along with the program could have resulted in the death of them all. As someone has already noted, the only reason he didn't rape and pillage at will is because he simply had no desire to do it.

I hope she's done something besides install an alarm, because we know how quickly that layer can fall apart. It's entirely possible this poor woman hasn't really learned anything meaningful from this tragedy, but it would be a greater tragedy if someone else doesn't learn from the exposure.

I don't have any perfect answers, but relying on the good nature of a criminal in a situation like this carries more risks than fight or flight in my opinion.

BLR
06-27-2013, 07:40 AM
/IF/ I were married, with kids or not, my house would have no less than 2 GSDs. And a woman that competes in USPSA/IDPA with me, and goes to Gunsite/Rogers with me.

This is a demonstration that ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is painful, embarrassing, and costly.

Sparks2112
06-27-2013, 08:37 AM
/IF/ I were married, with kids or not, my house would have no less than 2 GSDs. And a woman that competes in USPSA/IDPA with me, and goes to Gunsite/Rogers with me.

This is a demonstration that ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is painful, embarrassing, and costly.

If you start manufacturing perfect women up there in Dayton let me know. ;)

On a side note you have a pm and a couple e-mails from me. (A smart man would take the hint, but, I'm not smart man. ;))

Bigguy
06-27-2013, 10:43 AM
/IF/ I were married, with kids or not, my house would have no less than 2 GSDs. And a woman that competes in USPSA/IDPA with me, and goes to Gunsite/Rogers with me.

This is a demonstration that ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is painful, embarrassing, and costly.
Easy to see why your post starts with the word "IF."

Chuck Haggard
06-27-2013, 11:01 AM
I have had a couple of posts and several PMs asking for more info ref my door kicking comments. I'm going to post something on it's own ref that, and I have been asked to write something up for the Ballistic Radio site.

More to follow when I get a chance to write that up properly.

BLR
06-27-2013, 02:58 PM
Easy to see why your post starts with the word "IF."

Yep. High standards. I gotts 'em.

TCinVA
06-27-2013, 03:39 PM
I have had a couple of posts and several PMs asking for more info ref my door kicking comments. I'm going to post something on it's own ref that, and I have been asked to write something up for the Ballistic Radio site.

More to follow when I get a chance to write that up properly.

Outstanding!

David Armstrong
06-27-2013, 03:53 PM
from 41Mag:
I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions regarding the what, when and where of being armed is really all about, but I happen to believe it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome. Feel free to disagree .... I hope your choices work out for you.
Strongly agree. I've had the chance to review literally thousands of shootings to various degrees and have found that those things we often tend to talk about the most (caliber, ammo, holster, weapon selection) rarely have much impact on the outcome, as you said. It might make us feel good, but that's about it.

Mr_White
06-28-2013, 11:51 AM
Although equipment details (ammo, gun, holster, etc.) often may not be directly relevant to outcomes of defensive situations, they may be indirectly relevant. Mindset is pretty important. Confidence in one's equipment and abilities with that equipment are an important component of mindset. So I think equipment matters in that way.

GJM
06-28-2013, 12:15 PM
Strongly agree. I've had the chance to review literally thousands of shootings to various degrees and have found that those things we often tend to talk about the most (caliber, ammo, holster, weapon selection) rarely have much impact on the outcome, as you said. It might make us feel good, but that's about it.

Yes, but isn't this a function of both the anecdotal nature of these events and the data collection?

For, example, I recently reviewed a long term analysis of the use of firearms in bear attacks. The data showed handguns to be slightly more effective than long guns in stopping an attack, and various other findings on caliber and otherwise that any experienced hunter of large animals would know to be illogical. So do I ditch my 45-70 with Garrett hard cast ammo in exchange for a .357 revolver with over the counter JHP ammo, based on the "data?"

While caliber/ammo/holster/weapon selection might not have jumped out to you amongst all the different variables in the shootings you studied, I have no doubt if we held the other variables constant, varied just caliber/ammo/holster/weapon selection, and had a large enough sample, those variables would be significant.

GJM
06-28-2013, 12:26 PM
/IF/ I were married, with kids or not, my house would have no less than 2 GSDs. And a woman that competes in USPSA/IDPA with me, and goes to Gunsite/Rogers with me.

Bill, you think in terms of a man's world. I am sure your wife sees it as "I have a husband that shoots with me at USPSA/IDPA matches, and goes to Gunsite/Rogers with me."

NMBigfoot02
06-28-2013, 12:34 PM
I have had a couple of posts and several PMs asking for more info ref my door kicking comments. I'm going to post something on it's own ref that, and I have been asked to write something up for the Ballistic Radio site.

More to follow when I get a chance to write that up properly.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the matter.

David Armstrong
06-28-2013, 12:58 PM
Yes, but isn't this a function of both the anecdotal nature of these events and the data collection?

For, example, I recently reviewed a long term analysis of the use of firearms in bear attacks. The data showed handguns to be slightly more effective than long guns in stopping an attack, and various other findings on caliber and otherwise that any experienced hunter of large animals would know to be illogical. So do I ditch my 45-70 with Garrett hard cast ammo in exchange for a .357 revolver with over the counter JHP ammo, based on the "data?"

While caliber/ammo/holster/weapon selection might not have jumped out to you amongst all the different variables in the shootings you studied, I have no doubt if we held the other variables constant, varied just caliber/ammo/holster/weapon selection, and had a large enough sample, those variables would be significant.
Without looking at the data on bear attacks I can't address the findings, although given the results I would certainly question the data because, as you say, experienced hunters know the results to be illogical. Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues. When data from diverse sources, collected with diverse methods, collected over a wide period of time and a wide range of incidents all tend to reflect a common set of findings, I tend to believe that data PARTICULARLY when it also meets the logical considerations as well as the data-driven conclusions.

GJM
06-28-2013, 01:31 PM
Without looking at the data on bear attacks I can't address the findings, although given the results I would certainly question the data because, as you say, experienced hunters know the results to be illogical. Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues. When data from diverse sources, collected with diverse methods, collected over a wide period of time and a wide range of incidents all tend to reflect a common set of findings, I tend to believe that data PARTICULARLY when it also meets the logical considerations as well as the data-driven conclusions.

David, so I am clear, is it your belief that if we were to have a large sample study, hold all variables except caliber/holster/ammo/platform constant, that variations in caliber/holster/ammo/platform would not materially change the outcome? And, if you believe caliber/holster/ammo/platform would not materially change the outcome is this for all shooters, unskilled shooters, and/or skilled shooters?

ToddG
06-28-2013, 02:08 PM
Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues.

And yet trainer after trainer tend to be pretty choosy about the guns and ammo they carry every day.

As GJM keeps trying to point out, there's a big difference between "other factors are more important" and "your factors are unimportant."

BLR
06-28-2013, 02:47 PM
Without looking at the data on bear attacks I can't address the findings, although given the results I would certainly question the data because, as you say, experienced hunters know the results to be illogical. Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues. When data from diverse sources, collected with diverse methods, collected over a wide period of time and a wide range of incidents all tend to reflect a common set of findings, I tend to believe that data PARTICULARLY when it also meets the logical considerations as well as the data-driven conclusions.

Who is "we?"

As a side note, there are lessons to be learned here.

To take a page from aviation, the 3 most useless things in a SD encounter?
1. A gun not on your person
2. ???
3. ???

TCinVA
06-28-2013, 03:31 PM
The ability to produce a firearm as this individual was breaking into the house would have likely changed the dynamics of the situation all by itself regardless of whether the woman produced an AR15 or a Ruger LCP.

Likely.

...but we come right back to the reality that all self defense situations do not merely require pulling a gun. Some of them require actually using it...and when it comes to a shooting problem a Ruger LCP is a decidedly inferior tool compared to, say, a Glock 17.

From there we spin on endlessly in a debate that's been done at least half a dozen other times here.

Kyle Reese
06-28-2013, 08:06 PM
In custody - http://www.nydailynews.com/police-arrest-home-invader-brazen-beating-new-jersey-mom-caught-nanny-cam-article-1.1385563

NickA
06-28-2013, 08:14 PM
In custody - http://www.nydailynews.com/police-arrest-home-invader-brazen-beating-new-jersey-mom-caught-nanny-cam-article-1.1385563

Outstanding, and I'm positively shocked that he has a long rap sheet.
Of course if that lady's house hadn't been on his way to church I'm sure this wouldn't have happened :cool:

Maple Syrup Actual
06-28-2013, 09:43 PM
And to think he was just turning his life around. I'm sure his relatives would be happy to explain.

Tamara
06-28-2013, 11:42 PM
And to think he was just turning his life around. I'm sure his relatives would be happy to explain.

As any city-dweller can tell you, just turning your life around is the second most dangerous thing you can do, right behind just standing there, minding your own business.

Sparks2112
06-29-2013, 12:51 AM
Outstanding!

I barely had to bribe him. :)

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 02:04 PM
David, so I am clear, is it your belief that if we were to have a large sample study, hold all variables except caliber/holster/ammo/platform constant, that variations in caliber/holster/ammo/platform would not materially change the outcome? And, if you believe caliber/holster/ammo/platform would not materially change the outcome is this for all shooters, unskilled shooters, and/or skilled shooters?
Pretty much, but of of course when we eliminate many of the actual variables that might or might not have an impact then the other variables that might or might not have an impact will also change. That is the point. It is those variables that you want to hold constant that seem to have the greatest effect, far more than caliber/holster/ammo/platform. A good shooter with a 6-shot K-frame that knows his stuff will will not be particularly impaired, nor will a poor shooter with little training and tactical awareness become appreciably better because he has a Glock 19 in an AIWB holster

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 02:08 PM
And yet trainer after trainer tend to be pretty choosy about the guns and ammo they carry every day.
But trainer after trainer picks a different gun, or ammo, or holster, or carry position. In fact, some change fairly regularly and don't seem to think it materiallyy impacts their chances of success should there be an altercation.


As GJM keeps trying to point out, there's a big difference between "other factors are more important" and "your factors are unimportant."
Don't think anyone has said otherwise. Again, from the original point: "....it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome."

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 02:18 PM
Who is "we?"
I think it is pretty much across the board of those who investigate and research CCW shootings. It is hard to find many, IME, that will seriously argue that a 9mm is better/worse than a .40 is better/worse than a .45 is better/worse than a .357; or brand versus brand, holster placement versus holster placement, and so on.

GJM
06-29-2013, 02:28 PM
I think it is pretty much across the board of those who investigate and research CCW shootings. It is hard to find many, IME, that will seriously argue that a 9mm is better/worse than a .40 is better/worse than a .45 is better/worse than a .357; or brand versus brand, holster placement versus holster placement, and so on.


If you are suggesting that the differences you were talking about were between 9 and .40, or HST versus Gold Dot, then I misunderstood you. My understanding was that you were suggesting the difference between ball and JHP ammo and a 5 shot .38 versus a service pistol didn't matter -- which is it?

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 02:39 PM
I'm not suggesting anything. A statement was made by 41Mag: "I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions regarding the what, when and where of being armed is really all about, but I happen to believe it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome. Feel free to disagree .... I hope your choices work out for you." I agreed with the statement by saying: "Strongly agree. I've had the chance to review literally thousands of shootings to various degrees and have found that those things we often tend to talk about the most (caliber, ammo, holster, weapon selection) rarely have much impact on the outcome, as you said."
If your question is have I found a significant difference in outcome of CCW events based on ball versus JHP in my research, no I have not. If you are asking have I observed a significant difference in outcome of CCW events based on the defender having a 5-shot .38 versus the defender having a service pistol (open to definition) in my research again no, I have not.

Maple Syrup Actual
06-29-2013, 02:42 PM
As any city-dweller can tell you, just turning your life around is the second most dangerous thing you can do, right behind just standing there, minding your own business.

Are we just going to ignore "winning a basketball or track scholarship that's going to take you up and out of the ghetto forever"? I thought that was a straight-up death sentence.

Man, if John Singleton and Spike Lee have been misleading me for all these years, I'm really going to have to reexamine my beliefs about urban decay, crime, and the media.

ToddG
06-29-2013, 03:04 PM
But trainer after trainer picks a different gun, or ammo, or holster, or carry position. In fact, some change fairly regularly and don't seem to think it materiallyy impacts their chances of success should there be an altercation.

As to the first sentence, I'm not sure what in the world that has to do with the issue that had been raised. In fact, it seems almost purposefully designed to avoid said point. But perhaps I misjudge. :cool:

As to the second sentence, I'd again suggest you are making assumptions without the necessary facts. I know trainers who sometimes carry a j-frame instead of their normal gun, but I don't know too many who sincerely believe they're as well armed or capable with the j-frame as they are with a more powerful, higher capacity, self-loading handgun. Because if they did sincerely think the j was just as good, why would they carry those bigger, heavier, more expensive guns most of the time? Curious...



As GJM keeps trying to point out, there's a big difference between "other factors are more important" and "your factors are unimportant."Don't think anyone has said otherwise. Again, from the original point: "....it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome."

And on this you have me totally confused. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me (first sentence) or disagreeing (second).

As for all these studies of CCW shootings, how many of them included all the instances where an armed citizen was a victim of a crime and lost or was killed? Because obviously there would be a ridiculous success bias if we only asked the survivors/winners... all of them, regardless of gun caliber holster or anything else, would be in the victor's column. "Of all the people who won, the gun didn't make a difference" is a completely meaningless non-data sound bite. It's a lot like the 1-shot stop percentage thing... if you only count data where a single round was fired you end up with meaningless non-data that makes everything look better than it really is because you aren't counting the failures.

And how many of those studies count it as a success when someone uses a firearm in a 1-way shooting as opposed to a 2-way exchange of gun fire?

And how many of those studies count it as a success when someone "uses" a firearm without even firing a shot?

Because as soon as you start to look at how many rounds police officers often have to fire -- and how many successful hits they often need -- to stop a deadly threat it becomes a lot harder to swallow the old saw that five is enough once the two-way gun battle begins.

GJM
06-29-2013, 03:27 PM
I'm not suggesting anything. A statement was made by 41Mag: "I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions regarding the what, when and where of being armed is really all about, but I happen to believe it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome. Feel free to disagree .... I hope your choices work out for you." I agreed with the statement by saying: "Strongly agree. I've had the chance to review literally thousands of shootings to various degrees and have found that those things we often tend to talk about the most (caliber, ammo, holster, weapon selection) rarely have much impact on the outcome, as you said."
If your question is have I found a significant difference in outcome of CCW events based on ball versus JHP in my research, no I have not. If you are asking have I observed a significant difference in outcome of CCW events based on the defender having a 5-shot .38 versus the defender having a service pistol (open to definition) in my research again no, I have not.

David, it seems ingenuous to say "I'm not suggesting anything." My belief, based on this and other threads, is that your position is that ball versus JHP, 5 shot J frame versus service pistol, pistol in a sock versus a kydex holster, is not significant in determining the outcome of an interaction. I am not going to try to parse every word of every post you have made, as it is about as productive as trying to squeeze the air out of a paper bag, but your position defies not only common sense but most everything that Pistol-Forum represents.

DocGKR
06-29-2013, 03:30 PM
The most important determinant in successfully thwarting a violent assault is mindset--being aware of impending danger and being willing to fight back.

The second most important thing is having an implement to fight back with--a skilled warrier will probably be able to prevail in many situations; mere mortals tend to do better at incapacitating attackers with a bit of distance--firearms help in this defensive task.

The most recently released NYPD SOP-9 "Annual Firearms Discharge Report" data show from 2011 document that 7 rounds or less were fired in 65% of NYPD OIS incidents, while in 35% of cases officers needed to fire more than 7 shots to stop the threat. Interestingly in 29% of the incidents, more than 10 shots were required to end the violent encounter. For 2010, in 67% of the NYPD OIS incidents 7 rounds or less were fired; however in 33% of the incidents more than 7 shots were required to subdue the threat. In 21% of lethal force encounters more than 10 shots were required.

So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time, why would innocent civilians who likely have no body armor, no radio, no partner, no cover units, no less lethal options, no duty belt with extra magazines, yet who are being confronted by the same violent felons as the police need less ammunition than the NYPD officers? What about citizens with disabilities that may prevent their escape or avoidance of a threat and severely limit their ability to rapidly and effectively reload a firearm? If limited to 7-10 rounds, the most current NYPD SOP-9 data strongly suggests that in 1/4 to 1/3 of incidents that defenders will likely run out of ammunition before the violent attacker has been stopped...

Tamara
06-29-2013, 04:02 PM
Thread headed toward page six and look what the topic has turned into!

This is my shocked face.

ToddG
06-29-2013, 04:06 PM
The most recently released NYPD SOP-9 "Annual Firearms Discharge Report" data show from 2011 document that 7 rounds or less were fired in 65% of NYPD OIS incidents, while in 35% of cases officers needed to fire more than 7 shots to stop the threat. Interestingly in 29% of the incidents, more than 10 shots were required to end the violent encounter. For 2010, in 67% of the NYPD OIS incidents 7 rounds or less were fired; however in 33% of the incidents more than 7 shots were required to subdue the threat. In 21% of lethal force encounters more than 10 shots were required.

It's also important to remember that SOP-9 counts dispatching an animal as an "OIS" so all of those incidents skew those numbers. Quite a few of the "less than 7 rounds" instances, therefore, didn't involve incapacitating a human.

Mr_White
06-29-2013, 04:37 PM
The most important determinant in successfully thwarting a violent assault is mindset--being aware of impending danger and being willing to fight back.

The second most important thing is having an implement to fight back with--a skilled warrier will probably be able to prevail in many situations; mere mortals tend to do better at incapacitating attackers with a bit of distance--firearms help in this defensive task.

The most recently released NYPD SOP-9 "Annual Firearms Discharge Report" data show from 2011 document that 7 rounds or less were fired in 65% of NYPD OIS incidents, while in 35% of cases officers needed to fire more than 7 shots to stop the threat. Interestingly in 29% of the incidents, more than 10 shots were required to end the violent encounter. For 2010, in 67% of the NYPD OIS incidents 7 rounds or less were fired; however in 33% of the incidents more than 7 shots were required to subdue the threat. In 21% of lethal force encounters more than 10 shots were required.

So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time, why would innocent civilians who likely have no body armor, no radio, no partner, no cover units, no less lethal options, no duty belt with extra magazines, yet who are being confronted by the same violent felons as the police need less ammunition than the NYPD officers? What about citizens with disabilities that may prevent their escape or avoidance of a threat and severely limit their ability to rapidly and effectively reload a firearm? If limited to 7-10 rounds, the most current NYPD SOP-9 data strongly suggests that in 1/4 to 1/3 of incidents that defenders will likely run out of ammunition before the violent attacker has been stopped...

Great analysis!

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 06:29 PM
As to the first sentence, I'm not sure what in the world that has to do with the issue that had been raised. In fact, it seems almost purposefully designed to avoid said point. But perhaps I misjudge. :cool:
I was trying to convey that there is no consensus among trainers about equipment, ammo, holsters, etc.


As to the second sentence, I'd again suggest you are making assumptions without the necessary facts. I know trainers who sometimes carry a j-frame instead of their normal gun, but I don't know too many who sincerely believe they're as well armed or capable with the j-frame as they are with a more powerful, higher capacity, self-loading handgun. Because if they did sincerely think the j was just as good, why would they carry those bigger, heavier, more expensive guns most of the time? Curious...
As often happens in this discussion the key issue is being changed. The issue is not "is A better than B" it is "in a CCW event is there some evidence to show that having A instead of B has a significant impact on the outcome." To sort of twist your reasoning, if they thought the gun they were carrying was not adequate, why would they be carrying it?


And on this you have me totally confused. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me (first sentence) or disagreeing (second).
Neither. I'm pointing out that particular problem was not addressed by me.


As for all these studies of CCW shootings, how many of them included all the instances where an armed citizen was a victim of a crime and lost or was killed? Because obviously there would be a ridiculous success bias if we only asked the survivors/winners... all of them, regardless of gun caliber holster or anything else, would be in the victor's column. "Of all the people who won, the gun didn't make a difference" is a completely meaningless non-data sound bite. It's a lot like the 1-shot stop percentage thing... if you only count data where a single round was fired you end up with meaningless non-data that makes everything look better than it really is because you aren't counting the failures.

And how many of those studies count it as a success when someone uses a firearm in a 1-way shooting as opposed to a 2-way exchange of gun fire?

And how many of those studies count it as a success when someone "uses" a firearm without even firing a shot?
As always, if one is not happy with the research available one is welcome to do their own. If you really want me to go back through mounds of data and break it down along those particular lines I'll be glad to give you 20% off of my standard research rate. At this point I couldn't give you specific numbers, or even how many records would provide that type of information and quite honestly don't see much need for it. I mean, does it really matter if you win the fight by simple display or if you have to use a dozen rounds? That doesn't effect the outcome, which, again, is what 41 Mag and I have talked about....the outcome.


Because as soon as you start to look at how many rounds police officers often have to fire -- and how many successful hits they often need -- to stop a deadly threat it becomes a lot harder to swallow the old saw that five is enough once the two-way gun battle begins.
As always, comparing LE shootings with non-LE is rather questionable for round count as LE often uses their firearms in a very different role (offensive versus defensive) and under very different circumstances (apprehension versus defense).

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 06:43 PM
David, it seems ingenuous to say "I'm not suggesting anything." My belief, based on this and other threads, is that your position is that ball versus JHP, 5 shot J frame versus service pistol, pistol in a sock versus a kydex holster, is not significant in determining the outcome of an interaction. I am not going to try to parse every word of every post you have made, as it is about as productive as trying to squeeze the air out of a paper bag, but your position defies not only common sense but most everything that Pistol-Forum represents.
It may seem ingenuous, but believe me, it is not. I have little interest in advocating particular points of view. I do strongly advocate as much understanding of an issue as possible so a person can develop their own point of view. I have my beliefs, one of which as stated is that if everyone doing CCW today were to suddenly be armed with only a .38 revolver the CCW numbers would change very little, if at all. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting everyone should carry a .38 revolver, or a .22 auto, or a .500 S&W Mag, or anything else. That is simply what decades of studying shootings of all types has shown me. And it seems any time anyone else does similar studies, such as Claude Werner, that is what is shown. If someone has anything remotely resembling any remotely valid and reliable research that says otherwise I've not seen it, but would certainly like to IF ANYONE CAN FIND IT. As for defying common sense, well, the basic problem with common sense is that one, it is not that common, and two, it often doesn't make sense. As for what Pistol-Forum represents, the heading says for teachers and students of the pistol. If it is only for high-speed, low-drag BTDT uber practicioners of the art of high-tech gun handling without concern for actual fighting issues, well I wasn't aware of that.

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 06:46 PM
from DocGKR:
So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time,
Because NYPD officer don't need to just stop violent attackers, they need to pursue and apprehend violent offenders, which significantly changes the dynamics of an encounter.

David Armstrong
06-29-2013, 06:56 PM
It's also important to remember that SOP-9 counts dispatching an animal as an "OIS" so all of those incidents skew those numbers. Quite a few of the "less than 7 rounds" instances, therefore, didn't involve incapacitating a human.
If one reads the document, the shootings are broken down and adversarial conflict is separated from animal shootings. If we want to be picky, of course, we can also look at the OIS shootings involving running gunbattles that tend to skew the actual adversarial conflict shooting numbers higher than one would expect outside of LE. I doubt any of us would suggest that chasing a fleeing suspect across several blocks while shooting 40+ rounds would be considered appropriate for CCW, for example. Or my personal favorite from a recent year, 3 detectives from a block away shooting 44 rounds at a BG.:rolleyes:

ToddG
06-29-2013, 07:36 PM
I was trying to convey that there is no consensus among trainers about equipment, ammo, holsters, etc.

There are plenty of consensuses about such things. Now there may not be a consensus as to what is best? but I bet if you got twenty of the best known instructors in a room they'd agree on whether they'd prefer a G17 or a j-frame in a gunfight.


As often happens in this discussion the key issue is being changed. The issue is not "is A better than B" it is "in a CCW event is there some evidence to show that having A instead of B has a significant impact on the outcome."

Actually, David, I think you've simply parsed one aspect out of "is A better than B?" The problem is that you continue to discuss "a CCW event" as if there were some universal movie clip of what said event is guaranteed to be. If you want to say a j-frame is adequate plenty of times, sure, I'm right there with you. It's adequate all the times when just showing a gun is enough. It's adequate all the times when just discharging a gun is enough. It's adequate all the times when it provides enough ammo to stop the threat(s).

It's inadequate all the other times. You seem OK with that because -- and please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth here -- you seem to believe that "all the other times" are too rare to get worked up over.


To sort of twist your reasoning, if they thought the gun they were carrying was not adequate, why would they be carrying it?

Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of justifications I've heard used. The most honest was, "I'm being lazy." He felt like the j-frame would solve most problems and at that point he was willing to take the risk that if he had a problem it would be one of those. That guy, last I saw him, now carries a P30 with a spare mag everywhere he goes.

I know other instructors who carry pocket guns and the like when their circumstances require it. It's a compromise between "carry no gun at all" and "carry a gun that will get me in trouble," whether that's trouble at work, with the law, or trouble pedaling a bike. There have been a few times I've walked out the door with nothing but a j-frame or LCP in a pocket. Did I do it because I thought those guns were going to be as effective in a fight as my full size <insert brand here>? No. I did it because carrying my regular gun simply wasn't a reasonable option and having a sharp stick is better than having nothing.


As always, if one is not happy with the research available one is welcome to do their own.

Sorry, no. You can't reference research -- especially if it's your own -- and then turn the tables on me to provide my own original research when I ask questions about your data. You want to use your study as evidence in this discussion, then you have to answer questions about it.


At this point I couldn't give you specific numbers, or even how many records would provide that type of information and quite honestly don't see much need for it. I mean, does it really matter if you win the fight by simple display or if you have to use a dozen rounds? That doesn't effect the outcome, which, again, is what 41 Mag and I have talked about....the outcome.

Except that's not what I asked. I asked about how your data-gathering accounted for the people on the losing side of a violent encounter. If, in studying "CCW events," you've focused solely or even primarily on CCWer victories then by definition you haven't accounted for the times when, for example, a j-frame wasn't enough.

OTOH, as I've always maintained, every single instance in your database in which the defender fired more than 5 rounds is evidence that in that instance a j-frame would have been inadequate.


As always, comparing LE shootings with non-LE is rather questionable for round count as LE often uses their firearms in a very different role (offensive versus defensive) and under very different circumstances (apprehension versus defense).

As always, I fail to see how the motivation of the officer affects how many bullets it takes to make the BG fall down go boom. Example:

I'm walking down the street and a thug tries to rob me at gunpoint. Scenario A, I shoot him. Scenario B, a police officer shoots him. Exactly what physiological change do you think occurs in the BG when it's a cop pointing a gun toward him instead of me?

mrh
06-29-2013, 07:57 PM
This happened 2 towns east of me in a very upscale neighborhood. The owner of AZ Iced Tea lived nearby this incident (dunno if he's still there) for example.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/millburn-home-invasion-video_n_3495317.html


http://youtu.be/dvvHMM6TF50

At the time of the attack, the woman did not appear to have any option but to be beaten. She is alive only because her attacker chose to let her live.

The San Francisco residents in the home invasion below seemed no more prepared than the woman in the NJ incident above, but the San Francisco man was able to drive off the invaders.

I'd prefer to have a firearm in my hand if facing a home invasion, but I'm not an SME.

"A man whose home in San Francisco's Bayview neighborhood was invaded by three robbers early Tuesday managed to wrestle away one of the assailant's guns and use it to critically wound him, police said."

"Inside the home were a 37-year-old man, his 31-year-old wife and their two children, police said. Neighbors said the couple have three children, including a newborn baby."

"One of the robbers shot the man in the leg and the woman in the chest, police said, before the man was able to grab the gun."

"The robber who was shot and the woman suffered life-threatening injuries, while the male resident suffered non-life-threatening injuries, Toomer said. All three were being treated at San Francisco General Hospital. Their names were not released."
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-Bayview-man-shoots-home-invasion-robber-4620549.php

David Armstrong
06-30-2013, 09:02 AM
There are plenty of consensuses about such things. Now there may not be a consensus as to what is best? but I bet if you got twenty of the best known instructors in a room they'd agree on whether they'd prefer a G17 or a j-frame in a gunfight.
Again, it is not what is preferred, it is what is sufficient. I prefer my G17 also, but I don't consider my J-frame inadequate.


Actually, David, I think you've simply parsed one aspect out of "is A better than B?" The problem is that you continue to discuss "a CCW event" as if there were some universal movie clip of what said event is guaranteed to be. If you want to say a j-frame is adequate plenty of times, sure, I'm right there with you. It's adequate all the times when just showing a gun is enough. It's adequate all the times when just discharging a gun is enough. It's adequate all the times when it provides enough ammo to stop the threat(s).
It's inadequate all the other times. You seem OK with that because -- and please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth here -- you seem to believe that "all the other times" are too rare to get worked up over.
When one discusses an issue one generally discusses "some universal movie clip". When we talk about driving and drivers, for example, we discuss that in generalities and broad contexts based on what is a generally recognized and accepted norm. CCW is no different. And yes, I am OK with something that works for the overwhelming majority of the time in a relatively rarely occurring situation. To change gears just a bit, you and I both love perfomance autos and I think agree on the fact that the 911, in some variation, is the premier personal driving machine. But when it comes to the usual need for an automobile a Toyota Camry or a Ford Crown Vic will do the job most of the time. Yes, there might be times when a 911 makes the difference between getting the groceries home or not, but they are pretty darned rare. CCW is no different. There may be times when the magic gun makes the difference, or the magic bullet, or the special holster make a difference in the outcome. But they are so rare it really isn't worth worrying over. Equally important, the next "rarity" it might be a different gun, bullet, holster, etc. that makes the difference. Thus, again, "caliber, ammo, holster, weapon selection rarely have much impact on the outcome". I don't say it never happens. Heck, the next incident having a NAA mini-derringer in the watch pocket of ones jeans may be the only thing that works. Or having a hi-cap 9mm with a laser attached may make the difference. But I doubt it.


Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of justifications I've heard used. The most honest was, "I'm being lazy." He felt like the j-frame would solve most problems and at that point he was willing to take the risk that if he had a problem it would be one of those. That guy, last I saw him, now carries a P30 with a spare mag everywhere he goes.

I know other instructors who carry pocket guns and the like when their circumstances require it. It's a compromise between "carry no gun at all" and "carry a gun that will get me in trouble," whether that's trouble at work, with the law, or trouble pedaling a bike. There have been a few times I've walked out the door with nothing but a j-frame or LCP in a pocket. Did I do it because I thought those guns were going to be as effective in a fight as my full size <insert brand here>? No. I did it because carrying my regular gun simply wasn't a reasonable option and having a sharp stick is better than having nothing.
I think that avoids the issue, which is would they (or you) carry the gun and trust it if they didn't feel it was adequate to do the job. Again, the issue is not "will this be as effective as...." the issue is "is this effective enough".


Sorry, no. You can't reference research -- especially if it's your own -- and then turn the tables on me to provide my own original research when I ask questions about your data. You want to use your study as evidence in this discussion, then you have to answer questions about it.
Sure I can. My research was done for my needs and to address my questions. If you want research done to address your needs and answer your questions, that is your issue. Again I will point out it is not just my research, as every legitimate bit of what I have found by others reflects my findings. Much like the mythical tactical reload, if someone can provide evidence contrary to the stuff I've seen I'd love to see it. So far, however, that seems to never happen.


Except that's not what I asked. I asked about how your data-gathering accounted for the people on the losing side of a violent encounter. If, in studying "CCW events," you've focused solely or even primarily on CCWer victories then by definition you haven't accounted for the times when, for example, a j-frame wasn't enough.

OTOH, as I've always maintained, every single instance in your database in which the defender fired more than 5 rounds is evidence that in that instance a j-frame would have been inadequate.
I'm not sure where this constant fascination comes fom about a j-frame. I will again direct you to the original statement from 41Mag: ""I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions regarding the what, when and where of being armed is really all about, but I happen to believe it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome." Tamara seems to see no reason to disagree. I said: "Strongly agree. I've had the chance to review literally thousands of shootings to various degrees and have found that those things we often tend to talk about the most (caliber, ammo, holster, weapon selection) rarely have much impact on the outcome, as you said." That says nothing about j-frames or anything specific being perfect for all situations, it all makes a reference to the general concept of caliber, ammo, holster, and weapon selection as being fairly irrelevant to the outcome of a civilian CCW incident. That is true whether one is on the winning side or the losing side as far as I can tell.


As always, I fail to see how the motivation of the officer affects how many bullets it takes to make the BG fall down go boom. Example:

I'm walking down the street and a thug tries to rob me at gunpoint. Scenario A, I shoot him. Scenario B, a police officer shoots him. Exactly what physiological change do you think occurs in the BG when it's a cop pointing a gun toward him instead of me?
Absolutely none. But that is NOT the issue presented. When one talks about the average number of rounds an officer fires during an incident it is not based on the number of rounds to make the BG FDGB, it is based on the number of rounds fired to take the BG into custody, which is a very different issue. If a civilian CCW shoots at the BG and the BG runs away, that is it. If the LEO does the same the LEO now chases the BG, extending the encounter and the number of rounds fired. How many rounds it takes to make the BG FDGB is not the issue. How many rounds it takes to capture a BG is not the issue. The issue is what it takes to convince the BG to go bother somebody else and leave me and mine alone.

ToddG
06-30-2013, 09:25 AM
Again, it is not what is preferred, it is what is sufficient. I prefer my G17 also, but I don't consider my J-frame inadequate.

Sufficiency cannot be determined prior to the event. That's the whole point. The G17 is going to be sufficient in a wider range of situations than the j-frame. What this all boils down to, as always, is how wide or narrow a performance envelope you'll accept based on what you think may happen to you on a given day.


When one discusses an issue one generally discusses "some universal movie clip".

That's absolutely untrue. Your own car example disproves this assertion. There is no "universal movie clip" for driving. Driving is extremely varied and has countless factors that contribute to determining what vehicle would be ideal for a given task or tasks. There are things one can do in a 911 that they'd never be able to do in a pickup, and vice versa.

There are smaller, faster, more nimble cars than the one I own, but I don't choose them because I need a certain amount of space to haul around my gear, targets, the dog, etc.

There are bigger, slower, less nimble cars than the one I own that would make carrying all that stuff around much easier, but because I like to drive a certain way I make the conscious decision to sacrifice that practicality in favor of a little more zippiness and cornering.


There may be times when the magic gun makes the difference, or the magic bullet, or the special holster make a difference in the outcome. But they are so rare it really isn't worth worrying over.

Setting aside your snide description of "magic," I've yet to see data presented that proves this assertion properly. As I keep saying, it sounds like all the data collected by advocates of mouse guns revolves around winners only, and as anyone can see with the slightest application of logic, that's ridiculously biasing.


I think that avoids the issue, which is would they (or you) carry the gun and trust it if they didn't feel it was adequate to do the job. Again, the issue is not "will this be as effective as...." the issue is "is this effective enough".

It's not avoiding the issue, it just doesn't fit into your image of a pre-determined "average" fight. Carrying a j is better than carrying nothing; it won't be as effective in as wide a range of possible situations as the G17. But because there are times when carrying a j is feasible and a G17 is not, the j gets carried.


Sure I can. My research was done for my needs and to address my questions. If you want research done to address your needs and answer your questions, that is your issue. Again I will point out it is not just my research, as every legitimate bit of what I have found by others reflects my findings.

OK, so what I'm going to take away from this is that your research and the other research you've quoted does not account for the huge dataset of people who lost fights. Again, logic tells us then that your research is biased against failures... making conclusions about what achieves success dubious at best.

It's like saying, "After decades of study, I've found that all the teams that won the World Series were made up 100% of men. Therefore, if your team is 100% men you'll win the World Series." Except all the teams that lost were 100% men, too. And if you'd looked at the losers as well as the winners you'd immediately see that what looked like a 100% success rate (when you only look at successes) doesn't come close for real.


Much like the mythical tactical reload, if someone can provide evidence contrary to the stuff I've seen I'd love to see it. So far, however, that seems to never happen.

That's BS, David. Every time someone points out things to the contrary you simply dismiss them.
Good guy fires more than five rounds: you say it doesn't mean a j-frame would have been inadequate.
Cops fire more than five rounds: you say cops are "different."
Etc.


If a civilian CCW shoots at the BG and the BG runs away, that is it. If the LEO does the same the LEO now chases the BG, extending the encounter and the number of rounds fired. How many rounds it takes to make the BG FDGB is not the issue. How many rounds it takes to capture a BG is not the issue. The issue is what it takes to convince the BG to go bother somebody else and leave me and mine alone.

That's incredibly disingenuous. We're not talking about protracted running gun battles. We're also not talking about best-case criminals who'll cower and run at the sound of a stern voice. The issue is what does it take to make a determined violent attacker stop. And since we've all seen countless videos of BGs getting shot many multiple times before they stopped, that is all the evidence necessary to demonstrate that capacity can matter. No matter how many times you try to deflect that point into something else (instances where physical incapacitation wasn't necessary; instances where the National Guard had to be called out to bring Rambo to justice; etc.) the evidence remains awfully clear.

DocGKR
06-30-2013, 12:01 PM
Like me, a good friend of mine carried a .45 Auto 1911 for most of his career...until the day he was confronted by a large felonious psychopath with an FAL advancing on him about 10 yds away down a narrow hallway. The hallway was too narrow to effectively move laterally and a team mate was directly behind my friend, so he could not retreat. He unloaded 9 shots of 230 gr Ranger Talon into the bad guy to no apparent effect (note on autopsy 6 of the shots were grouped in a 6" circle over the bad guy's heart, 2 in the neck, 1 in the nose--the bad guy was effectively dead, but did know it yet). My friend vividly remembers being at slide lock, watching the FAL come up from ready to point at his chest as my friend tried to reload. He thought he was going to die. Fortunately, another good guy put an 870 over my friend's shoulder and drilled the bad guy with several shotgun slugs ending the fight. Now my friend carries a Glock 17 with OEM +2 mag extensions. Not one person I know who has been through a gunfight wishes they had a smaller firearm or less ammo with them...

MDS
06-30-2013, 12:46 PM
Again, it is not what is preferred, it is what is sufficient. I prefer my G17 also, but I don't consider my J-frame inadequate.

As a n00b, this comment is fascinating to me. In my own uneducated thinking, I've always preferred to carry a J-frame, but I carry a G17 because I feel it is adequate in more situations. I'd love to learn what you prefer about your G17 over your J-frame, if the J-frame is already adequate. :confused:

TGS
06-30-2013, 01:16 PM
Like me, a good friend of mine carried a .45 Auto 1911 for most of his career...until the day he was confronted by a large felonious psychopath with an FAL advancing on him about 10 yds away down a narrow hallway. The hallway was too narrow to effectively move laterally and a team mate was directly behind my friend, so he could not retreat. He unloaded 9 shots of 230 gr Ranger Talon into the bad guy to no apparent effect (note on autopsy 6 of the shots were grouped in a 6" circle over the bad guy's heart, 2 in the neck, 1 in the nose--the bad guy was effectively dead, but did know it yet). My friend vividly remembers being at slide lock, watching the FAL come up from ready to point at his chest as my friend tried to reload. He thought he was going to die. Fortunately, another good guy put an 870 over my friend's shoulder and drilled the bad guy with several shotgun slugs ending the fight. Now my friend carries a Glock 17 with OEM +2 mag extensions. Not one person I know who has been through a gunfight wishes they had a smaller firearm or less ammo with them...

That's a hell of a situation to be in.

Frontal shot in the nose? I'm assuming it penetrated...but it didn't disrupt the brain stem?

BaiHu
06-30-2013, 01:32 PM
That's a hell of a situation to be in.

Frontal shot in the nose? I'm assuming it penetrated...but it didn't disrupt the brain stem?

Too much coke packed up in there? :eek:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

LittleLebowski
06-30-2013, 01:43 PM
Too much coke packed up in there? :eek:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Cocaine's a helluva drug.

NETim
06-30-2013, 02:33 PM
Prime example of why handguns suck as fightstoppers.

David Armstrong
07-01-2013, 10:03 AM
Sufficiency cannot be determined prior to the event. That's the whole point. The G17 is going to be sufficient in a wider range of situations than the j-frame. What this all boils down to, as always, is how wide or narrow a performance envelope you'll accept based on what you think may happen to you on a given day.
AFAIK, virtually nothing along these lines can be determined prior to the event. But that doesn' prevent us from coming to conclusions and basing decisions on what we feel. We base that envelope on what we feel will be sufficient. If you wish to use a different term I have no objections, but I think that argument is rather circular and unproductive. I'm aware of few, if any, who would carry a firearm with the thought "Gee, this gun is insufficient and/or inadequate for what I feel I might face today."


That's absolutely untrue. Your own car example disproves this assertion. There is no "universal movie clip" for driving. Driving is extremely varied and has countless factors that contribute to determining what vehicle would be ideal for a given task or tasks. There are things one can do in a 911 that they'd never be able to do in a pickup, and vice versa.

There are smaller, faster, more nimble cars than the one I own, but I don't choose them because I need a certain amount of space to haul around my gear, targets, the dog, etc.

There are bigger, slower, less nimble cars than the one I own that would make carrying all that stuff around much easier, but because I like to drive a certain way I make the conscious decision to sacrifice that practicality in favor of a little more zippiness and cornering.
I believe you prove my point. First, it is not nonsense. When we discuss driving and drivers we usually discuss them in a general mode. When discussing "get out of my lane" I don't see distinctions based on interstate driving versus state highways, various speed limits, 2-lane as opposed to 3-lane as opposed to 4-lane, and so on. We talk about "driving" and "drivers". And yes, there are things one can do in a 911 that you can't do in others....but rarely does the ability to do those things matter during the daily driving process. We manage to get everything done that we need to get done in vehicles that are far less responsive. And finally, as you say, there are other choices in vehicles even you could make that would get the job done. You CHOOSE to drive what you want based on personal factors, but that has nothing to do with the fact that so many other vehicles would do the job sufficiently, or maybe even better, as you point out.


Setting aside your snide description of "magic," I've yet to see data presented that proves this assertion properly. As I keep saying, it sounds like all the data collected by advocates of mouse guns revolves around winners only, and as anyone can see with the slightest application of logic, that's ridiculously biasing.
I don't think I described magic, I simply used the term. If you choose to consider the term in a snide manner thta is your description, not mine. As I don't know what data you have seen and have not seen I can't address that. I can assure you that when I look at these things I look at the losing side of the fight just as intently as the winning side.



It's not avoiding the issue, it just doesn't fit into your image of a pre-determined "average" fight. Carrying a j is better than carrying nothing; it won't be as effective in as wide a range of possible situations as the G17. But because there are times when carrying a j is feasible and a G17 is not, the j gets carried.
But that IS the issue. Would the j-frame get carried if the carrier thought "boy, this gun I've got on won't take care of the problems I'm expecting"? They carry it for a reason, and the reason is they feel it is sufficient for their needs at that time.


OK, so what I'm going to take away from this is that your research and the other research you've quoted does not account for the huge dataset of people who lost fights. Again, logic tells us then that your research is biased against failures... making conclusions about what achieves success dubious at best.

It's like saying, "After decades of study, I've found that all the teams that won the World Series were made up 100% of men. Therefore, if your team is 100% men you'll win the World Series." Except all the teams that lost were 100% men, too. And if you'd looked at the losers as well as the winners you'd immediately see that what looked like a 100% success rate (when you only look at successes) doesn't come close for real.
Except you keep ignoring those times when I have said that I do look at those who lose the fights. A quote from later on in that same posting: "That is true whether one is on the winning side or the losing side as far as I can tell." In fact, if there is a gunfight, I think there is almost always someone who wins and someone who loses. To use the NYPD SOP(9data, for example, they provide quite a bit of info on the BGs. Looking at that info specifically as it relates to LE gunfights again, the selection of the firearm, ammo, etc doesn't seem to matter. Same with the FBI "Officers Killed" data. So my research and quite a bit of other research includes losers as well as winners.


That's BS, David. Every time someone points out things to the contrary you simply dismiss them.
Good guy fires more than five rounds: you say it doesn't mean a j-frame would have been inadequate.
Cops fire more than five rounds: you say cops are "different."
Etc.
Again, nonsense. Things to the contrary can be dismissed when they are irrelevant. The mythical "j-frame only holds 5 shots" problem is as mythical a problem as all the others unless and until one can show that it happens enough to have a significant outcome on the conclusion of the fight. Again, if someone can show that, great, I'll be glad to look at it. I doubt it is any more of a problem than the "K-frame only holds 6 rounds" problem or the "mini-auto only holds 7- rounds" problem and so on. I'm pretty confident for every failure of the j-frame in a civilian CCW you can find we will find 10 where the j-frame was just fine and another 10 where it didn't matter. And I don't say cops are different, that is a rather cheap shot. I say LE shooting issues are different because their role with the firearm is different and we need to consider that when talking about average number of shots needed because it has a big effect on the averages.


That's incredibly disingenuous. We're not talking about protracted running gun battles. We're also not talking about best-case criminals who'll cower and run at the sound of a stern voice. The issue is what does it take to make a determined violent attacker stop. And since we've all seen countless videos of BGs getting shot many multiple times before they stopped, that is all the evidence necessary to demonstrate that capacity can matter. No matter how many times you try to deflect that point into something else (instances where physical incapacitation wasn't necessary; instances where the National Guard had to be called out to bring Rambo to justice; etc.) the evidence remains awfully clear.
Again that changes the issue. It is not an issue of capacity can matter, as it can....but does it, and if so how often? It is not an issue of stopping a determined attacker, it is how often does one encounter that determined attacker who will press an assault in the face of being shot? It is quite simply: "I’ll let you to draw your own conclusions regarding the what, when and where of being armed is really all about, but I happen to believe it has very little to do with caliber, ammo, holster or weapon selection. I’ve investigated a lot of violent crimes against civilians and these details hardly - if ever - determine the outcome." as per 41 mag. Yes, all sorts of things can determine the outcome of a fight however the outcome is hardly ever determined by some of those things we get all excited about. And if you are willing to remove the protracted running gun battles from the equation (which is fine with me as they distort the picture) we find the NYPD OIS shots fired average in adversarial conflict goes down quite a bit.

David Armstrong
07-01-2013, 10:06 AM
Like me, a good friend of mine carried a .45 Auto 1911 for most of his career...until the day he was confronted by a large felonious psychopath with an FAL advancing on him about 10 yds away down a narrow hallway. The hallway was too narrow to effectively move laterally and a team mate was directly behind my friend, so he could not retreat. He unloaded 9 shots of 230 gr Ranger Talon into the bad guy to no apparent effect (note on autopsy 6 of the shots were grouped in a 6" circle over the bad guy's heart, 2 in the neck, 1 in the nose--the bad guy was effectively dead, but did know it yet). My friend vividly remembers being at slide lock, watching the FAL come up from ready to point at his chest as my friend tried to reload. He thought he was going to die. Fortunately, another good guy put an 870 over my friend's shoulder and drilled the bad guy with several shotgun slugs ending the fight. Now my friend carries a Glock 17 with OEM +2 mag extensions. Not one person I know who has been through a gunfight wishes they had a smaller firearm or less ammo with them...
And yet we regularly find folks that have been in a gunfight (or multiple gunfights) who carry firearms with single digit capacities, or smaller firearms, etc. So perhaps the "wish" cliche doesn't really translate over into actual practice?

David Armstrong
07-01-2013, 10:15 AM
As a n00b, this comment is fascinating to me. In my own uneducated thinking, I've always preferred to carry a J-frame, but I carry a G17 because I feel it is adequate in more situations. I'd love to learn what you prefer about your G17 over your J-frame, if the J-frame is already adequate. :confused:
To go back to the cars analogy...I prefer my Ford Crown Vic to drive in. But my '98 Ford Ranger is perfectly adequate and gets the most use. It does pretty much everything I want on a regular basis. I prefer the Crown Vic because I spent many years behind the wheel of one, the state was kind enough to send me to a number of schools that taught me to push a Vic to the limits, and it is just a much more comfortable ride. But the Ranger is fine, gets a little better mileage, if it gets dinged up some more I don't really care, and so on.

The G17 is a gun I've trained on extensively, far more with it in the last couple of decades than any other. I've taken most of my training in recent years with it,and I can do things with it I can't do with the j-frame if I want to show off and such. But the j-frame is a bit lighter, more comfortable to carry. a bit less obtrusive in my normal environment, and will take care of pretty much any realistic situation I can envision. I might (and probably will) use different tactics with the j-frame than with the G17, but either is adequate for my needs most of the time.

GJM
07-01-2013, 10:24 AM
The G17 is a gun I've trained on extensively, far more with it in the last couple of decades than any other. I've taken most of my training in recent years with it,and I can do things with it I can't do with the j-frame if I want to show off and such. But the j-frame is a bit lighter, more comfortable to carry. a bit less obtrusive in my normal environment, and will take care of pretty much any realistic situation I can envision. I might (and probably will) use different tactics with the j-frame than with the G17, but either is adequate for my needs most of the time.

From this weekend's CT news -- a perfect J frame defensive scenario:

A woman was forced to the ground while two men robbed her at gunpoint in her Hartford home on Saturday

Police were called to an apartment at 749 Wethersfield Ave. around 12:17 a.m. They learned that two suspects had entered the unlocked residence brandishing a shot gun and handgun.

According to police, the two male suspects forced the female victim to the ground and took a safe containing jewelry and money. The suspects, both wearing black ski masks, fled on foot.

The victim did not suffer any significant injuries. Police searched the area but did not locate the suspects or any evidence.

The Major Crimes Division is investigating.

David Armstrong
07-01-2013, 10:27 AM
From this weekend's CT news -- a perfect J frame defensive scenario:

A woman was forced to the ground while two men robbed her at gunpoint in her Hartford home on Saturday

Police were called to an apartment at 749 Wethersfield Ave. around 12:17 a.m. They learned that two suspects had entered the unlocked residence brandishing a shot gun and handgun.

According to police, the two male suspects forced the female victim to the ground and took a safe containing jewelry and money. The suspects, both wearing black ski masks, fled on foot.

The victim did not suffer any significant injuries. Police searched the area but did not locate the suspects or any evidence.

The Major Crimes Division is investigating.
Yes, a G17 loaded with Ranger JHP would have clearly changed the outcome.:rolleyes:

Chuck Haggard
07-01-2013, 10:37 AM
Playing both sides of the fence;

In almost every single "civilian"* self defense scenario I have ever seen as soon as any good guy pulls a gun the bad guys are "assholes and elbows" at the first shot.

I worked a local case where this was illustrated; three armed bad guys, kick in door, immediately start catching rounds from a fusillade launched from a Browning Buckmark, decide to attend to urgent matters elsewhere, never make it more than two feet into the house.

There are huge psychological factors at play here, victim vs hunter mindset, psychology of predation, etc.

In the case that the OP posted ref that gal getting the beat down; if she had the mindset and any quality defensive handgun the are likely, as in very highly likely, that the bad guy would have run at the sight of the gun or at the first shot.

For people who won't ever buy or want a gun one of my bits of advice is to buy a dry chemical fire extinguisher. If the gal in the OP had one and the mindset to use it I venture that the bad guy in question would have had a face full and then been beat upside the head/neck/shoulders until he bled profusely from his ears/nose/mouth.



However, comma, we (being trained shooters and what-not) know that one can not always count on bad guys to quit. I know of several cases where suspects in the middle of an excited delirium episode (to give a worst case zombie scenario) kicked in doors and went after the home owners. Best to be ready for suspects that are hard to stop, then one is by default more than ready for a lesser threat.



Has this dead horse been kicked enough yet?









*(note; use of civilian in quotes to placate the people who get all assed up over non-LE people being called that. Yes, I am fully aware that the police are also civilians since they are not military)

ToddG
07-01-2013, 11:13 AM
Best to be ready for suspects that are hard to stop, then one is by default more than ready for a lesser threat.

/thread

BaiHu
07-01-2013, 02:06 PM
/thread

Is it truly over??

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/djdemarco/Pistol%20Forum/scaredbaby.gif (http://s739.photobucket.com/user/djdemarco/media/Pistol%20Forum/scaredbaby.gif.html)