Graphic "civilian intervention" VIDEO

[2A_Tom]

**WARNING: GRAPHIC <a href="http://concealednation.org/2015/10/warning-graphic-video-how-long-does-it-take-an-armed-citizen-to-take-out-a-terrorist-about-17-seconds/" target="_blank">[video=youtube;5gl-HzgpMBo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gl-HzgpMBo&amp;feature=youtu.be[/video]VIDEO** How Long Does It Take An Armed Citizen To Take Out A Terrorist? About 17 Seconds. | Concealed Nation

 

[snorko]

That guy just wouldn't stop.

 

[2A_Tom]

That is common, according to all I have read.

 

[TTravis]

Thank God for sheep dogs. People go nuts like this in Indiana also. All the more reason to carry.

I would suggest shooting him at least three times, and if he moves again, give the rest and reload.

I remember a year or two ago someone went crazy attacking people near the Indianapolis city county building.

Either case, armed citizen is much closer than police. I hope I would do as well.

 

[pudly]

Israeli Requests for Gun Permits Soar - The American Interest

Good. A diffuse threat requires a diffuse defense.

 

[T.Lex]

Wow. That baddie was certainly motivated. Kinda amazing, actually.

 

[2A_Tom]

Thank God for sheep dogs. People go nuts like this in Indiana also. All the more reason to carry.

I would suggest shooting him at least three times, and if he moves again, give the rest and reload.

I remember a year or two ago someone went crazy attacking people near the Indianapolis city county building.

Either case, armed citizen is much closer than police. I hope I would do as well.

Probably justifiable, likely not justified, unless he renews his attack.

In the video it is uncertain, but looks as though the citizen shoots while the assailant is attempting to retreat. Deadly force i only justified while in imminent danger, once the attacker breaks contact and retires deadly force is no longer justified. However non lethal force could be used to keep a felon from fleeing. I believe I saw a bat in the crowd, I think that a blow to the legs could be effective.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Probably justifiable, likely not justified, unless he renews his attack.

In the video it is uncertain, but looks as though the citizen shoots while the assailant is attempting to retreat. Deadly force i only justified while in imminent danger, once the attacker breaks contact and retires deadly force is no longer justified. However non lethal force could be used to keep a felon from fleeing. I believe I saw a bat in the crowd, I think that a blow to the legs could be effective.

The dude was trying to get to his weapon, the car. He wasn't fleeing, he was trying to attack again.

 

[T.Lex]

I would usually agree about the retreating felon thing. But, in the context of the video - after he used his car as a weapon, used the chopping blade up close, then threw it at the civilian shooter - a strong argument could be made that baddie was seeking out another weapon. Plus, in that part of the world, no way to know if he had a suicide vest on, or nearby, so shooting until he didn't move could be more defensible.

Not arguing, really, just throwing out a different assessment.

 

[2A_Tom]

I would usually agree about the retreating felon thing. But, in the context of the video - after he used his car as a weapon, used the chopping blade up close, then threw it at the civilian shooter - a strong argument could be made that baddie was seeking out another weapon. Plus, in that part of the world, no way to know if he had a suicide vest on, or nearby, so shooting until he didn't move could be more defensible.

Not arguing, really, just throwing out a different assessment.

Duly noted and entered into the record, counselor.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I want a hit/miss ratio.

 

[T.Lex]

I want a hit/miss ratio.

Not enough/too many.

Satisfied.

 

[steveh_131]

Man this one was hard to watch.

What do you guys think about the tactics? Would you get this close to him to take your shots?

Also curious what caliber he was shooting.

 

[pudly]

Makes sense to close. They guy was actively using a hand weapon on downed victims. If you have your gun out and pointed, the closer you are, the more accurate you will be while still having minimal risk to yourself. Every time the attacker turned his attention to the shooter or got up for another try, the shooter was able to put him down. If it is a one-on-one confrontation and you didn't have your gun out already, then the Tueller drill lessons are more relevant and you want to maintain distance.

 

[9mmfan]

Good shoot period. The guy was a rabid animal nothing more.

 

[rhino]

This is a good example of how difficult it can be to stop a determined human with a handgun. If they don't believe they're supposed to go down when you shoot them, they might not. It takes minutes for someone to bleed out from those kinds of wounds, which is plenty of time to do a lot of damage.

And, here's an example where a 5-shot .38 special revolver probably would have been inadequate for one bad guy. Missing is always a possibility.

In terms of the tactics, I recall Louis Awerbuck telling stories of training with Israelis. In those stories, it was standard to run toward the threat and get close, then essentially unload the gun on them, and finally deliver a coup de grace after they go down.

 

[femurphy77]

I found the shooter to be VERY in control (engage armchair quarterback mode) had I been the sheepdog I'd probably been high on adrenaline and laid multiple shots into the slime ball. (armchair quarterback mode disengaged)

 

[beachhead40]

after watching on bigger screen does the person that BARRRRELY misses getting mowed down by the car before getting a good 3 wacks let off at least one shot>? or am I just seeing things? the one in all black that just barely avoids getting rammed

 

[actaeon277]

What is he shooting, a .22?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is he shooting, a .22?

I think .17, oh wait, .07