"Shoot'm a LOT!"
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:39 am
Sheriff Judd in Florida:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaqrsIVGH6w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaqrsIVGH6w
Concealed Carry, Politics, Current events and friendly discussion
https://ohioccwforums.org/
The only shot placement that guarantees immediate and total incapacitation is one roughly centered in the face, below the middle of the forehead and the upper lip, and from the eyes in. Shots to the side of the head should be centered between the crown of the skull and the middle of the ear opening, from the center of the cheekbones to the middle of the back of the head.
I wonder though if he had said it that way instead of shoot'm a lot, if the news media would've even covered it.TSiWRX wrote:It's probably not the best choice of words to use on TV, but it certainly gets the point across.
I think it's rather unfortunate that the mass public seems to think that "Shoot'm a LOT!" is something that's somehow unwarranted or bad. That every time a police officer or a law-abiding citizen chooses to enforce the law or to defend themselves by pulling the trigger more than once, that it's somehow viewed as "excessive force." I really wish that this is something that everyone knows and understands: that aside from the on/off switch of the central nervous system, the body is a hydraulic pump - that until we drop that blood pressure sufficiently, the person being shot just keeps doing what he or she wants to do, unless they choose to quit.
I really like the late Pat Rogers' take:
"Just because you shot 'em doesn't mean you hurt 'em.
Just because you hurt 'em doesn't mean you've killed 'em.
And just because you killed 'em doesn't mean they're gonna drop dead, right {inappropriate language} now."
It's really too bad that the Hollywood of years past and other forms of mass-media has led us to believe that someone just drops over dead from any gunshot wound, or is otherwise thrown across the room by the same. This ridiculous notion does *everyone* a dis-service.
With today's optics in the media, I think that as AlanM noted, the Sheriff taking the time to expand his statement to the full: "If you have to shoot, keep shooting until the threat no longer exists" would have made a stronger case, as well as provided more gravity to this very important subject.
Good to know information, thanks.TSiWRX wrote:^ I'd say that those aiming zones are generous for the "Incapacitation zone," and that for the "Lethal zone," that the entire box needs to be moved higher up.
Here's the reason why:
I agree.TSiWRX wrote:^ The Active Self Protection YouTube Channel is worth serious time with:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2 ... ImeNWh84mw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I may not agree with Correia about hardware (his "B-Reels" contain a lot about firearms training and firearms hardware selection, and its these that I find a lot of disagreement with...I wish he'd just stay in the lane that he'd carved out for himself, which is of immense value to the community) - but his catalog of violent crimes caught on CCTV is an absolute treasure trove of information.
While that's true, it still doesn't explain why two people who aren't moving completely miss each other, or a cop missing the non moving suspect at a slightly longer distance (which turned out to be a good thing though since the suspect was unarmed) When I say "non moving" I mean strictly on the outside, as the suspects internal stomach organs were moving in overdrive afterwards. The cop was really stressed out, and thought the suspect was armed at the time, so psychological considerations come into play too sometimes.TSiWRX wrote: As to otherwise accomplished shooters missing during a gunfight, even at close range?
The late Louis Awerbuck had a wonderful explanation of why this happens - and it plays directly into that belt-buckle-to-belt-buckle Gunfight at the OK Corral presentation that you wrote of above.
"Close" here is somewhat deceptive - remember that as we get closer to the target, any movement actually magnifies the arc through which we must track that same movement: for a simplistic yet illustrative example, think about a threat side-stepping at 15 or even 7 yards, versus side-stepping at 2 yards. At two yards, that single side-step covers a much bigger arc through which we must track the muzzle than it does at-range.
The late Louis Awerbuck noted that this apparent "inverse proportions" was one of the reasons why even good shooters "miss" at close distances.
In-reality, that distance works both for as well as against us.
Ah, my bad! I mis-read your post back up there!M-Quigley wrote: While that's true, it still doesn't explain why two people who aren't moving completely miss each other, or a cop missing the non moving suspect at a slightly longer distance (which turned out to be a good thing though since the suspect was unarmed) When I say "non moving" I mean strictly on the outside, as the suspects internal stomach organs were moving in overdrive afterwards. The cop was really stressed out, and thought the suspect was armed at the time, so psychological considerations come into play too sometimes.