Interesting post-shootout interview with officer

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/feb/03/6/morrow-county-deputy-selected-deputy-year-ar-386016/

The officer in question was shot 4 times with an AR15 as he investigated a field of marijuana. He fought back with his pistol and managed to end the fight with the last round in his magazine.

I thought the link was valuable for it's discussion of mindset and the officer's straight up, matter-of-fact assessment of the shooting and what he wishes he'd have done differently.
 
So was a .223 he was up against? 4-5 shots and he still wasn't out. Groin, chest, shoulder, etc. Close range as well. Makes you reconsider whether they are really a valid defense weapon.
 
He took a few steps, and collapsed.

He was able to return fire, but not able to move very much.

The bullet that went through his vest broke his ribs.

He thought he was dying, and called his wife to tell her he loved her; he required three surgeries, and is still unable to work yet.

The officer was lucky - shot placement was good enough to hurt him, but not in the right spots to shut him down fast, or kill him (very likely due to modern medicine).

None of the bullets hit major arteries or took out his CNS (thankfully). What rounds do you think would have done a better job, given those conditions? The shooter has to do his job, too. In this case, the shooter didn't (again, thankfully).

Hopefully, the deputy's recovery will eventually be a full one. Seems he still has some leg and foot issues.
 
None of the bullets hit major arteries or took out his CNS (thankfully). What rounds do you think would have done a better job, given those conditions? The shooter has to do his job, too. In this case, the shooter didn't (again, thankfully).
7.62?



-7-
 
He was very lucky.

But -- from the article linked in BR's post: "When I hit the ground, my training kicked in." Despite having been shot several times, Deputy Moore pretty much automatically went for his gun, and he was able to stay in the fight, rather than believing that being down meant being out, even although he thought he might be dying... Yes -- I think this story says volumes about the importance of training and mindset in such situations.

And he deserves to be Deputy of the Year. Gutsy guy.
 
Groin, chest, shoulder
Click to expand...
Groin, foot, upper leg, ribcage/ribs and a graze-wound on the shoulder. The articles I've seen state that he was hit in the ribs or ribcage and don't so much as hint at any damage to the organs of the chest. Another article states that this wound (called a wound to his side) damaged his spleen which indicates that it was probably too low to penetrate the chest cavity. The spleen is very vascular which would mean an injury to it would result in a lot of blood loss, but an injured or destroyed spleen doesn't incapacitate--you can live without a spleen.

The officer was quite specific in the interview that the wound to the shoulder was a "graze-wound" which he did not notice but was told about later.

What it comes down to is that he wasn't hit in any organs likely to cause rapid incapacitation and the only reason he went down was the hit in the upper leg.
Seems he still has some leg and foot issues.
Click to expand...
Correct. In another article his wife says: "...if everything goes as planned, he should be able to walk and run again in a few years. They are saying probably two years, we're looking at..."
So was a .223 he was up against? 4-5 shots and he still wasn't out. Groin, chest, shoulder, etc. Close range as well. Makes you reconsider whether they are really a valid defense weapon.
Click to expand...
You have to look at the whole situation rather than just focusing too tightly on specific aspects of it in isolation.

Otherwise we would "learn" the following things from this scenario, all of which are questionable at best.
  • Since the deputy won with a pistol against a rifle we would be forced to the conclusion that a pistol is superior to a rifle.
  • Since the deputy won by inflicting injuries on the lower legs and feet while being injured in the upper leg, torso and groin we would have to conclude that hits to the lower legs and feet are more effective than hits to the upper legs and body.
  • Since he won with a .40S&W we have no other choice but to assume that the .40S&W is superior to the .223.
  • Since he won even though he wasn't carrying a reload for his pistol, we should take away from that the idea that a reload isn't necessary.
  • Since he prevailed from the prone position we would conclude that a man shooting from the ground has the advantage over a more mobile person shooting from the standing position.
Obviously none of the items on the list are wise conclusions to draw from the scenario. The point being that if one excludes too much of the entire scenario and micro-focuses on one specific aspect the result isn't likely to be a useful analysis.

The quote below provides a better analysis of the situation from Deputy Moore and his boss.
"His boss considers it something of a miracle that Moore was able to stop his attacker with nothing but a handgun.

"Under the best of conditions, to make that shot requires some pretty amazing aim," Brenneman said. "I firmly believe he had powers there assisting him."

"That was a little close for comfort," Moore conceded.

"It's a miracle that I'm alive. It's the closest I've come to seeing proof of my faith.""​
 
Well, this video gives me mixed feelings. But before I should even say anything, thank God that the officer still has his life. Now, I think that it certainly makes me second guess a .223 for defense. BUT. The shooter has to do his part. A well placed .22LR will out shoot a poorly placed .308 every time. He was shot, and collapsed, yes. But he was still able to fire his weapon. Which is not good in defense of the .223 AT ALL. None of the rounds hit major arteries, as stated above. But, what would have been the difference if he was shooting the AK (7.63x39), or an even more powerful round. If the round had a little more stopping power (initial shock) where it hit, then that video might be a little different. I agree that the shooter has to do his part, but an experienced marksman with a .223 will do good. An experienced marksman with a .308, will do even better as far as killing power.
 
It the shooter was using a .308, this would not have ended as well as it did.

Two comments: 1) I'm convinced that .223 in a semi-auto rifle is a poor choice for offense or defense; 2) The Officer wasn't carrying a weapon with large enough capacity. Sounds like he had 7-8 rounds and that was it slide locked back and he was done. They should be carrying STI double-stacked .45's or large capacity .40's.
 
insane interview...

.223 certain isn't a man stopper! The military uses it because its lighter and smaller so they can carry more. It wounds men, so it takes more combatants out of the fight helping the injured. If they wanted to kill people they would have kept using the .30-06. The same can be said about the AK47 and the AK74. If you just wound a man instead of killing him, then you take multiple healthy people out of the fight.

Hindsight is 20/20, but the biggest mistake he made was not detaining the land owner BEFORE going to look for his pot. Ya know? What was he thinking... poking around a property while the owner is free to stew about himself going to prison. That kinda pressure makes men do strange stuff like attempted murder on a LEO.

Did Shane die?
 
Last edited:
Something tells me people aren't reading everything in the thread before posting.

e. Now, I think that it certainly makes me second guess a .223 for defense.
Click to expand...

bjones, please see JohnKSa's very informative and technically correct post. There is more to this than meets the eye. A .223 cartridge with proper bullet selection is a very capable round.

The military uses it because its lighter and smaller so they can carry more. It wounds men, so it takes more combatants out of the fight helping the injured.
Click to expand...

While these are possible side effects of the 5.56 round it was not the intention. In a room to room CQB ending the fight quickly is more advantageous than merely injuring the attacker( defender in the case of the military conducting assault). I'm willing to bet the ammunition was of cheap construction and not a soft point .223 defense load or a high velocity 5.56 frangible round. Also you guys keep ignoring exactly what kind of wounds were inflicted. You immediately jump the gun and badmouth the .223 as insufficient. (Granted, generally bigger holes DO work better in a bleed situation). To avoid reiterating too much I will end here, just remember to read and understand everything rather than glance and make assumptions on basic information.

Back to OP:
Training saved this guys life, and a good amount of higher supervision. I wish we could have a complete scenario of where people were standing and what could have been seen by Deputy Moore. It may have been a case of situational awareness that he may have been able to see Roush before exiting his vehicle. Not enough information for everyone to pass judgment on what could or should have been done.

One reason I believe the rifle was overcome was the deputy's ability to use cover and concealment making it difficult for Roush to get a good angle while Moore returned fire. If Roush had the ability to have a rested position and proper trigger control this would have turned out completely different and tragically at that.
 
5.56 performance aside, anyone still think low capacity handgun/no reload is the way to go :confused:

Yeah, I know-"I'm just a civilian, nothing like this will ever happen to me!" :rolleyes:
 
.223 certain isn't a man stopper! The military uses it because its lighter and smaller so they can carry more.
Click to expand...

Right.:rolleyes:

Just because the military and LE alike have found it to work very well against human targets when using the proper ammunition, there's no reason to change your point of view based on this one shooting. This one incident where the deputy received no wounds to major vital organs says it all about the stopping power of the .223.:rolleyes:

Admittedly, the .223 round doesn't do well against many barriers, and the short bbl. versions do reduce velocity enough to affect performance with some types of military ammunition--at least beyond a certain range.

Any .223 round through your chest will ruin your day very quickly, especially at closer ranges.:cool:

Also, it might be a good idea to not focus so much on the cartridge, but on the bullet that is called upon to do the job.

Seems to me that back in about 1986 a fellow armed with ball ammo launched from a Mini-14 shot 5 FBI agents to pieces. He was finally killed by an agent shooting one handed because his other arm was shattered, useless, and barely attached--- from one ineffective .223 ball round. And there's more effective ammo available than that.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:
 
Last edited:
That 30.06 vs. 223 comparison and wanting to wound statement earlier is BS if you actually get behind the Internet cliches.

Need to do some actual reference work. Modern warfare demonstrated the 30.06 wasn't optimal for most military encounters.
 
bjones, please see JohnKSa's very informative and technically correct post. There is more to this than meets the eye. A .223 cartridge with proper bullet selection is a very capable round.

I agree that the .223 with proper ammo, and in my opinion, good shot placement, is a capable round. However, in my opinion I do think there are much better rounds for defense. That was my point in the earlier post. I do agree with what you, and JohnKSa said. I personally would rather have something larger. And I'm sure that the police officer is grateful that he didn't have a larger caliber.
 
Listen to the video. No center mass hits, thankfully every hit except to his femur and knee, were oblique and hitting the outer outline of his body. Even 308 would have not really done any better IMO. I think the officer was very lucky obviously.
 
That depends by what criteria "the military" considers optimal. Are you talking about politically optimal, financially optimal, tactically optimal, or lethally optimal? If the military intentions are to quickly kill an opponent, they would use hollow point bullets (or a bomb/shell). Ya ya The Hague Convention of 1899... just saying. It makes no sense to drill a tiny little hole in a man and let him bleed out for hours on end.

The leg shot could easily have been lethal if it broke the femoral artery. Bigger bullet, hollow point... more cavitation and a great possibility of rupturing that artery.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by sirsloop
If the military intentions are to quickly kill an opponent, they would use hollow point bullets (or a bomb/shell). Ya ya The Hague Convention of 1899... just saying. It makes no sense to drill a tiny little hole in a man and let him bleed out for hours on end.
Click to expand...

At sufficient velocity a military M855 round will fragment reliably and cause massive wound cavitation. It is quite lethal. More lethal than an .308 FMJ that yaws if either were placed in the same location in the chest cavity on either side of the central column. But a sucking chest wound is a sucking chest wound so a bigger caliber trumps a lesser, right? More kinetic energy (and momentum).

And a match grade hollow point bullet wouldn't necessarily do more damage than the .223 whatever that was used in this shootout. It may not have made a difference. A soft point, which would be more common, may have had a more dramatic impact but in a medium as thick as the leg it wouldn't have enough time to expand to make much of a difference. It would plow on through with minimal expansion leaving a slightly loarger hole with maybe a little hydrostatic shock to the surrounding tissue. By no means a kill shot and by no means more lethal than what was received.

Originally posted by bjones870
However, in my opinion I do think there are much better rounds for defense. That was my point in the earlier post.
Click to expand...

No, your point was to bash on the .223 as an insufficient round which you just reiterated in different words. There was a past shooting where a man without body armor was going head to head against police with .40 S&W autos and despite receiving numerous strikes to the body none of the wounds were serious enough to stop him. WOuld you then say that there are better choices in caliber than .40 S&W for self defense? The problem was that none of the rounds penetrated further than 2" due to the oblique hits and none of them were completely COM. Two officers retrieved AR-15 carbines (one with 77 gr TAP and one with 55 gr soft point loads) and they were the ones who fired the shots that brought down the aggressor.

My point right now being that there are too many factors involved in statistics and probability that no round is sufficient 100% of the time save the proper application of high explosive compound, and even then it's an iffy.
 
That 30.06 vs. 223 comparison and wanting to wound statement earlier is BS if you actually get behind the Internet cliches.
Click to expand...

The exact same argument was made regarding the .30 cal. US (30-06). It was a caliber not designed to kill but just wound, because we all know that it takes two guys to carry the wounded off the battlefield.

If that were the case, they did a crappy job, since the 30-06 is one of the finest hunting cartridges ever designed to KILL game (and not wound )---with proper bullet of course.

To hear some folks discuss the subject, you'd think the rifle designs, cartridge and the bullet were all part of a tactical scheme designed to wound.

Here's my point:

NO NATION EVER DESIGNED A CARTRIDGE-CALIBER COMBINATION SPECIFICALLY TO WOUND THE ENEMY RATHER THAN KILL HIM! Nor did any nation design a bullet for said cartridge to do that, either. Not one.

Many nations did, however, sign on to the Geneva Convention or Hague Accords and limit their ammo to specifications set forth on humanitarian grounds. And anyone who's ever served in a combat zone knows that ammo that complies to any international treaty doesn't do enemy soldiers, or ours, all that much of a favor. Especially with modern bullet technology that makes bullets that comply with the treaty every bit as lethal as banned bullets. They tumble, they break into fragments. They're lethal.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussions! Does anyone know if the bullets used by the BG were FMJ or not? As has been said, shot placement would have made the story quite different. A well placed head shot would have ended it for the LEO. I'm just glad this BG couldn't shoot well under the circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top