http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?ID=81
I think I would have gone for the guy and the gun with him that close.
I think I would have gone for the guy and the gun with him that close.
Last edited:
WOW! Check out this shooting!
- Thread starter woodland
- Start date
Hardtarget
New member
That was a year or two ago. Still surprising he didn't connect on the intended target. Lawyer did a good job of surviving! For a while I thought every witness was going to let the shooter just walk away.
Mark.
Mark.
Wow, that looked like it might have hurt...alot.
The lawyer looked alright and walked away but they reported he was hit multiple times and then collapsed. Makes me wonder what a drugged up crazy kicking down my front door would be like. I have to rethink if 9mm is enough for home defense. I think it's time for a .45.
The lawyer looked alright and walked away but they reported he was hit multiple times and then collapsed. Makes me wonder what a drugged up crazy kicking down my front door would be like. I have to rethink if 9mm is enough for home defense. I think it's time for a .45.
One thing i distinctly remember from the footage on television was seeing the lawyer's hair and lapel getting blown back by the muzzle blast. Amazing how much extra detail a $75k news camera picks up vs. the standard handicam. 
Imagine trying to do that in patent leather shoes...he probably collapsed from adrenaline dump.
Imagine trying to do that in patent leather shoes...he probably collapsed from adrenaline dump.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Older story, but still has merit for tactics and training. Put yourself in the lawyer's shoes (however objectionable that might be 
). No gun, only your wits and what the average business man might have with him. Study the video for surroundings, cover, etc., and anything else of survival value. How would you react and why?
). No gun, only your wits and what the average business man might have with him. Study the video for surroundings, cover, etc., and anything else of survival value. How would you react and why?What would I do? At that short of a range, I would have just reached out and grabbed the gun! No matter how many times you watch 'The Matrix', you cannot dodge bullets. It would seem easy at that range to capture the shooter's gun hand, and either gain possession of the weapon, or drop the mag and shoot the one in the chamber into the ground, or the into wall behind the lawyer. Or better yet, into the shooter himself.
miconoakisland
New member
No CHP holder interacted?
Where were the LEOs?
They were at a courthouse!
Oh, no concealed carry there!
Bad guy didn't/couldn't have a firearm there, it's against the law!
You can't tell me a guy decided to break the law to shoot another man!
Didn't he know that having a firearm at the courthouse was illegal?!
He broke the law!
Oh yeah, he also attempted to murder a man!
Big reason I carry 24/7 concealed no matter where I go!
You'd think a courthouse was safe with all the LEO's there!
I'd bet the lawyer that was shot either retired or carries all the time now!
Disarm everyone and only the BGs or pychos have guns!
Shooter couldn't have a gun there! He broke the law!
Make liberal politions pay for every violent attack upon an unarmed "subject" in their area.
If guns are illegal in their juristiction (DC, NJ, NYC, CHI, SF) make the polititions personally liable for all violent crime victims!
If a violent crime occurs in a "shall carry" state, then the victim is liable for whatever occurs.
If I can't have a firearm to defend myself in this juristiction, then the people that made that law is responsible for my safety and I could seek legal methods to rectify my loss if I were a victim of a violent crime that could have been avoided by use of a firearm.
Cities that state "we are not responsible to protect citizens" while enacting laws that state "it shall be unlawful to possess a firearm" should be held accountable for all crimes against the same citizens (subjects)!
Why do sheeple accept this??
"we have policemen to protect us, we don't need guns"?
Where were the LEOs?
They were at a courthouse!
Oh, no concealed carry there!
Bad guy didn't/couldn't have a firearm there, it's against the law!
You can't tell me a guy decided to break the law to shoot another man!
Didn't he know that having a firearm at the courthouse was illegal?!
He broke the law!
Oh yeah, he also attempted to murder a man!
Big reason I carry 24/7 concealed no matter where I go!
You'd think a courthouse was safe with all the LEO's there!
I'd bet the lawyer that was shot either retired or carries all the time now!
Disarm everyone and only the BGs or pychos have guns!
Shooter couldn't have a gun there! He broke the law!
Make liberal politions pay for every violent attack upon an unarmed "subject" in their area.
If guns are illegal in their juristiction (DC, NJ, NYC, CHI, SF) make the polititions personally liable for all violent crime victims!
If a violent crime occurs in a "shall carry" state, then the victim is liable for whatever occurs.
If I can't have a firearm to defend myself in this juristiction, then the people that made that law is responsible for my safety and I could seek legal methods to rectify my loss if I were a victim of a violent crime that could have been avoided by use of a firearm.
Cities that state "we are not responsible to protect citizens" while enacting laws that state "it shall be unlawful to possess a firearm" should be held accountable for all crimes against the same citizens (subjects)!
Why do sheeple accept this??
"we have policemen to protect us, we don't need guns"?
roger-ruger
New member
what caliber was the shoooter using?
DavidJBlythe
New member
at least it looked like the lawyer was keeping all his vitals behind the tree... A few arm / shoulder shots would be better than a few sternum hits.
I would put my money on the pistol being a .22 flavor... either Short, Long, LR or WM.
I would put my money on the pistol being a .22 flavor... either Short, Long, LR or WM.
Jack Malloy
New member
I cant look at the video, but it sounds like it's the angry guy shooting the lawyer who tried to use a small tree for cover.
The shooter was using a .38 revolver according to the news, and yes, he did hit the shyster a couple of times. The shyster did not appear to be hit, but he was....Which means that the idea of that weapon having a lot of stopping power is off kilter.
It is possible it was an old .38 s&w round he was using or a target load or the old round nose lead bullet.
The shooter was using a .38 revolver according to the news, and yes, he did hit the shyster a couple of times. The shyster did not appear to be hit, but he was....Which means that the idea of that weapon having a lot of stopping power is off kilter.
It is possible it was an old .38 s&w round he was using or a target load or the old round nose lead bullet.
stephen426
New member
That is some crazy stuff. That guy just waled up to him in broad daylight with all those witnesses around. I would have guessed he would save a round for himself since he doesn't seemed the least bit concerned about getting caught. If I was the attorney, I would have also attempted a gun grab. I might get shot in the hands or legs but I sure as heck am not going to let him pump a few rounds into my chest, .38 special or not!
This video really makes it apparant how under powered the .38 special is. Maybe he was just using round nose versus hollow points but I still feel under gunned with a .38. One other thing could be that the lawyer didn't get hit center of mass due to his quick reactions. He might have gotten clipped on either side but probably not a heart shot.
In this kind of situation, I think it calls for disarming techniques and hand to hand combat rather than reaching for a gun and shooting each other. I learned a few Hapkido moves when I was in Tae Kwan Do for disarming someone with a gun. Its always risky but if the gun is already shooting at you rather than holding you up, you've got to do what you've got to do to survive.
This video really makes it apparant how under powered the .38 special is. Maybe he was just using round nose versus hollow points but I still feel under gunned with a .38. One other thing could be that the lawyer didn't get hit center of mass due to his quick reactions. He might have gotten clipped on either side but probably not a heart shot.
In this kind of situation, I think it calls for disarming techniques and hand to hand combat rather than reaching for a gun and shooting each other. I learned a few Hapkido moves when I was in Tae Kwan Do for disarming someone with a gun. Its always risky but if the gun is already shooting at you rather than holding you up, you've got to do what you've got to do to survive.
Yeah, I remember watching in amazement when that first aired. Thinking to myself how "different" it would be if I was the one dodging bullets.
IMO, at that range, unarmed and with no real cover the lawyer's best bet is to close and disarm. Get a hand on that cylinder and keep it there. If it can't rotate it can't fire. That's my armchair QB look at it anyway.
After looking at the vid several times I'd say the lawyer did a good job of keeping his head/vitals behind cover. If he would have frozen he'd be dead.
Oh and nice tackle.
IMO, at that range, unarmed and with no real cover the lawyer's best bet is to close and disarm. Get a hand on that cylinder and keep it there. If it can't rotate it can't fire. That's my armchair QB look at it anyway.
After looking at the vid several times I'd say the lawyer did a good job of keeping his head/vitals behind cover. If he would have frozen he'd be dead.
Oh and nice tackle.
Everyone in the background appears to be calm some with their backs turned. I know a .38 is loud, why wouldn't everyone hit the ground or show some fear? He could have just turned and started shooting at them. I don't watch the news because of stuff like this on it, that's why I didn't hear about this before. I sure hope CCW gets passed here in the coming months(Wisconsin). If I watch enough news I will talk myself into carrying even though there's no permits issued in this liberal state.
Yeah, this was the first time I had seen this also. You almost don't believe it at first, it looks almost too comical. Amazing how nonchalant the shooter was. Emptied his gun and then just puts it in his pocket and strolls off like he had just stopped for his dog to water the tree or something.
Everyone always wants to get distance, but there are some situations where you definatly want to CLOSE distance. And then the lawyer just strolls the other way after he stops shooting. I would like to think if it was me, and I was still walking, I'd have been all over that guy. Especialy if he just turned his back and walked off like that.
Everyone always wants to get distance, but there are some situations where you definatly want to CLOSE distance. And then the lawyer just strolls the other way after he stops shooting. I would like to think if it was me, and I was still walking, I'd have been all over that guy. Especialy if he just turned his back and walked off like that.
azredhawk44
Moderator
I hear a lot of TKD people say stuff like this...
Why is it that nobody uses TKD for defense? They use some other martial art for "real" defense rather than TKD?
stephen426
New member
You can use TKD for defense, but Hapkido is better at controlling the weapon through joint manipulation rather than simply striking the guy and expecting him to drop the weapon. That is about the best reason I can give for using Hapkido instead of TKD. Now if you are at the level in TKD where you feel you can incapacitate the attacker with a single strike, then by all means, use TKD.