"You can't outrun a bullet..."

Status
Not open for further replies.

tipoc

New member
In a separate thread on another subject a fella posted a link to a shooting video that I watched, thought about and got to liking.

I like it because it's a very good lesson on why if you get in a gun fight you ought to move. Forget the Hollywood thing of standing still...move.

I come from the old school of "Feets Don't Fail Me Now" gunfighters. I was taught that yeah "I can't outrun a bullet but I will really try".

Watch and then read and see if you see what I like...

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vi...f130ea61f847e007227bf130ea61f847-131289514629

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/08/earlyshow/main1023357.shtml

tipoc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So many bystanders, and so many camera men that stood around just watching instead of bashing one o' them big ol' heavy cameras over his head... of course... it was a lawyer he was shooting at... so...
 
Pretty smart guy, used the tree to protect his COM and it most certainly saved his life.

As a kid we used to get paid "by the tail" for rats we shot near the city dump. The only rats that ever got away from me were the ones that kept moving and dodging and jumping. The ones that "froze" were toast every time.
 
The fella shooting at him had no training, but then most folks don't.

Gerald Curry was taken unaware, by surprise. As soon as he heard the shot and saw the gun he started to move. This movement, even after he was shot saved his life. Had he been armed with a gun or knife the movement would have bought him time to bring one or the other into action.

Even though the other fella shot first, had Curry been armed and trained even a bit in shooting while moving, or point shooting with movement, he would have been at the advantage over his attacker.

Curry was shot 5 times and the assailants gun ran dry. Curry, because he moved, had enough juice left to counter attack with a knife or gun before the attacker could reload (which the fella did not do, luckily for Curry).

Curry was hit once in the neck where the bullet lodged against his spine, once through the forearm and three times in the right shoulder. A more powerful round may have killed him. Because he made a harder target to hit, even at this close range, the 38 did not take him out. He kept moving even after he was hit multiple times.

So figure this if someone pulls on you first you will be shot. When that happens keep moving. Do something that buys you time to bring a weapon into play. Shoot while moving. The most powerful round you can have on you will help.

Curry is not big, not an athlete and not young. But his feet did not fail him.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
Curry was shot 5 times and the assailants gun ran dry. Curry, because he moved, had enough juice left to counter attack with a knife or gun before the attacker could reload (which the fella did not do, luckily for Curry).

If he had a gun or knife, he could have countered before having been shot 5 times.

Shoot while moving. The most powerful round you can have on you will help.

It might. Might not. You really will need to strike your attacker in a vital area to have the best chance of being physiologically effective. And, because you are unskilled in shooting on the move in a heavily occupied public area, all those most powerful rounds that miss may find homes in others not attacking you.
 
If he had a gun or knife, he could have countered before having been shot 5 times.

But he did not have one. Had he had one his movement bought him the time needed to counter. Standing still would not have helped.

Carrying the most powerful round in a gun that a shooter can handle well and that fits the situation in terms of carrying is SOP. I did not say "the most powerful round period".

Train with movement. It is helpful. Obviously it is best not to shoot up the countryside while countering. The four rules apply. Had Curry been armed returning fire was an option. We are speaking here of a particular incident.

tipoc
 
Well, the gunman felt he had been "robbed".... LOL.

Seen this video several times. He did a good job of ducking and weaving and protecting (as best he could) any critical body areas. He also points out that even though he was shot, he didn't feel pain until afterwards... which shows what adrenaline can do.

It also says something about training, extra mags and speed loaders, (depending upon how you look at it) as well as carrying for self preservation and protection. A BG ducking and weaving like the attorney was while they are trying to shoot you, and you don't have an extra mag ?

Interesting questions to me would be :
What if the attorney would have been armed ?
What if a bystander had been a CC holder and armed ? Especially with the large crowd ? No one hit from strays ?
Why didn't the camera men or anyone smack this guy on the back of the head ? (besides their own self preservation).
And, how much money did the attorney rake off the trust fund to get him that mad ?
 
Last edited:
I like it because it's a very good lesson on why if you get in a gun fight you ought to move. Forget the Hollywood thing of standing still...move.

Firearm training tactics that teach movement aren't exacactly in the same category as ducking and doging around a tree while being shot 5 times in what was purely a reflexive reaction.

Not trying to invalidate your point about the importance of movement.

In Farnam's class two years back, it was move before you do anything. Move to get off the line of force as you draw, move before you clear a malfunction or reload, then move again afterwards, check behind you, move, move, move--good training.

Perhaps zigging and zagging (definately not straight away) as he ran away would have served him as well, or even better, since exposure to gunfire while running away would have been brief as he created distance with the tree still an obstacle that the shooter would have to work around.

A shooter with any skills at all (or with some determination) would have dispatched the poor guy and the silly tree wouldn't have saved him. I'm talkng about an unarmed individual, since an armed victim (with training) would have utilized the principles of moving and shooting to fit the situation.

I'm not making a criticism, since the victim had to react as best he could.
 
But he did not have one.

Right, so your comment that he could have retaliated with a gun or knife after the attacker's gun ran dry is just plain moot. Hence my comment that if he had a gun or a knife, he could have retailiated before being shot 5 times and by golly he might not have been shot 5 times if he had countered with a gun or a knife..

I did not say "the most powerful round period".
Thanks for the heads-up, but nobody said you said "the most powerful round period" did they?

Train with movement. It is helpful. Obviously it is best not to shoot up the countryside while countering. The four rules apply. Had Curry been armed returning fire was an option. We are speaking here of a particular incident.

Train with movement is good. I bought land and set up ranges with this specifically in mind because like most shooters, I had difficulty gaining access to ranges that allowed shooters to practice shooting on the move. We can't get half of the concealed carry people to carry on a regular basis, much less getting them to practice more than a couple times a year, and the majority that do practice end up at ranges where there is no drawing from concealment, no shooting on the move, no rapid fire.

So had Curry been armed and returning fire was an option, he likely would have been just as unskilled as his attacker and likely well behind the curve on being hit one or more times before returning fire.

If the 4 rules apply, Curry would have difficulty in firing a defensive shot without there being people downrange beyond the attack in several directions.

At 22 seconds in the vid, you can see people downrange from Curry, behind the attacker.
 
Let me say what we've all thought while watching this video.

This guy thought fast and followed his insticts. "I'm shot! Get me away from this guy! Something to hide behind.... uhhhh..... A tree! Duck Duck Duck!"

This guy was also lucky as heck. He was blitz attacked by a man intent on killing him. The attack continued until the guy ran out of ammo. Could have been a whole lot worse.

In this position however, not once did this guy think for a second about fighting for his life. Seeing all the people around, no doubt he thought surely SOMEONE will do SOMETHING and they didn't. In a fighter's mind, when your chips are down (like they very clearly were here), everything becomes a weapon. Knife? I don't know a single lawyer that doesn't carry at least one pen with him at all times, especially at court (very often a very nice, sharp, metal tipped pen). Once the guy ran out of ammunition, his instinct was to stay put, not advance on an enemy that may very well reload and continue the assault. For God's sake do SOMETHING to save yourself besides just running away when you're cornered and someone is trying to murder you. And speed-loader or a few loose shells and this could have turned out so much worse.

Even in the face of death you have to be able to muster the courage and audacity to fight back. This guy is a shining example that it is better to be lucky than smart. When you're in a fight for your life, you simply Never Give Up. Ever.

never-give-up-frog.jpg



Never rely on someone else to save you. Your own safety is your own responsibility. Don't take it lightly and don't let it go without a fight.
~LT
 
Right, so your comment that he could have retaliated with a gun or knife after the attacker's gun ran dry is just plain moot. Hence my comment that if he had a gun or a knife, he could have retailiated before being shot 5 times and by golly he might not have been shot 5 times if he had countered with a gun or a knife..

Either I was unclear, which is possible, or you are being a bit picky.

If Curry was armed his movement could have bought him time to bring a weapon into play and prevented him from being shot five times. Perhaps only two, or one. But likely he would have been shot anyways, at least a little bit.

But he was unarmed and mentally unprepared for an attack. At the time the attackers gun runs dry Curry still had enough juice left to grapple with him (my original point, movement bought him time, it saved his life). He chose not to. Maybe he could have grappled with him earlier, before the gun ran dry. I don't know. I have no criticism of Curry in particular and won't second guess him.

I don't think Curry was thinking of tactics. He was reacting instinctively. I doubt he ever thought in advance of what he might do in such a situation. You and I though have the benefit of his experience and others experience.

Jeff Cooper, Lou Cirrillo, Farnhan and many others over the decades have emphasized the virtues of movement. It can buy you time, it makes you harder to hit, it can get you to cover, You can move-stop and shoot-and move again, etc.

Should you shoot while moving in a crowded place? If it's not safe to shoot while standing still it is less safe while moving and another option may be called for. The type of ammo in the gun is a factor here, more so than the caliber. But if it was unsafe for Curry to return fire at all (had he been able to) than it would also be in a classroom, in a restaurant or bar, a mall, etc. The question is a real one but not an abstract one. It is particular to each situation. With a gun pressed to the fellas chest danger to others is minimized. This shooting takes place at handshake distance.

Very few people aside from professionals get enough time to practice in a variety of situations. I can't go to Thunder Ranch every 2 months. But there are ways to work on skills. There are ways to work in movement and gun handling or knife handling.

The real value to me of this video is it is a real situation. You can see what happened. It begs the question mentally how we can be prepared for a sudden and unexpected attack in a place you don't expect it when you are not ready. By thinking on it some in advance maybe we can be a bit more ready.

tipoc
 
somebody asked a while ago why he should begin carrying a weapon.

This is why.

every day, dozens of times a day, some jackass takes a weapon and commits a crime with it. It is going to involve placing another person under threat of possible death. For those people who aren't armed, for whatever reason, there is no defense. There isn't going to be a cop there. An armed citizen is the person who will be able to save a situation like that.

Wouldn't it have been really neat if somebody in that crowd had been able to draw a gun and stop that attack BEFORE the victim had been shot 5 times?

Saving my own life has never been the reason. Stopping the criminal is why I believe in carrying a gun. Even if you have no fears for yourself, carry a gun so you can defend the peace of your country and the citizens.
 
If Curry was armed his movement could have bought him time to bring a weapon into play and prevented him from being shot five times.

Wow, that is almost exactly what I said :eek:
If he had a gun or knife, he could have countered before having been shot 5 times.

To which you countered...
But he did not have one.

And now you are arguing my point which previously you had countered.

Why is it you didn't like the words when I said them but find them salient when you said them?
 
I didn't disagree with you on that point at any time. It was a good point. I was either unclear in what I wrote originally or you interpreted it differently than how I intended. I never intended to imply that Curry, or anyone, had to wait or should have waited till the the fellas gun ran dry before responding. This is the internet, when you write fast unclarity sometimes creeps in.

I have no criticism of Curry. He was taken by surprise and reacted and his reaction helped save his life. Maybe I can learn something from his experience.

tipoc
 
ZeSpectre said:
Pretty smart guy, used the tree to protect his COM and it most certainly saved his life.

+1 on that! I mean he has to be scared poopless, because he is getting shot from 3 feet away repeatedly, but he protects his vitals with the tree, and with a little luck, that saves his life!
 
You'd think his hearing would be damaged? No?

Knife? That wouldn't have helped. He would have to come from behind the tree to use it. The tree and shooter ineptitude saved him that day.
 
The guy doing the shooting obviously didnt have a clue, which is lucky for the Lawyer. That little tree wouldnt stop anybody that was a little athletic, he just stood behind the tree, didnt even try to chase him to get a better shot. However, its still a fine example why people who pass all the apropriate test and do not have a criminal record should be able to conceal carry.
 
Wouldn't it have been really neat if somebody in that crowd had been able to draw a gun and stop that attack BEFORE the victim had been shot 5 times?

This was a lawyer. He'd probably own you if you tried to help him.
 
I was only half jesting. I wouldn't render assistance to a lawyer for any reason, ever. I'd be afraid he'd just view me as another easy victim to bleed dry. If I found myself helping somebody and learned they were a lawyer in the course of assisting, I'd drop what was I was doing and leave immediately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top