Via Bob Owens at Bearing Arms. The following are my comments and thoughts and not Legal Advice. I am too ugly to be playing a lawyer on the webs.

The guy would not quit. After hitting the pedestrians, knifing 2 rabbis (one died) and shot by the civilian, the bastard keeps going even when downed. That bring us to the concept of the anchor shot which is basically a properly placed shot to the head so the perpetrator stops for sure and no more actions would be forthcoming.

Anchor shot is controversial. On one hand the idea that a still living perpetrator, properly motivated by conviction and/or drugs may continue his wrongdoing after a brief pause and needs to be stopped for sure, versus the perception that the shooter is executing the bad guy with a coup de grace and the forthcoming legal trouble he might be facing.

In a case like the above, the shooter has plenty of evidence and help to go around: witnesses, the video itself, the victims being knifed and being Israel, they don’t go ACLU for the terrorists so even when he did not put one in his head. After the second time the terrorist got up, a properly placed shot to the brain pan would have been the right response as he looks like a continuous threat.

Same case and on this side of the world? You have to figure out where you live. Do you live in an area where the local prosecutor would understand the concept of continuous threat or he/she will look at you as extra 20,000 votes for the next election if he dresses you in all orange, specially if he is trying to pander to the #ColorOfTheDayMatters crowd. Or live in a State that does not provide you with immunity from civil prosecution and the relatives of Knife Boy are gonna come after your hard-earned belongings because he was “a good kid that loved his momma but too a wrong turn”? Unfortunately, you have to add that kind of crap to your equation.

Other anchoring shots (but without the finality of immediate death) would be to the pelvic griddle and the knees. If you happen to place a good shot to the pelvis and break it, there is no way in heck that the guy will get up again, not matter how determined of full of flakka he can be. The knee is much trickier as it is a smaller target and probably moving a lot so it basically means a contact shot and that is being too close to the subject.

So what’s the final answer? There is none. It will depend on the events and circumstances and your own set of rules to use deadly force

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

8 thoughts on “That is one resilient terrorist.”
  1. I would think in areas like Israel the possibility that said attacker would also have a suicide bomb vest would dictate a Mozambique Drill type response. Just to be safe. For the children.

    If the ISIS clowns that are rumored to be crossing our southern boarder start that kind of crap in the States, ‘The Drill’ may quickly become the go-to response.

  2. You hit the problem, and yes, I am a lawyer.

    The “anchor shot” (i.e. “Mozambique drill”)to the head screams intent to kill. And that potentially brings a world of legal troubles. You can’t help your family or loved ones sitting in a jail cell, or having to sacrifice all your resources on a legal defense.

    Personally, I endorse the shot to the pelvic girdle; not only will he not get up with a broken pelvis, with a little “luck” you hit a femoral artery and he doesn’t likely get up at all – he’d bleed out in a few minutes.

    And most important, such a shot does not scream intent to kill.

    1. Just what I was about to say, a solid shattering shot to the pelvis is going to be VERY close to a lethal shot. with the arteries there, as well as well as the Illiac Veins and the Inferior vena cava.

      Still I think a lot of the legal issues could vanish by simply doing a mag dump on him when he started lunging.

  3. “So what’s the final answer? There is none.”

    No, but excellent analysis. Always better to know your options ahead of time, even if only in general terms.

  4. In my view, it’s very simple. “keep pulling the trigger till it don’t work no more” Heat of battle. Feared for my life. Adrenaline overload. Once you pause in shooting, especially if the perp is down, a follow-up shot could possibly lead to a bad outcome such as described above. Better to keep shooting, and aim for the head if possible. But keep shooting regardless. When you are empty, change mags and check six in case there is another threat. By this time the perp will be down for the count. Just my 2 cents.

  5. Miguel,

    I was going to post on this but you beat me to it. This video spread through the office today like wildfire.

    The consensus was: when in doubt, just fill the target with bullets. One shot, then wait and see what happens, wasn’t effective in this situation. If Mr. Terrorist had something other than a knife, he could had done a lot more damage before expiring. A “Mozambique” is difficult to do quickly on a stationary target in practice, on a moving target in a high-stress situation… forget it. Just aim at the center of mass and go to slide lock. Reload and repeat as necessary.

  6. Rule 1: Use enough gun. Rule 2: Continue resolving the threat as long as the threat exists.

    For some reason one doesn’t hear about it much anymore, except perhaps in LE circles, but a few decades back there were enough random incidents in which Better Living Through Chemistry (mostly the PCP crowd) produced bullet-resistant perps to generate some discussion. IIRC, the first issue of Street Survival published in the late ’80s featured a photo of a bullet sponge that took 33 hits to stop.

    I don’t know the details on the incident in the video, but I suspect two things may be going on: first, the proliferation of lighter caliber “convenience carry” guns, 380s and .32s, and the TV- and movie-induced belief that the bad guy should stop because he’s been shot once. Handguns are notoriously limited in energy and it’s energy transferred to the target that provides the effect: more energy is better, there’s no such thing as too much of it, and if individual projectiles don’t transfer enough energy then the quantity applied must increase. I doubt “convenience carry” handguns contain enough projectiles to accomplish that, much less deliver an instantly incapacitating structural blow (hip, pelvic girdle, shattered femur or tibia, etc.); there is a reason the U.S. Army issued a procurement request for a .45 caliber sidearm after their 1903 Philippine Adventure. That said, even .45s fail to stop, and there are enough documented events that required multiple 3-inch 00 buck loads to stop that Fosdick’s advice (above) has much to recommend it.

  7. In reference to the photo in the Street Survival book, the offender who took 33 rounds (all 1970s 1st-gen 9mm hollowpoints that aren’t made anymore) also took two 12-gauge slugs.
    This is a scary video, but on top of not knowing what caliber the responder was using, we also don’t know where his hits landed. It’s true that you have to use enough gun, but you also have to put the bullets in the right place.
    I say, Bring back the LeMat.

Comments are closed.