Summation of shooting report: Subject #1 was civilian sheep rancher involved in regional land dispute. Subject #1 had no prior record and no formal weapons training (other than occasional predator hunting on ranch). Subject #2 was a well trained professional military special operator for opposing faction in land dispute. Subject #1 engaged #2 in mutual combat (daytime, temperate weather, rural terrain, witnesses). Prior to fight, #1 was hastily issued a carry permit by friendly local magistrate but declined body armor and backup edged weapon offered by local supporters. He chose to enter firefight with light clothing and a small caliber 5 shooter (his normal varmint weapon at the ranch). #1´s ammunition choice was rumored to have been "Hydro-Shekel". Subject #2 wore plate body armor, ballistic helmet, military long arm (Cal .600 Shekel), ballistic shield, and backup edged weapon. After mutual antagonistic verbal threats, #2 presented long arm and closed distance to #1 prepatory to firing. #1, realizing range/penetration limitations of his weapon, also closed distance, simutaneously taking single well aimed head shot. #2 took what would have been a fatal CNS hit between eyes except that small caliber round failed to fully penetrate frontal skull. Nevertheless, #2 dropped in his tracks (incidentally falling face forward while moving forward). Subject #1 recovered #2´s edged backup weapon from his unconcious body and finished off his opponent with same. Shooting was ruled "justifiable" by magistrate. Subject #1 rode wave of local rancher popularity and entered high political office. Some thoughts:
1. Subject #1 successfully employed the weapon he was most practiced with rather than unfamiliar hi-tech equipment. HITS COUNT, NOT WEAPON OR CALIBER...
2. #1 retained situational awareness during short duration firefight (closed to effective range, took first well aimed shot, and made tactical allowance for armored opponent). #1 had reputedly practiced firing under stress and was able to take the headshot on a moving target (although it may have been a lucky shot). Prior to this fight, he claimed success shooting at moving livestock predators. PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE...
3. Although #1 had 4 remaining rounds, he may have had a stoppage requiring him to utilize his opponent´s edged weapon). #1 should have practiced stoppage drills/combat reloading techniques. PRACTICE FOR CONTINGENCIES!
4. Small caliber round did not penetrate to #2´s brain. In spite of this, a lucky "one-stop shot" ensued. HAVE FAILURE DRILL AND A BACKUP WEAPON!
5. Despite carry rulings by local authorities and Grand Jury "No Bill" for Subject #1, some local self defense statutes were possibly violated. Pre-meditated homicide charges would probably apply in most states...
6. Firefight was at close range, a few seconds in duration, with a single opponent. Neither combatant made appropriate use of cover and one may have over-relied upon his ballistic armor. Neither was equipped for or trained in low-level light combat firing techniques.
7. This shooting was reported in 1 Samuel 17:1-58, Holy Bible (New International Version). If you have any comments or info, please post...Janet Reno´s office and HCI would like to prevent further incidents of this type...
1. Subject #1 successfully employed the weapon he was most practiced with rather than unfamiliar hi-tech equipment. HITS COUNT, NOT WEAPON OR CALIBER...
2. #1 retained situational awareness during short duration firefight (closed to effective range, took first well aimed shot, and made tactical allowance for armored opponent). #1 had reputedly practiced firing under stress and was able to take the headshot on a moving target (although it may have been a lucky shot). Prior to this fight, he claimed success shooting at moving livestock predators. PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE...
3. Although #1 had 4 remaining rounds, he may have had a stoppage requiring him to utilize his opponent´s edged weapon). #1 should have practiced stoppage drills/combat reloading techniques. PRACTICE FOR CONTINGENCIES!
4. Small caliber round did not penetrate to #2´s brain. In spite of this, a lucky "one-stop shot" ensued. HAVE FAILURE DRILL AND A BACKUP WEAPON!
5. Despite carry rulings by local authorities and Grand Jury "No Bill" for Subject #1, some local self defense statutes were possibly violated. Pre-meditated homicide charges would probably apply in most states...
6. Firefight was at close range, a few seconds in duration, with a single opponent. Neither combatant made appropriate use of cover and one may have over-relied upon his ballistic armor. Neither was equipped for or trained in low-level light combat firing techniques.
7. This shooting was reported in 1 Samuel 17:1-58, Holy Bible (New International Version). If you have any comments or info, please post...Janet Reno´s office and HCI would like to prevent further incidents of this type...