Road Rage -- Stupid Behavior Changes Multiple Lives Forever

On 1 July 2025, stupid behavior changed multiple lives forever. Dustin Jackson was driving a GMC Sierra pickup truck with his 6-year-old daughter. Another individual, Steven Bevan, was on the same road driving a Dodge Challenger with his 9-year-old and 8-year-old sons. Jackson and Bevan encountered each other in the left turn lane at Warner Road in Tempe, Arizona while they waited for the light to change.

The Incident

Jackson told police that he was behind Bevan when the light turned green and that he honked when Bevan did not move. This delay caused both to wait through another light cycle. At the next green light, Jackson and Bevan turned left and entered different lanes. Jackson told police that Bevan then swerved into his lane, brake checked him and stopped in front of him, about 400 feet from the previous intersection.

Witnesses at the scene and Jackson told police that Bevan got out of his Challenger and was yelling with his hands up. In a statement to police, Jackson explained that he reached for his pistol (a Springfield Hellcat 9mm) as Bevan exited his vehicle and began to approach him and his daughter. Jackson told police that he pointed his pistol at Bevan through his windshield as Bevan approached. 

Jackson stated that as Bevan came closer to his vehicle, he opened the driver's side door and said that he observed Bevan use his right hand to reach around his back. Jackson said that when Bevan reached around his back, that he fired one shot, striking Bevan in the chest. Jackson stated he attempted to call 9-1-1 to report the incident but could not get through to an operator. Police reported that a search of Bevan and his vehicle did not discover any weapon. 

Tempe Police arrested Jackson and charged him with first-degree murder and drive-by shooting.(1) The court set a one million dollar secured appearance bond for Jackson.

Police recovered a video that one of Bevan’s children recorded which captured part of the incident. Statements from witnesses at the scene and this video were apparently key in the subsequent Grand Jury proceeding which returned “No True Bill” on the murder and drive-by shooting charges against Jackson. It is not clear who/whether Jackson was represented at the grand jury hearing; however, the video likely corroborated his account of the incident.(2)

But Wait! Bevan Didn’t Have a Gun

Arizona law, like that of many states contains a provision for acting in response to apparent danger. Arizona jury instructions contain the following:

A.R.S. §§ 13-404 and -405, apparent deadly force can be met with deadly force, so long as defendant’s belief as to apparent deadly force is a reasonable one. An instruction on self-defense is required when a defendant acts under a reasonable belief; actual danger is not required. (3)

Apparent danger is often the result of a furtive movement. A furtive movement is a suspicion provoking movement that (under the totality of circumstances) is consistent with accessing a weapon but is not reasonably consistent with doing something else. The totality of the circumstances is the key element. It would be a gross overreaction to draw a weapon while standing in a cash register line at a store when the person in front of you reached for their wallet. Their actions would be consistent with paying for merchandise given the totality of the circumstances.

However, if someone who is verbally threatening and acting in an aggressive manner suddenly begins an action that is consistent with drawing a pistol, that reasonably would justify the use of force or deadly force—even if it is later found (as in this case) that the person had no weapon.

Road Rage

Road rage has become a daily and potentially dangerous plague on America’s streets. Although it seldom results in anything more than traded curses and obscene gestures, it can occasionally escalate into extreme acts violence as we saw in the above incident. A 2019, AAA Aggressive Driving Survey reported that within the preceding 30 days, 57 million drivers reported that they had switched lanes quickly/or very close to another car. Another 71 million drivers reported that they had made rude gestures or honked at other drivers.

How Should You Respond to Road Rage?

Unfortunately, it does not look like this problem is going away any time soon. Regardless of whether the fault is truly yours or not, if you find that you have agitated another driver do not react to the other driver or retaliate. Bevan reacted to someone honking at him. His reaction and subsequent behavior in stopping in front of another vehicle eventually caused the situation to escalate and spiral out of his control.

Control your emotions. While it may be difficult in the heat of the moment, do not give in to feelings of anger or rage on the road. Think twice before you honk the horn or flip that finger—you never know what may set off someone in the cars around you nor how they might react. Avoid eye contact and continue to practice safe driving habits. Getting home in one piece is far more important than venting your frustration or trying to teach someone a dangerous lesson.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

(1) A.R.S. § 13-1209 criminalizes the crime of “drive by shooting” in Arizona. A drive by shooting occurs when an individual intentionally shoots a weapon from a car at either a person, another car, or an occupied structure. For a crime to be classified as a drive by shooting, the discharge of the weapon must have been intentional, and it must have been aimed directly at a person or at a car or house where a person is likely to be located.

(2) No True Bill means the grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to justify bringing charges against an individual. Per the Jason D. Lamm law firm’s website: “Arizona has a unique law that allows a criminal defense attorney to represent a person under investigation in presenting exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. Specifically, the law requires that the prosecution summarizes all clearly exculpatory evidence that the person under investigation wants the grand jury to consider, and that the prosecution advises the grand jury of the desire of the person under investigation to testify.”

(3) Revised Arizona Jury instructions (Criminal) 6th Edition, 2022

One Thug, Three Home Invasions in Ten Minutes

On 12 July 2025 several homeowners in Bath Township, Michigan were REALLY UNHAPPY because they had left their garage doors open and the doors from their house to their garage unlocked. Police received a 911 call concerning a suspicious person walking through yards and attempting to break into cars. The caller stated that he saw the person enter the garage of a nearby home and fail to exit – presumably having entered the home. Moments later, the 911 operator received a separate call from a homeowner reporting that someone was in his house and stabbing him.

When police arrived at the home, the homeowner’s roommate said that someone entered and began to assault him and the homeowner, and that the homeowner and assailant were still inside. As they entered, police could hear the homeowner yelling for help saying that he was being stabbed. Police bodycam video showed the suspect holding a knife to the homeowner’s neck as he forced him to a nearby open door. The suspect, later identified as Bailey William Glazier, then released his hostage and exited the home.

Glazier has released his hostage and is fleeing home #1

Two police officers gave chase and both officers fired a total of nine shots at Glazier without apparent effect. One officer fired three of these shots while a passing SUV was in his direct line of fire. Glazier continued to flee and at one point stopped at a basketball court. As officers encountered Glazier a second time, each officer fired an additional four shots at him—once again, without apparent effect. There was a house in both officer’s direct line of fire beyond where Glazier was standing.

Glazier continued to flee and encountered an open garage at house #2 which he entered. Officers arrived just as Glazier entered the home through an unlocked door. However, when the officers tried to enter through the same door, they discovered that Glazier had locked it. 

Glazier entering house #2 through unlocked door

Moving to the front door, the officers tried to enter but were unable to breach the door after multiple attempts. The homeowner heard the commotion and opened her front door. The officers informed her of the intruder in her home and had her step out of house. She informed officers that her daughter was in the home, but she did not know where her daughter was located.

As police were entering the home, Glazier exited the back door and ran around the house, encountering the police officers once again near the home’s front door. Upon seeing the officers, Glazier ran toward a third house next door. 

Glazier Fleeing House #2 

As Glazier fled, an officer fired one shot at him. Glazier then entered the garage of a third home; however, pursuing officers were able to take him down and handcuff him before he could enter the home. The officers discovered that Glazier had at least one gunshot wound to the back and began immediate medical aid.

Glazier has been charged with seven felonies including aggravated assault, attempted murder, two home invasions, assault on and resisting police officers, and other offenses. After the incident, video surfaced of Glazier watering a lawn in the area without the homeowner’s permission and a separate video of two young girls who were manning a lemonade stand fleeing indoors at the sound of the police gunfire.

So how do we prevent home invasions?

One step is pretty obvious: LOCK YOUR DOORS! Glazier entered two homes through unlocked garage doors. Get into the habit of locking exterior doors if they are going to be unattended for even a moment when you are outside your home.

But I live in a good neighborhood you say? From the video, the area where Glazier was running amuck was a nice neighborhood. Many of us live in neighborhoods we would characterize as safe. I live in a gated community; however, that did not stop a suspected bank robber fleeing from the police from entering my neighborhood several years ago.

Do you carry a firearm when you are at home? I often ask this question of my students. The vast majority (like 99 of 100) respond: “No.” I then ask, “Where are you most likely to experience a home invasion?” Everyone responds “at home” to that question.

A rolling pin is better than nothing 

When police responded to the first home discussed in this incident, they encountered the owner’s roommate who had armed himself with a rolling pin—as in a device used to shape and flatten dough. Not the weapon I would want when faced with a knife-wielding assailant. Having immediate access to a defense firearm at all times can be critically important. I always carry a firearm at home. It is one the first things I put on in the morning, and one of the last things I take off when going to bed after my house is secure for the night.

Everyone should think through scenarios such as this now and develop a plan based on your particular circumstances. In my house, someone yelling “BEDROOM!” is giving the command for everyone to instantly stop what they are doing and go to a secure bedroom. A reinforced bedroom door provides a safe room you can retreat to if you are in another part of the house when someone attempts to break and enter. From there you can call 911 and prepare to take other necessary action.

Another step is to reinforce your exterior and (if possible) interior doors. Take a quick look at this video. That is how easy it is to kick in a normally constructed residential exterior door. So how do you prevent someone from kicking in your door?

One solution is heavy metal doors similar to those in the picture below. No human could kick in this steel door. For exterior wooden doors, I personally used the Strikemaster II Pro to reinforce the door jam and hinges. I did this as the house was being built and asked the builder to install them so it was relatively painless.

Similar products are the Door Armor Max (formerly EZ Armor) that Armor Concepts produces and Door Security Pro. There are probably others on the market that perform a similar function. As I look at product reviews however, it is clear that some people find the simple install is not quite so simple so your results may vary. You can purchase these products from a variety of vendors.

A final thought. My analysis of the police bodycam video indicates that police fired a total of seventeen shots at Glazier, striking him at least once. From the bodycam video, it appeared that Glazier may have been bleeding from the area of his left ear so a bullet may have grazed him. The other fifteen to sixteen bullets that police fired hit something other than their intended target. I suspect that more than one may have struck the SUV; however, I have found no reporting discussing these errant rounds.

Officers firing at Glazier as he flees house #1

I have watched dozens of police bodycam videos of officer involved shootings. Other than occasionally expressing concerns over officer crossfire situations, many of these videos show officers firing at offenders with little regard for what is around and beyond their targets. If police are actively engaging an offender in your vicinity, the safest thing to do is leave the phone alone and take cover. The young girls running inside their house had the right idea.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Shotgun Ammo for Self Defense -- Remember Birdshot is for Birds

If you search the internet for the question: “Is birdshot effective for stopping an attacker?” you will literally find hundreds of articles and dozens of YouTube videos debating the answer to this question. Some, like the July 2024 USCCA video imply that birdshot is effective under certain circumstances as a home defense round and perhaps it is. However, the problem that always arises: “Will your circumstances match those being discussed?”

I prefer to use a round that will likely be effective in a home defense role regardless of distance and circumstances. That round is . . . wait for it . . . Buckshot. Preferably the Federal 00 Buckshot with a FliteControl® wad.

A little background discussion is appropriate. There are two main types of shot for a shotgun: birdshot and buckshot.

Birdshot: is tiny shot that comes in a variety of numbered sizes with the higher the number indicating the smaller the shot. Birdshot is for birds and too small for anti-personnel and home defense purposes although many people who do not know what they are talking about will recommend it.

Buckshot: Are larger (and therefore heavier) shot intended for deer sized game and anti-personnel use. Buckshot designations use an archaic numbering system that essentially must be memorized. The zero or “0” is pronounced “ought” so 00 buckshot is pronounced “double ought buck.” The others are pronounced as you might expect; for example, #4 is simply “number four buck.” At .24 caliber, number four buckshot is quite small and too light to reliably penetrate. For home defense purposes in a 12 gauge, the best choices are 0, 00, or 000 buck. For home defense purposes in a 20 gauge #1 or #2 buckshot is the best choice although #3 can be used as well.

A standard 12 gauge 00 buckshot shell has 8-12 pellets in it, with 9 pellets being the most common. A full power 00 buckshot shell has a muzzle velocity of about 1300 fps while the muzzle velocity of reduced recoil loads is typically between 1100-1150 fps.

Remember--BIRDSHOT IS FOR BIRDS. In the video linked below (click on picture) a store owner fires his shotgun at a burglar when the burglar threatens him (the store owner) with unlawful deadly force. The store owner has loaded his shotgun with birdshot. The store owner’s shot hits the burglar in the abdomen, but the shot does not stop him. In response, the burglar fires five rounds from a 9mm pistol; fortunately, the store owner is not hit.

Burglar Firing at Store Owner After He was Hit with Birdshot

Pictures of the front door area after the shooting show a number of hits from birdshot pellets which implies that many pellets missed the burglar, flying past him to impact the door. My rudimentary measure* of the distance from the store owner to the burglar is approximately twenty-nine feet when the store owner fired. A cylinder bore shotgun would normally pattern approximate nineteen inches at this distance so either the store owner did not achieve a center hit or my distance measurement is not accurate.

Regardless, the burglar escaped the store and continued to be a threat to other innocents until he surrendered to police. News reports indicate that the burglar was apparently unfamiliar with his surroundings and fractured his hip while trying to flee the area.

 

Bryan Surrendering to Police -- Notice he has changed clothes

 

Would buckshot have been more effective? A solid abdominal hit from a 00 buckshot load is likely to be very effective. The pattern of typical 00 buckshot loads at ten yards generally puts all pellets within a ten or so inch circle.** However, just like any other weapon, you must aim the shotgun and hit the target. A miss with a buckshot load is no more effective than a miss with any other weapon. Would Dylan Bryan have continued to shoot at the store owner if the store owner’s shot had missed? Impossible to know.

For more information on using a shotgun for home defense, please see the 2025 update to my Home Defense Shotgun Manual 

If you enjoy reading these posts, please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

*I based this best guess measurement on the width of the oscillating fan which is likely eighteen inches wide and the antique wall clock which is likely 8-1/2 inches wide.

** For more information on patterning a shotgun load see: https://www.sensibleselfdefenseblog.com/2024/01/pattern-your-home-defense-shotgun.html

An ATM Robbery - Use of Force Training Simulation

A legally armed citizen facing a deadly encounter has a number of challenges to contend with--among them is when to start shooting.

I once had the opportunity to run students through a variety of scenarios on a sophisticated use of force training simulator or FTS over a period of months. The FTS had thirty or so scenarios that replicated events a private citizen might face as they went about their daily business. When conducting use of force training simulations, each student received a scene-setting prebrief and then ran through the scenario individually. Instructors noted the student’s actions for an after-scenario individual debriefings.

I noted very common issue among new students – they often tried to engage the criminal verbally when it was unnecessary, they waited too long draw their defensive firearm, or they waited to engage the threat until the threat actually pointed a firearm at them. In general, new students did not know the Texas use of force law and therefore did not understand when they could/should engage a deadly threat or they dithered due to a lack of confidence in their ability.

Under Texas law we can use deadly force when necessary to protect ourselves or an innocent third person from the imminent use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force or to prevent another's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (see below).

In other words, once it is clear that an assailant is in the process of immediately attempting to use or is using deadly force, or is committing one of these enumerated crimes, an innocent defender can justifiably use lawful force or deadly force. The defender does not need to wait until a firearm is pointed at them to act nor are they legally bound to give warning. The old saying comes to mind: “If you wait to see the muzzle, you will likely see what comes out of it.”

Click on the picture above to see a video of me completing a blind run of one of the FTS scenarios. The lead-up to the scenario was that you and a partner (spouse, friend, child, etc.) pull up to an automated teller machine and your partner exits your vehicle to withdraw money. A violent criminal steps up behind your partner and threatens them with a pistol while robbing them. I always completed each FTS scenario “blind” and on video before I used them to train students. After each student completed the scenario, I then demonstrated my solution to the problem.

In the FTS scenario shown, every new student attempted to verbally engage and/or warn the criminal threatening their partner. During the scenario, if the criminal became aware of the defender (via the warning or from the student delaying their response), he used the partner as a hostage while moving to a vehicle and kidnapped the partner in response. My solution? Quickly draw my concealed pistol, take careful aim, and shoot the criminal threatening unlawful deadly force in the head—no hesitation, no warning.

Was my solution legally justified? Absolutely. The criminal was using unlawful deadly force to threaten an innocent third person. If I was in that person’s shoes, I would have been justified in using lawful deadly force to defend myself and my intervention was immediately necessary to protect that third person (my partner). Further, the criminal was in the process of committing an aggravated robbery so my use of lawful deadly force was justified under Texas Penal Code, Secs. 9.32. and 9.33. 

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.
 

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31(non-deadly force); and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Protecting a Third Person:

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. 

Update: Setting Yourself Up for a Murder Charge --The James Meyer Incident

 

James Meyer (Dallas Police Photo)

This is an update to an article I wrote in 2019. That article discussed a Dallas man who was charged with murder in the fatal shooting of a burglar outside his Dallas home on 26 September 2019.

Sources stated that James Michael Meyer told police that noise outside his home awakened him about 5 a.m. He looked out a window and saw someone trying to break into his storage shed with a pickaxe. Meyer said he grabbed his handgun, chambered a round, and then exited his home yelling at the person to stop what he was doing and not come any closer or else he would shoot.

Meyer told police the person took several steps toward him, so he fired his pistol at the individual. Meyer stated that at that point, the burglar dropped the pickax and ran toward a park behind his house.  Prior to that moment, Meyer’s use of deadly force was likely justified under the law.  His attacker was threatening/using unlawful deadly force (i.e. brandishing a pickaxe).  Meyer was innocent (i.e. he did not start the incident and had a right to be present in his back yard), the threat was imminent, his action was proportional to the threat, and a reasonable person could conclude his actions were a valid/justified response to the threat.

However, Meyer also told the police that he fired an additional shot "into the night" in the direction of the park as the burglar ran away. He stated that he didn't know whether he had struck the person, so he went into his house and back to bed – he did not call the police

Later that morning Meyer looked outside once again and saw something in the park. Upon closer inspection, he found an unidentified individual lying face down so at that point, he called the police. His second shot had not missed – it killed the fleeing burglar.

Meyer like many people, found himself charged with murder because the incident evolved from one in which Meyer's use of deadly force was potentially justified into one where the perpetrator is fleeing, is not longer threatening unlawful deadly force, and the defender is now the aggressor.

What Should You Do During Such an Incident?

Call the police. If you are involved in any use of force self-defense incident call the police. Don't call your attorney, your neighbors, your parents, your husband, your wife or anyone else before you call the police. Tell the police dispatcher that you have been attacked and that your attacker may be or is down (in Meyer’s case he said did not know).

Stay on the line with the dispatcher and give your location, describe what you are wearing, and remind the dispatcher that you are the victim. Request that the dispatcher provide responding officers a description of what you are wearing and where you are located. The dispatcher will likely ask questions concerning what has happened however, you do not have to respond, nor should you answer those questions. Tell the dispatcher that you will talk to responding officers. The call your attorney and/or your post-incident protection plan provider.

Sign the Complaint. When the police arrive tell them you will sign the complaint. This reinforces that you were in fact the victim in the incident.

Point out the Evidence. Evidence is perishable and can be moved or stolen. Meyer disturbed critical evidence and altered a crime scene when he gathered up his spent cartridges and threw them in the trash. Under no circumstances should you willingly disturb or move evidence yourself. This is altering a crime scene and is itself a crime in many jurisdictions.

Point out Witnesses. If there are witnesses point them out to the police. If you do not, they may (likely will) leave the scene and their information will leave with them.

Cooperate. Tell the police that you will cooperate fully once you have consulted legal counsel. Police likely will ask questions at the scene beyond what you have told them in the steps above. Politely decline and verbally state that you are exercising your right to remain silent and repeat that you will cooperate fully once you have consulted legal counsel.

AND THEN SHUT UP. Do not talk to anyone other than with your attorney about anything, ANYONE or ANYTHING.  Your voluntary statements may constitute a waiver of your rights and may be used against you, even if you previously invoked your right to silence.

This is where a post-incident protection plan such as CCW Safe or US Law Shield offers can be very helpful in finding a qualified attorney. However, you must ensure that your legal counsel is qualified to give you proper legal advice. If there is any doubt, get another attorney.

According to Meyer’s arrest affidavit, Meyer's attorney agreed to allow Meyer to make a statement on 26 September 2019 -- the day of the incident. I seriously doubt that Meyer and his attorney had carefully reviewed Meyer’s account of the incident at that point.

A detective read Meyer his Miranda Warning before questioning him. The attorney then sat (presumably) silent while Meyer made an incriminating statement:

Suspect Meyer stated that the complainant (the burglar) took several steps towards him and Suspect Meyer fired his gun. Suspect Meyer stated the complainant dropped the pick-axe and ran away in the direction of the park. At that point Suspect Meyer, repositioned himself and fired an additional shot "into the night" which in the direction of the park [sic]. According to Suspect Meyer, the complainant had left towards the park when he fired the second shot. From the suspect's accounts, the threat of serious bodily injury against him was over when the complainant dropped the pickaxe and ran off away from him [Meyer].

Note: In the detective’s report the deceased burglar has become the “complainant” – not Meyer. Meyer’s attorney allowed him to confess to unlawful use of deadly force.  Although he was charged with murder, I can find no indication that Meyer was convicted.

Using deadly force against a fleeing perpetrator who no longer poses an imminent threat of deadly force, failing to call the police immediately, intentionally altering evidence, and then making an ill-considered, incriminating statement to the police can be very problematic for how and where you live the rest of your life.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

 

 

Driveway Assault -- How Fast Can It Happen?

One Sunday morning at 4:00 a.m., a Chester, CT man was going to work just like he had many times before. He did not pay attention to or did not notice that there was a vehicle parked at the end of his driveway with two men hiding in the shadows. As he approached his pickup parked in his driveway, he glanced up and saw a figure sprinting toward him. Literally within seconds (2.66 seconds to be exact), a robber was on him and pointing a pistol at his face as he forced him to the ground demanding money. The victim repeatedly said that he did not have any money as the man’s armed accomplice began rummaging through his pickup. The news later reported that the robbers fired shots at the victim as they fled; however, this was not on the video and the victim was not injured during the incident.

This is going to be a series where I explore just how fast a criminal attack can happen through analyzing actual video recorded events. Why is that important? One of the critical challenges a private citizen faces when confronted with a criminal attack is recognizing what is happening and then reacting fast enough to respond effectively. This is not trivial since the attack is often underway before a defender even realizes that there is a problem. Further, many people sincerely believe that their neighborhood is safe, that they go to safe areas, and that deadly violence will not happen to them. Thus, there is a moment (sometimes a long moment) of disbelief and hesitancy when they are faced with an imminent deadly threat. This disbelief and accompanying hesitancy often renders their response overcome by events even if they have planned a response.

If you are not familiar with COL Boyd’s Observe, Orient, Decide, Act cycle, it is worth reviewing.* For the purposes of this discussion, suffice it to say that the OODA framework is a process of decision making in response to changes in your environment. In COL Boyd’s case, he used it to teach fighter pilots how to make good decisions in during aerial combat. We can apply the OODA framework to determine whether the victim in this incident had time to effectively respond to the abrupt change in his environment. 

Look at the time again – 2.66 seconds from the start until the victim has a pistol in his face. The victim observed the approaching robber 0.44 seconds after the robber had begun his sprint. At 0.87 seconds into his sprint, the robber chambered a round in his semi-automatic pistol and was at that point capable of firing at the victim who was continuing to stare at the on-coming robber. However, upon (presumably) reacting to the round being chambered at 0.94 seconds, the victim is now aware of a deadly threat and starts to react by turning away from the robber. The victim now has 1.72 seconds to respond before the robber who is approximately twenty feet away is on him.

A reasonably well-trained person can draw and fire a concealed handgun in 1.72 seconds; however, that does not fully describe the victim’s problem. If we look at this incident using Boyd’s OODA cycle from the victim’s and the robber’s perspective, the robber has already passed through a full cycle. He Observed the victim exiting his house, Oriented when he saw the victim moving toward his pick-up, Decided to rob him, and began Acting (sprinting toward the victim) all while the victim was still in the Observe stage.

As we see in this incident, the defender is typically behind in the decision cycle because the violent criminal actor is usually in the Act stage while the defender is still observing. The quicker the defender (in this case the victim) perceives what is happening (observe), the quicker the defender can act (i.e. execute a response)—this of course presumes the victim has planned for an effective response.

How do we effectively respond to incidents such as this? The key is to have a set of pre-planned actions to execute in response to a given stimulus. This allows you to skip the Orient and Decide steps and go immediately to the Act step. If an unknown contact is approaching and attempting to engage you, there are several immediate actions you can take depending upon the totality of the circumstances. For example, if I am pulling into my driveway and a car stops at the driveway entrance with young men exiting, I have several options. If I am still in the car, I can simply drive away—across the lawn if necessary (see picture below). If I have exited the car, I can take cover and covertly draw my pistol and challenge them. Visualizing “what if” scenarios based upon your environment and daily activities and deciding what your action would be in each scenario will significantly speed up your reaction if you are suddenly facing unlawful deadly force.

The solution to this challenge is to develop mental models of if “X” observation, then “Y” response. Mental awareness and mindset are critical components to surviving any defensive encounter involving deadly force. However, mindset alone is insufficient. It must be coupled with proper training and a willingness to act. This allows one to skip the intervening steps in the OODA cycle and increases the chance of responding effectively. The victim in this incident was not hit when the robber(s) shot at him—but he certainly could have been.

I addressed how to respond effectively; however, how do we prevent incidents such as this? One technique taught in anti-terrorism classes is examining your environment for potential threats from a safe area. I always look at my driveway area before I exit my house. The victim in this incident had a camera that clearly showed a vehicle parked in the street near the end of his driveway and it is very possible that had the victim checked his camera, he would have seen the robbers prior to exiting his house and could have made the appropriate decision without a pistol in his face. The fight we avoid is a fight we win.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. Your information will never be distributed.

* For an in-depth discussion of Boyd’s OODA framework: https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/behavior/ooda-loop/

Hornady Critical Duty 9mm Velocity Testing

In a recent range session, I used my LabRadar to measure the velocity difference between barrel lengths for the Hornady Critical Duty 9mm 135 grain FlexLock standard pressure round. For the testing I used my SIG P365, my SIG P320 Carry, and my P320 X5 Full size pistols.  

Since I use this Hornady Critical Duty 9mm round in my SIG P320 Carry and my P365 everyday carry pistols, I was curious about the velocity difference between barrel lengths. My expectation going into the testing was that the P365 would record the lowest velocities and the X5 would record the highest velocities since it had a longer barrel.

However, that was not the case. The P320 Carry with its 3.9-inch barrel recorded the highest velocities. I fired ten rounds of the same lot number through each of the three pistols. The table below shows the results of my testing with the velocities in feet per second or FPS. 

Pistol	Barrel	Average	High	Low	Extreme Spread	Std Deviation
SIG P365	3.1 Inches	959	975	943	33	14.8
P320 Compact Carry	3.9 Inches	1038	1048	1019	29	13
P320 X5	5.0 inches	983	1010	974	37	15.3

I referenced the Lucky Gunner Handgun Self-Defense Ammunition Ballistics Test and looked at their results for the standard pressure Critical Duty round. In their 9mm Luger testing, Lucky Gunner used a Smith & Wesson M&P9C, 3.5-inch barrel—a barrel exactly halfway between the barrel lengths I used. The Lucky Gunner average velocity for five shots from the 3.5-inch barrel was 1053 FPS.

Hornady’s description of the Critical Duty states in part that it is: “Designed to meet the needs of those who demand superior barrier penetration and prefer a full‑size handgun for their personal protection.” To me, full-sized would mean a five-inch barrel. However, Hornady’s ballistics data for the Critical Duty 9mm 135 grain standard pressure round showed a velocity of 1010 FPS from a four-inch barrel.

So why was the velocity lower in the five-inch X5 barrel when compared to the 3.9-inch P320 Carry? I have no idea. Perhaps the burn rate for the powder Hornady uses is optimized for a four-inch barrel. I can speculate that the extra 1.1 inches adds a bit of drag to the bullet because the powder had burned at the 3.9-4.0 inch mark. However, that is pure speculation.

If you enjoy reading these please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. Your information will never be distributed.

* Lucky Gunner Labs did some interesting ballistics gel testing.  I recommend their research: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm

Shot in the Back! Justified or Not?

Prosecutors have criminally charged police officers when the officer has shot someone in the back or when the officer shot someone falling down, stating that these shots were unjustified. There is a fine line between shots that are a lawful response to a deadly threat and shots that are fired after the deadly threat ceases. The only time a private citizen defender (or law enforcement officer for that matter) may use lawful deadly force is when another is threatening or using unlawful deadly force. When the threat has ended, the defender must stop using deadly force. Of course, the problem lies in determining exactly when the threat has ended. The fact that basic human nature often causes an attacker to reflexively turn away from the defender’s gun compounds the difficulty of making this determination.

Dynamic, deadly encounters can happen very quickly and a private citizen’s use of deadly force in lawful self defense can be over in moments. However, close legal scrutiny on the defender’s decision to start and stop shooting can result in the aftermath taking years to play out. 

Massad Ayoob cites an example of this challenge in the case of Florida v. Mary Hopkin in the mid-1980s. Mary Hopkin was a frequent victim of her burly common-law husband James Yarolem who often beat her and once had strangled her and left her for dead. Yarolem was out on bail and drunk when he returned to Hopkin’s home and tried to enter. Hopkin wouldn’t let him in and warned him that she had a gun; however, he broke down the door and advanced on her.

Hopkin fired three shots as fast as she could from a .22 LR revolver and stopped shooting when she perceived Yarolem to turn and run. He collapsed and died outside; however, Hopkin’s shots had hit him once in the chest, once in the side just behind lateral midline, and a fatal shot square in the back and into his heart. Janet Reno charged her with murder because she shot Yarolem in the back when he was “no longer a threat.” However, the jury found her not guilty after her attorney Mark Seiden, deconstructed the state’s case meticulously point by point with Massad Ayoob’s assistance.

Exactly how fast can someone turn around? Professor Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Institute at the University of Minnesota at Mankato found that a person could turn from facing forward to exposing their lateral mid-line in ¼ second for ¼ turn and ½ second for ½ turn--in other words fully presenting their back in 0.50 seconds. Further, there are cases where a shooter facing away can effectively point their pistol behind them (Lewinski, B., (2000)).

The Tadarius Hunt Incident:

In the images below, Tadarius Hunt, a suspect wanted for attempted murder points his pistol backward and fires at a police officer as he is running in the opposite direction. We see two different versions of the incident – one from police vehicle dashcam and one from the officer’s perspective. In the picture Back #1 below, Hunt has drawn a pistol and is firing it at the officer.

Back #1 Hunt has drawn a pistol and is firing it at the officer

In the picture Back #2 below, Hunt has turned to his right and is pointing the pistol at the officer as he prepares to fire once again.

Back #2: Tadarius Hunt Pointing A Pistol At Police Officer

In the picture Back #3 below, Hunt has turned further to his right and is firing the pistol at the officer once again.

Back #3: Hunt Firing at the Police Officer

Every time the Hunt pointed his pistol at the police officer, his back was exposed. It is likely that without the video evidence, it would have been easy for an emergency room physician or a prosecutor to conclude that the officer shot Hunt in the back as he was fleeing.

The Force Science Research Center (FSRC) has done research to understand the stop shooting problem when a police officer is shooting and assessing and has identified several factors explaining why a police officer who is both shooting and assessing cannot stop shooting immediately. This is the exact same problem a private citizen defender faces.

John Farnam did a study of just how fast someone could fire a revolver and found that it could be fired four times a second, while a semiauto could be fired five or possibly six times a second. My personal testing shows that someone with intermediate to advanced skills could fire a revolver five to six times a second and a semi as many as six to eight shots in a second. Of course, adrenaline, firearm design, and personal skill can affect this speed. Jerry Miculek holds the current record for shooting eight shots from a revolver on a single target in 0.94 seconds or one shot every 0.117 seconds (not counting his reaction time to the timer signal).

In the Tempe Study (2003), the FSRC determined that the typical reaction time to an anticipated stimulus is 0.25 seconds. From a stopping perspective, the study showed that when the average police officer stops shooting based solely on a perception of change in the outside world (and was anticipating this change), the fastest the officer is able to do this is 35/100ths of a second resulting in two shots being fired (p. 28). The ability to stop will occur not when the subject has changed their threatening behavior but after the police officer begins to detect a change in the threatening behavior. This distinction is important because the psychological processes of perception and detection often take many times longer than the physical responses involved.

The FSRC concluded that an officer who engages sequentially in all of the steps necessary to cycle through the observe, orient, decide act process can take a second to a second and a half or more to stop shooting. Measured in trigger pulls, which are occurring at a quarter of a second each, this is an extra four to six rounds after the threat stops. 

This is approximately the same amount of time that Green (2000) found for reactions to applying the brake and stopping in a real-world driving situation. This means that it is not possible to stop shooting at an attacker before he/she has an opportunity to spin and receive shots to the back (see also Lewinski, B., (2000)).

What are the implications for the armed citizen? If you are committed to firing a shot and have started to pull the trigger, the speed with which you can pull the trigger likely precludes stopping that action. If the threat turns as you pull the trigger, the trigger pull speed when combined with turning speed (particularly the speed of a young, athletic person) could easily result in justifiably firing one or more rounds that impact the threat in the back.

If you enjoy reading these posts, please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed. 

 

Ph.D. Lewinski, B., (2000) Why Is The Suspect Shot In The Back? Finally, Hard Data on How Fast the Suspect Can Be In Eleven Different Shooting Scenarios

Ph.D. Lewinski, B., & Hudson, B. (2003a). Time to start shooting? Time to stop shooting? The Tempe study. The Police Marksman, 28(5), 26-29.

Green, M. (2000). “How long does it take to stop?” Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times. Transportation Human Factors, 2(3), 195-216.