Documented Overpenetration?

[bubbajoe45]

OK, I'm sure it has happened at some time or other since 1945, but how many actual documented cases have you guys heard of (or been involved with) where a handgun shooting resulted in complete penetration of the intended target and then penetration of a second person (good or bad) behind them. Of course, misses don't count, nor do cases where multiple rounds were fired and one of them went into a building or something and hit someone (i.e., undocumented). Could have been a miss - don't know for sure. All you .357 fans need to stand up here. Let's stick with cases since about 1980 or so - whenever (?) police began to universally carry hollowpoints. I got to thinking about this after reading a post about someone carrying a .44 mag for self-defense. It seems to me that in a gunfight, priority one is saving me by stopping the bad guy - should the remote possibility of collateral damage really be such a concern when a handgun is a marginally adequate defensive tool to begin with?

 

[P&R Fan]

Massad Ayoob has done several magazine articles on this subject and given numerous examples. Several were in New York City. He states that one of the main reasons they finally approved hollowpoints was a significant number of shoot-throughs involving LEOs, including injuries and even some deaths.
It has not been uncommon.

 

[bubbajoe45]

Yeh, I can see the increased potential in a big city with crowded streets. Not everyone lives in NYC (thankfully). But in smaller cities and towns (less than a few hundred thousand), in most cases parking lots, strip malls, suburban neighborhoods, and downtown areas where a few people occupy the street at any given time are the norm. An awful lot of us live in these places (Nashville, Boise, Tuscon, Orlando, Saginaw, etc. are spread out). It seems there are other over-riding concerns to me.

 

[Kanewpadle]

As Mas Ayoob has stated as well as many other well known experienced instructors.......

"Every bullet has an attorney attached to it"

Doesn't matter where you live. Large or small population.

You won't have the conveniece of picking or choosing when and where an incident will happen that requires you to protect yourself with a gun.

The safety of others should be a major concern whether it be overpenetration or simply missing your target altogether.

Concealed carry should be a "total package". Carry a decent caliber gun in good working condition. Wear a good holster. Use one of the many premium self defense loads available. Get quality training. Know your local laws. And practice.

We can run through any number of useless scenarios that don't mean squat unless you practice.

If we practice shooting on the move, while moving to cover if we can or to place yourself in a better position to shoot safely, overpenetration or missing becomes a non factor.

The aftermath of using a firearm in self defense is tough enough. Add to that the legal and moral repercussion of injuring or killing an innocent bystander will last for years.

 

[WR Moore]

The purpose of your question is unclear. Is your premise the thought that a howitzer is necessary to neutralize a bad guy?

It's been repeatedly noted that shot placement is the single most important factor in incapacitation of an adversary. It's also been determined that hollow point bullets are the most effective projectile to effect incapacitation. So, it would seem that your ability to accurately place hollowpoint bullets while under stress is the key factor.

At the same time, to deliberately choose a weapon and/or ammunition that could reasonably be expected to result in overpenetration, could lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that you exercised a reckless lack of judgement. And, expose one to prosecution for manslaughter.

 

[watchmanjimg]

The purpose of your question is unclear. Is your premise the thought that a howitzer is necessary to neutralize a bad guy?

It's been repeatedly noted that shot placement is the single most important factor in incapacitation of an adversary. It's also been determined that hollow point bullets are the most effective projectile to effect incapacitation. So, it would seem that your ability to accurately place hollowpoint bullets while under stress is the key factor.

At the same time, to deliberately choose a weapon and/or ammunition that could reasonably be expected to result in overpenetration, could lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that you exercised a reckless lack of judgement. And, expose one to prosecution for manslaughter.

I'm sure most would agree with your remarks concerning the importance of good shot placement, but your final paragraph seems a bit out of left field. What lawful handgun and ammunition could "reasonably be expected to result in overpenetration", and how does an attack by a third party which justifies the use of deadly force make one's choice of a handgun "deliberate" such that its mere use in self-defense would expose one to prosecution to manslaughter?

Are you suggesting that there is a particular caliber or ammo type that is so inherently dangerous that defending oneself with it is per se unlawful?

 

[bitstream]

I'm sure most would agree with your remarks concerning the importance of good shot placement, but your final paragraph seems a bit out of left field. What lawful handgun and ammunition could "reasonably be expected to result in overpenetration", and how does an attack by a third party which justifies the use of deadly force make one's choice of a handgun "deliberate" such that its mere use in self-defense would expose one to prosecution to manslaughter?

Are you suggesting that there is a particular caliber or ammo type that is so inherently dangerous that defending oneself with it is per se unlawful?

I don't think that he is suggesting it as much as he's suggesting that a zealous DA might try to make such a claim... Even if you eventually win in court, it might take years and cost a staggering sum in legal fees. Read Massad Ayoob; he has testified in many cases where DA's/lawyers have tried to stake out such a position because the gun owner had modified his weapon (trigger job, etc.), loaded it with custom ammo (hot hand loads), etc. They seem to think that such actions show the gun owner to be aggressive and looking for a confrontation? Ayoob has suggested you carry an unmodified factory gun with factory ammo for this very reason.

 

[cmort666]

Massad Ayoob has done several magazine articles on this subject and given numerous examples. Several were in New York City. He states that one of the main reasons they finally approved hollowpoints was a significant number of shoot-throughs involving LEOs, including injuries and even some deaths.
It has not been uncommon.

He also addresses the issue in the "Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry", and "Combat Handgunnery" as well, I believe.

 

[cmort666]

Yeh, I can see the increased potential in a big city with crowded streets. Not everyone lives in NYC (thankfully). But in smaller cities and towns (less than a few hundred thousand), in most cases parking lots, strip malls, suburban neighborhoods, and downtown areas where a few people occupy the street at any given time are the norm. An awful lot of us live in these places (Nashville, Boise, Tuscon, Orlando, Saginaw, etc. are spread out). It seems there are other over-riding concerns to me.

You've got to literally be in the middle of NOWHERE for uncontrolled rounds to NOT be a problem.

Recall the cop who tried to shoot a snake out of a tree. He missed the snake and killed a young boy quite a distance away.

 

[watchmanjimg]

I don't think that he is suggesting it as much as he's suggesting that a zealous DA might try to make such a claim... Even if you eventually win in court, it might take years and cost a staggering sum in legal fees. Read Massad Ayoob; he has testified in many cases where DA's/lawyers have tried to stake out such a position because the gun owner had modified his weapon (trigger job, etc.), loaded it with custom ammo (hot hand loads), etc. They seem to think that such actions show the gun owner to be aggressive and looking for a confrontation? Ayoob has suggested you carry an unmodified factory gun with factory ammo for this very reason.

We just went over this about a week ago:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/149061-3-inch-barrel-madness-10.html

There was ONE example mentioned by Mr. Ayoob that turned out to have nothing to do with the scenarios discussed here. This whole notion of zealous DAs, etc. is more a figment of overactive imaginations than anything else. Even the Ron Dixon affair in NYC had a relatively happy ending:

For the millionth time, justification is the critical issue in defensive shootings. If you don't believe me, take it from "zealous DA" Charles Hynes:

WND-Ron Dixon jailed

I agree with you regarding the use of factory ammo, for reliability as much as any perceived liability concerns.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

My experience does not exactly meet your criteria but it was close enough for me to reply.

About 1976 another officer and I were in foot pursuit of an armed robbery suspect in a residential area. The suspect fired two shots at us in an alley, then ran across a lighted street. The other officer fired one round of .357 magnum 125-grain jacketed hollowpoint. The shot penetrated the suspect's shoulder, exited at a downward angle, struck a concrete curb, then went through a 2X4 wooden porch railing, through the exterior wall of a frame house, through an interior wall, and lodged in a second interior wall right beside a crib with a baby sleeping in it.

I never carried magnum ammunition on duty again.

 

[bitstream]

We just went over this about a week ago:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/149061-3-inch-barrel-madness-10.html

There was ONE example mentioned by Mr. Ayoob that turned out to have nothing to do with the scenarios discussed here. This whole notion of zealous DAs, etc. is more a figment of overactive imaginations than anything else. Even the Ron Dixon affair in NYC had a relatively happy ending:

For the millionth time, justification is the critical issue in defensive shootings. If you don't believe me, take it from "zealous DA" Charles Hynes:

WND-Ron Dixon jailed

I agree with you regarding the use of factory ammo, for reliability as much as any perceived liability concerns.

First, I don't agree that Mr. Dixon going to jail is "relatively happy". I'd say even one night in jail for shooting an intruder in your home is relatively unhappy.

Second, did you follow the link from your post to the thread on thehighroad (Legal ramifications for removal of mag safety - THR) ??? If you follow that link, go down to a post by their member fiddletown on August 5, 2009. He's a lawyer and basically says that he suggests carrying an unmodified factory gun with factory ammo so that your lawyer won't have to deal with any more factors than the shooting itself. He has a good point as to why there are not many actual cases of this, but if you read what he says, there is very fertile ground for the arguments. I won't repost the whole thing, but follow it and read his big post. He makes some good points and, clearly, I wouldn't assume a DA won't try to paint you as a reckless, violent, aggressive gun owner that wasn't satisfied with your deadly gun, so you made it even more deadly. As he said, Susy Soccermom who hates guns might buy the argument...

 

[watchmanjimg]

Bitstream, I don't need to assume what prosecutors will do because I deal with them all the time in my profession. I know what they do. The reason there aren't many cases where the firearm/ammo used in defensive shootings is raised as a key issue is that it's irrelevant to whether the shooting is justified.

Spending three days in jail for shooting someone twice with an unregistered handgun may be inconvenient, but it's hardly the years and staggering sums in legal fees you mentioned earlier in the thread. Dixon got off easy in one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the country, and while I personally feel they should have given him a medal that's just not realistic--nor is the fear expressed by yourself and others on the forum that Suzy Soccermom is somehow going to convict you for exercising your lawful right to self-defense.

I mean no disrespect and I'm not trying to goad anyone into a flame-a-thon, but many on this forum seem focused on spreading erroneous information and incorrect legal advice that does no good for anyone. Learn your local laws and get your facts straight. You'll sleep better at night.

 

[38-44HD45]

If you can find it, look in the May, 2010 issue of Combat Handguns, on page 8. The first of the many incidents Mas describes was my case, and most of the commentary on it is mine from a private forum. In that case, I was hired as an expert witness in a civil case arising out of a justified self-defense shooting. It happened before we enacted Chapter 83, Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. C. in Texas, or suit would likely not have been filed. The plaintiff was a friend of the self-defense shooter. In shooting the bad guy 10 times with 9mm ball, EVERY round overpenetrated the perp, including several that passed through his torso from a high angle, penetrating between clavicle and scapula, through lung, heart, diaphragm, intestinal mass, and exiting lower abdomen, with one or two lodging in thigh muscles after exiting the torso. One just passed through the neck and hit the wall. One of the rounds that passed through the perp's torso hit the "friend"/plaintiff in the calf, winding up lodged under the skin of his foot. Perp was DRT. As a reward for peeling the perp (who was beating hell out of the plaintiff at the time) off him with gunfire, the plaintiff sued the shooter, who had been no-billed by the grand jury. The case settled for $50,000. It does happen.

 

[watchmanjimg]

If you can find it, look in the May, 2010 issue of Combat Handguns, on page 8. The first of the many incidents Mas describes was my case, and most of the commentary on it is mine from a private forum. In that case, I was hired as an expert witness in a civil case arising out of a justified self-defense shooting. It happened before we enacted Chapter 83, Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. C. in Texas, or suit would likely not have been filed. The plaintiff was a friend of the self-defense shooter. In shooting the bad guy 10 times with 9mm ball, EVERY round overpenetrated the perp, including several that passed through his torso from a high angle, penetrating between clavicle and scapula, through lung, heart, diaphragm, intestinal mass, and exiting lower abdomen, with one or two lodging in thigh muscles after exiting the torso. One just passed through the neck and hit the wall. One of the rounds that passed through the perp's torso hit the "friend"/plaintiff in the calf, winding up lodged under the skin of his foot. Perp was DRT. As a reward for peeling the perp (who was beating hell out of the plaintiff at the time) off him with gunfire, the plaintiff sued the shooter, who had been no-billed by the grand jury. The case settled for $50,000. It does happen.

In some jurisdictions civil liability can and does attach in defensive shootings. What we were discussing earlier had to do with criminal liability arising from defensive shootings, which as you know is a different analysis. Your example serves to refute the notion put forth by some yokels that carrying hollowpoints somehow makes it seem to a prosecutor that one is "looking for trouble" as clearly the ball ammo will keep right on going . . .

You also point out that your state law has apparently changed to prohibit such lawsuits. Amen to that!

 

[38-44HD45]

Chapter 83 provides civil immunity for a justified self-defense shooting. It is not 100% clear that it would have provided immunity in the case I described above, but I read it to say that it does.

Texas still has potential criminal liability for criminally negligent injury of a third party in an otherwise justified self-defense shooting, under Sec. 9.05, Tex. Pen. C. Overpenetration is a valid concern under that statute, as well.

 

[Erich]

As I've mentioned before, I've personally worked on at least three cases involving overpenetration resulting on a hit on an unintended target: one 9mm ball, one .380 ball, and one .40 JHP.

 

[cshoff]

Bitstream, I don't need to assume what prosecutors will do because I deal with them all the time in my profession. I know what they do. The reason there aren't many cases where the firearm/ammo used in defensive shootings is raised as a key issue is that it's irrelevant to whether the shooting is justified.

Spending three days in jail for shooting someone twice with an unregistered handgun may be inconvenient, but it's hardly the years and staggering sums in legal fees you mentioned earlier in the thread. Dixon got off easy in one of the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the country, and while I personally feel they should have given him a medal that's just not realistic--nor is the fear expressed by yourself and others on the forum that Suzy Soccermom is somehow going to convict you for exercising your lawful right to self-defense.

I mean no disrespect and I'm not trying to goad anyone into a flame-a-thon, but many on this forum seem focused on spreading erroneous information and incorrect legal advice that does no good for anyone. Learn your local laws and get your facts straight. You'll sleep better at night.

On that same note, whether or not the shooting was justified is irrelevant to the third party that happens to be struck by your bullet that over-penetrated the bad guy. Even if you are exempt from criminal and/or civil liability in a case of justifiable use of deadly force in your state, you still have to live with yourself and the decisions you made leading up to the event. You'll sleep a lot better at night knowing that you did everything you could to make an informed, responsible decision regarding your carry ammunition. Carrying ball ammo, whether a legal liability or not, is certainly a tactical liability as well as a moral one.

 

[watchmanjimg]

I totally agree with you. The moral implications of such an act can last a lifetime regardless of what any law says.

 

[cmort666]

In Ohio, you are immune from suit from someone you INTENTIONALLY shoot in a shooting which is ruled justified.

To the best of my knowledge, you have no immunity from suit by an innocent third party whom you shoot, either by missing or via a through and through of your assailant. I certainly don't believe you SHOULD have immunity from shooting the WRONG person, for WHATEVER reason.

If you shoot somebody who's robbing you using ball, get a through and through, and hit ME eating a cheeseburger at 5 Guys, WHOM do you think should be financially responsible for MY injuries, when I had NOTHING to do with the incident which caused you to fire? Your assailant, who's probably going to be indigent? Or YOU who didn't take reasonable measures to avoid the reasonably foreseeable harm?

Yeah, if your assailant has means, he should have to kick in. But if he DOESN'T, there's NO reason why I should suffer for a wrong against you in which I took absolutely no part which led to your negligently shooting ME.