PDA

View Full Version : Shooting out tires


Doug.38PR
March 16, 2006, 09:50 PM
Before anyone says "OMGsh another Doug senario. Whatchu gonna be doin' shootin' at tires anyway?!! What are the odds that you're going to be able to shoot at a car. If it is chasing you you can't shoot at the tires from your car very well, it is running from you then you then they are fleeing from you." I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT!!!
This is more a tactic and training question that relates more often to LEOs than civilians.
I just happen to be watching the movie First Blood on AMC and saw a scene in which a state police car is chasing Rambo in an army truck. THe car is trying to run the truck off the road :rolleyes: while trying to shoot him in the drivers seat of the truck. WHY NOT SHOOT OUT THE TIRES!!!
Okay, that is a just a movie, a fairly ridiculous movie at that (the national guardsmen in this movie are like something out of police squad...genuine mall ninjas)
BUT, I remember in one of MANY police chase film reels shown on FOX news over the years in which this 18 wheeler is running from police all over some city (think it was LA) nearly killing people and destroying property. At one point one of the policeman gets a chance to run up to the truck cab while it has slowed down and gets a chance to run along side of it as it is making a wide turn and fire his gun at the cab. WHY NOT SHOOT OUT THE TIRES YOU"RE RIGHT NEXT TO THEM? The truck is stopped and you can shoot or arrest the madman.
I do remember seeing an episode of the X files in which Mulder and a sheriff try this on a camper driving in circles.....with each of them having no success saying "shooting the tires out from under a moving vehicle is a lot harder than it seems." BUT, that is just TV.
YES, it is possible that if done the vehicle could go out of control and crash into something...but what do you think is going to happen if you hit the driver and stop or kill him!

BreacherUp!
March 16, 2006, 09:56 PM
Our deadly force policy prevents us from shooting at a vehicle in order to cause it to be inoperable. If the driver of the vehicle is the source of the threat, and dealy force is justified, than deadly force must be used against the driver, not the vehicle.

Garand Illusion
March 16, 2006, 09:57 PM
I'm not sure why people don't just shoot out the tires. But fortunately, my office window happens to overlook a highway. Hang on just a moment and I'll do a few real world experiments. Be right back .....

....................

....................

OMG! Becaue if you shoot out the tires of a truck, it goes out of control and flips through the air and HITS A SCHOOL BUS!

Gotta go now .... if anyone knows of an inexpensive island to live on without an extradition treaty with the U.S., please send an email to my Blackberry.

atlctyslkr
March 16, 2006, 09:59 PM
For us civilians the only practical tire shooting I could see doing would be in a case of road rage where someone was chasing me and shooting at me at the same time. I might put a few rounds through the hood with my .357 and hopefully the engine damage would slow/stop them.

Doug.38PR
March 16, 2006, 10:11 PM
Our deadly force policy prevents us from shooting at a vehicle in order to cause it to be inoperable. If the driver of the vehicle is the source of the threat, and dealy force is justified, than deadly force must be used against the driver, not the vehicle.


That's odd. The .357 magnum was invented for just that purpose: disabling a vehicle. The .357 was designed originally to penetrate engine blocks.

But that is odd. Seems to me stopping the bad guy with whatever option is available should be the policy. Again, yes the vehicle could lose control and flip, but the same thing would happen if the driver of the vehicle is hit. Tires (especially on an 18 wheeler) are larger targets and more exposed than a man covered inside the vehicle

Big Calhoun
March 16, 2006, 10:23 PM
Another civilian perspective...if the BG is getting away, I'd rather let well enough alone. I would try to place a few in the car body so that it's identifiable later but I'd rather not risk trying to shoot out the tires and causing a bigger mess than what already exists.

GHT
March 16, 2006, 10:33 PM
Shooting out the tires does not stop a vehicle; except in the movies (where they flip and roll like on the A-Team).
Watch one of those Police chase shows and you will invariably see cars and trucks running only on rims for miles upon miles.
In fact one of the first things the Police do is put down spike strips.

So your scenario is invalid.

Shooting the engine block might work if the bullet wasn't deflected, deformed, blocked or broken up in the process; or you didn't just miss.

In Blackhawk Down one of the Delta Force snipers puts a round right through the engine block of the gun dealer's Jeep; but:
A he is a sniper, not J Q Public, and it is his one and only job in the world to put rounds exactly where and when they are needed.
B he is in a helicopter flying overhead on a parallel speed and course not bouncing around in a chase vehicle.
C he is using a rifle not a hand gun.

A vehicle is a hard thing to stop, better to shoot the man not the machine if your life is at risk.
If it isn't then don't shoot at all.

G

PS Why didn't the guys on "The Unit" on tuesday shoot the engine block or the radiator of the truck when they had the chance, since they just wanted to get away rather than kill everyone?

MilitantBob
March 16, 2006, 10:55 PM
.357 penetrate an engine block? I just got done rebuilding a 454, and something tells me that wouldn't happen. Maybe if you developed some kind of steel core, pointed bullet or something...

As for your question, what BreacherUp! said is what I have always heard. Any use of a gun is deadly force, and deadly force can only be used against the threat, nothing else. So, if the guy is a threat, you can shoot him, but if he isn't, you can't shoot anything.

shooter_john
March 17, 2006, 10:41 AM
Shooting out tires is against our policy too. (As well as all other surrounding agencies.) It is getting hard to use deadly force on people using vehicles as a weapon, LAPD is continually getting into trouble with that issue.
Anyway, shooting tires from what I've heard is not nearly as easy as you'd think, and it is also dangerous for the general public. That is why we carry SPIKE STRIPS.

Derius_T
March 17, 2006, 10:45 AM
Breacherup! wrote:

Our deadly force policy prevents us from shooting at a vehicle in order to cause it to be inoperable. If the driver of the vehicle is the source of the threat, and dealy force is justified, than deadly force must be used against the driver, not the vehicle.

That seems really odd honestly. The driver may be the source of the threat, but at that moment he is using the vehicle as a deadly weapon. (smashing property, possibly hurting or killing other civilians, ect)

And it seems very silly that "deadly force", ie force that can cause death, cannot be used against an inanimate object that was never alive in the 1st place...!? Shooting driver OR vehice either one could, in theory cause an accident, but isn't that why you are trying to stop him in the first place?

Sorry, but some laws and policies make absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL to me. :confused:

invention_45
March 17, 2006, 11:22 AM
I have to weigh in here too, about the oddity of it being against the rules to shoot out tires. It does not seem to make sense.

As far as the truck flipping or going out of control, what do you imagine will happen when you shoot the driver instead?

Not that I care whether you shoot the tire or the driver, mind you. But why disallow the tire?

newerguy
March 17, 2006, 11:38 AM
The rubber part of a tire is fairly small, and is on the edge of the wheel. A car is moving, potentially moving very quickly. A miss carries a risk to others. Unless you lose a tire while manuvering, it's not that big a deal (no one here has ever had a blowout?). Cars running from the police routinely lose tires, often all of them. A car without tires is plenty drivable, but harder to turn and stop (for clarification, you have much less traction, so sliding and skiding are more likely). This makes a car with no tires more dangerous to others on the road, as the driver will be less able to avoid other vehicles and pedestrians.

For a civilian, there is no reason to shoot out someones tires. If they are getting away, let them. If they are getting closer, use the time you'd spend stopping, aiming ans shooting to get away. BTW, you are very unlikely to be chased by someone in a car.

Doug, I think you either need to seriously reevaluate your threat level, or change your lifestyle (don't take offense, but unless you are involved with criminals, have a line of work that ****** off criminals, or are married some psycho's ex no one is going to hunt you down, and if someone is looking for YOU, and they are remotely inteligent, you'll be dead before you know today's the day.)

For law enforcement, the return on shooting out a cars tires aren't usually worth the investment. I know of a case where a TransAm with no tires was boxed in and was actually able to start moving the police cars by alternating between hitting the front one and the back one. The driver was stopped when two cops broke through the side windows and dragged the driver out of the car. Shooting the driver wasn't an option because of all the police around the car. (BTW, one of the cops who got the driver out also got hurt in the process). That's real life.

Capt Charlie
March 17, 2006, 12:54 PM
I think you'll find that most departmental use of force policies prohibit firing at a moving vehicle. Like the PIT maneuver, it's considered deadly force. There's several problems with it. Not only are there too many variables to predict where those rounds are going to go, you also usually don't know about any other occupants in the vehicle. Are there kids? Hostages?

It has been done, of course, as a last ditch effort to stop someone when there's no other way, but a round from a pistol, or even a patrol rifle, is far less effective than spike strips. A single bullet hole in a tire isn't much more than a slow leak, whereas the spikes in spike strips are hollow and are designed to release the tire's air at a controlled rate. The only thing that's really effective is a well placed round of 00 from a shotgun.

That's odd. The .357 magnum was invented for just that purpose: disabling a vehicle. The .357 was designed originally to penetrate engine blocks.
I don't know where that started, but it doesn't work. We tried this several times years ago in a junkyard, and the block just laughed it off. Maybe a 180 grain hardcast Buffalo Bore? Don't know, but I still doubt it.

swmike
March 17, 2006, 01:14 PM
Having worked in the tire industry for over 20 years, I can attest that a tire is far more restant to bullets than "Hollywierd" makes it look. A spinning wheel/tire will tend to deflect a handgun round (rifles have more success) more often than not. Unless the shot is at the weakest part (the center of the sidewall) and close to right angles, it will most likely be deflected off in an unintended direction. This then leaves the bullet free to damage or kill on it's own.

Most attempts to stop a vehicle are usually carefully planned events (as much as they can be). Stop strips are used as they allow for a controlled deflation of the tire. That's why the "spikes" are hollow. To make a vehicle suddenly uncontrollable can be a bigger problem than just "herding" it to a remote location.

If safety to the public was not a concern, then all police cars would be equipped with AT-4 Anti-Tank weapons. Actually, it would sure solve a lot of problems. No more pursuit. No more BG. Just call a wrecker for the big pieces and a street sweeper for the rest.

invention_45
March 17, 2006, 01:26 PM
Thanks for saying that, Capt. Charlie. What I thought was it was OK to shoot the driver but not the tires, and that didn't make too much sense.

treeprof
March 17, 2006, 03:02 PM
A few years back in metro Atlanta, a woman in a minivan was hit from behind by a drunk driver. They both stopped, but he then tried to drive off before the cops arrived. She was carrying, and when he got back in and started up, she put a few rounds into his vehicle to disable it. Shot at least one tire and the radiator, I think. She was indicted for using deadly force without just cause. The jury exonerated her.

azurefly
March 17, 2006, 03:11 PM
Our deadly force policy prevents us from shooting at a vehicle in order to cause it to be inoperable. If the driver of the vehicle is the source of the threat, and dealy force is justified, than deadly force must be used against the driver, not the vehicle.

Another instance where terror and paranoia about lawsuits, not doubt, is the reason for trumping a common-sense solution that may, in some cases, address the problem and hasten its conclusion. :barf:

-

azurefly
March 17, 2006, 03:21 PM
The rubber part of a tire is fairly small, and is on the edge of the wheel. A car is moving, potentially moving very quickly. A miss carries a risk to others.


What of a missed shot that was aimed at the driver, not the tire? No risk to others? :rolleyes:


I think you'll find that most departmental use of force policies prohibit firing at a moving vehicle. Like the PIT maneuver, it's considered deadly force. There's several problems with it. Not only are there too many variables to predict where those rounds are going to go, you also usually don't know about any other occupants in the vehicle. Are there kids? Hostages?

Wait, are you now saying that apart from just prohibiting "shooting out tires," deadly threats presented by a driver of a vehicle cannot be addressed by shooting the driver either? So what can be done, then? Just wait til he runs out of gas?

You speak of the possibility of others in the vehicle (and they may be hostages OR accomplices): you don't to shoot at the vehicle for fear of endangering them. Fine. But the presence of non-principal suspects cannot always be used to justify a no-shoot rule. What if, for example, the guy in the car was waving a hi-cap pistol out the window and firing randomly on a city street? Hell yeah I want the cops taking their shot at him, and screw the people who may or may not be in the car with him, and who may or may not even be fellow criminals!

-azurefly

SIGSHR
March 17, 2006, 03:24 PM
I recall watching episodes of "World's Wildest Police Videos" where the police were pursuing reckless drivers who were driving on flat tires or even rims at high speeds. Seems to me that shooting out the tires does mark to mark the perp's/BG's vehicle than to actually disable it.

GeorgeF
March 17, 2006, 03:36 PM
Everything I have heard backs up 'newerguy'. Spinning rubber has a high likelihood of deflecting any bullet. Even if the car was sitting still you would have a dificult time puncturing the tire as most bullets are either going to deform or just bounce right off (thinking FMJ).

I think most police departments have gotten to the point where 'If you fire your weapon, it better be because the guy is going to kill you or kill someone else.' They want to discourage any kind of nonsense like shooting a gun out of a bad guy's hand, shooting to disable or shooting out someone's tires.

I mean it makes sense to me, when you start firing the gun, it better be for a lethal reason. There are far better tools to use to stop a car. And if the need is great enough, you take out the driver.

2400
March 17, 2006, 03:43 PM
Only Barnaby Jones shoots out tires with his 38 snub nose. :rolleyes:

ISP2605
March 17, 2006, 03:45 PM
I've investigated several shootings where the tires were shot out and I've been on scene 3 times when it was done, 1 of those times I did it.
I've never seen 'spinning tires' deflect a bullet. One situation I investigated the officer, riding passenger, fired 12 rds from a 5904 while behind a fleeing felon. Speeds were 100+MPH. 8 of those rds hit and punctured the tire.
I took out a rear van tire traveling at approximately 80 mph using an 870 loaded with 0 Buck. 3 pellets penetrated the thread with the other 7 rds hitting the fender. We pulled the tire off the rim to recover the pellets which were still inside.

BreacherUp!
March 17, 2006, 07:54 PM
I understand some of the confusion regarding shooting tires. But, the scenario you are painting that the vehicle is the threat is like saying you should shoot at the pistol someone is holding vice shooting the person (the threat). More danger is caused by trying to shoot out tires vice the driver.
Also, shots fired at a driver are not going to be made driving down the highway. They are made at short distances at lower speeds.

mgdavis
March 17, 2006, 08:25 PM
That's odd. The .357 magnum was invented for just that purpose: disabling a vehicle. The .357 was designed originally to penetrate engine blocks.

Oh, Doug...Elmer Keith is spinning in his grave.:(

marks655
March 17, 2006, 10:05 PM
Lawnmower engine blocks maybe ?:D

Topthis
March 17, 2006, 10:46 PM
Friend of mine shot out the drivers side tire of a car that was trying to run him over (don't ask), probably saved him from getting hit by the car, as the car jerked a little to it's left and he moved to his left. The funny thing was that he was not even aiming at the tire.

fastforty
March 18, 2006, 02:17 AM
Well, everyone's mileage may vary ;)

Obviously, the wholesale shooting out of tires can't be condoned or we'd have lead flying all over the place. That being said, I've done it & of the 7 or 8 sheriffs & a couple of CHPs who responded, nobody voiced any disapproval of it. In fact, a couple of them snickered & one said that they like chasing vehicles with flat tires. Several things were on my side:

1) I'm out in the boonies & there was no chance of harming innocents.

2) There were two of them & one of me.

3) There were lethal weapons in the truck that they tried to dive back into.

4) They were stealing my property (farm theft is a BIG problem here) & it IS legal to do what you must to protect yourself, your family & your property until LEO arrives.

5) If I had allowed them to drive away (I would NOT have stopped at just shooting out the tires) they very likely would have endangered my children on their way out.

6) A stolen truck full of stolen farm equipment was recovered.

7) LEO *hates* farm theft, as most incidences are reported weeks or months after the fact & all he has is a very cold trail (if any).

8) It seemed to be just a tad entertaining to the officers who responded ;)

It is not my intention to bring an old, dead thread back up (please don't respond to it) but there are pictures there if yer interested:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167101

There was some degree of debate on that thread, but rest assured that the angles involved and the placement of the concrete block buildings (I couldn't show it without an arial photo) made it impossible for any rounds fired by me or by the thieves to have reached inhabited areas.

In another incident several years ago, my brother in law shot out the tires of a vehicle that had fled the scene of an accident involving destruction of property. After he chased the vehicle and ran it off the road, it's driver took footbail. He too was in an uninhabited area and could not call for help or report without leaving the scene (whereapon the driver of the other vehicle would have come back to his vehicle & escaped). A .22 rifle was used to flatten all 4 tires. When the report was taken, the officer said (sheepishly) "Well, yer not really supposed to shoot people's tires out, so I'm just gonna put that you 'flattened his tires' in the report".

swmike
March 18, 2006, 03:03 PM
From the looks fo the tire in the picture, I'm surprised the thief wasn't out trying to steal some new tires. The tread was so worn, it looked like a slingshot might flatten it.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 19, 2006, 12:13 AM
What if the gorilla from the zoo escapes and is carrying his tire with him? Or he goes into your yard and sits in your kid's tire swing?

fastforty
March 20, 2006, 01:40 AM
From the looks fo the tire in the picture, I'm surprised the thief wasn't out trying to steal some new tires. The tread was so worn, it looked like a slingshot might flatten it.

Well, maybe they really wanted the new tires that I have on the splitter & I would have recovered it down the street ;)

Seriously though, when the sheriff called the woman who owned the truck, she wanted to know why she couldn't just come & get it herself rather then it being towed to impound. Then he asked her if she had any spare tires for it, as the truck had a couple of flats. I could here here reaction (even though he hadn't told her that the tires had been shot out)- she had very recently put new tires on it. LEO calmly informed her that the first thing theives do is to remove good tires & sell them. He told her that if she could get a couple of road-safe tires together & take them to the yard in the morning, they could mount them for her (I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when they told her why they were flat ;) ).

Oh, & that gorrilla? He's history, his tire is definitely a leathal weapon, or he just ate my kid ;)

BerettaCougar
March 20, 2006, 02:57 AM
That's odd. The .357 magnum was invented for just that purpose: disabling a vehicle. The .357 was designed originally to penetrate engine blocks.

Bahahahaha, some things I read on this forum, are simply amazing.

And also, shooting out tires? Come on be realistic.

If someone is in car, and is trying to push you off the road, simply slam your brakes.

Also, if someone is next to you shooting at you, once again..slam the brakes.

fastforty
March 21, 2006, 12:26 AM
Ohhh, ok. Maybe I missed the point, we are talking about shooting tires on moving vehicles.

Yeah.

I mean, no.

I couldn't imagine any situation where that would be neccessary or prudent. I think I saw it done on Cops once, where LEO got beside an 18 wheeler & used buckshot to get the vehicle to lose some momentum (hmmmm, maybe it was Dukes of Hazard, iunno ;) ). At any rate, the truck was a menace to everyone on or near the road & LEO did what *he* had to in order to protect the public. We aint LEO & we're not authorized to chase, stop or apprehend bad guys. Best thing we can do is get out of their way, report & hope for the best.

Besides, shooting out the tires might cause a rollover, they might be transporting a gorrilla, & it might get loose and rip one of the tires off of the vehicle. Where on earth would you be then? :eek:

delta58
March 23, 2006, 05:07 PM
I think shooting out tires would best be left to Hollywood. Tires are pretty tough hombres, especially moving steel belted radials, rifles would probably stand a good chance of success. But even if you did puncture them the driver would possibly lose control creating a worse scenario.

Double Naught Spy
March 23, 2006, 07:09 PM
Before anyone says "OMGsh another Doug senario.

But this IS another Doug scenario. In fact, with currently 1112 posts at this time, you have 292 threads that you have started yourself, many of which are scenarios or gear capabilities threads. Just curious, do you not trust your own ability to research information yourself and draw your own conclusions or is it just easier to fling out questions without doing book reading, internet searching, or even bothering to find out if such information is already posted here in the forum where you are posting your query?

You know, that is the beauty of forums with archives. You can SEARCH the forum for information, often gaining said information much quicker than posting bizarre queries and then having to wait on responses.

So based on your questions and scenarios, you are apparently starting your own mall ninja company, as near as I can tell, and you are trying to discern the most tactically cool manners in which to address mall security concerns. Maybe going to mall security school first might be insightful.

OuTcAsT
March 23, 2006, 07:26 PM
Now bear in mind That Doug also has his AR in the trunk, pretty sure that will take out those pesky tires;)

5whiskey
March 27, 2006, 06:02 PM
Being a bit of a realist, I find it hard to believe that someone riding down the road (roads have bumps) at 100+ mph sent 10 rounds toward someones back tire and hit with 8 of them. Has anyone here ever tried to fire from a moving vehicle? Talk to a good 240G turret gunner that survived a depoyment to Iraq (there aren't many that get to walk away unscathed, the gunner in a truck stands the greatest chance of getting waxed), ask them how hard it is to get hits on a human sized target with an AUTOMATIC BELT-FED WEAPON that is stabilized on a flex mount moving just 20 mph. Maybe that will put things in perspective.

Some of you watch way too many movies. It's also prepostirous that a .357 will penetrate an engine block. A .308 FMJ won't do that with just one round unless you hit in the right place (aluminum heads, MAYBE).

Now, back to the relavence. Shooting out tires is very difficult to do, but now in Iraq the ROEs actually state that we should attempt to disable the vehicle before we kill the driver. I'm not LE, I'm infantry, so I'll put this in my perspective. With a rifle with the finest optics the government owns (acogs), it is still difficult to shoot out tires WHILE YOU ARE STATIONARY. You will be much more effective letting loose a few rounds in the engine. Not to pierce the block; but to pierce the radiater (which a .357 WILL DO), water pump, fuel injector, or any other various part that the vehicle needs to function.

Moral of the story? Shooting tires out isn't realistic unless you have a shotgun and are pretty close. Shooting at the engine with just one round from any gun will not stop the car immidiatly. Shooting the engine with a whole lot of rounds from a .357 will probably still not stop it. If you want to stop cars legally by shooting at them, join the military and let a burst loose from the ma duece into one. Promise you it won't go very far after a few .50 cal rounds hit the engine compartment.

Have a good day