PDA

View Full Version : Someone is trying to kill you with their car


Freetacos
November 29, 2006, 11:15 PM
You often see police officers firing at the drivers windshield as the bg tries to run the cop over. But, what if you are a private citizen and someone is trying to run you down with a car?

King_chin0
November 29, 2006, 11:24 PM
Best bet is to run and get away from the front of the car, but this scenario is kinda..........hmmmm FreeTaco, you are definately starting some threads that are argumentative but doesn't participate in it, so why start it.

FS2K
November 29, 2006, 11:31 PM
Get off the road you are standing on?

Run?

Is this a trick question?

Blackwater OPS
November 29, 2006, 11:31 PM
Car=deadly force. Is the question how would you respond to a threat of that kind? I would use deadly force... Obviously if there was a large tree or something I might decide to step behind it.

oldbillthundercheif
November 29, 2006, 11:43 PM
Run / Dive for a safe area.

If you are on a bridge or in a tunnel, it's time to get creative...

If the guy is in a low sports car and you have a massive vertical-leap, I dunno... Jump? (Insert action-movie reference here):D

njtrigger
November 30, 2006, 12:23 AM
You as a citizen have the duty to retreat. If someone just tried to run you down, then you cant simply pull out your pistol and open fire. You need to run into a building or some other place.

A police officer is not supposed to retreat.

However, even the NYPD's policy states that they cannot use deadly force against a vehicle in this situation.

Blackwater OPS
November 30, 2006, 12:30 AM
You as a citizen have the duty to retreat. If someone just tried to run you down, then you cant simply pull out your pistol and open fire. You need to run into a building or some other place. A police officer is not supposed to retreat.

Well, without knowing what state's law you are refering to I can't say you are absolutly wrong, but you probably are. Even here in California you don't have a duty to retreat when faced with a deadly threat, and if you really think you can outrun a car, you are much quicker than I am. In NY, use of force policy dictates that a Police officer CANNOT use deadly force to stop a vehicle, even if someone is trying to run that officer over. On the other hand, non-police citizens CAN use deadly force in the same instance.

You have your facts quite mixed up. Please post what state you are in and I will reference the deadly force laws there for you.

GrandAdmiralThrawn
November 30, 2006, 12:39 AM
Also a building (most) probably won't protect you from a 5000+ pound vehicle.

When you are faced with a life or death situation the best course of action is to defend yourself first. Worry about legal problems later. You only live once.

GrandAdmiralThrawn
November 30, 2006, 12:40 AM
double post

minsonngo
November 30, 2006, 12:45 AM
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2.htm

The bullet's trajectory is actually altered somewhat after it goes through the windshield. Just FYI.

But if a car is coming at me. My first move will be to find good cover or try hard as hell to avoid getting rammed. If that is not possible then I will be forced to open fire and hope I can take out the driver.

Freetacos
November 30, 2006, 01:31 AM
expect the unexpected

Freetacos
November 30, 2006, 01:52 AM
Also, just because someone thinks outside the box does not mean they are a "troll." If you disagree with something or don't think it worthy of your response then debate your side or ignore it all together. ;)

gvf
November 30, 2006, 02:23 AM
The intial response I had was : "How do you know the driver is TRYING to hit you?" There's been a couple of tragic cases lately, one involving an older man who plowed thru a whole crowd because of some medical condition, stroke or something he had. Then one in NYC with a woman whose brakes failed completely. I think the latter turned out with less mayhem.

So, I guess you'd have to be REALLY sure it was an actual attempt on your life, and not accidental. How do you know that in the space of the micro-second you'd have to resopond with a CCW shot? Unless some behavior beforehand expressed that clear intent, sounds kind of dicey to me to shoot the driver.

the_oklahombre
November 30, 2006, 02:30 AM
Do super tacticool twist and flip over the car. While tumbling through the air you pull out your pair of platinum plated .50ae desert eagles and blast that suckka! :cool:

Be one with your inner ninja.

chrisandclauida2
November 30, 2006, 02:32 AM
quote;
You as a citizen have the duty to retreat. If someone just tried to run you down, then you cant simply pull out your pistol and open fire. You need to run into a building or some other place.

A police officer is not supposed to retreat.

However, even the NYPD's policy states that they cannot use deadly force against a vehicle in this situation. [ end quote]


you absolutely dont have a duty to retreat. there is only one or so jurisdictions where the law spells out a duty to retreat. even in those locals you dont have to further the danger to your life in retreating. you also dont have to retreat before you can stop the deadly force being directed at a 3rd party. it has no basis in common sense.

why would it even be considered in a deadly force situation. you act or you or a loved one dies. i have never heard more useless and poor drivel in my life.

a growing number of states are protecting its citizens from activist judges and prosecutors by writing specific language into law confirming that you have no duty to retreat warn flap your arms burp or take any action but stopping the threat against your life.. i dont know what else to say but you need to learn about the legalities of self defence before you arm your self.

many leo agency have restrictions on shooting from or at moving vehicles. this is for a simple reason. you shoot and kill the driver you have an out of control car that your responsible for cause you killed the driver. the litigation possibilities are huge in this situation and thus the reason for the policy.

the same agency's give you the ability to protect your self from deadly force. the conflict in policies are usually resolved in favor the right to self defense over the prohibition of shooting at a motor vehicle. there are also situations where the vehicle is a dangerous weapon just cause of its size or design. these have to be stopped and they are moving.

retreating in a tactical self defense situation can put you on more danger and in a worse position to respond. when your worried about taking a step back or retreating your full attention isn't on the task in hand.

think about it. slowly if you have to but just think thru what you said.

Double Naught Spy
November 30, 2006, 05:30 AM
While folks often repeat the mantra that the first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun, I think it is a silly notion because it overlooks something even more important that is blatantly apparent here and is a rule that makes sense here just as much as in a gun fight.

The first rule isn't to have a gun, but to not get hit. As in a gun fight, you may shoot the opposition, but not before the opposition has a chance to shoot you. You may shoot the car and you may shoot the drive, but either may survive long enough to run you down and so your first and primary goal should not be the neutralization of the opposition, but keeping yourself from being neutralized.

Getting to a location where the car cannot travel (as noted, say behind a tree or inside a structure) will increase your chances of survival. If not possible, then evasion via mobility by moving laterally to the car's direction of travel inside of its turn radius given its speed (versus outrunning it which doesn't usually work at all as the car is faster), and if you are going to be hit, then minimize the impact as much as possible. Standing there in a solid foundation shooting position and getting slammed with the full force of the oncoming car while shooting it is not a good way to survive the fight.

threegun
November 30, 2006, 07:54 AM
Avoid getting hit and stop the next attack......wow that was easy LOL.

locknid
November 30, 2006, 01:09 PM
I would most likely try and get out of the way. Here in AZ the normal citizen does have a duty to retreat from danger, I do not know what they state about deadly force though. All I know is after it is all said and done, if you shoot the mofo in the driver's seat you are in for one hell of a trip through the justice system whether it be criminal or civil, maybe even both.

It just seems rather hard to be able to prove the intent of the driver unless he was trying multiple times to run you over and not leaving the area. Then that seems like a clear case that he IS TRYING to run you over.

BTW if you are standing in front of car shooting, i really don't think the car will stop even if the driver is dead, don't think he is going to press on the brake during his last few seconds

MetalMan
November 30, 2006, 01:26 PM
In S.C.the duty to retreat law was repealed.Now we have the right to defend against any real or perceived threat to life.

Powderman
November 30, 2006, 01:29 PM
The first rule isn't to have a gun, but to not get hit.

I LIKE that.

Well said, sir! May I quote you?

dixierifleman
November 30, 2006, 01:29 PM
in Florida that can be considered attempted murder and you have the right to respond with deadly force

Syntax360
November 30, 2006, 02:00 PM
AR-15.com had a good thread titled "The Buick 'O Truth" about shooting up cars. They found that heavier bullets performed best through the windshield, and that shooting from outside in usually deflected the bullet low, so you should aim high. You should check it out if you haven't already.

jcoiii
November 30, 2006, 02:52 PM
Move.... left or right. Humans have a smaller turning radius. (Don't do like those dumb movies where someone runs in a straight line from a car.)

ATW525
November 30, 2006, 03:06 PM
If I have enough time to draw and fire a CCW, I can't imagine not having enough time to move out of the way. The latter would be my preffered method of solving the situation as shooting the driver doesn't do you much good when two tons of speeding metal is careening in your direction.

dixierifleman
November 30, 2006, 04:04 PM
i would jump out of the way then fire

Twycross
November 30, 2006, 05:12 PM
Cars are fairly easy to avoid if you have any sort of agility at all. Cars have much wider turning radii than humans, and you can virtually always find a place where a vehicle cannot follow you. Cars make very poor weapons without the element of surprise.

WSM MAGNUM
November 30, 2006, 06:34 PM
njtrigger says;

You as a citizen have the duty to retreat. If someone just tried to run you down, then you cant simply pull out your pistol and open fire. You need to run into a building or some other place.

A police officer is not supposed to retreat.


That disturbs me deeply. I don`t like anyone telling me I have to retreat, and it`s my duty to retreat. I know that some states laws say this and I don`t know for sure if my state has this. But there ain`t no way in h** I`ll retreat if I am threatened. The Castle Doctrine law should be nation wide.
njtrigger, you should`nt even think that, even though you have your facts wrong. Stand your ground.

njtrigger
November 30, 2006, 10:13 PM
Lets face it, most (if not all) hostile situations can be avoided by the citizen.

The pistol is for those rare freak occasions when there is no other way to deal with the situation. If a car is used as weapon, then you can easily run off to the side or behind some solid object where the vehicle cant drive. Opening fire on a moving automobile will probably injure more people in the end when the driver gets injured/killed and plows into other pedestrians or cars.

If the original poster is refering to the NYC incident, then the officers were not justified in firing their weapons. In fact, they had endangered other officers on a nearby subway platform that were nearly hit with the bullets.

From my understanding, the vehicle had brushed up against the officer and the officer was able to back away avoiding serious injury. The reason why the car was moving was because the officer had pulled a gun and was in plain clothes. He had startled the driver. The officer also clearly acted outside of department policy.

The officer who got clipped by the car was in no danger once he moved out of the way. His response was not to stop an act of deadly force, but out of vengence because he was mad. The driver of the vehicle was not trying to kill the officer. The driver was attempting to escape a situation where someone had pulled a gun on him.

A weapon should be used when your life is in clear and present danger. If you have moved out of the way and your life is no longer in danger, then clearly you cant justify opening fire. That would be a retaliation not self-defense.

These officers committed an act of manslaughter. In fact, one officer had emptied 31 bullets. He put one full clip into the vehicle. Then had the time to reload and empty one more. All this when he did not actually see a gun or a threat. He was simply spraying a vehicle with bullets where he was unsure a threat had existed.

It was another botched job by the NYPD and not their first. There have been many times in the past where the NYPD has sprayed innocent civilians with 9 mm. These officers should go to trial and be used as an example.

In most every incident where unjustified deadly force was used by the NYPD, the officers were let off with just a warning and the Mayor would appear at the podium to say that it was an "accident". At a certain point, there are too many "accidents".

Maser
November 30, 2006, 10:22 PM
Not to brag or anything, but I consider myself an amatur stuntman because of the stunts I have done in some of my short movies. I DO know how to get hit by a slow moving car and not have any injuries. That being said, if the car was moving slowly I would use my "roll" technique and then after I go over the car I would have extra time to think while the guy in the car is either going to keep on going or turn around for a second shot at running me down me. If he does come at me again then that would definatly be attempting murder and I WOULD open fire on the car, but I would not keep firing. I would fire a few rounds and then jump out of the way.

WOW!!! I sound like James Bond don't I? :D

MetalMan
November 30, 2006, 10:53 PM
"the things that pass for knowledge I can't understand"

JohnKSa
December 1, 2006, 12:09 AM
Observations:

What's the benefit to shooting the driver? If you can't get out of the way of the car then I don't see much point in shooting the driver. A dead driver won't stop a car or make it swerve. On the other hand maybe shooting will demotivate the driver and cause him to break off the attack--perhaps shooting to MISS the driver while making it obvious that his life is in danger would be the best strategy... Bottom line, self defense is all about saving your life. If you can't explain how your actions could accomplish that purpose, you can't claim self-defense.

If a person tries to run you down, I think you're justified in shooting even after they miss you unless it's somehow clear that they're breaking off the attack. The fact that you managed to make them miss doesn't mean you have to let them go unmolested so they can pull a U-Turn and try again. Of course, you'll probably get to explain this to a court. If you can't think how you would explain then you'd better hold your fire.

chrisandclauida2
December 1, 2006, 12:40 AM
LOCNID WHICH AZ ARE YOU IN

you have no duty to retreat in az. come on people learn what your state statutes say about use of force.

Blackwater OPS
December 1, 2006, 04:10 AM
I worked check points many times as an MP in the Army, and I was trained to shoot the driver, then move. The reason is that a dead driver cannot steer. If you jump to the right and the driver simply steers in that direction you are dead. Unless you are going to wait until the "last moment" to jump...:rolleyes:

Also, if someone is trying to kill me, I kinda don't want them around anymore, as the next time they might to more than try. As always, better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

paramedic70002
December 1, 2006, 07:37 AM
Which ammo manufacturer is it (Federal?) that has LEO ammo specifically designed to penetrate windshield glass, restricted to LEOs because they are the only ones that should be shooting into cars? (Disclaimer: I do not agree)

njtrigger
December 7, 2006, 11:34 PM
The 357 Sig does pretty well going through glass and doors.

Double Naught Spy
December 8, 2006, 09:03 AM
I worked check points many times as an MP in the Army, and I was trained to shoot the driver, then move. The reason is that a dead driver cannot steer. If you jump to the right and the driver simply steers in that direction you are dead. Unless you are going to wait until the "last moment" to jump...

Of course, being an MP in the military at a checkpoint isn't about self preservation, it is about defending a location and controlling who does or does not pass. It is the job of the person(s) at the checkpoint to not allow entry by unauthorized folks. The notion that a dead driver can't steer assumes that the driver does get killed (or incapacitated) by shots fired at him.

stephen426
December 8, 2006, 10:42 AM
The first rule isn't to have a gun, but to not get hit. As in a gun fight, you may shoot the opposition, but not before the opposition has a chance to shoot you. You may shoot the car and you may shoot the drive, but either may survive long enough to run you down and so your first and primary goal should not be the neutralization of the opposition, but keeping yourself from being neutralized.
Very well said. I can just imagine some of these internet commandos drawing down on a vehicles barreling towards them, emptying the mag in to the car, and then just standing there and get run over. Their last thoughts will probably be "I can't believe those bullets didn't stop the car in its tracks! I was using .45 ACPs!!!" :eek: :D

You as a citizen have the duty to retreat. If someone just tried to run you down, then you cant simply pull out your pistol and open fire. You need to run into a building or some other place.

A police officer is not supposed to retreat.

However, even the NYPD's policy states that they cannot use deadly force against a vehicle in this situation.

Many states have now changed their laws so that someone can defend their life when faced with deadly force without retreating. I believe Florida was the first one and all the idiotic anti-gun people claimed Florida would become the wild west. Hasn't happened yet. :rolleyes: :barf:

That disturbs me deeply. I don`t like anyone telling me I have to retreat, and it`s my duty to retreat. I know that some states laws say this and I don`t know for sure if my state has this. But there ain`t no way in h** I`ll retreat if I am threatened. The Castle Doctrine law should be nation wide. njtrigger, you should`nt even think that, even though you have your facts wrong. Stand your ground.

The Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with it if you are not in your home. The idea for the castle doctrine is you are defending you home (your castle). As for standing your ground :rolleyes: ... Bam Bam Bam WHUMP AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. :eek: (just fyi... the "Whump" was the car slamming into your body and the scream was yours. Go read Double Naught Spy's post (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173189&postcount=16)again.

Doug.38PR
December 8, 2006, 05:48 PM
Carry a .44 magnum 6 inch. Or a .50 caliber revolver and either of those will knock the car out of the way. It worked for Dirty Harry and it worked for John Candy in Armed and Dangerous :D But then a .45 LC S&W revolver took care of an entire truck and man with a submachinegun for Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark:D

Now to be serious:
Obviously the first step is to get out of the way. If that is not possible I would say shoot at the driver and hope your rounds penetrate the windshield and cause him to lose control of the car and miss you.

Topthis
December 8, 2006, 09:27 PM
This exact event occured to a friend of mine about 3 years ago. A person was on his property bashing into his house with a truck, when he ran outside to see what was going on the driver decided that he would make a better target and tried to run him over...he made several attempts to do so. Unfortunately for the driver, my buddy came investigating with one of his handguns. My friend unloaded the whole magazine into the truck as it came at him, the driver then veered away and took off like a bat out of hell. My friend had shot out one of the front tires and put several holes into the front and hood of the truck. The police had found the truck 'bout 12 blocks away in a ditch, they caught the driver, because my friend recognized him (way too involved to explain the situation). Any how, the event was investigated and it was ruled a justified self defense and the driver was prosecuted and convicted. A comment one of the officers had made was that since all the shots were in the front of the truck and none in the rear...it weighed in his favor. Side note...not one friggin shot hit the driver.

T. O'Heir
December 8, 2006, 09:33 PM
"...hope I can take out the driver..." Thus sending the uncontrolled vehicle who knows where.

stephen426
December 8, 2006, 09:35 PM
This exact event occured to a friend of mine about 3 years ago. A person was on his property bashing into his house with a truck, when he ran outside to see what was going on the driver decided that he would make a better target and tried to run him over...he made several attempts to do so. Unfortunately for the driver, my buddy came investigating with one of his handguns. My friend unloaded the whole magazine into the truck as it came at him, the driver then veered away and took off like a bat out of hell. My friend had shot out one of the front tires and put several holes into the front and hood of the truck. The police had found the truck 'bout 12 blocks away in a ditch, they caught the driver, because my friend recognized him (way too involved to explain the situation). Any how, the event was investigated and it was ruled a justified self defense and the driver was prosecuted and convicted. A comment one of the officers had made was that since all the shots were in the front of the truck and none in the rear...it weighed in his favor. Side note...not one friggin shot hit the driver.

And this is exactly why you should carry a .45 acp in a 1911... the truck would have blown up with just one shot and knocked it back a few hundred feet too! :eek: :D :p

locknid
December 9, 2006, 06:41 AM
LOCNID WHICH AZ ARE YOU IN

you have no duty to retreat in az. come on people learn what your state statutes say about use of force.

i am sorry i was thinking of my armed guard training where if it is reasonable to do so you should retreat from danger but if you can't then you don't have to. my fault, i retract that statement.

Philly-N8
December 10, 2006, 09:09 PM
This has been an interesting thread, but in the interest of not starting a new one just to alter the scenario a bit, here goes.

I had surgery on my knees about two years ago.
I was healing but able to walk with a cain, but still in much pain.
My wife and I were out and about and had stopped for gas at a local station.
I pumped my wife waited in the passenger seat.
As I'm pumping gas a guy walks out of the trash bin area next to the station and starts yelling and cursing at my wife, then at me. Telling me I "oughtta teach that fat bitch some manners." (It seems he was peeing next to the dumpster and my wife found it amusing and laughed.)
He proceedded to get in my face and push me a few times, unable to do much, and not really knowing what was going on.
My wife got out of the car and started yelling at him to leave me alone, that I was injured. He then went over and punched my wife in the face downing her.
This is all happening in broad day light at a busy gas station. Nobody is doing anything.
My wife got up, I told her to get in the car.
The guy started after her.

In the end I ended up pinning the guy between the building and the car until police came.
I was very tempted to crush him after hitting my wife.

Would I have been justified in shooting him?

I tend to think not.....but there were definately worse scenarios going through my head. gas pump....cigartette....bad guy....
burn baby burn.

JohnKSa
December 10, 2006, 10:19 PM
I think when he got in your face, you should have pumped gas all over him and claimed it was a reflex action caused by your trying to fend him off. I think he would have been an ineffective threat after that.

wolverine350
December 10, 2006, 10:46 PM
first of all is the guy really trying to run over you, and if so it is a imidiate threat of serious bodily harm or death, if you have a ccw permit, i can see where you would have that right to shoot, but if he is trying to get away from you that is a different situation, he is trying to get away, not run over you, so it is a split second decision,courts will look at that, was it a threat or was he trying to get away

mbs357
December 10, 2006, 11:16 PM
Ask some advice from those guys in that movie Christine.
"Oh God...that car is trying to run over me!"
*runs along yellow lines*
"Nooo!!"
*squish*

Fremmer
December 10, 2006, 11:43 PM
Someone is trying to kill you with their car


Tell me about it; I gotta get rid of this Ford. :D

secround2
December 23, 2006, 02:40 PM
"R-U-N !!" "F-O-R-E-S-T!!! "RUN!! Stop, drop, and roll for cover. dependent on alot of variables. running is the best, and not preferrably in a straight line..

Alot of legality issues can arise. If you shoot at the tires ? ricochet and where do the round(s) travel from that disposition ?

Run and take cover.

Don Lu
December 23, 2006, 03:16 PM
All situations are different..But shooting the driver of a car trying to hit you doesnt stop the car from moving toward you at a fast rate of speed.. even if you kill the guy with a headshot you have wasted valuable seconds and there is still tons of metal racing toward you.:eek:
Even if your shot injures him and does cause him to go off track, now there may be innocent peole in harms way b/c you wanna look like a cool guy:cool: . the smart thing and most practical in MOST situations is to take advantage of youe agility and the cars lack of it and get out of the way.

BillCA
December 23, 2006, 04:41 PM
Someone is trying to kill you?

Rule #1: Don't Die!

Someone trying to run you over with a car? Find cover.

Cover = immobile objects

Such as:
Medium to large tree
Telephone poles (man! those things are tough!)
Overpass support (even tougher!)
Vehicle barrier posts (concrete filled steel posts)
Opposite side of anchored K-Rail barriers

Second best is to go places a car cannot go and continue moving;
Narrow space between buildings
Opposite side of chain link fences (must be permanent fencing)
Up or down (preferrably up) over curbs/barriers at least 12" or more high.
Behind heavy shrub landscaping (slows the car down or gets wheels off ground)

Not Good Cover:
Lamp posts & Fire Hydrants (designed to shear off at mounting bolts)
Highway sign posts or supports (same as above)
Inside glass-fronted buildings (no protection). This includes gas station offices.
Inside of standard construction residential buildings


Once you have avoided the initial danger, keep out of sight, if possible. If he comes around again, you know it's you he's after instead of just anybody. If you're out of sight, he may exit the vehicle to look around and that's the time to end the threat.

bdcochran
December 23, 2006, 09:36 PM
The first guy I worked for was an attorney named Bill Wells, Santa Monica, CA. He said that it wasn't enough to be able to ask a question. It was also important to think through to a solution before posing the question to someone else. In that way, a person learns.

"You often see police officers firing at the drivers windshield as the bg tries to run the cop over. But, what if you are a private citizen and someone is trying to run you down with a car?"

1. Why do you think a policeman is using deadly force? It might be because he believes that it is justified.
2. Why does a policeman shoot a driver's window? Maybe because shooting a tire or an engine block is not as immediate in terminating a threat as shooting a BG.
3. What do you do if someone is trying to run you down? Answer - you try to avoid being run down!

Do you think that the hypothetical is sufficient? What if you are next to a building at the edge and can step out of the way? Do you have an effective firearm?

How about fleshing it out a bit more. You are sitting in the wide open on a highway. You are in a wheel chair that is locked. You have a 50 cal. handgun and it is loaded. The car is approaching at 45 miles an hour. It is 30 feet away. What are your options? You fire. You are still run over because the momentum of the car is such that it is not going to change the trajectory or stop the vehicle.

I didn't make up the last point to be sarcastic. It was to illustrate a couple of points. 1. Don't turn a common sense question into a legal question. Use common sense first, and then keep your mouth shut when you are questioned by the police. I know a lot of people who ended up in jail because "I told the truth to the police".
2. think outside of the box. Think up and solve the problems yourself. You will learn better.:o

JohnKSa
December 24, 2006, 12:38 AM
I think that the key is that whatever course of action you take, you should have a good explanation for why you did it.

Shooting at the guy just because he's trying to run you down may not be a very good explanation if you could have just stepped behind a nearby building or tree and been safe.

You should make sure that your actions are either obviously defensive or that you can explain them so that they are then obviously defensive.

More to the point, you shouldn't try to solve the problem with a gun just because that's what you have available. Don't let your available tools dictate your response.

It may very well be that you can defend yourself from someone trying to run you down by using your carry weapon. I'd definitely look around for another option. Handguns are not very effective against cars and windshields are surprisingly bullet resistant--at least with respect to pistol bullets.

Glenn E. Meyer
December 24, 2006, 12:19 PM
What if the car is "Christine" - that possessed Devil Red convertible? It could squeeze between buildings, be set on fire and still come after you. Should you load silver bullets?

If the car is coming at you, I think you should retreat sidewise.

Doug.38PR
December 24, 2006, 03:33 PM
Mr. Meyer, you reminded me of that crazy movie back in the 70s where Dennis Weaver is being chased by the killer truck. He is a businessman driving across the southwest and this dirty old 10 wheeler is chasing him all over the map and pops up where ever he happens to be.


Duel! That's it.:D

See if you can trick that car into driving off a cliff

Glenn E. Meyer
December 24, 2006, 06:08 PM
Waiting to go out, so time to type.

Duel, Doug - was one of Spielberg's first. It set the tone for his later thrillers, IIRC.

I think Dennis annoyed the driver and thus was stalked. Of course, Dennis didn't have his SAAs with him.

Spielberg has a strange history as a gun guy. He was on the cover of GunGames with a skeet gun and has been rumoured to be a secret shooter but has to be PC in Hollywood.

Happy Holidays! Is it time to leave yet, dear?

Doug.38PR
December 24, 2006, 06:19 PM
I think Dennis annoyed the driver and thus was stalked. Of course, Dennis didn't have his SAAs with him.

Didn't have Matthew there to help him huh. Didn't he often carry a shotgun as Dillon's deputy?

Spielberg has a strange history as a gun guy. He was on the cover of GunGames with a skeet gun and has been rumoured to be a secret shooter but has to be PC in Hollywood.

Someone else mentioned the other day that Spielberg was sort of a pro gun guy. However, I seem to remember the latest version of War Of the Worlds (which he directed) having an anti-gun message that, in a nutshell, said that having and carrying a gun will only make matters worse for everyone. (But then that may have been Tom Cruise to throw in that message)