Tinted Window Scenario

[Model12Win]

Gang I was thinking about tinted windows on a car and wondered:

If one was shot at by someone from behind a tinted window, and you were cornered or otherwise unable to run away, what would you do?

Clearly, you would have to respond to the person shooting at you. But with the extremely dark tints popular in my area (Las Vegas), what if there are other people you can't see in the car, even god forbid children??

Raises a moral dilemma and I think it worth of consideration.

Thoughts?

[JohnKSa]

Shooting without being able to see the target is negligent behavior. Self-defense laws don't provide justification for shooting indiscriminately in the general direction of the attacker even though no specific target is visible and the defender isn't sure about innocents being in the line of fire.

If only the attacker were injured there probably wouldn't be fallout. If anyone else were killed or injured, criminal charges would almost certainly result and civil suits would follow.

[KY_blkout]

Good question, I'd like to think I have trained myself to do whatever I could to take cover until I could get a better eye on the perp. Hard to say though without being in the situation.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Basically what John said. You don't spray and pray when you don't see a viable threat. That's not what we do.

My tints are 5% limousine tints. I have a permit for them here in the state of FL. Trust me, no one can see inside my vehicle.

That said if I was 100% certain that someone is shooting at me from a dark tinted vehicle, all the other details of 'what if' wouldn't matter.

[T. O'Heir]

"...what would you do?..." Start by rethinking your tactics. However, a window, even a tinted one, is not cover and nobody is going to shoot through a window. Even one that is tinted.
Any lack of morality is on the idiot shooting from a vehicle that may or may not have other people in said vehicle. In any case, unless you have a rocket launcher, you won't be able to do anything to any kind of vehicle. Now quit reading Mack Bolan etc. It's confusing you and giving you nightmares. snicker.

[K_Mac]

Any lack of morality is on the idiot shooting from a vehicle that may or may not have other people in said vehicle. In any case, unless you have a rocket launcher, you won't be able to do anything to any kind of vehicle. Now quit reading Mack Bolan etc. It's confusing you and giving you nightmares. snicker.

That may be the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on this site, and I've read many thousands. I'm not sure if the lack of understanding of morality or the ability of bullets to pass through glass and sheet metal is more uncomprehending. In any case, there is nothing funny about your post.

[FireForged]

I ask myself the same thing no matter if there is tint on the windows or not. WHAT MUST I DO to survive this encounter? If I have a reasonably acceptable avenue of escape, I would opt for that regardless. If I cant, then I a left with few choices. I can allow them to attack me with impunity or I can fight. I will have to decide in the moment but I wont "what if" myself into a corner.

[zxcvbob]

How are they shooting at you with the windows up? The scenario does not make sense.

[shafter]

The window has to come down to shoot at you. Assess and handle like any other threat.

[TunnelRat]

Side windows on most cars shatter almost instantly (there are some good tools like the Resqme for just basic carry if you or someone else are trapped in a vehicle). Front and rear windshields are usually laminated glass and won't shatter. You can shoot through them pretty easily, but they often will deviate the path of bullets so be aware of that. As for the body of the car, the engine block obviously provides cover, as do the A, B, and C pillars because they are rolled steel (the A and C pillars can be rather narrow). Pistol rounds, unless they hit cross pieces, can easily enter one door and go out the opposite door.

I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out your scenario. Is someone shooting at you from inside the vehicle? In that case seek cover if possible. If you had to return fire keep in mind what I said above, but also keep in mind what John said and understand you will be held liable. If hey're shooting at you from the other side of the vehicle with the windshields between you and them and you're worried about potential passengers in the car, consider shooting under the car and hitting their legs. If they're shooting star you from a moving car with tinted windows, idk what to tell you other than find cover.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Mike38]

That may be the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on this site, and I've read many thousands.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with either, but.... Could the author of the post in question be trying to say, the shooter inside the car initiated the scenario, and should liability for any injuries or death be placed on the one that started everything? I know, it doesn't work that way, but it's something to ponder.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Side windows on most cars shatter almost instantly (there are some good tools like the Resqme for just basic carry if you or someone else are trapped in a vehicle).

Interestingly, that may not be true with tinted window with film providing the tint. The film can hold the fragments in place. I took a car tactics class and we fired all kinds of guns and ammo at all different parts of the car and were surprised that the side windows of some tinted cars held together.

You could knock the sheet of fragments out of place easily if it was a situation to get into or out of the car.

Having a class on car tactics, besides being practical, is a hoot to shoot through bodies and glass. Results could be surprising.

[briandg]

I don't think that I could answer that. It's kind of vague. If my escape is impossible I would feel as if I had no other choice but to end the threat with my pistol. Would I see muzzle flash at night or a gun during daytime?

I would target about eight inches to the right of the gun, if from the driver's seat, left if the passenger side or just target the gun. It's not going to be terribly hard to find the guy, you know that he will be about a foot forward of the door jam.

This isn't impossible. It complicates the situation as far as whether or not you can carefully defend yourself and the situation calls for extreme caution both with shooting, and whether shooting is actually, fully justified, and that the threat to your life and safety is certain, absolute.

In truth, this scenario is almost too simple for much discussion. It's just another barrier. An opaque but penetrable barrier. You will have to judge whether you are justified to shoot at an unseen target. then the discussion is simply about whether you can safely and effectively shoot through the piece of plywood that he has ducked behind. or, more correctly the piece of plywood that has a hole.

The biggest concern to me is that there had better be absolute certainty that you or another are actually being targeted, that you genuinely, truly, have no other choice but fire. After that, what is there to know? You know where the shooter is, you know any background, you know the risks, how is it different than any other shooting, except that the shooter himself is not where you can see his eyes, and you can't be absolutely certain that passengers in the car are at risk? The way my luck runs, he'll be holding a baby in front of him.

[TunnelRat]

I actually did do a course on vehicle tactics, which is where that info came from. Near me window tinting is more uncommon than common, so that never came up. It's an interesting point. At the least it would still be more easily breakable and cause less deflection than laminated glass, though you're right it might still provide concealment. Taking such a course is a good idea though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Onward Allusion]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

"...what would you do?..." Start by rethinking your tactics. However, a window, even a tinted one, is not cover and nobody is going to shoot through a window. Even one that is tinted.
Any lack of morality is on the idiot shooting from a vehicle that may or may not have other people in said vehicle. In any case, unless you have a rocket launcher, you won't be able to do anything to any kind of vehicle. Now quit reading Mack Bolan etc. It's confusing you and giving you nightmares. snicker.

LOL! Seriously???!

[JohnKSa]

I don't think that there is an obligation to keep any passengers of the car safe as they are at least passively complicit in the shooting.

I have seen more than one video of a police chase where the criminal carjacked a vehicle and coerced the owner to act as their driver.

There have also been instances where a car thief unwittingly took a car with an occupied car seat.

It is not a given that everyone in the car can be considered to be hostile.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There have been criminals who have committed their crimes with their kids in the car. Are the children complicit?

[briandg]

i don't know how to answer your 'what if' complications to what at the surface is pretty simple. what if there are no passengers? should a person drop his gun when he, as per the original post, is near certain death or injury by gunfire on the possible chance that there is an infant human shield? I covered that, at the end of the post but you guys ignored that.

I think that it's univesal here that people believe in #1, and saving their own lives is paromount. Most people here would clearly act to save their own lives.

is shooting at a gun into a car that may or may not have innocent passengers any different at all from shooting at a car where there are shop windows, pedestrians, restaurants, or even other cars in the immediate or near distant background that aren't obvious by sight? call out whatever you need to, but the simple post up front said that there is only one decision called for in the original post. Shoot or be shot, and what is the moral answer?

i don't know what a moral answer should be. I'm not answering that until I have been in that situation and dealt with every minute bit of information available.

You don't have any information. Imagine or guess whatever you want to. Act on it after you decide. shoot or don't shoot.


This is frankly and truly just another barrier puzzle. No different from shooting at an antler in a thicket or a white tail, or the sound of a turkey call in weeds. You can't see the white of his eyes, so why would you shoot unless you see the gun and know factually that you are in danger of your life, facing death by that gun?

Just ignore the passage that you quoted if you prefer and go back to the one at the end. It gives my belief that shooting at the bad guy in a genuine life and death situation already involves bystanders in many "what if" scenarios. pulling the trigger with possible collateral damage is a dilemma. If you can't see that there are no bystanders, there just simply comes a point that you either shoot or don't. simple yes or no.

The only thing that a carrier can do is to die or shoot, and the decision to shoot must be well thought out, and that there is a strong certainty that no innocents will be hurt. If an innocent person is hurt or killed, that's a great cause for a whole lot of hindsight condemnation of the shooter for being stupid or immoral, when it is actually more of an issue of poor judgment and for lack of a better way of saying it, fate.

it's also important, In my opinion, that we separate the issue of shooting at the driver from shooting at the car. If you can't see a gun or evidence of one being shot, this problem doesn't exist. If you shoot at the gun, or shoot at the area where you believe that the shooter is, that should cover most of the questions in almost all cases.

The shooter's life was at stake. the gun was clearly visible at the barrier. the shooter must be holding it, do all of the normal obligations of taking innocent lives at risk and if the situation genuinely calls for killing the guy and possibly putting innocent lives in danger, shoot through the barrier.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So if you were cornered by a crazed person with an infant in a front baby carrier and said crazed person was charging at you with a knife from 22 feet away, would you open fire?

Scenarios can become ridiculous.

As far as the moral issue, analyses of moral opinion, indicate that folks think that taking a life on an innocent to save just your own life is suspect. Saving a great number in an action that entail taking the life of an innocent is more acceptable but not to some.

Look up the Trolley car problem. It's not like many folks haven't thought about this.

Taking the life of anyone is a bad thing, even an attacker. The question is whether it is justifiable to the law, society and yourself.

One can make up scenarios (and moral philosophers and social scientists like to do that) which put you in a no-win decision. There are always bad outcomes of some sort.

Save yourself for personal self-interest and sacrifice others if you must. Don't say that you are a moral person and blather the reason why. You just saved your butt.

[craddleshooter]

a shooter should be sure 9.9% that he is aiming for his target if even 1% short, no shot should be fired. not risking to shoot any bystanders....

[briandg]

We can even throw more ridiculous complication by setting the scenario that the guy has his own infant in the carrier, he's mad at his wife, and has the knife at the child's throat. There isn't even personal involvement. Who, other than god himself could definitively make a decision to fire at the knife wielding nut in question? makes my head hurt.

I minored in philosophy and writing and these things weren't ever discussed because the classes were 55 minutes long an there were only twelve weeks of three days to learn it. We talked more about lying on your taxes and shoplifting than we did on self defense.

[briandg]

a shooter should be sure 9.9% that he is aiming for his target if even 1% short, no shot should be fired. not risking to shoot any bystanders....

a rather arbitrary figure about certainty. but the point is correct that there should be an enormous amount of care given to that decision.

It's going to be a very personal decision as to whether a person chooses to err on the side of personal safety for himself or for the safety of possible bystanders who may or may not be in places of risk. I know Some people who would choose to fire and some who would not. I would not want to be presented with this situation. I've spent years considering these things. I believe that I would choose to ignore my own safety for the safety of possible others. I don't know.

[JohnKSa]

briandg,

I was responding to a specific comment you made (and subsequently deleted from your post after my response was posted) that asserted any passengers in the car were "passively complicit".

I provided real-world examples that explained why that assumption/assertion was not safe.

I don't see how we get from that very simple assertion and rebuttal to a 600 word response implying that this is too complex to figure out.

It's all very simple. The legal justification for self-defense is not a blanket justification to endanger the lives of anyone nearby a threat. Of course there's always some risk once the shooting starts, but society expects people to be "reasonable". Someone shooting from a car isn't justification for assuming that everyone in the car must be a threat and shooting back indiscriminately. We are required to be "reasonable" in our response. If we can't see a threat, we don't get to "nuke the area" just to be sure. The innocent people who would be endangered by that approach have lives that are no less valuable to society than our own.

[briandg]

I deleted it because you were right. it was badly said. that statement I made was not correct.

I'm not saying that it is too complex to figure it out, I'm saying that you can't have certainty, or even a reasonable degree of certainty, that whatever action is taken will be safe. there are legal and ethical questions to consider before the shot and they will be asked again after. With any shot fired there is a risk, right? it's impossible to prove, or even reach a high degree of certainty that something is safe.

]It's all very simple. The legal justification for self-defense is not a blanket justification to endanger the lives of anyone nearby a threat. Of course there's always some risk once the shooting starts, but society expects people to be "reasonable".

I've said that. I never meant to say that one could just shoot and not worry about who else can get hurt. There are times that the carrier just has to stand down and hope for the best.

Someone shooting from a car isn't justification for assuming that everyone in the car must be a threat and shooting back indiscriminately. We are required to be "reasonable" in our response. If we can't see a threat, we don't get to "nuke the area" just to be sure. The innocent people who would be endangered by that approach have lives that are no less valuable to society than our own.

You guys both seem to believe that I accept the idea of shooting at targets that may, or do have people in the background in order to save my own life. No, I'm not. I don't believe that my life is so valuable that I can risk the life of another. If you knew me you would understand that as a fact. I don't think that anyone should.

At amirayah we bombed a public building based on intelligence that identified it as a communications center. We knew at the time that it had been used in the past as a civilian bomb shelter. Yet we still sent bombers, knowing that saddam was using human shields, knowing that there were probably civilians. hundreds died.

It's the same discussion. I never touched on the legality because that's part and parcel about whether you can justify shooting at bystanders. quite often It's not possible to know beyond doubt that a background is safe.

Don't bomb the bunker. There will be times when a person will have to stand down because of risk to others.

[JohnKSa]

You guys both seem to believe that I accept the idea of shooting at targets that may, or do have people in the background in order to save my own life. No, I'm not. I don't believe that my life is so valuable that I can risk the life of another. If you knew me you would understand that as a fact. I don't think that anyone should.

Fair enough. I got the wrong impression from your posts--sounds like we're on the same page.

At amirayah we bombed a public building based on intelligence that identified it as a communications center. We knew at the time that it had been used in the past as a civilian bomb shelter. Yet we still sent bombers, knowing that saddam was using human shields, knowing that there were probably civilians. hundreds died.

Whether we agree or disagree with how the military conducts strike operations; it's pretty clear that it is unwise to base civilian self-defense tactics on military tactics and the concept of "acceptable collateral damage" in military operations. Even trying to draw any kind of parallels between the two is problematic. The military operates by rules which are completely different than the rules of justifiable self-defense that a civilian must adhere to.