9mm vs 45

Another example of a thief making a bad choice. Car thief drives a stolen car to the scene, accomplice / girlfriend with him. Tries to steal a truck. Owner of said truck confronts him. Guns were drawn, shots fired. Oh, did I mention the truck owner was a former marine? A story with a happy ending, because hits with a 9mm are a more convincing argument than misses with a .45.

UPDATE: Another story with more info. Looks like the former marine drew first in an attempt to stop the thief. Legally, that make his position more dicey. OTOH, the cops may look at the dead perp’s rap sheet, the rap sheet of of accomplice / girlfriend, and weigh it against a former marine with Iraq service and a valid CPL, and say “Who are we kidding? Good job, carry on.”


23 thoughts on “9mm vs 45

  1. It’s a case of hits verses misses, or maybe “Hit and Myth?”

    On the other hand, maybe it’s not about guns at all, but the utter stupidity of trying to mess with a truck driver.

  2. Sheriff’s deputy on the radio was saying that the Marine opened fire first, attempting to take out the tires and engine of the getaway car. Then, when the fleeing suspect returned fire, the Marine shifted fire and shot him.

    Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with it. However, the legal system and the lawyers don’t always consult me. 🙂

  3. The one article says “The thief ducked behind the truck he was trying to steal, but was still struck several times and died at the scene, deputies said.” So why are all the bullet holes in a CAR? The stories don’t add up.

      • Ah, better stories. Thanks. And the KOMO story has been updated. Sound like the truck owner saw the other guy with a gun, shoved his SO out of the way while yelling “GUN” (as in, he sees a gun), then drew his own. If that is true, then it doesn’t make that much difference who actually fired first, the threat was imminent.

    • Several partial stories out there. Looks like he ducked behind the truck, then headed for the car. Not clear if the gun was on the car thief or in his car. The car was shot at, not clear if it was before or after the thief was in it. Was his accomplice / girlfriend driving it, trying to run the truck owner over, or just pick up the other thief and get away? Like I said, legally, unless he was afraid of getting run over, it sounds like his position is a bit sketchy, but considering the dead guy appears to have a significant rap sheet, and the female accomplice had a felony warrant out for her, I would simply explain the use of force laws to the former marine clearly, then call it a day and wrap it up. Going after the truck owner would not really serve justice, even if it might be (facts are unclear enough I honestly don’t know if it is or not) legally the technically proper thing by the letter of the law.

      • Where did you read that the dead guy had a significant rap sheet?

        So many of the bullet holes are in the car windshield, I can’t see how the girl with the warrant was sitting in the driver’s seat. She would have been hit if that were the case.

      • Is it legal to shoot someone who is leaving in Washington? I know different states have different laws….

        • Depends on circumstances. Generally, once they are fleeing the scene lethal force is no longer allowed. If you think they might come back to get you, if they are fleeing towards another non-bad guy and you think they might be putting that innocent person at risk, they are “fleeing” by trying to run you over, or other such things, then it might still be OK.

  4. “Going after the truck owner would not really serve justice…”

    Are you assuming that justice is the goal?

    • For the cops and the rest of the legal system? Not really, though some folks might. For wider society, though, a definite yes.

    • In WA there is strong legal incentive for prosecutors to ensure a question of malicious intent on the part of the shooter. If he is found not guilty and the jury rules it self defense the state must pay for all legal expenses and the lost wages of the defendant.

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » 9mm v. .45

  6. Pingback: SayUncle » At the Navy Yard shooting

  7. So if you consider missing as being justification that a 9mm is better than a .45 (or comparison of any two rounds) then if the one who misses is using Ma Duce .50 cal, then the 9mm is better than a .50 BMG, right?

    Don’t blame the .45, blame the rotten shot.

    • Just a matter of “in THIS case” 9mm wins, because of that. Not blaming the .45, blaming the stupid car thief. Of course, I expect it’s tough to try to drive and shoot at the same time, regardless of gun type or cartridge.

    • This is a slap at the stupid caliber wars where the .45 was passed down from god himself and is the premier round for a “one shot stop”…

      I bumped it to Caleb Giddings when I saw it last night laughing because this was impossible. The marine should have shat bricks seeing a .45 right?

  8. There seems to be a match in the number of bullet holes in the car’s hood, and in the windshield.
    I suspect that the truck owner was crouched down, and his shots passed through the hood and hit the glass afterwards. It’s possible they ricocheted off some part of the engine (valve/cam cover?) prior to hitting the glass. They likely exited the engine area by passing close to the wipers. This angle would make it unlikely for the bullets to penetrate the windshield, and they probably were deflected upwards over the roof. Windshields are tough stuff for bullets.

  9. Actually, it’s not about 9 mil or .45 because obviously hits with either are more convincing than missed shots.

Comments are closed.