Istanbul Drill

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

tomthebaker

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
2,109
Reaction score
579
Location
owasso-ish
The threat of a bomb vest is the reason for shooting a terrorist when he is down. He may still be able to operate a switch.

And any active shooter event may be terrorism
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,551
Reaction score
3,502
Location
Enid, OK
The threat of a bomb vest is the reason for shooting a terrorist when he is down. He may still be able to operate a switch.

And any active shooter event may be terrorism
You know, I can understand what you are saying here and I can even agree with you--but only in a purely tactical sense. You acted with intent to remove the potential threat. That's the tactical part.

But what you seem to not consider is that this might not be sufficient legal justification, and the legal aftermath could very well destroy you. Please don't make the mistake of confusing 'potential' with 'imminent', which, if I'm not mistaken seems to be what you are doing.

Here is another consideration: this one is purely tactical. The bomber could be outfitted with what is called the 'dead man's switch'. Killing him might very well cause him to release the switch and detonate the vest.

This 'Istanbul drill' while it might (or might not) be sound tactics, is very risky in a legal sense. Your best bet, rather than trying to shoot the bomber, will almost certainly be to get as far away from him as you can or get behind some kind of cover. It is not the blast wave that is the most dangerous; it is the shrapnel that will be sent flying.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,482
Reaction score
15,854
Location
Collinsville
You know, I can understand what you are saying here and I can even agree with you--but only in a purely tactical sense. You acted with intent to remove the potential threat. That's the tactical part.

But what you seem to not consider is that this might not be sufficient legal justification, and the legal aftermath could very well destroy you. Please don't make the mistake of confusing 'potential' with 'imminent', which, if I'm not mistaken seems to be what you are doing.

Here is another consideration: this one is purely tactical. The bomber could be outfitted with what is called the 'dead man's switch'. Killing him might very well cause him to release the switch and detonate the vest.

This 'Istanbul drill' while it might (or might not) be sound tactics, is very risky in a legal sense. Your best bet, rather than trying to shoot the bomber, will almost certainly be to get as far away from him as you can or get behind some kind of cover. It is not the blast wave that is the most dangerous; it is the shrapnel that will be sent flying.

Or the vest could have a remote detonate feature controlled by an observer with a cell phone. Too many variables to calculate in mere seconds.

The law is frequently behind the curve so to speak with real or perceived threats such as IED wearing terrorists. Not wanting to be a test case, I'm circumspect about this type of training for CCW.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,551
Reaction score
3,502
Location
Enid, OK
Or the vest could have a remote detonate feature controlled by an observer with a cell phone. Too many variables to calculate in mere seconds.

The law is frequently behind the curve so to speak with real or perceived threats such as IED wearing terrorists. Not wanting to be a test case, I'm circumspect about this type of training for CCW.
Agreed. The best idea is, like I said before, to either get behind cover or get as far away as you can. This covers you in both a tactical and a legal sense.
 

tomthebaker

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
2,109
Reaction score
579
Location
owasso-ish
Agreed. The best idea is, like I said before, to either get behind cover or get as far away as you can. This covers you in both a tactical and a legal sense.
That only works if innocents aren't around. In an active shooter/terrorist event, there are plenty of innocents.

In the odd chance I find myself in an active shooter/terrorist event, I plan on shooting the attacker in the head if at all possible, but if not, with the possibility of a bomb vest, I'm not taking any chances with my life or the lives of innocents.

But that's such a far-fetched scenario, it certainly isn't worth arguing about.

There's also the strong possibility of multiple attackers. That changes things too.

I'm out.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom