The subject was brought up in another thread about having a portion of your carry ammo being FMJs for hard cover penetration. I brought this to a new thread because this debate would become a tangent in that thread. I think it is a valid discussion and am curious to hear other folk's input.The Scenario:
Joe Badguy initiates an armed confrontation in the parking lot of your favorite resturaunt as you are leaving.
You make it to about the halfway point between the door and your car when you spot him casing you. You ask him from a distance if you can do anything for him to which he responds by starting to approach you telling you he would like a donation to his non-prescription pharmaceutical fund (not in so many words of course).
You tell him that a donation is not in the budget for you at this time, to which he responds by moving his hand to what may very well be a gun.
You have kept cars between the two of you up until this point. You move your hand to your gun while taking cover behind a car. He fires at you hitting the car that is between the two of you. He realises you are armed when you send a quick double tap his direction as you make cover.
Joe, then, carries himself to cover but continues to verbalise his intent to perforate you in order to take above mentioned donation from you by force.
Your cover is a four wheeled conveyance and his is two wheeled conveyeance.
My thinking is as follows:
Militarily:
My military training would lead me to press the engagement. In the military, we would be loaded with primarily, if not exclusively FMJs. My 230gr 45ACP FMJs would probably be sufficient to penetrate the Harley Davidson Ultra Classic but the 230gr Speer Gold Dots may not be. But let's debate the tactical perspective on persuing the engagement.
In combat, it is usually advantageous to persue once your enemy has been routed. But sometimes you don't because making pursuit may very well open yourself up for an envelopement. Tactics are usually drawn with some regard for a strategic perspective. War is not about killing the enemy, it's about eliminating your enemy's ability to wage war.
Tactics and strategies are ALWAYS drawn in regards to what the enemy CAN do, not what you think he WILL do. And, as a general rule, a defensible position has a 3 to 1 advantage against an assault. So sitting tight and defending is preferable when there is a 1 to 1 force ratio.
As a Armed Citizen:
We have no strategic considerations, so tactics are drawn up in regards to your one facet of defense. The 3 to 1 advantage applies to you as one gun in a given situation. In a 1 on 1 engagement, the defender has the advantage.
Joe Badguy is still verbalizing intent to do you harm, so the threat is not entirely eliminated.
I am not necessarily looking to debate the legality of making a shot through hard cover in the attempt to hit Joe, but it might be beneficial to hash that out. But does it tactically make sense?
I am thinking the best course of action would be to hunker down in a defensible position, call 911 but what say y'all?
Be prepared, but you can't be prepared for every circumstance.
