Car Jacking Part I

[Boudreaux]

I enjoyed the show, but they were two different situations. In the first they showed what happend when you were blocked in from both front and back. On the second they showed when only rear ended and the attacker exited the front car with out backing up. I wanted to see how to get out of the first, where you couldn't drive. Not where you could drive your way out. Just my thoughts, Good shows though.
Boudreaux
 

[Overload]

I had a sense of deja vu in part 2.  Seems as if the same talk by Rob in the car and being attacked was repeated.  I guess smashing glass is expensive so they wanted to get their monies worth. 

[Michael Janich]

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

The scenario shown in the first carjacking episode where the victim gets rear-ended, then gets blocked in by the lead car backing up, was an interesting editing "hybrid." Since the cars we were usng were set aside for ramming, shooting, and other destructive stuff, they are never fueled up very much. Limiting the amount of gas in the tank is a safety precaution. It also makes life interesting when you're shooting on a tight schedule and one of your "props" runs our of gas.

The backing-up-into-the-victim's car was actually a way to create impact for a specific camera angle when the rear "bump" car ran out of gas. When the editor--an avid shooter with great insights into the tactical side of things--saw the resulting footage, he cut it together to make that scene even more compelling. Rear bump + the front car backing up = scary stuff.

To put it all into simple tactical context, rule #1 is to leave plenty of room between you and the car in front of you so you can drive away if something goes bad. If the car in front of you backs up (look for the backup lights as an early sign), you should still try to drive away, even if you have to shove the front car out of the way. If you get pinned in and the bad guy just wants your car, give it to him. If it looks like he wants more than that, have a plan to go to guns--using the principles Rob demonstrated in yesterday's show.

As for the repeat of the verbiage in episode two, that was done on purpose to explain to the viewer the circumstances that would justify or require shooting out of a car. It was not filler. Since we could not illustrate such circumstances with complete accuracy in the environment we had available, we wanted to make sure you heard them explained twice or, if you came in late, you heard them right before Rob did the shooting.

We strongly believe that driving away/avoidance is always te best option. At the same time, we wanted to educate viewers regarding the realities and the preferred tactics for shooting through the windows of the car. To do that, we had to set up a realistic/plausible situation that was still range safe. Visually, the scenario with the tire iron was scary and compelling, but realistically Rob could have still driven away. We understand that, but the angles required for all the shots dicated that we had to set it up that way in the space available. Rob's explanation (repeated twice) emphasized that 1) the tire iron scenario was a simulation and 2) the "problem" we wanted to address was any situation where you COULD NOT drive away and were confronted by a lethal threat in close proximity to your car.

If you watched carefully, you may have noticed that once the shooting portion began, Rob's car was turned 90 degrees to its original line of travel in the tire iron scenario. That's so he could shoot out the side window and have a solid backstop on the range. When he shot out of the windshield, the car was turned back to its original position to, again, guarantee a solid backstop when shooting at the target in front of the car.

Like a real self-defense situation, illustrating realistic, plausible scenarios--especially when working under tight time constraints in unfamiliar environments--is a challenge. I'm proud of what we did and think the scenarios shown--especially when considered with close attention to the explanations given--provide solid information you won't find elsewhere.

With all that said, being critical of the scenarios is a good thing, as long as you do it for the right reasons. If you look at it and say, "In a real situation, he could have still driven away. He could have exited the other side of the car and used it as a barrier. Etc, etc." That's all good--provided you're doing it to improve your thought process and enhance your personal survival skill set. If you're doing it just to criticize, stand in line. I'm already married...

Stay safe,

Mike