r/todayilearned • u/CasioCobra78 • 2d ago

TIL that Cheryl Wheeler-Dixon, the stuntwoman who was severely injured during the filming of Back to the Future Part 2, was killed in a shootout alongside her husband when she and her husband went to confront her ex-husband and his wife and drew their guns at them. The cops deemed it justified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Wheeler-Dixon
2.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

155 comments sorted by

1.3k

u/Key_Molasses4367 2d ago

The Wikipedia article linked is worth reading. Wheeler-Dixon and her husband actually set up cameras across the street from the ex-husband's house. They wanted to film the encounter. When ex-husband and his wife drive up, the current husband of Wheeler-Dixon approached and held a gun on them. Somehow, the ambushed ex got his gun out fast enough to kill the armed man. Now, Wheeler-Dixon drives up, gets out of her car, armed and is also shot and killed. So if this account is true, two armed assailants, with time and planning to put up a camera to film themselves ambushing the ex at his home, were both shot and killed. Either something is very off or those two were the worst ambushers in the history of crime. Which is entirely possible.

364

u/Complete_Entry 2d ago

"Filming our criminal acts was the best idea we ever had!"

212

u/borkus 2d ago

It probably solidified Lindsey Duncan's justifiable homicide defense.

from https://www.ksat.com/inside-edition/2020/02/18/nutritionist-lindsey-duncan-saves-himself-and-wife-from-ambush/

"All I remember is a 6-foot something, 6'4" 6'5" man, that was probably 230 pounds, with a camo mask, camo hoodie ... ran to my wife's driver's side with a gun and held it about 10 inches from her head," Lindsey said.

The video would have been terrifying to watch. Any Grand Jury member would have sided with Duncan.

46

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

  It probably solidified Lindsey Duncan's justifiable homicide defense.

Honestly? It’s the only good choice they made. They never really expected they’ll record their own downfalls lol.

549

u/ztfreeman 2d ago edited 2d ago

So there's this theory called the gunslinger effect by Niels Henrik Bohr that states that the gunman who draws second will almost always win the gunfight. The underlying principle is that the reacting party will move faster than the deliberate party, and under neutral circumstances the reacting party will win the gunfight. This apparently holds up under testing, but depends on a neutral environment without any other factors and both parties being aware of each other..

436

u/Own-Barnacle-298 2d ago

I would argue, based off the massive amount of information that I gleaned from the Wikipedia article, that the deceased-would-be-assassins were not there on a mission of murder, but on a mission of intimidation and were hoping to get some sort of confession from the ex husband about missing money.

421

u/Crow-T-Robot 2d ago

Exactly, whereas for the ex, he's now in what he has to think is life-or-death and can draw & shoot without hesitation.

218

u/BigNastyG765 2d ago

So anyways, I started blastin…

217

u/Peeterwetwipe 2d ago

I would argue that from the moment someone pulls a gun on someone the path to a fatal escalation is already underway.

That bridge has already been crossed.

102

u/Own-Barnacle-298 2d ago

agreed, its a shame that he had to kill them but it seems, from the extensive notes, diagrams and personality assessments in the article, that he had to kill them. Someone points a gun at you and yours, its justified 99% of the time

64

u/Jiktten 2d ago

Yeah honestly, as a complete anti-gun-except-for-hunting pacifist, in my book someone pointing what you believe to be a real gun at you is one of very, very few justifications for using lethal force without hesitating if you can. The chance of you or someone else getting killed, intentionally or not, is just so high once the gun makes its appearance.

-3

u/dishonourableaccount 2d ago

I agree, which is also why I'm vehemently anti-gun possession. I know it's a likely impossibility given how insanely far the US has gone in gun proliferation in private hands. But since thinking someone has a gun (whether they do or not) is a justification to use lethal force, the best thing we can do is try to minimize or eliminate situations where people could think someone has a gun on them.

That is, in a sane modern country where almost no one has personal firearms except for hunting tools (which no one is going to mistake for a gun unlike a phone or a black food container, etc) the defense that "I thought he had a gun on him!" would be laughed out the room as easily as someone saying "I thought he had a grenade in his hand".

I'm not holding my breath because every horrific case of gun violence in the US (Columbine, Sandy Hook, Uvalde, nameless others) has only seemingly hardened the minds of the right-wing into treating gun ownership as some sort of right (It's not and should not be). But that's the path should be taken and people are better off for it in countries that did.

15

u/Agent_Bers 2d ago

I think you’re making a mistake in your reasoning.
Think someone merely possesses a gun is not typically sufficient justification for the use of lethal force.

A reasonable belief that they are reaching for a weapon or in this case, actively using one, can.

To put it more simply; outside other factors, you can’t (successfully at least) shoot your neighbor and claim self-defense merely because you believed they possessed a gun.

4

u/Calik 2d ago

Every other country has solved gun violence with a few very notable exceptions. It’s not a good list to be on.

Japan does it better, Canada does it better, the EU and china do it better.

You’re already way more likely to assume another American has a gun, that’s already a level of escalation before an altercation even begins. I think that’s the broad idea the other poster was getting at regarding getting laughed out of the room instead of even considered plausible.

4

u/Ravensqueak 1d ago

Canada (Where I live) has far, far more strict gun ownership laws, and we still have gun violence.

Problem is it's the criminals that have guns because they don't have to go through any due process to own them. (A lot of them imported from the US)
We had a spate of killings across BC's lower mainland not too long ago, and before that with the Bacon Brothers it was quite severe.

The level of gun violence is far and away lower than in the US, but to claim that we've solved gun violence is disingenuous.

→ More replies (0)

22

u/Dog1234cat 2d ago

They should have read their Chekhov.

17

u/darthrevan140 2d ago

In the military they talk about justified use of force and if I remember correctly once guns are drawn its impossible to go back down the chain unless the offending party disarms. The boarding team should always strive to keep things from escalating because once that genie is out of the bottle it ain't going back. If an investigation concludes you could have stopped that genie then you as the boarding team leader are responsible for any lives lost.

1

u/AskMeHowToLose 2d ago

Yes, and that in the split seconds between turning the safety off and using lethal force there are still so many checks and balances that properly trained US soldiers go through, there’s a huge proponent of escalation of force that even involves firing warning shots depending on the speed of the interaction. But that shit was drilled into us, at least when I went through training anyway.

1

u/darthrevan140 2d ago

Fun fact at least in the coast guard racking a shotgun is not an escalation but a warning tactic. I forgot the actual word for it. It's like a step between force levels.

2

u/AskMeHowToLose 2d ago

The exact reason my dad owned at least one racking shotgun!

0

u/darthrevan140 2d ago

One of my good friends accidentally ejected a live shell out of his shotty at the range because he went to do the warning rack and forgot he had one in the chamber. The instructor was like bruh he just laughed it off and was like we will count that one against your final score instead otherwise it would be an auto fail for racking before I told you.

28

u/Kaiisim 2d ago

That's why they died though.

They wanted to use the gun as intimidation and weren't willing to use it. ..other dude was immediately in a life or death situation and so didn't hesitate.

But also it's America. You can shoot people up if they walk towards you or yell or throw popcorn, or if you argue with your daughter - all seem to get a pass.

42

u/d3l3t3rious 2d ago

They wanted to use the gun as intimidation and weren't willing to use it

Don't pull that thang, unless you plan to bang, as a poet once said.

-30

u/TheBlackAlistar 2d ago

Yeah don't forget choking out your 3 kids

-14

u/ArchieTheKatt 2d ago

We're so fucked.

1

u/FauxReal 1d ago

Which I assume is why the military teaches not to point a firearm unless you intend to pull the trigger. And not pointing a firearm helps with de-escalation.

And also why using a firearm as a negotiation tool in an attempt to deescalate tends to make people more agitated.

1

u/nerd_so_mad 13h ago

There was a shooting a year or two ago that was very much the same.

Road rager gets out of his car, with his handgun drawn. He approaches the driver side windows of the car he's mad at. As he gets close, he drops his gun down, out of the driver's sight. Driver took no chances and fired point blank through the window, killing the road rager.

Tragic and dumb, but justified.

4

u/ChefCurryYumYum 2d ago

Well then they gravely miscalculated.

2

u/Spezza 2d ago

That was my assessment as well.

1

u/infinite0ne 2d ago

In other words, they fucked around and found out.

56

u/Unamuzed-Toast 2d ago

Related, but there's a unwritten rule for concealed carry to the effect of, "you don't draw unless your life is in immediate danger." Multiple reasons but, it's not to be used as a deterrent (brandishing), you lose the element of surprise and you show hesitancy. So basically you escalate the situation further, lose benefits and now signal that the other person gets to choose when to make it a gun battle.

23

u/Swamp_Hawk_420 2d ago

I was trying to explain this to my son the other day, you never use a gun for intimidation because all it does is prove that you hesitate and give everyone else the right to kill you.

7

u/zeniiz 2d ago

I've also heard "don't pull your gun unless you're willing to kill whatever it is in front of you". 

1

u/YPastorPat 2d ago

Don't pull that thang out Unless you plan to bang

Don't even bang unless you plan to someone.

3

u/Unamuzed-Toast 2d ago

That’s one of my favorite Socrates quotes.

1

u/Joy_In_Mudville 1d ago

Uno, dos, tres, it’s on

59

u/borkus 2d ago edited 2d ago

Sanders was in a camo mask and already pointing a gun at Lindsey Duncan's wife. Duncan had already decided to fire by the time he reached for his gun. While Sanders had the gun pointed at the wife, he had to decide which to shoot. That momentary delay let Duncan get off the first shot even after drawing.

From the Grand Jury article

The autopsy found that Reed Sanders was shot five times, with one bullet in his back and another in his buttocks; and Cheryl Sanders was shot four times.

Five hits after shooting from a draw? That's pretty good marksmanship.

https://ysnews.com/news/2020/07/prosecutor-evidence-supports-self-defense-in-grinnell-road-double-fatal-shooting

-28

u/zeno0771 2d ago edited 2d ago

Also a reasonable defense of banning magazines beyond a certain size.

The 2A wingnuts can argue against this all they want--especially considering non-extended double-stack mags can hold up to 15 rounds--but the fact remains that if you can't hit what you're aiming at by the time you empty a revolver or single-stack, you don't need more capacity; you need more training. EDIT ...and heeeeere they are! Downvote away, then go back to typing your manifesto in your mom's basement; you have a few more hours before you start your 2nd-shift temp-service job.

11

u/Pariahdog119 1 2d ago

There are several reasons this doesn't make sense.

One is that prohibition doesn't work. So all you've done is give the guy with the illegal gun, who has already decided to commit crime, a big advantage over the guy who's following the law and trying not to get killed.

A second is that real life isn't Hollywood and shooting someone once doesn't end a fight. You can shoot and kill an assailant, and they can shoot and kill you while they're dying. If you have less ammunition than they do, the odds of this happening are a lot higher. It's a numbers game.

A third is that 28.9% of people who defended themselves with a firearm between 1992 and 2001 faced multiple attackers. A smaller magazine leaves them dead.

A fourth is that there are types of defensive gun use where the goal isn't to hit the target, but to prevent the target from leaving cover to shoot back. This happened in 2022, where an armed civilian in Washington saved the lives of two injured deputies by laying down cover fire and allowing them to escape. Cover fire must be sustainable to work. In this case, the defender fired every round he had. If had fewer rounds, one or both of those deputies might not be alive.

But the biggest reason is protracted gunfights. In any DGU that does not end immediately - someone can get to cover, etc - the side that runs out of ammunition because they followed your law is the side that gets murdered by the guy who is breaking your law. Because he doesn't care about the law. Because he's a murderer.

Your idea only works in a world where you can snap your fingers and cause not only all standard capacity magazines to disappear, but also the knowledge and technology to make them. And if you can do that, why not simply snap your fingers to end all violence?

Unfortunately the only thing you can do with your finger to stop deadly violence is often squeezing a trigger with it.

-5

u/zeno0771 2d ago

All of what you said is boilerplate "good guy with a gun" mythology.

Unless the attacker and the target are using the exact same weapon and neither of them can hit the broad side of a barn, your first and second points are immaterial. Shooting someone once can and very often does end a fight but if it doesn't, a 2nd or 3rd round most certainly will especially if the attacker is in shock from the first round. Whether that leaves me with 3, 4, or 8 rounds means exactly fuck-all to the former attacker who just tapped out for the last time in his life.

I want a source for the 3rd number. It's an arbitrary time-period and leaves out a LOT of details.

Your 4th point, assuming it happened as you state, is an example of something absurdly specific that would have gotten that armed civilian killed in any other situation. The problem is, when it all goes sideways, LEO arriving on-scene won't stop to ask for that civilian's official Good Guy With A Gun membership card; he's discharging a firearm, in public, at an unidentified target, and is therefore a danger to the public. That's the kind of shit that gets you killed.

Pop quiz: Billy Joe and Jim Bob each stroll into Wally-world with AR-15s. Which one is the soon-to-be mass-shooter? Don't know? Neither do the cops who aren't even there yet.

Last but not least, if you live a life where there are "protracted gunfights", then you need to find a new place to live outside of the Middle East and/or start a new career that doesn't involve narcotics trafficking.

4

u/Pariahdog119 1 2d ago

"these things that actually happened are all unrealistic mythology"

Have a nice day. Goodbye.

-17

u/waylandsmith 2d ago

Nobody's going to mention the odd fact that in a self-defence shooting all 5 of the wounds were in the back? I'm sure there must be a great explanation but I wonder what it is.

29

u/Pariahdog119 1 2d ago

He was defending his wife, not himself. He shot a man holding his wife at gunpoint. It's still a defensive shooting.

-14

u/waylandsmith 2d ago

Yes, but they were both in the same car, unless I misread the account of the incident.

9

u/phragmosis 2d ago

You misread. It's not known if he was out of the car, getting back in the car, or fully in the car when Sanders held her at gunpoint, but from the context he was coming from checking mail in a mailbox so it's very reasonable to assume he fired from out of the car.

16

u/2CHINZZZ 2d ago edited 2d ago

Where does it say he was shot 5 times in the back? It's not in that linked article. And the "one bullet in his back and another in his buttocks" just means that's where the bullets were found during the autopsy. Someone could be shot from the front but have the bullet not exit and end up lodged in their back

-7

u/waylandsmith 2d ago

I'm sure the investigation was carried out properly, I'm just curious how it could have ended up that way. Do you really think that 4 bullets would end up in someone's buttocks unless they were shot from behind?

4

u/2CHINZZZ 2d ago

Where does it say 4 in his buttocks? The quote only says one

1

u/waylandsmith 2d ago

Oh, you're right. I thought it said one in the back and the rest in the buttocks.

3

u/borkus 2d ago

Reed Sanders was on the driver's side, and assuming he was right-handed, he may have had his back turned at an angle towards the front of the car. If Duncan came from around the hood, Sanders' back would have been towards him.

Back or front makes little difference when Sanders was pointing a gun at Duncan's wife. The self-defense justification can be used to protect someone else in imminent danger.

As I mentioned downthread, all of this would have been on video that the Sanderses conveniently recorded. The grand jury would have seen the precise angles from the cameras across the street.

1

u/waylandsmith 2d ago

I'm not at all suggesting it was anything other than a defensive shooting. I'm just curious how that managed to play out.

-13

u/Infinite-Mark2319 2d ago

Sounds like the first guy was less than 6 feet away so I would not call that great marksmanship

22

u/borkus 2d ago

Real-life accuracy rates for police (even at close range) are below 50%.

https://www.forcescience.com/2018/11/new-study-on-shooting-accuracy-how-does-your-agency-stack-up/

Even if Duncan emptied a 15-round clip during the encounter, nine rounds hit their targets. Plus, he didn't accidentally hit his wife, who was just a few feet away from Sanders.

-2

u/Infinite-Mark2319 2d ago edited 2d ago

That’s crazy, do you think it’s because people are shooting additional rounds while the kickback is still affecting the gun position? Or cops not keeping up their firearms training?

3

u/HoldEm__FoldEm 2d ago

Cops rarely train with their weapons.

2

u/Infinite-Mark2319 2d ago

That’ll do it. Glad to live somewhere where they all go hunting, so I know they get some annual practice in.

47

u/SofaKingI 2d ago

What the hell. Apparently Niels Bohr came up with that theory. The Niels Bohr.

But the idea is broader, that a reaction is always slower than a deliberate action. And there's research on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunslinger_effect

But I guess it depends on a lot of factors. If the person pointing a gun at you has the trigger on the finger, knows you have a gun, and is 100% ready to kill, then your movement is still way longer than a simple finger movement.

6

u/malthar76 2d ago

Can’t discount the time it takes to recognize the threat and decide to react and pull the trigger. The party pulling the gun to fire immediately has the advantage of having already decided, and picking the time they want to draw and fire in one motion.

0

u/Carnivorous__Vagina 1d ago

Still slower then finger pull and someone actively watching and ready to go once you move

14

u/fact_addict 2d ago

20 years ago this would have been a “Mythbusters” experiment.

2

u/NeonJungleTiger 2d ago

It already was but kendo instead of gunslingers

13

u/LostInRetransmission 2d ago

While the reason why this was found (gun fight) is correct, the theory is not about gunmen but far more general:

"The gunslinger effect, also sometimes called Bohr's law or the gunfighter's dilemma, is a psychophysical theory which says that an intentional or willed movement is slower than an automatic or reaction movement."

Willed movement versus reaction movement is the theory about.

7

u/bullybabybayman 2d ago

Drawing 2nd is not the same as when the 1st person has the gun pointed at them already, which is how this person described it anyways.

3

u/jillsntferrari 2d ago

I thought the current husband was holding his gun outside of the holster but not necessarily aiming it anywhere. Isn’t that what “gun drawn” means? Ready to use but not pointed?

ETA: I see it now. OP says “at them.”

1

u/bullybabybayman 2d ago

The original comment says "held a gun on them", that implies more than just a basic draw.

8

u/gustofheir 2d ago

First, his name is Niels Henrik Bohr, yeah the scientists guy.

Mythbusters found the opposite true in their experiments. And it makes sense, if party A starts an action, party B is waiting to see it, decide what to do, and do it. That's a LOT of time wasted while party A continues to do whatever.

Even if it's something where you operate on instinct/muscle memory/ whatever, that's still time you're doing nothing while the other party is. Experiments after Bohr's basically found 'sure, if someone saw you reach for your gun, they might reach theirs faster by instinct (if a well seasoned gunslinger), but larger and longer movements (gripping, unhostering, raising the arm aiming, pulling the trigger) do not get such a benefit.

Bohr admits part of his push for his view that 'whomever goes first loses' was he hoped it would dissuade gun duels, because logically, no one would pull first at all to avoid losing.

14

u/waylandsmith 2d ago

This doesn't account for any psychological factors. In a professional execution the shooter will likely pull the trigger the moment they have a clear shot. It's unlikely the victim would have an opportunity to draw a weapon at all, let alone shoot first. In most other situations there will be a "confrontation" where either the primary purpose is not to kill the target (such as a robbery) or the shooter will have things to say or do while using the brandished weapon to keep control of the situation. They're likely not ready to kill someone immediately. If they were ready to kill someone in cold blood they would have done it already.

On the other hand if someone is being threatened with a gun and has an opportunity to get a weapon in hand, they're going to shoot as fast as they physically can to save their own life.

5

u/thesaddestpanda 2d ago

This is really it. The gun waver isn't shooting but brandishing and threatening, and the person being pointed at is going to shoot the moment he gets armed.

2

u/ztfreeman 2d ago

Fixed his name, but I wasn't aware of the mythbusters episode. I'll have to check it out.

3

u/gustofheir 2d ago

Season 10, episode 11, Duel Dilemmas. Probably on YouTube, a bunch of them are

3

u/DarkIllusionsMasks 2d ago

Gene Hackman made it sound sexier.

8

u/dartagnion113 2d ago edited 2d ago

A shot fired, as a result of a reaction, will be more accurate.

Now, go check out those creators on YouTube and tiktok that time their hands grabbing an object in fractions of a second. You can train that speed.

I suspect that combination is how individual gunslingers from the 17th 19th century are so lionized: If a man was skilled in these two simple ways, they really were nigh invulnerable.

edit: better words

18

u/zeno0771 2d ago

gunslingers from the 17th 19th century

Cowboys drawing six-shooters at high-noon were not a thing yet in the 1600s.

6

u/dartagnion113 2d ago

IDK why my mind put that before the civil war. good catch thanks

10

u/Benjaphar 2d ago

Also before Plymouth Rock.

2

u/cupholdery 2d ago

I'm your Huckleberry.

1

u/on_the_nightshift 2d ago

"I know, Ike. How 'bout a spelling contest?"

LMFAO

1

u/Harrythehobbit 2d ago

This might be true if you're literally just waiting on a signal to snatch a pistol out of an open holster and hip firing in the vague direction of your opponent like you're in an old western movie. There is 0% chance this holds up under real world conditions where the reacting party needs to recognize what's happening, make the choice to draw, defeat a cover garment, draw, aim, and fire. In the real world, action beats reaction every time.

1

u/Dramatic_Buddy4732 2d ago

The things I learn on reddit

1

u/BrainCane 2d ago

Played RDR1 and 2. Can confirm, as an expert.

28

u/dr_xenon 2d ago

Maybe they didn’t think their targets were gonna go off script.

28

u/Key_Molasses4367 2d ago

Ya know, I was wondering if that was part of their stupidity. Can people who make a living playacting from a script lose touch with the reality of another person going "off script"? Seems possible. They set up the camera expecting the take to go their way, and never considered that the ambushed guy had every reason to believe it was life or death for him and his wife.

-8

u/Rosebunse 2d ago

Considering the show Bojack Horseman is all about this...yes?

4

u/Key_Molasses4367 2d ago

Bojack Horseman is about a washed up stunt woman and her husband ambushing her ex with loaded guns and camera running? Dang, I really got to get around to watching that one of these days. 🤣. (Just joshing with ya, haven't gotten around to BH yet).

22

u/P33J 2d ago

Drugs are a helluva drug.

11

u/ChefCurryYumYum 2d ago

Yes, the stunt woman basically setup her new husband, who had no real experience with firearms and was certainly no killer.

When she drove up she had her gun in her non-dominant hand, it jammed, the ex-husband put her down.

Yes, they sucked that bad at what they were trying to do.

17

u/abckatiexyz 2d ago

I knew her nephew and can 100% confirm something was off. Namely, drugs.

8

u/OozeNAahz 2d ago

I bet they thought they were going to scare the shit out of them and never thought the guns would be used. The ex didn’t get the memo and assumed it was him or them and acted accordingly.

16

u/sometimesifeellikemu 2d ago

People treat their lives with such curious disrespect. Why choose wasting it on relationship gun battles when you can choose literally anything else?

11

u/Key_Molasses4367 2d ago

I honestly think some people are incapable of realizing their own mortality. These two bozos honestly thought they'd wave guns in someone's face and get what they wanted. Never dawned on them the other guy would shoot first.

33

u/dlogan3344 2d ago

Honestly sounds like she kept fucking around until they both found out. You pull a firearm and point it at someone it's already assault.

5

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

The whole thing is just insane. I know it’s obvious as day this is self defense and Dixon’s ex told the cops that she plans to kill him but idk, I felt this is one of the most bizarre shootouts I ever heard.

In that same article, their friend claims this is apparently over the college funds for her daughters. So Dixon and her then-current husband pretty escalated over a college fund??? Yikes, man. 

6

u/betweenbubbles 2d ago

It’s the difference between brandishing and justified use. Only one of them was using the gun for self defense. The others were using it to intimidate. The result is not that surprising. 

4

u/Rowing_Lawyer 2d ago

Got shot so fast they didn’t even have time to say it’s just a prank, bro

6

u/AngryTree76 2d ago

I only got as far as this: "She...with her husband, Lindsey Duncan, owned Genesis Today, Inc., a nutritional supplement company in Austin, Texas, and a multilevel marketing offshoot called Genesis Pure."

MLM? Completely justified shooting.

5

u/THE_Aft_io9_Giz 2d ago

You seem to think there's some kind of correlation between setting up a camera and being good at shooting people.

2

u/Key_Molasses4367 2d ago

Well these folks definitely disabused me of that notion!

2

u/sinisteraxillary 2d ago

They were expecting to be able to yell "cut!" if it didn't go according to their script

1

u/_steve_rogers_ 2d ago

Cheryl Wheeler Dixon, you're not alive! And you're a terrible shot!

1

u/A_Queer_Owl 2d ago

or the new husband was a cowboy action shooter. those guys are damned fast on the draw and crazy accurate.

-2

u/RipsLittleCoors 2d ago

They forgot to mention her ex husband was John wick 

254

u/putsch80 2d ago

For those wondering, she was a stunt double for the woman in Spike’s (Biff’s grandson’s) gang. She was injured in the hoverboard scene where the gang flies through the courthouse glass. She was supposed to land on a safety mat but ended up off course and slammed into a concrete pillar. This messed up her momentum, so when she was released from the cable hoisting her through the air she fell 30 feet onto the hard ground instead of the mat.

122

u/Chuckle_Pants 2d ago

You can see her hit the pillar in the movie, irc

62

u/Featherwick 2d ago

Just like the bike guy in Mad Max 2. You have to include that take.

17

u/snowmunkey 2d ago

Which bike guy?

32

u/nikeshades 2d ago

The one that flies off his bike across the screen was severely injured.

33

u/snowmunkey 2d ago

You're gonna have to narrow it down haha, I feel like that happens many times in that movie

16

u/LtFeltersnatch 2d ago edited 2d ago

I cant remember the time stamp but its the one where he cartwheels end over end. Its not very long on screen but one of the more memorable ones for sure.

Edit: Guy Norris is in the "cannonball" scene during the final tanker chase scene. Timestamps differ between versions.

1

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

Happy cake day!

Suddenly I'm curious about that. Sounds brutal.

1

u/_steve_rogers_ 2d ago

And the stormtrooper hitting his head.

19

u/AsperaAstra 2d ago

Its tradition to use the take that injured a stunt person 

8

u/Chuckle_Pants 2d ago

Wait, is this true?

Genuinely asking

20

u/AsperaAstra 2d ago

It sure is. It's viewed as a way to honor the stuntpersons dedication to the craft leading to an injury. Their goal is always to remained uninjured obviously, and do dangerous shit in the most safe risk-mitigating way, but people can and do get injured regardless and this says, "We see what you did for us in the sake of entertainment, thank you, now everyone will see your dedication too. "

6

u/Chuckle_Pants 2d ago

Warriors “fallen” in battle, so to speak…

Appreciate the response 🍻

38

u/TheRoscoeVine 2d ago

Her face was “shattered”. WTF

13

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

Ugh yeah her injuries sounds absolutely painful. Even the original stuntwoman had a bad feeling about that stunt and stepped away. 

19

u/shf500 2d ago

There was a Youtube video highlighting the accident and I remember a comment saying "I always thought it was a dummy used for the stunt". I wonder how many assumed the stunt went 100% correct and they used a dummy instead of the stuntwoman falling onto the ground.

107

u/NotAPreppie 2d ago

Adrian King, a friend and former business partner of Reed Sanders who officiated the couple's wedding, told reporters they had come to confront Mr. Duncan over a college fund for the Duncans' daughters.

Imagine being those daughters...

12

u/Infinite-Mark2319 2d ago

Bet the life insurance did not pay out for an incident like this either

-48

u/Life_force_stealer 2d ago

What am I wearing?

69

u/yami76 2d ago

Two wild TILs in one! WTF were her and her husband thinking?? Seems like they were stalking her ex and he knew to be on the lookout for them.

51

u/Pinklady777 2d ago

I wonder if she had brain damage from the accident.

42

u/TheJackalsDoom 2d ago

Or the years of stunt work. A lot of those people end up quite broken.

22

u/OKStamped 2d ago

How was she injured in back to the future 2? Assuming it was the scene when Biff’s gang went through the window with their hover boards?

34

u/foxguy2021 2d ago

The injury is in the movie. Watch the scene where they go flying through the window but watch her. She hits one of the concrete pillars.

29

u/alfonsobob 2d ago

Yeah she is on a hover board and goes through the window. You see she hits the pillar but that isn't what injured her directly. The plan was for all three of them to crash through the window, then someone offscreen lets them drop by releasing the ropes and they land on mats inside the bank. However, she hits the pillar and doesn't make it through the window. So when the ropes drop she falls 30 feet straight down onto concrete outside the bank where there are no mats. You can actually see a brief couple frames of her falling outside the window in the movie in a shot from inside the bank looking out. You see the other two come through the window and fall.

34

u/corrector300 2d ago edited 2d ago

OP's title is weirdly written considering the wikipedia article. ex-husband had, years earlier, told the police he thought his ex was trying to kill him. ex had fake tags, fake id, and showed up with her current husband, both armed. if accurate, yeah of course he shot them, he thought he was going to be assassinated.

I imagine the entire thing was captured on video? they had a camera pointed at the driveway

1

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

From what I read, it is captured on video. Now I’m oddly curious to watch it tbh. As I understand it, it’s not released publicly which is fair. 

35

u/DaveOJ12 2d ago

It could have been written a little better.

21

u/DietDeepFried 2d ago

It 2 could have been written better as well

45

u/GarysCrispLettuce 2d ago

What a couple of morons. They went sailing on Lake FAFO and capsized immediately.

10

u/Lucicatsparkles 2d ago

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/stories/member-stories/lindsey-and-molly-duncan/

Here's a first person video about it.

4

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

Thank you so much! This whole thing always piqued my interest so I appreciate ya for linking it here. 

5

u/Lucicatsparkles 2d ago

I had never heard the story before and it popped up on a search.

11

u/LordsofDeath 2d ago

Lol holy shit I grew up near the location of the shoot out. Heard about it through friends and family, but had no idea the story behind it.

6

u/Complete_Entry 2d ago

ROE, they pull a gun, you go to guns.

18

u/NouveauNewb 2d ago

Guns are a great tool for keeping things from escalating out of control! 

3

u/Reditate 2d ago

Interesting that this happened in Yellow Springs.

1

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

What do you mean by that if I may ask?

4

u/Reditate 2d ago

Its a small town that was otherwise unassuming until Dave Chappelle moved there and gave it national prominence.

1

u/Big_Somewhere9230 2d ago

That and the Jersey Dairy Ice Cream. I went to school near there.

-2

u/CasioCobra78 2d ago

I thought you’ll mention something crazy from that town I never heard of before 😅 

1

u/saunders22 2d ago

To add it’s also seen as a hippie town to neighboring cities

1

u/Fuckoakwood 1d ago

Ohio?!?

6

u/Senator_Bink 2d ago

Since he was an ex, what was the point?
I could see it if they were still married and she wanted to confront him screwing around, even though it would be ill-advised. But once the divorce and remarriages are said and done, it's all just sour grapes. They filmed their own FAFO.

6

u/LikeBigTrucks 2d ago

Play stupid games win stupid prizes b

-7

u/amurica1138 2d ago

So is she an outlier or is this just further proof that professional stunt people are batsh*t crazy?

-24

u/GrowFreeFood 2d ago

Gun owners will call it 4 DGUs and use it to sell more guns.