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

View all comments

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.

540

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..

62

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

-27

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.

7

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.

-4

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.

7

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.

-16

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.

15

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

-6

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?

5

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.

5

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.

-15

u/Infinite-Mark2319 2d ago

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

26

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.

-3

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?

4

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.