On FBI, one of the characters got shot (at) by the bad guy, and his vest stopped the round. I believe his comment was “bruised a rib, but didn’t break the skin.”
It got me thinking - would you say he “got shot”? He definitely got shot “at”, with ill intent. But I wouldn’t say he “got shot” if the skin wasn’t broken. IMO, the bullet has to go in before you have been “shot”.
But he had physical damage. If he’s bragging up with fellow LEOs, and he says “I got shot”, but there’s no entry wound, no scar, would they laugh at him? “Vests don’t count!”
“Shot”. He was struck by the projectile, even injured slightly. Even the existing word “grazed”, meaning struck slightly in a fashion that resulted in a shallow laceration rather then a penetrating wound, implies “shot”.
If ballistic armor becomes prevalent for long enough, maybe a new word meaning “shot but not penetrated” will arise in the lexicon of gunshot wounds.
Many years ago, a friend was shooting at a match. Another shooter’s bullet ricocheted off something and the spent bullet hit friend in the crotch. There was much shock and outrage, but no damage to friend or clothing. (The bullet actually landed on the ground in front of him and he had it plated and made into a necklace for his wife.)
To this day, over 30 years later, friend still talks about that time he got shot in the balls.
So, to my thinking, the person who got hit by the bullet gets to decide if they were shot or not.
Hell my ex-husband (who’s a cop) would talk about the time he was “shot at.” He wasn’t even hit, but figured being shot at was enough to prove that his job was dangerous. Ditto with getting Malotov cocktail thrown at him – he wasn’t hit, but the point was that the danger element was there. It’s not as impressive as getting shot, but it’s something.
By this definition, and I’m not saying I disagree, I’ve been shot. I was participating in a pistol match, shooting steel targets, and a piece of bullet jacket bounced back and struck me just below my right eye. There was little pain, but a moderate amount of blood. The piece of jacket was plucked from my face and discarded.
What if I’m wearing puffy MC Hammer pants, and the bullet goes through my clothing but doesn’t hit my body? Shot or shot at? In both this case and with the vest, the bullet hit something I was wearing but not my body.
Personally, I’d use the hockey rule that it only counts as a shot if it would have gone in without the goalie. So hitting my vest is shot, putting a hole in my pants is shot at.
I’m glad you put “bragging rights” in quotes. I’m guessing that the majority of the time an officer gets shot, it’s because they weren’t taking proper precautions.
Legally, he was shot. Physically, he was struck by a non-penetrating projectile issued by a firearm. Medically, he suffered a gun shot wound (GSW) with minor contusion but no penetration.
FWIW, I have been hit in body armor by a relatively low power handgun round (.380 Auto). It hurt like a motherfucker and left a bruise that turned a remarkable array of colors and left subcutaneous scarring in the immediate location of the strike. I would definitely say that I was shot.
