For this Vet Morning Coffee + Tourniquet = Good Ending for Road Rager

Road rage is no joke. Having seen it (but fortunately never been involved), the constantly rising tension can lead to some bad ju-ju in no time flat. That is especially true if a firearm becomes involved. Able to easily penetrate the standard sheet-metal of most modern vehicles, even pistols can be dangerous. One hapless individual found that out the hard way in North Texas.

Reported by Popular Military via KDFW-TV, a road-rage incident happened Wednesday 28th in Fort Worth, Texas at Interstate 820 and Highway 26. One of the participants took a shot through the forearm where he pulled off the interstate at a local Waffle House.

A local Army veteran was eating breakfast at the Waffle House during the commotion and proceeded to inspect the wound while drinking coffee. After determining the wound required a tourniquet, he fashioned one from a typical key lanyard until the paramedics arrived and took over treatment.

While the road-rager should not have gotten himself in that position in the first place, the incident shows how training and keeping calm goes a long way to ensuring everyone’s safety. Further, the knowledge of when to use and how to use a tourniquet likely saved the road-rager a whole lot of life and limb.

Bravo, Mr. Army Vet. Well done, sir.


TFB’s FNG. Completely irreverent of all things marketing but a passionate lover of new ideas and old ones well executed. Enjoys musing on all things firearms, shooting 3-gun, and attempting to be both tacticool AND tactical.


  • Arie Heath

    Must have been some damn good coffee.

    • Phillip Cooper

      It was Waffle House. Couldn’t have been too good.

    • Johnsmyname

      Chiapas Farmer Patriot Blend Coffee??

  • John Yossarian

    Jack Spirko of The Survival Podcast?

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Its a Waffle House.
    Im sure that wasnt the first time somebody staggered in (or out) bleeding to death.

    • Phillip Cooper

      I think it’s a law.. just like someone’s always beating their kid at Walmart… or needs to be.

  • Uniform223

    Civilian – Oh my God! Someone’s been shot!
    Army veteran – Do we have clean socks and motrin?
    Civilian – yes…
    Army veteran – then everything will be alright. Also get me a reflective belt and some coffee…

  • surlypat

    I’m not second guessing the Vet on the scenes assessment but generally the indication for a torniquet is an uncontrollable life-threatening haemorrhage ie traumatic amputation. Direct pressure will control most distal bleeds. The use of torniquets are not without their own risks from ischaemia.
    He well may have assessed all of this before deciding on his course of action.
    Additionally there seems a real fad amongst Tactitools nowdays that carrying a TQ makes you an OPR8TR, but not knowing the when & where to use it.
    Either way, good initiative he potentially saved a life

    • FightFireJay

      Modern medicine is changing greatly regarding tourniquets. Much of what we used to “know” is actually incorrect. Thanks to two wars and extensive research, we have learned that they can be extremely effective on the home front as well.

    • Robocop

      Like jay said, times have changed. When I first received my EMT cert in 2009 that’s what I was taught, last ditch effort to control bleeding. Fast forward to 2016 when I was trained in some light TCCC for work one of the guys that literally wrote the book pointed out that TQs are no longer the last resort. The stuff about only removing them at hospital still stands though for obvious reasons, but the application isn’t regarded as the last option anymore.

  • RazorHawk

    Environmental regulations are the reason cars are so fragile and thin skinned nowadays. If we did not have these regulations, cars would be heavier and made of thicker metal. These regulations are killing people. And for what? To reduce carbon emissions? Climate change is a money making scam. We should let the free market work. Trump should abolish the EPA.

    • Marcus D.

      Lighter cars burn less gas (which was very important during the OPEC oil embargo in the late ’70s), and therefore reduce emissions. Maybe you didn’t live during the “smog years,” where major cities throughout the country (and particularly LA because of its geography) suffered thermal inversions and dense polluted air caused primarily by automobile emissions. Environmental restrictions on automobiles have greatly reduced smog here. Personally, I would rather live without breathing polluted air. If you like the stuff, Beijing has great smog, so thick you can eat it. And yes, it does reduce life expectancy, increases cancer, and all that lovely other stuff. “Climate change” theory came along long after anti-pollution regulations and has nothing to do with it.

      • Harry Canyon

        You’re saying all this like it would be bad for this to happen, again, for LA…

    • AD

      I’m curious, how many people exactly have died because cars are built like cars and not tanks?

      I’m also not entirely sure why you think any sort of regulations are responsible for cars bodies being “thin-skinned”; keeping the weight down has numerous benefits:
      It means cars are cheaper to make and therefore cheaper to buy, saving you money.
      It means cars have better fuel economy, saving you money.
      It means cars have better acceleration.
      It means cars have better cornering / controllability.
      It means cars have shorter braking distances since they have more momentum.
      Shorter braking distances (and I assume better controllability as well) save lives, probably far more lives than would be saved by building all cars bodies to be thick enough to deflect bullets.

      • Suppressed

        “It means cars have shorter braking distances since they have more momentum”

        If I can be pedantic over what was most likely just a mental misfire, “less momentum”.

        I agree with your entire point though. And there’s no question about the fact that these newer cars have saved far more lives than the older cars with thicker steel body panels. It’s not like those cars were bulletproof, but even if they were all actually legit professionally armored cars back then, today’s cars would still save more lives. I don’t know the number of in-car shootings each year, but I would wager it isn’t even anywhere close to 10% of the people benefitting from the increase in car crash survivability rates. And there’s also no solid way to know how many accidents have been entirely prevented by the increases you mentioned.

      • RazorHawk

        No. They don’t make cars cheaper, cause now you need better steel to improve durability using thinner metal. And better steels costs more, a lot more. Lighter cars are also more likely to get knocked away , ,like a baseball, in a crash.

    • Joby

      Way to bring in a barely related political topic while still being wrong.

      You should really watch the crash test videos comparing new and old cars. You are way more likely to survive the wreck in a newer lighter car than the older heavier one. (The car not so much, since the new ones are designed to crumple in specific places to cushion the impact)

      • RazorHawk

        Are we taking environmental regulations or safety regulations?? Because those are not the same thing. Following enviro regs don’t make cars safer, it makes cars more dangerous. The safety regs do make cars safer, and those have nothing to do with reducing weight to reduce carbon emissions.

  • 22winmag

    Firearms not second page road rage articles.

  • koolhed

    Left Lane Bandits (LLBs) are the major cause of road rage.