I'm not seeing a downside either way.

@Sky, rek, etc.The soldier was shot because he was in the wrong place (Iraq) at the wrong time (now). I'm glad we have soldiers willing to protect our freedom, I just don't think that's what's going on in Iraq. Yes, yes, Saddam secretly hid all his WMDs and was a very bad man who posed a terrible threat to the US and if the Iraqis would only realize how much we (tough)love them they would stop shooting and blowing up the foreign soldiers in their country. I know, it doesn't matter what I say, the US is A Number One and can do no wrong, ever. Forget I said anything.

Let's not forget that the soldier in question was SHOT. All too often anymore I see or hear people victimizing the guilty while they demonize the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday for the benefit of others.

Next time you speak freely about something please remember to thank a soldier. They made it possible. I don't care what country you come from. If you are enjoying the fruits of freedom, you are doing so because somebody else paid for your ability to do so.

How did this become a political or nationalist issue? The fact of the matter is that this man leveled his rifle at a soldier who is trained to eliminate eminent threats lest he or his comrads be eliminated. I was there (Iraq) and can tell you first hand that due to a strong adherence to the Geneva convention that the 'insurgent' would most likely have never been shot if he would have just lowered his weapon. The Iraqi people know this and usually take advantage of this to avoid being shot.

Is it sad that his family will never see him alive again? Of course it is, but that is not the point of this story.

In all seriousness, the fact that the insurgent "was killed" nearly prevented me from posting this. Once upon a time casual discussion of "killing" in just about any context was improper or impolite. Unfortunately 5+ years of jingoism has anesthetized much of our society, changing the rules. In some peoples' eyes, "killing or capturing terrorists" has become heartwarming. It's a sad state of affairs.

Dave, I don't know where you're getting your facts (well, I probably do, Wikipedia). But the OTV is rated at 1,525 FPS with a 124 grain, 9mm ball round. Not only is an AK-47 round a different ballistic test, the IBA (what he would have been wearing) is a different armor, and the OTV is just a component part of it. In case you don't believe me, you can just read the back of a SAPI plate. It is capable of withstanding a 7.62 X 51 mm round, which is a higher power than a 7.62 X 39 mm AK-47 round.

And, of course, a test of a couple rounds is different than a test of one round, given the IBA has been criticized for failure to defeat multiple hits due to plate fracture.

You obviously don't command a complete understanding of the ballistics involved, so if you prefer to believe a piece of plastic and tin foil stopped an otherwise fatal strike, please, be my guest.

The main point is that at that range, the AK-47 bullet was traveling at full muzzle velocity (about 2,300fp/s), while the vest he was wearing is rated for a 50% chance of stopping anything traveling 1,525ft/s or faster. I would say that the iPod earned a Bronze Star. Or better.

While it's a slightly interesting story, he'd be fine without the iPod. It's like saying the paint on the tank slows down the shrapnel enough that it can't penetrate the armor, and that's why we paint all our tanks.

I cant believe no one else has done this.