Shooting at armed man 184yds away... justified?


PDA






Bob R
February 16, 2008, 02:05 AM
It is in Idaho.

POST FALLS, Idaho - A prosecutor has ruled that a police shooting in northern Idaho late last month was justified. The Kootenai County Prosecutor said Thursday day that the unidentified officer acted appropriately when the officer fired up to eight rounds from a .223-caliber rifle.

Police fired at and arrested 32-year-old Christopher J. Kimsey after he fired a .410-guage shotgun at officers from a parked pickup before the during a confrontation near Pole Line and SR 41 the morning of Friday January 18.

The rest of the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23191763/


At least getting shot in the chest made the bad guy stop what he was doing.

bob

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting at armed man 184yds away... justified?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
highorder
February 16, 2008, 02:12 AM
8 rounds fired, 1 hit, and saved by a cell phone? His cellmates will never believe that!

CWL
February 16, 2008, 02:17 AM
8 rounds fired, 1 hit


I can easily believe that.

jpsimms
February 16, 2008, 02:21 AM
was he just curious if they would shoot him? stupid, I guess he found out. never fire at a cop, granted his .410 would do no damage, but the cop probaply couldn't tell what kind of gun he had. and who trains them to shoot?

Regolith
February 16, 2008, 02:25 AM
If someone's shooting at me, I'd probably fire back, no matter how far he was. Also, that guy was a moron to think he could hit the cops at 182 yards with a freaking .410.

GRB
February 16, 2008, 02:28 AM
So tell me, are any of you are finding fault with this officer's shooting skills? I am not sure, but it sort of looks that way. Well, if that is the case, tell me this: Do you always hit that at which you shoot - with only one shot - or even with less than 8 -at that distance when the target is likely moving, and quite possibly using cover or concealment, and has a gun, that has already been fired at you, and the pucker factor has taken over. I have to wonder if I would have hit him.

All the best,
Glenn B

highorder
February 16, 2008, 02:42 AM
dont misunderstand me, I completely understand the shot/hit ratio here. the officer was under at least some duress, and we dont know what the conditions were. not to mention it sounds like this BG was inside a vehicle.

I'm impressed the phone stopped the .223 round.

RiflemanTripleEight
February 16, 2008, 02:45 AM
FYI folks, human targets run, move, take cover, etc. An off hand shot at 184 yards under stress on a moving hostile target is hard for me, guess it's easy for everyone else though.

Bob R
February 16, 2008, 02:49 AM
If I remember correctly, this was in the early morning hours, which also means dark. Unless the bad guy parked under a streetlight, which was unlikely, illumination would have been poor at best.

I think the guy did a good job, stopped the threat and the bad guy is now sitting in jail.

bob

1911user
February 16, 2008, 02:54 AM
Isn't this the story where the 223 rounds had to go through the windshield and dashboard before getting to the target? It seemed like many implied the cell phone alone stopped the round and conveniently forget to mention everything else the bullets had to penetrate first.

highorder
February 16, 2008, 02:55 AM
hats off to the shooter. thats harder than my job, any day.

Snapping Twig
February 16, 2008, 03:39 AM
Hitting something that shoots back and takes cover is harder than a shot at running game in my mind.

wideym
February 16, 2008, 04:11 AM
Don't forget the high intensity flashing blue lights around him while trying to aim.

woodybrighton
February 16, 2008, 08:38 AM
its a two way range somebody shoots at your your going to shoot back with whatever you have to hand.
and continue until they stop or run away :D
I'm happy with either result

IronSightRot671
February 16, 2008, 09:02 AM
I say bravo to the LEO. and to bad for the bad guy. My opinion,if he/LEO was to take out the bad guy. It would have saved us taxpayers alot of money in the long run. well, thats just my opinion :)

ISR

JWarren
February 16, 2008, 09:14 AM
To answer the OP question....


Justified to shoot at armed man 184 yards away?

Yes. This is further supported by the fact that the man had already taken shots at the officers. No one should expect an officer to identify the caliber of a firearm (yes... .410 is a caliber, not a gauge) from that distance. That small barrel could as easily been a rifle as it could have been a small-bore shotgun.

The only comment beyond that I'll make is that the question is wrong....

You asked "Shooting AT armed man 184yrds away... justified?"

You can ommit the "at" and it is better.


-- John

Double Naught Spy
February 16, 2008, 10:00 AM
Shooting at armed man 184yds away... justified?

What does distance have to do with this? Are you suggesting that because it was 184 yards that distance would make it not justified?

I guess he found out. never fire at a cop, granted his .410 would do no damage, but the cop probaply couldn't tell what kind of gun he had. and who trains them to shoot?

Believing that a .410 would do no damage at that range could be a very naive and bad mistake. You don't think a 90 gr slug leaving the barrel at 1800 fps .410 slugs can be dangerous at that range? And sure, the officers probably could not tell what gun the guy had at that range, but they did know he was attempting to use lethal force against them.

The bad guy had intent, opportunity, and ability to do harm to the cops. So yeah, the shoot was justified.

tkendrick
February 16, 2008, 10:20 AM
I'm impressed the phone stopped the .223 round.

I'm not.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 16, 2008, 11:38 AM
This was discussed earlier in the Rifle forum. The suspect was in a vehicle and officers had to shoot through the front laminated windshield. This is actually what broke up most of the bullet causing it to stop in the cellphone.

Many are not aware that windshield glass is very hard on bullets (all kinds) and often deflects the shots as well. For example, 55gr Federal AE223 penetrates about 3" of bare ballistics gel after passing through laminated glass.

I have to agree with the intent, opportunity and ability comment. He met all three and clearly this was a justified shoot.

Eyesac
February 16, 2008, 11:51 AM
FYI folks, human targets run, move, take cover, etc. An off hand shot at 184 yards under stress on a moving hostile target is hard for me, guess it's easy for everyone else though.

I don't know the conditions either, but that's a long shot for a fight...

Wes Janson
February 16, 2008, 12:27 PM
From the descriptions available in the previous stories, I gathered the impression that the guy was inside his vehicle...anyone know?

serrano
February 16, 2008, 12:32 PM
Hitting a man behind cover at 180 yards with 1 of 8 shots with iron sighs while under fire seems respectable to me.

scrofcheck
February 16, 2008, 02:20 PM
Here is the complete story in today's paper.

http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2008/02/16/news/news02.txt

gunsmith
February 16, 2008, 02:30 PM
Justified to shoot at armed man 184 yards away?

I do not understand why this is even a question.
If you shoot at a cop, expect hard rain!

yhtomit
February 16, 2008, 05:36 PM
I don't think distance is a fair way of necessarily eliminating the possibility a shot was justified, but it's hard to know from the facts given just what the cops knew.

I'd worry that there would be someone else in the truck who didn't deserve to get hit (hostage situation? baby in backseat?).

This is not to belittle the danger of being shot at from 184 yards, with any gun at all; I know I am no crack shot, even at 100 yards, with my .223, but even my .22 comes with serious warnings about the long-range dangers.

timothy

gym
February 16, 2008, 06:02 PM
The best one was when the sharpshooter shot the gun out of the guys hand, a few years ago.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/100695/sharpshooter/

NASCAR_MAN
February 16, 2008, 06:10 PM
Moral of the story is..."If ya' don't shoot at a someone, then they won't shoot back".

I say..."Job well done Mr. Policeman, I'm happy to learn that you are safe and well!"

NASCAR

Aguila Blanca
February 16, 2008, 06:11 PM
Pretty much any time someone shoots at a police officer, the officer is justified in returning fire. The term "justified" is a legal term, and being attacked with lethal force "justifies" defending oneself with lethal force. This is true for anyone, and more so for police.

Once you get beyond the legal justification, you can then look at whether the police had sufficient knowledge of who/what lay beyond their intended target, but they were on the scene and I wasn't so I'm not going to second guess the officer's decision. The idiot is behind bars, the officer wasn't injured, that's what counts.

Destructo6
February 16, 2008, 07:18 PM
It doesn't say whether there was another officer far closer to the suspect than the officer that fired the rifle.

Cops aren't obligated to wait until a suspects specifically targets them before firing in strictly self defense. Typically, the shoot rules allow the defense of your person, another officer, or a member of the general public.

brigadier
February 16, 2008, 07:37 PM
So tell me, are any of you are finding fault with this officer's shooting skills? I am not sure, but it sort of looks that way. Well, if that is the case, tell me this: Do you always hit that at which you shoot - with only one shot - or even with less than 8 -at that distance when the target is likely moving, and quite possibly using cover or concealment, and has a gun, that has already been fired at you, and the pucker factor has taken over. I have to wonder if I would have hit him.

Agreed. It's very hard to shoot accurately when on an adrenaline rush. At that range, most people would be lucky to hit at all under the circumstances.
At that range, hitting someone with a 410 is a gamble. People wouldn't gamble if they didn't occasionally hit the jackpot hence the officers actions justified.

Erik
February 16, 2008, 08:30 PM
"Shooting at armed man 184yds away... justified?"

Yes.

LMTD
February 16, 2008, 09:19 PM
I shoot pretty often at 200 yards, bench restm various other types of rest for this sort of reason.

That is a 12.5% hit percentage which for a 2' x 2' target is not something I would call hard, but, when you get down to the size of a person, whom is shooting back, well it ain't bad at all imho.

KC&97TA
February 16, 2008, 09:58 PM
Moral of the story is..."If ya' don't shoot at a someone, then they won't shoot back".

I say..."Job well done Mr. Policeman, I'm happy to learn that you are safe and well!" NASCAR

+1 and a million more

This goes back to KC's prospective on society... if I could only teach people 3 things; don't mess with LEO, they have a hard enough life and they will strike back - don't mess with wild animals they will bite - if you want to have toys and live an nice life, you're going to have to work hard and work smart, make good decisions and not party your brains out.

If anyone is really interested in a 1 to 8 hit ratio, try this; Go to your local range, put your target at 25 yards, load your rifle with 8 rounds, run in place for 30 seconds, then do 20 push ups, then do 20 jumping jacks... now fire 8 shots w/o resting the rifle on the bench in 10 seconds... go ahead and try it, let me know how you do, it's just 25yards with your heart pounding. You might want to ask the range personel before trying this, btw.

I think 15 rounds per kill is pretty good, and I've got a little bit of experiance with it, I've been giggleing the whole time thinking about 1 in 8 to stop a perp, is half my perspective at 15 for a kill ;)

Caimlas
February 16, 2008, 10:30 PM
I suspect that this a) took place where someone was wearing a winter jacket, b) hit the battery of the cell phone, which is a lithium ion polymer brick, which likely means it has a high density with a fair amount of flexibility, I imagine.

And I think the officer did great. Almost 200 yards from a standing position isn't exactly an "easy shot" for most experienced shooters; nevermind under duress and at a moving target.

Hell, look at the hit/shots fired average for US servicemen - which is supposedly/argueably better than that of most, if not all, other nations. It's a bit lower than 1/8 I believe (NFI for special forces though)

brigadier
February 16, 2008, 10:47 PM
Pretty much any time someone shoots at a police officer, the officer is justified in returning fire. The term "justified" is a legal term, and being attacked with lethal force "justifies" defending oneself with lethal force. This is true for anyone, and more so for police.

So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?

mekender
February 16, 2008, 11:55 PM
So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?

typically they dont... there is usually one exception... police in some states may use lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon...

other than that, its the same as for a non-leo... threat of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a violent felony... at least thats the case in most states

mekender
February 17, 2008, 12:00 AM
So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?

typically they dont... there is usually one exception... police in some states may use lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon...

other than that, its the same as for a non-leo... threat of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a violent felony... at least thats the case in most states

Aguila Blanca
February 17, 2008, 12:03 AM
So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?
Because a police officer is never subject to a "must retreat if can do so safely" rule. If your state of residence doesn't have one of those, you probably won't understand how crippling it can be.

Huddog
February 17, 2008, 12:06 AM
Yes.

Acera
February 17, 2008, 12:21 AM
I don't know about the rules the LEOs face there, but in a lot of Houston area police departments they have to use soft points for fear of over penetration. The best performance would have been with a military round (SS109 for example).

For the question, shooting to save other officers lives? Yes, I hope so!!

DomMega
February 17, 2008, 12:24 AM
So tell me, are any of you are finding fault with this officer's shooting skills? I am not sure, but it sort of looks that way. Well, if that is the case, tell me this: Do you always hit that at which you shoot - with only one shot - or even with less than 8 -at that distance when the target is likely moving, and quite possibly using cover or concealment, and has a gun, that has already been fired at you, and the pucker factor has taken over. I have to wonder if I would have hit him.

All the best,
Glenn B

As soon as your adrenaline begins to surge through your veins you can pretty much throw out your best day at the range as far as how good you think you are. When cops are faced with exchanging fire with a bad guy, there shot percentage generally goes down to about 18%, whereas at the range it was 7-8 times higher depending on how they have to qualify. Also we all know that cops don't typically practice as much as private citizens do, and even though our practice is more hours on the range it guarantees nothing in a real life situation. I'm pretty sure you'd be only half as good as your best day at the range, so you have to practice so much that it becomes a second nature thing. So instead of trying to remember everything you're suppose to do in that situation, with enough practice it just becomes instinct.

ctdonath
February 17, 2008, 04:16 PM
What does distance have to do with this?
We've had a number of "can/should I shoot someone X hundred yards away under condition Y?" threads here on THR. On the whole they tended to turn into bloodthirsty chest-thumping sessions, and eventually an edict was issued banning them outright. Methinks the only reason this thread hasn't been locked already is that it (A) involves an actual incident which (B) involved a cop.

pete f
February 17, 2008, 05:24 PM
Was the officer supposed to run up and knock on the guys window and ask is that a .410 or a .308? and then determine the distance at which it was now "proper" to shoot back?


A good shot with a 41 mag handgun can make the bullets land close enough at 200 yards that you would be wetting yourself.


Here's a little pearl of wisdom. When the cars that are painted black and white with the little gumball on the roof show up, shooting at them will not turn out well for you.

Now lets think a second string of thoughts here, Idaho is Elk and big bear country, I would think most who have access to weapons there have at least one serious elk or bear gun available, would you like the to think what would have happened to the officer had that been a .338 or 300 weatherby? Also, in the land where some people have mile long drive ways and are not considered wealthy, 184 yards becomes nearly bad breath distances.

TimM
February 17, 2008, 05:42 PM
It is certainly justifiable.

BTW, (yes... .410 is a caliber, not a gauge)
Do you feel better now that you set us all straight? geez.

Legionnaire
February 17, 2008, 07:27 PM
Two units slowly pulled to within about 25 yards of the driver's side of the parked pickup. Kimsey unrolled the window and fired at officers behind a patrol car before Johnson returned fire.
Article linked by scrofchek says the officer was shooting to protect other officers as close as 25 yards from the perp. Sounds like a good shoot to me.

jaschneider72
February 18, 2008, 01:34 PM
Let me start by saying how refreshing it is to read the support for LEO's echoed above. I am a police officer in a city right next to the one this shooting happened in, and the reaction locally is much less supportive. People think a .410 "won't do damage", "can't kill you anyway" and my personal favorite "I'm upset the police didn't notify us that there was a suspicious person before all the shooting happened. I had to watch the news to figure out what happened!"

The officer was using 5.56mm hollow points, which don't survive the trip through windshield and dash very well. Overpenetration is an issue in LE; that's why we don't traditionally get to sling .308 FMJs downrange.

Personally I am glad he shot, even at 184 yds. Long cover is always a good idea. If I was the contact officer being shot at by a suspect, I would expect nothing else from the guys I work with.

ArfinGreebly
February 18, 2008, 02:42 PM
This is about three or four miles from my house.

First I've heard about it.

Funny what you miss when you don't have TV or read the newspaper.

I recommend reading the actual article, rather than reading the guesswork postings and then responding to an event that didn't happen.

The officers that were taking fire were less than 50 yards away.

The officer shooting to protect them was at long range.

It's a good shoot.

velojym
February 18, 2008, 03:05 PM
Of course, GunKid coulda placed all 9 shots from his .22lr upper in the perp's head at 600 meters, within 1.2 seconds from behind his wheelbarrow.

This post has nothing constructive to add... just a bit of nostalgia, and I wonder what GK would have posted here (as if we didn't already know).

XDKingslayer
February 18, 2008, 04:20 PM
Hitting a man behind cover at 180 yards with 1 of 8 shots with iron sighs while under fire seems respectable to me.


And done on a rifle he shoots maybe once or twice a year tops.

Wes Janson
February 18, 2008, 11:47 PM
My question on this incident is, why was the covering officer that far out (were there any suitable closer positions)? Was the shot from an offhand, sitting, supported, or prone position? What cover was available in the area? Was the shot taken with iron sights, or an optic? 16" barrel or 20"?

So often 5.56 is a great choice, but then every once in a long while a situation arises that is best answered by 7.62. From the sounds of it, everyone involved in that entire situation had a tremendous amount of luck going for them.

RobTzu
February 19, 2008, 12:01 AM
Good shoot.

LAK
February 19, 2008, 04:49 AM
PO or not; if someone is shooting at you from 184 yards - or 400 yards - there are going to be times when it is in your best interests to shoot back.

----------------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

Limeyfellow
February 19, 2008, 09:32 AM
Of course this is not the first time such an event has happened. The last time a rookie cop shot his own partner accidently in the back of the head and tried to blame it on the other guy 300 yards away in the middle of the night. Without the facts and evidence it is hard to make a call what was exactly justified or not.

#shooter
February 19, 2008, 09:50 AM
I can’t decide which to get an AR or AK, I think I will get an AK simply because it seems to me the .223 is just ineffective, “One bullet became lodged in a cell phone in Kimsey's shirt pocket.” Granted, at 185 yards an AK may not be as accurate (it is still minute of badguy), but a 7.63x39 will go through a cell phone.

CraigJS
February 19, 2008, 10:17 AM
I think the cop's shooting was just fine! How many of you could hit a moving cell phone once out of eight times at 184 yards.:D
Guys, this WASN'T a self defence shooting, it was a LEO trying to stop a POS that was willing to shoot at cops! If you'll shoot a cop, you'll shoot ANYBODY!
If the LEO wasn't putting any bystanders in danger (no down range inocents etc.), YES it was a very justified shoot. IMHO!
Be safe.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 19, 2008, 10:56 AM
Granted, at 185 yards an AK may not be as accurate (it is still minute of badguy), but a 7.63x39 will go through a cell phone.

Yes; but will it go through the front laminated/angled windshield, the dashboard, and THEN go through the cell phone at 184 yards? Because if you actually read the articles, that is what happened here. The 7.62x39 round has definite penetration advantages because it has more mass to resist breaking up and less velocity to break up the mass; but laminated windshield glass is notorious for eating up bullets.

#shooter
February 19, 2008, 12:27 PM
Most tests show that over penetration with a .223 in a non-issue (though the debate is ongoing), which is one reason why LEOs use it.
One of your previous posts http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146306 shows how .223 does poorly with glass.
I don’t recall seeing what kind of ammo was used in the incident. Obviously, HP/ SP and or low weight rounds may not get that kind of penetration needed through glass no matter which caliber. The Federal 55gr FMJ in 5.56 (which is standard) from your previous post got only 3.25 inches of penetration at 10 yards. IMHO, I think the standard 7.62x39 FMJ would have gone through the windshield, cell phone, and possibly the person, whereas the standard .223/5.56 does not.

BruceRDucer
February 19, 2008, 12:32 PM
"Police suspect Kimsey of pointing a rifle at several other people, and are following up reports that he fired rifle in the parking lot of the Spokane Valley Hooters."--article

Nothing said his car was disabled, after he drove the wrong way in traffic endangering lives.

Shooting at police endangered their lives.

It would be a mistake to assume that merely because police confronted him, that the shooter could not get away to endanger still more innocent lives.

So....Shooting from 184 yards justified?

Well, the way I see it, he had to be stopped, even if it is a long shot for the officer. He was a risk to the public.

jestertoo
February 19, 2008, 12:43 PM
1 hit out of 8.. That's better than the military is doing in Iraq. Not to mention 8 rds only cost $3.20. Pretty effective in my book

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting at armed man 184yds away... justified?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!