25 yards - 28 shots - 1 hit...


PDA






Keith
September 29, 2003, 02:14 PM
Terrific shooting, eh?

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_2280747,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "25 yards - 28 shots - 1 hit..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rebel Gunman HK
September 29, 2003, 02:25 PM
LOL Yep, are hard earned tax dollars are spent well huh?:barf:

Pilgrim
September 29, 2003, 02:25 PM
After my department installed tritium sights on our S&W 5906s, we scheduled a night shoot at the range. I put together a modified El Presidente course so the deputies could get used to the sights. One deputy scored terribly, putting most of her rounds below the targets. I suggested she use her sights.

She answered, "I can't see them in the dark."

I asked, "Why not? They glow in the dark."

After a pause she exclaimed, "S-O-B! They do glow in the dark."

Pilgrim

TallPine
September 29, 2003, 02:40 PM
:rolleyes:

Sounds like a "bullseye vest" might be almost as effective as kevlar ... :D

Keith
September 29, 2003, 02:40 PM
It wasn't dark - at least the article describes the scene as lit with "artificial lighting"... I suppose they mean indirect lighting from nearby street lights and the headlights of the police cars.

I just don't get it. A human being is a pretty big target and even with point shooting you'd think they'd score better than that.

I'm glad they didn't kill the guy, but...

Keith

TallPine
September 29, 2003, 02:41 PM
"Forty shots rang out, forty people fell.
Patty and the Killer missed each other,
but they shot that town to ......"

RWK
September 29, 2003, 02:43 PM
. . . and the “antis” wonder why I/we want to protect ourselves.

M67
September 29, 2003, 02:46 PM
Seen from the suicide candidate's point of view, I guess one could say the score was Murphy 1, Darwin 0.

ChickenHawk
September 29, 2003, 02:46 PM
Maybe they were "shooting to wound" :p

ChickenHawk

rayra
September 29, 2003, 03:05 PM
Pilgrim, that deputy asked THAT after firing over them?? What the hell did she think they were - pesky fireflies?

DF357
September 29, 2003, 03:39 PM
Stop trying to commit suicide......or I'll have to kill you !!!

MJRW
September 29, 2003, 03:43 PM
Covering fire?

Keith
September 29, 2003, 03:45 PM
Maybe they were graduates of the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" defense school?

Keith

Quartus
September 29, 2003, 03:47 PM
<shaking head>


This is pathetic.


* Ben Hibbert, a 13-year veteran, fired one shot that apparently struck the ground.


* Lee Strzelecki, a two-year veteran, fired four rounds, most or all of which apparently went into the ground.




Yeah. WHERE into the ground? 6 feet in front of them? What were they doing, FANNING them?


:barf:



NOTE TO THE MILLION MORON MARCH: THese are the only guys that can be trusted with firearms because they are TRAINED????

Pheonix
September 29, 2003, 03:48 PM
So what did the bullets hit??:what: Did they find all the bullets?

RTFM
September 29, 2003, 04:02 PM
BWAAA HAAAA HAAAAA

Safest place in Knox Co. seems to be in front of the P.D.

:neener:

RTFM

jsalcedo
September 29, 2003, 04:20 PM
The mind was willing but the aim was weak.

atek3
September 29, 2003, 04:23 PM
Ahhh, point shooting at its finest. Jeez, My friend whose been shooting twice w/ my XD-40 could have hosed the pellet gun wielding fool. Sight Alignment, Trigger Control.

atek3

Fed168
September 29, 2003, 04:26 PM
Sounds like the triggers were jerked. Not so uncommon when there is a large adreniline dump- unless it's really instilled, tactics go out the window.

buzz_knox
September 29, 2003, 04:51 PM
My county, my SD, my shame.

rayra
September 29, 2003, 05:28 PM
buzz_know, look at it this way - Your primary reason / justification for CCW. ('cause your local police sure can't do anything for you).

Quartus
September 29, 2003, 05:30 PM
So, buzz, how's the training budget there? (Not being sarcastic - that's an honest question.)


Of course, all the training money in the world won't make all cops CARE about learning to shoot well. I don't know an answer to that problem.

I hope some folks learn something from this.

buzz_knox
September 29, 2003, 05:34 PM
So, buzz, how's the training budget there?

It's my SD in the abstract sense, as I'm not a deputy or otherwise involved with it. As for the training budget, it's probably not great as the local sheriff has a habit of making sweet heart deals with some buddies.

Standing Wolf
September 29, 2003, 06:09 PM
While it is unclear how many officers were at the scene, six of them opened fire with their .40-caliber handguns at 1:02 a.m. from distances ranging between 25 yards and 30 yards away.

In exactly two words: range time!

Watchman
September 29, 2003, 07:08 PM
Did it ever ooccure to anyone that they may have missed intentionally ?

The last thing an officer wants to do is shoot someone...escpecially someone that wants to commit suicide by cop.

It is not uncommon in shooting were several cops are involved to have some of them intentionally miss for various reasons however this is rarely reported...if ever. Right or wrong... it does'nt change the fact that it does happen.

TallPine
September 29, 2003, 07:27 PM
Intentional miss ...?

Wouldn't it be easier just to intentionally not pull the trigger?

( maybe not with a Glock :) )

Pilgrim
September 29, 2003, 07:38 PM
Pilgrim, that deputy asked THAT after firing over them?? What the hell did she think they were - pesky fireflies?

She was an interesting case study re: officers who could care less about firearms proficiency. When the "L" frame Smith & Wessons first came out they had a flaw that would cause the cylinder to bind up to the point it might take 20-30 pounds of trigger force to cause it to rotate. She owned one and it bound up during a training shoot. She struggled through the qualification. Instead of asking for a department Model 19 to use until she got it repaired, she holstered up the "L" frame and returned to patrol. I have no idea how long she carried it in that condition until returning it to S&W for repair. I was a reserve deputy then so I had no power to insist she take a Model 19 and get the "L" frame repaired.

Years later when I was full-time and a firearms instructor, she held up the line while filling her magazines. I went over to see what was the matter and she was painstakingly inserting the cartridges into the magazines backwards. After getting that straightened out, we proceeded to run the qualification course. She fired to slide lockback. While everyone else quickly reloaded and continued the course of fire, she had to study her pistol and experiment with the levers and buttons to get the empty magazine out. In the course of getting the magazine out, she managed to put on the safety (S&W 5906) and drop the slide.

After inserting a loaded magazine into her pistol, she brought it up to the target and tried to fire. Nothing. She then studied the pistol some more and finally realized she had an empty chamber. She cycled the slide and tried to fire again. Nothing. She cycled the slide again, ejecting a live cartridge. Once again she tried to fire. Nothing. Finally she realized the safety was on. She fixed that and completed the course of fire, long after the time for the string had run out.

She was extremely pissed when I disqualified her for the day and had her return for a remedial transition course on her day off along with two new hires.

Pilgrim

Deadman
September 29, 2003, 08:03 PM
Did it ever ooccure to anyone that they may have missed intentionally ?


Obviously none of us know what was going through the minds of the officers refered to in that article. However who in the sam hell fires 6, 7 or even 1 shot with the intention of missing when there is no certainty of knowing what's down range?

Anyway, that article would have to be the most hilarious thing I've read in a long while.

Cellar Dweller
September 30, 2003, 02:31 AM
* Kennedy, a nine-year department veteran, fired nine shots from an estimated distance of 25 yards. He said the bullets that missed McGouey struck a treeline. Kennedy was the only deputy who said he had time to "sight and aim" before opening fire.

<emphasis mine>

Clifford Russell, a nine-year veteran, fired seven rounds, most or all of which went into the woods behind the suspect.
Darryl Hamilton, a seven-year veteran, fired one round that apparently went into the woods.
Grayson Fritts, a four-year veteran, fired six rounds. Most or all of the bullets went into the woods.

A good thing he took the time to "sight and aim." :scrutiny:
incident about 1 a.m. Tuesday at the Woodlands West apartment complex, near Walker Springs Road

Very fortunate nobody was IN the woods at the time!

WvaBill
September 30, 2003, 03:10 AM
Didn't I read a an argument against CCW that civilians are not as well trained as LEOs?
Don't get much less well trained.
Reminds me of an incident with Cabell Co. WV SD in a gun battle. 4 deputies and one bad guy spraying lead all over. A state troooper rolled up and fired his S&W 66 twice for 2 ten shots...superior training and all.

280PLUS
September 30, 2003, 09:14 AM
and guns,,,

i don't care if you're a cop or not

recently we had a ccw here who shot and missed 3 times at close range

he was being held up at gunpoint at the time but actually cleared his assailants gun as it was being held to his head, magazine and chamber.

sawed off .22 rifle,

so then the kid starts swinging it at him and hitting him with it and thats when his .380 came out

i thought to myself, "gee, i ought to get ahold of this guy and take him to the range a couple of times"

it so happens the local range is only a couple of miles from where he and i live.

turns out he's an avid target shooter and shoots very well

go figure...

RTFM
September 30, 2003, 09:16 AM
Watchman
Did it ever ooccure to anyone that they may have missed intentionally ?

Then each end every one of those spineless dirt bags, needs to turn in their badge/gun and find a job where the all they need to worry about is if you want fries with the burger.

What happens when some sick S.O.B. has a little girl and the public depends on them to make the tough shot?
Do you still want this "dream team" defending your daughter?

Kennedy, a nine-year department veteran, to fire nine more shots in to a treeline?

Ben Hibbert, a 13-year veteran, to fire one more shot in to the ground?

Clifford Russell, a nine-year veteran, fire seven more rounds, into the woods?

Darryl Hamilton, a seven-year veteran, fire another round into the woods?

Grayson Fritts, a four-year veteran, six rounds more into the woods?

Lee Strzelecki, a two-year veteran, four more rounds, into the ground?

Personally, I think it's pathetic.

feedthehogs
September 30, 2003, 11:11 AM
Did it ever ooccure to anyone that they may have missed intentionally ?

That would be irresponsible shooting at it best.
Unless there is a bullet trap behind the suspect, shooting past him on purpose is dangerous.

Like most police departments, firearms handling and shooting skills are on the bottom of the pile.

That could be a good or bad thing depending on which side of the law you are on.

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 11:24 AM
I've been a fixture in K-town gun shops for three years now. I know lots of local officers and deputies, some of whom are avid IDPA and IPSC competitors.

Not one of these deputies' names rings a bell.

Quelle surprise. :scrutiny:

RTFM
September 30, 2003, 11:42 AM
Tamara, that would be about right.
You would expect the LOE's that frequent gun shops in your area to be able to shoot and the ones that don't/can't.


RTFM

TallPine
September 30, 2003, 11:54 AM
What is that saying ...?

"You can't miss fast enough"

:D

Lone_Gunman
September 30, 2003, 12:13 PM
Watchman,

Yea thats it, they were trying to miss!

The guy that actually hit the dude is the one who messed up!

lol

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 12:19 PM
If you haven't seen the elephant, you don't know.

Gunfyter
September 30, 2003, 12:29 PM
"Spray and pray" comes to mind here. :neener:

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 12:43 PM
If you haven't seen the elephant, you don't know.

No, but there has been proven to be, again and again, a high statistical correlation between training and performance.

ARperson
September 30, 2003, 12:48 PM
Typical for LE, IMO. Have stood next to an IPD officer at a local indoor range one time. Left in fear for my life. 25 FEET and probably no better shot statistics than the article mentions. Then there was the time local IPD SWAT shot at a vehicle passing between them from both sides of the road!!!!!!

I don't have much faith in LE to be very good or smart when it comes to discharging a firearm. Those that are, I think, are the exception to the rule.

And they say only cops should have firearms. :rolleyes:

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 12:52 PM
Tamara

No, but there has been proven to be, again and again, a high statistical correlation between training and performance.
True. With the article presented would you say there is empirical evidence of a lack of training, of a well lit target, of sights being well illuminated, of the situation developing slowly with know threat well known prior to arrival? Or would you admit that like most articles it's no where near a complete report of events?
According to arrest warrants, deputies were sent to McGouey's apartment at 12:48 a.m. to investigate "a man in the parking lot firing a weapon."

A dispatcher relayed to the officers that the suspect had fired four shots, and was also "reported to be threatening to kill himself and others," records state.

"Upon arrival, officers observed the defendant in a field near the entrance to Woodlands West apartments," wrote deputy Mark Kennedy, who signed the warrants. "Upon approaching, the defendant was observed standing with his hands behind his back.

"Several officers gave clear verbal commands for the defendant to show his hands and drop whatever was behind his back. The defendant refused to comply and began walking toward officers, at which time the defendant raised his hand and pointed a weapon in the direction of (Kennedy)."
How would you have approached this and responded (20/20 hindsight and all)?

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 02:16 PM
True. With the article presented would you say there is empirical evidence of a lack of training, of a well lit target, of sights being well illuminated, of the situation developing slowly with know threat well known prior to arrival? Or would you admit that like most articles it's no where near a complete report of events?

What I'd say is that I have considerably more knowledge about the department, its training procedures, and the officers than what is included in the article, however I'd think that any reader of the article would be able to infer from the facts presented that these were not Gunsite grads, if you know what I mean...

If the only time one fires one's weapon is for quals, then these are the kind of results one can expect, regardless of lighting conditions...

How would you have approached this and responded (20/20 hindsight and all)?

I'm not making any comments on the handling of the incident, merely noting the abysmal marksmanship demonstrated. Call it what you will, that was some piss-poor shooting. Making excuses for it does nothing to help the deputies involved avoid a repetition of the scenario.

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 02:40 PM
If the only time one fires one's weapon is for quals, then these are the kind of results one can expect, regardless of lighting conditions...
So then you'd be in favor of boosting the department budget so that Officers could fire at least once a month?

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 02:56 PM
Funny, plenty of officers on that department find the time and money to shoot more than once a month as it is.

"They call it 'qualification', but if you can stand flat-footed, shoot at the ground, and hit, then you'll qualify. I think Tuesday kinda proves that." -KCSD deputy.


I make squat dollars and nine cents an hour, yet I find the time and money to shoot the gun I carry at work considerably more often than "once a month." Call me crazy, but I consider the fact that I carry a pistol in public to demand a certain level of proficiency and ability, and I think the onus is on me to provide it.

Keith
September 30, 2003, 02:58 PM
So then you'd be in favor of boosting the department budget so that Officers could fire at least once a month?

Why do that? Just set a very high standard. If a cop can't make the cut, fire him/her. Maybe the force could buy bulk ammo and sell it at cost, but beyond that I wouldn't do a thing beyond testing their proficiency.

Various agencies require employees to have proficiency in a number of things; educational level, fitness, weight, IQ, etc. Why should shooting be any different? Put the responsibility on the individual.

Keith

Sunray
September 30, 2003, 03:05 PM
Up here, cops are notoriously poor shots. Most of 'em had never seen a firearm of any kind prior to their 12 hours of firearm training. They are not required to or do they bother to maintain any kind of proficiency except that they must qualify each year. Most of 'em never, fire their service piece otherwise. I know a guy who was a cop 30 years ago now and was assigned to the "bank car" in TO. It was the only car with a pump shotgun in it. Neither one of 'em even knew how to load it. Nothing has changed. In the posted article, the cops fired 28 rounds for 1 grazing wound. Our bunch would have each fired 28 rounds and hit everything but the criminal. And then they get mad when I tell them to serve me, I'l protect myself.

LawDog
September 30, 2003, 03:18 PM
So then you'd be in favor of boosting the department budget so that Officers could fire at least once a month?

Why? My current department budgets nothing, zero, zip, nada, no rangetime, no ammunition, absolutely squat, towards officer range practice other than the requirement to qualify once a year.

Myself and a number of other officers in my department manage to scrape together the time/money/range to practice shooting twice a month.

If we can do it, any other properly motivated officer(s) can do the same.

LawDog

Quartus
September 30, 2003, 03:26 PM
I'd be happy to pay higher taxes to fund better training and pay for police officers, if I coudl be sure the money would actually go there.


But where the money goes is another discussion altogether! :(


Now, with THAT out of the way, can we talk about the real issue? Too many cops simply don't care! I've heard percentages (from informed sources) in the 10 to 20% range. That's Not A Good Thing!

I don't think more budget will help. What's the anwer?



(BTW, pretending that all criticism of cops is simply due to cop hating is NOT the answer!)

Keith
September 30, 2003, 03:27 PM
Good for you and your agency, Lawdog!

Keith

Correia
September 30, 2003, 03:41 PM
Some of the top competitive shooters in this state are LE. But they also happen to be gun nuts who just happen to be cops. Of course they take advantage of every bit of free ammo that they get.

Ask them their opinion on most of their fellow officer's shooting skills and it is usually assesed as very poor.

Black Snowman
September 30, 2003, 03:43 PM
I've considered several times going into public service as an officer. I know I'd be above average in many regards and I might still do this. Especially if I get laid off from my current job.

Having poor marksmanship in a role where you may be forced to use a firearm screames, to me at least, a lack of respect for the tool. Guns are DANGEROUS tools and need to be carefully controlled.

For crying out loud the criminals are going for regular organized training and practice and the beat cops aren't? Spray and Pray shouldn't be method of choice for anyone, least of all a police officer. SWAT can't always be there and if the officers can't protect themselves, how are they going to protect the public?

I have friends who are officers and ex-officers. They all have a healthy respect and ability with firearms. I guess I'm lucky here.

buzz_knox
September 30, 2003, 04:01 PM
Throwing money at a problem (i.e. boosting the budget) won't fix necessarily fix a problem. Here, we have little to no desire on the part of deputies to train with their most critical piece of equipment. Giving them extra money won't correct the area of deficiency, namely the piece of muscle between their ears that's telling them "I don't need to practice shooting. I already know how to pull a trigger."

Shooting a firearm is an easy task; hitting the right target is not.

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 05:33 PM
Tamara

I make squat dollars and nine cents an hour, yet I find the time and money to shoot the gun I carry at work considerably more often than "once a month." Call me crazy, but I consider the fact that I carry a pistol in public to demand a certain level of proficiency and ability, and I think the onus is on me to provide it.
Kudos. I can respect that very much.

Keith

Why do that? Just set a very high standard. If a cop can't make the cut, fire him/her. Maybe the force could buy bulk ammo and sell it at cost, but beyond that I wouldn't do a thing beyond testing their proficiency.
If the employer does not provide the training they can not terminate over performance, period. They do provide training, but the question is, "Why not more"?

Lawdog

Why? My current department budgets nothing, zero, zip, nada, no rangetime, no ammunition, absolutely squat, towards officer range practice other than the requirement to qualify once a year.

Sounds like the average run of the mill dept. Good for you and your guys, great dedication. Some places don't have the ability/money. A few of the guys I know can not shoot legally unless they drive 24 miles one way through the backwoods and pay $75 per year for that. There is no closer legal range. Indoor ranges have gotten cost prohibitive and the 2 that were in the area were shut down years ago. Quite a few of the agencies nearby are on the low end of the wage scale compaired to other sectors. One guy has his wife work part time at the local grocery store to get family health coverage for their family. I don't see them going out for sodas and pop corn, much less being able to afford range time/supplies. There was a local cop (retired) who put on a few free seminars on how to create a shooting program, documented, to write off on taxes. This has helped, but too many have a hard time scrapping $ together. One suggesion was to group together and buy one .22 LR conversion kit or a .22 LR pistol. It's a start.
As for me, time is the biggest problem I face. I work 2 jobs and extra when I can. It's getting tougher and tougher to get to the range. I miss my old local where the range was 5 min away.

Black Snowman
September 30, 2003, 05:46 PM
Wow TheeBadOne that's rough. :( Very low population area, low income per capita, or just not enough money sent the PDs way?

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 05:53 PM
Wow TheeBadOne that's rough. Very low population area, low income per capita, or just not enough money sent the PDs way?
Really a bit of all 3. Most of the cops would just be happy if there was some place accessible to them to shoot other than having to drive 1+ hrs one way. I'm one of the lucky ones, only 30 minutes one way in good weather.

Greg L
September 30, 2003, 05:56 PM
A few of the guys I know can not shoot legally unless they drive 24 miles one way through the backwoods and pay $75 per year for that. There is no closer legal range.

:confused: If you're out in the middle of nowhere isn't there a city/county owned hillside/gravel pit/something where you could set up a rough range? It doesn't need to be fancy or open to everyone especially if the only ones worried about the legal use are the ones using it in the first place.

Keith
September 30, 2003, 06:02 PM
If the employer does not provide the training they can not terminate over performance, period.

Why? They would terminate if the employee falls below any other standard.
If a cop loses his license due to poor driving skills, they'd terminate him. They'd terminate him if he put on weight and couldn't meet those requirements. They'd terminate him if he couldn't master a new computer system to fill out paperwork.

Just set a standard and tell the employee they must meet that standard. 99.9% of them will suddenly find the interest and ambition they need to master those skills. The .9% who won't or can't are best served by finding another type of employment.

Keith

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 06:07 PM
If you're out in the middle of nowhere isn't there a city/county owned hillside/gravel pit/something where you could set up a rough range? It doesn't need to be fancy or open to everyone especially if the only ones worried about the legal use are the ones using it in the first place.
Greg, that is an excellent question, and unfortunately the answer is no. :( This day and age "Liability" has become a word that is larger than life. Where I grew up shooting in the city/county/private gravel pit was not a big deal. Now they are all marked "No Trespassing", and if you contact the property owner they ususally don't allow shooting targets. It's not that they are anti-gun, but they are worried about getting sued. :banghead:

Greg L
September 30, 2003, 06:14 PM
Now they are all marked "No Trespassing", and if you contact the property owner they ususally don't allow shooting targets.

I can understand a private property owners concern, but that is why I specified city/county owned. If it is one of their employees doing the shooting the liability should be reduced greatly if not eliminated. It just seems strange the the city/county doesn't have a place for their officers to train (not that I'm doubting your story, you obviously know your local situation much better than me). Even a one lane concrete block range with a big piece of steel plate in the back parking lot couldn't be that expensive to build.

Greg

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 06:44 PM
Here's how bad things are now-a-days. One of the largest agency in the area's new outdoor firing range was pushed through with the promise that it would be available to all LEO agencies in the area. Funding was provided by multiple sources. No LEO from an outside agency has ever set foot and fired there. Why? Well, now that it's build the "liability" factor has that agencies bean counters (not the cops) worried, so it can only be used when there is an authrorized "Range Master" (not what you think, only one of that dept's rangemasters, at time and a half billed 3 hr minimum). Now with the fear of "lead contamination" the county is reluctant to let any of its pits be used for fear of "EPA" violations/clean up costs.... :banghead:

TallPine
September 30, 2003, 07:01 PM
Maybe you all could get some Airsoft guns and practice with those ... ? :neener:

Oh yeah ... I can see the headline now ...
"Officer Shoots Suspect with Simulated Gun Used for Training"

:D

pax
September 30, 2003, 07:34 PM
Sounds like the average run of the mill dept. Good for you and your guys, great dedication. Some places don't have the ability/money. A few of the guys I know can not shoot legally unless they drive 24 miles one way through the backwoods and pay $75 per year for that.
Awww, the poor guys. ... :rolleyes:

I drive further than that to get to the grocery store. And I'm willing to bet that every single one of them earns more than the salary my husband and I are successfully raising five children with. Yet I've managed to learn to shoot pretty well, budget or no budget, because it is my responsibility as someone who carries a gun in public that I know how to use it.

Look, TheeBadOne, can't you just admit that this was piss-poor shooting on the part of the officers involved? Just once, could you admit that a fellow officer may not have been doing the Very Best Thing? Might even have been (*gasp!*) wrong??

It's even more silly to claim that officers are never wrong than it is to claim they are always wrong. And it's as annoying as anything I can think of, too.

Tamara has her finger on the pulse of the gun scene in that town -- if those officers haven't been spotted in the gun stores buying ammunition, nor encountered at the range burning ammunition, just maybe their piss-poor performance might be due to lack of practice. And the lack of practice would be, ultimately, a lack of personal responsibility.

You want to claim that if they can't hit the broad side of a barn, it is the fault of the department. But these people who have chosen to carry a gun in public have a personal responsibility to know how to use that weapon, in addition to whatever professional responsibility they might have.

If the department isn't meeting the professional needs of these guys, each and every one of them still has a personal responsibility to know how to shoot well. And it's a crying shame that anyone, LEO or not, would try to excuse them from exercising it.

pax

We are responsible for actions performed in response to circumstances for which we are not responsible. -- Allan Massie

C.R.Sam
September 30, 2003, 07:54 PM
I had a multipart post thunk up...
PAX covered it.

Sam

Quartus
September 30, 2003, 07:58 PM
Thank you, pax.


Our enemies are better friends than those who love us blindly.

Tamara
September 30, 2003, 08:44 PM
K-town ranges:
ORSA. Private range in Oak Ridge. $100/yr for maybe the best range facility in the Southeast.
Guncraft Sports. Indoor range in the 'burbs. $8 or $9/hr last I checked.
John Sevier range on Rifle Range Road. $4 for 2/hrs, or as long as you want if it ain't crowded.
Outside city limits. Blaze away if you're on private property.

.40 cal ammo. ~$9.00/50 at any gun shop in town, cheaper at Wally World.

The way I see it, these guys could've gotten in at least a hundred rounds of trigger time a month for less than the cost of a 12-pack or two. That seems to be the way every single Knox Co. deputy I've spoken with sees it, too.

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 08:59 PM
Please re-read my posts (not read into them). Nowhere did I state "It's not the cops fault". All I did was take issue with posts who spoke from on top a high peak down. The shooting was "piss poor", without a doubt. My posting in this thread is not so much about this one particular incident, but those who shoot a 245.06 on the line and automatically think/post they would have done the same in a real world situation. Training increases performance, no doubt, but when the SHTF in the real world the targets aren't paper, they don't just sit there and often they shoot back. This thread degenerated into a generalized "all cops..." right off the bat.
1st reply to this thread:

LOL Yep, are hard earned tax dollars are spent well huh? :barf:
Then each end every one of those spineless dirt bags, needs to turn in their badge/gun and find a job where the all they need to worry about is if you want fries with the burger.
Typical for LE, IMO.

No personal attacks on my part, just trying to advance the topic. Nothing is as simple as black and white.
Tamara has her finger on the pulse of the gun scene in that town -- if those officers haven't been spotted in the gun stores buying ammunition, nor encountered at the range burning ammunition, just maybe their piss-poor performance might be due to lack of practice.
Maybe she does. Maybe she's right, but this is still speculation at best (for mulitple reasons) but this is from her own post.
Not one of these deputies' names (meaning she doesn't know them, thus could see them and not know they are cops) rings a bell. I suspect she does not know every LEO by name/face in the area.
What I objected to was the broad brush being once again used to paint with. There are gun owners who are slobs, criminals, dangerous and an outright threat to society, yet you won’t see me break out the broad brush and start slapping paint on.
Please re-read my posts. Perhaps you'll get the direction I was aiming for. (and in case you missed it or forgot reading it in the begining of this reply, the shooting was piss poor).

All the best

Quartus
September 30, 2003, 09:27 PM
That broad brush has been used in my hearing (and reading) by people who are well qualified to use it, and who are LEOs themselves.
I'm talking about nationally recognized trainers who see cops shoot a whole lot more than any of us do.

It goes like this: Cops, in general, are lousy shooters with only about 10% or so who care about shooting well. The rest are satisfied if they qualify at bare minimum for their department.

That's a bad situation. It's one I'd like to see fixed, and I'm sure most of us feel the same.

It's not helped by blindly defending cops, which is what you do, as pax pointed out. No matter WHAT criticism is leveled at any police action, you are there to tell us to shut up.

You aren't helping the image of law enforcement, and you aren't helping your brother cops.

Your attitude is part of the problem.


"Faithful are the wounds of a friend."

TheeBadOne
September 30, 2003, 09:37 PM
It's not helped by blindly defending cops, which is what you do, as pax pointed out. No matter WHAT criticism is leveled at any police action, you are there to tell us to shut up.
I have never told anyone to 'shut up'. Please don't put harsh words in my mouth in an attempt to undermine my posts. I don't "defend" cops in the posts you refer to, but attack the aguements sometimes made, and in particular some comments made.
You aren't helping the image of law enforcement, and you aren't helping your brother cops.
Funny, but I don't see how blindly bashing LEO's is helping them.... (reply not in reference to this specific thread)

All the best

Sarge
September 30, 2003, 10:08 PM
or at least the admin schmuck who sets their firearms proficiency standards. I guess nobody ever stood behind them and yelled "WATCH YOUR FRONT SIGHT!!!" on the firing line.... and they evidently think that it's on there for decorative purposes.

You don't know how it irks me to see stuff like this. I spent years fighting a sheriff-poitician who lacked the kahonas to require meaninful standards from his political-appointee deputies, some of who were downright dangerous as hell with a weapon in their hands. This is what happens when the standards get lowered far enough, and an event occurs that lines up the loose ends all in one place. If the suicide-guy hadn't had the decency to align himself with a treeline (instead of say, the apartment complex?), can you imagine the casualties?


I'll point out one more little thing, and then I'll shut up for awhile- this is also a predictable result of the "spray and pray at 10 yards" training doctrine that set in shortly after most LE agencies went to hi-cap autos. Now, don't get me wrong- a good shot is a good shot, no matter what they're packing- but I've seen this developing for years, and the people who allowed it to happen will be the first ones to act surprised when it does.

Inept shooting is inept shooting, no matter who's pulling the trigger. This crowd don't deserve any slack.

goon
September 30, 2003, 10:34 PM
I suppose they mean indirect lighting from nearby street lights and the headlights of the police cars.

Indirect lighting?
Sounds more like indirect fire.:D

Sludge
September 30, 2003, 11:14 PM
Sry, I havent read all the posts.. I just scanned them.

After reading that article it reminded me of what I saw last week. I was working as a contractor for a local town at their waste treatment plant. It happens that the LE gun range is on the plant property and 3 local towns were meeting there to do their annual pistol, shotgun, and rifle quals.

My men and I watched some of the officers shoot their "combat course". It was one of the saddest things I have ever seen. Muzzle control.. there was none. As for hitting the targets.. At one point an officer was down shooting around a box that simulated cover. 7yds down range was a plate rack with (6) 8 inch plates on it. He shot all of his rounds (thats three magazines folks) and hadnt taken but two down. Other officers threw him two more full magazines and he proceded to empty them as well. He only got 4 plates down out of all those rounds at 7 yds. He was slow firing too. One of the men that works for me (knowing that I regularly shoot IDPA) actually ask an officer if they would let me shoot the course to show them how it was supposed to be done. I wish he hadnt done that. However, some embarassment perhaps would have made them pay attention. The course used 9 shots minimum to complete the course and the fastest time we saw was 1min 20 seconds. I was at a complete loss for words as I stood there watching this mess. I have shot with some great shooters that were LEOs and some that were lacking, but I have never before seen any LEOs sink to this level.

We had to leave and later I returned to move some equipment and watched the shotgun quals... some of them couldnt even load the shotgun. One guy actually loaded the thing but didnt chamber a round and tried to fire. BIG FLINCH and a click... then he double pumped the 870 and one buckshot round was ofcourse ejected and flew down a bank behind him. Now with a live round in the chamber, his finger on the trigger, he swept his fellow officers with the muzzle of the shotgun as he looked down the bank for his lost round. I held my breath and was praying he wouldnt milk that trigger. When they started to go for the rifle portion of the course, I had to leave.

I respect all of you LEOs who take your duty and your firearm proficiency seriously, but for those of you who only put rounds through your weapon when made to by your dept... you just plain sicken me. Its your duty to be able to use that firearm if needed. ITS YOUR JOB! Make it happen.

JohnKSa
September 30, 2003, 11:26 PM
Ahhhhh...

I get it.

TheeBadOne is not defending the officers or saying that they did everything right.

He's just going to take exception to any negative comments about the officers.

What he's basically getting at is that even though cops aren't always right, if you say anything bad about one you are wrong to do so.

Put another way...

Even though he acknowledges that the cops might have done poorly TheeBadOne is still going argue with anyone who says so.

LawDog
September 30, 2003, 11:35 PM
Good for you and your agency, Lawdog!

*sigh*

I wish. The sheriff and his top brass are very vocal and extremely proud that: "I never ever had to even draw my gun when I was a steet deputy. Harumph, harumph."

The attitude that a sidearm is, at best, only a badge of office, and an inconvenient one at that, has trickled insidiously down the chain-of-command.

Pretty soon you wind up with officers holding the opinion that because nobody else has ever had to shoot anybody, they won't ever have to either.

That, coupled with the opinion vocalized by some senior brass that anyone who actually practices shooting people has a subconscious desire to find someone to shoot, gives me the firm belief that if TCLEOSE didn't mandate a once-a-year qualification most of the older officers wouldn't ever touch their pistols.

:(LawDog

Quartus
September 30, 2003, 11:40 PM
From an old thread on TFL: (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=70167&highlight=bashing+AND+intelligent)


"BASHING"

It is a word that is used by the intellectually and morally bankrupt to quell legitimate disagreement and criticism.

It is a petty whining, "Don't be mean to me!" clothed in self righteousness.

It is the antithesis of intelligent discussion, and a threat to freedom of thought and speech, and therefore, truth.

It is an ad hominem disguised as "tolerance", and has no place in a free society.


TBO, it appears from your many posts that ALL criticism of LEOs or their actions is "bashing" in your book. By constantly defending the indefensible, you perpetuate the idea that cops will protect their own no matter how wrong they may be. True, this is a stereotype, and not true of all cops, but it is certainly true of many. THIS one behaviour is a large part of why so many law abiding citizens today do not trust cops. And by your example, you do more harm to the image of law enforcement than all the cop haters put together. THEY can't make cops look bad - only cops can do that.

Oh, I haven't walked in their shoes? Here's a news flash for you: I don't have to be a major league pictcher to be able to see when a pitcher has gotten too tired to continue in the game. I don't have to be a professional quarterback to see when a man's not making any passes. I don't have to have been a cop to know when they are doing something grossly wrong. Whether or not I would personally have done better is irrelevant - most coaches can't play as well as their star players, but it's still their job to point out where the player can do better. It's MY job as a citizen to do the same - to keep government in check, and that certainly includes its agents, be they post office employees or SWAT team members. That is foundational to our free society. If we give LEOs a pass on bad behaviour, we contribute to this country degnerating into a police state.

I know perfectly well that you don't SAY that LEOs are above criticism, any more than you actually use the words "shut up" to those who criticize.

But you certainly convey that message.

TheeBadOne
October 1, 2003, 01:41 AM
TBO, it appears from your many posts that ALL criticism of LEOs or their actions is "bashing" in your book.
Nope. Your words, not mine sir.
By constantly defending the indefensible
Not only your words, but your qualification. Might as well shout "Resistance is futile" (my words added).
True, this is a stereotype..........but...
Ah, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
If we give LEOs a pass on bad behaviour, we contribute to this country degnerating into a police state.
Is the topic of this thread and example of "Bad Behavior"? I have no problem taking issue with bad actions of LEO's much less bad LEO's period. My issue is the broad brush. To steal a page from your book; "If we paint LEOs with a broad brush, we contribute to this county degnerating into a abysmal state".
Oh, I haven't walked in their shoes?
No you haven't. Not that this has any bearing on the subject(s) at hand, but watching E.R. does not qualify one to do open heart surgery, and watching your wife give birth to a child does not make you know what "it feels like". Does this eliminate you from an opinion or judgement? Certainly not. All it does is eliminate "I know what it's like".
But you certainly convey that message.
Bias has a way of reshaping the words on the screen to fit ones own world view, without concious awareness of it. It is not my fault if everything I type you read 'your' way. In the threads where there was clear misconduct by an officer you never saw me defend their actions. In threads where info is vague I point that out. When flaming pops it's head up I'm not afraid to point that out. It has no place in discussions with grown ups. If you are to criticize me harshly as a defender of cops, say it this way. "If you're going to flame them, you'd better be right". Know this, that is exactly the way I feel about all people. If you remember the thread about the man who shot the crazy home intruder with his handgun then beat him with his unloaded shotgun, I defended him against those who were becoming harsh on him. I attack the arguement (or name calling) of a poster, not them. Many of the questions I post are meant to encourge thinking outside the box (news article), to see the big picture, to think. I do not post to fight nor to insult. The mods on this board do an excellent job of reinging in inappropriate conduct while allowing lively discourse.

All the best

280PLUS
October 1, 2003, 09:11 AM
If ever you should find yourself surrounded by the police,

all pointing their weapons at you,

fingers on their respective triggers,

it would probably be in your best interest to try and calm them down a little,

i mean, even though 27 missed,,,one didn't...

the only qualification i have for saying that is watching a couple of cops who had an armed (.357) subject at gunpoint

they were scared, you could hear it in their vioices, you could see it in the way their guns were shaking,,,

why can't people understand that? :banghead:

they're human,,,

i don't blame them one :cuss: bit either, i would be and you would be too

i was taking cover kids, thats where i was, this was before i was armed and right on my doorstep,

one officer was telling him to get on the ground and the other was telling him to freeze and put his hands in the air...

now theres a paradox...

somehow, nobody got shot, but the thought of those shaky fingers on those shaky guns has never left me.

if an officer is dishonest thats one thing, but if he fails to act "correctly" (including shooting straight) in situations of extreme duress, thats another,

it's just because he and she are human

can we try to remember that?

Sarge
October 1, 2003, 11:05 AM
"it's just because he and she are human

can we try to remember that?"

That's exactly why we TRAIN- train frequently, train hard, train ugly. The whole point of training is to give us humans something to revert to under stress, besides the "OMG!" button.

Bill Jordan once said (in so many words) that the average patrolman would do just fine in a shooting scrape, so long as he just reverted to training and didn't waste time thinking about 432 1/2 possible options.

Observe. Orient Decide. Act- and if you're further than 10 feet, WATCH YOUR FRONT SIGHT.

Anybody worth shootin' at is worth hitting. Hosing the ladscape is not an acceptable performance.

Quartus
October 1, 2003, 11:14 AM
TBO, several people here have tried to tell you the same thing. It goes in one ear and... No, it doesn't even seem to get that far.


I guess you'll just continue to do your part to give the LEO community a bad name.


:(

TheeBadOne
October 1, 2003, 07:00 PM
TBO, several people here have tried to tell you the same thing.
And that makes everything you say correct........?

You still continue to read what you want to out of my posts. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

All the best

Cosmoline
October 1, 2003, 07:06 PM
This is one of the main reasons the "overpenetration" concerns are a bunch of bunk. If LEO's miss with even half their shots, that means half will be flying all over the place. One round from a rifle or a few from a carbine. That's the way to do it. Handguns should never be regarded as anything more than an emergency backup weapon.

Black Snowman
October 1, 2003, 07:55 PM
I'm with Cosmoline on the rifle issue. After being on here a few weeks I decided to upgrade my home defense gun to a carbine even though my longest possible shot accross my whole property is only about 30 yards.

I feel better about having the stability and power of a long-gun over a hand-gun, especially in a stressful situation. You can shake pretty good and you won't throw of a long gun nearly as bad as a handgun.

Sounds like the tools, training, and motivation just aren't there for this group. Hopefully after this there will be some changes. They may not get the money, time, or tools they need but we can hope their motivation improves.

12-34hom
October 1, 2003, 10:08 PM
So what exactly was the reason for this article to be posted her at THR?

What was the original poster trying to gain, was it to educate us or just a cheap form of entertainment for some who frequent this board.

One might ask him or herself = How many "piss poor" shots are running around that don't work as a peace officer but; carry a gun legally CCW.

That's for all those here who live in glass houses.

12-34hom.

Sarge
October 1, 2003, 10:19 PM
and I don't say that with any disrespect at all. Take it from somebody who's been lugging an handgun around for longer than many of you have been alive- it's a pain in the rear. But- it's what you're gonna have with you about 89% of the time when things go sour. Hence, the need to be very skilled in its use. It ain't ideal, but it's always there when you need it. You have to maintain enough skill to be able to "shoot up to the hand you are dealt". Hitting a man walking around on his hind legs at 35 yards is well within any dedicated shooters potential.

I would be the last man to suggest that you shouldn't take a rifle or shotgun if the potential for an armed encounter is KNOWN (as part of the radio dispatch) prior to arrival at the scene. Handguns are for emergencies-rifles and shotguns are for contingencies. That's why they put 'em in patrol cars.

Which brings me to the point of this reply- it completely boggles MY mind that so many cops there, and we never heard about one of them touching of a shotgun. If I missed it in the original article, feel free to correct me- but how come NOBODY had a riot gun?

TheeBadOne
October 1, 2003, 10:31 PM
So what exactly was the reason for this article to be posted her at THR?

What was the original poster trying to gain, was it to educate us or just a cheap form of entertainment for some who frequent this board.
It took 4 pages but finally a nice concise post wrapping it up.

goon
October 1, 2003, 11:36 PM
In all fairness, I know a Vietnam vet who told me about similar stories.
He told me that when he was on point, he would empty his M-16 at every noise he heard. When they realized that he was going to do that, they gave him a sawed off 12 gauge. He still emptied the gun at every noise he heard. He said that he accounted for several of the enemy, but that there was nothing brave about it. He was just scared, plain and simple.
I have never been shot at. The closest I have been to anything like that was fighting the OPFOR at Hoenfels.
I can't say how I would respond in the same situation, so I don't have any room to judge anyone else.

Ryder
October 2, 2003, 12:06 AM
Haven't seen it said yet but this was a no-win situation. If they had hit the guy 27 out of 28 shots they would still be taking heat.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions that they were not range trained. I think it much more probable that this is a case of "buck fever", fear, excitement, or whatever you want to call it ("seeing the elephant" works). I experienced that more than a few times when I was a young hunter and I was an excellent shot on paper. It's a very real phenomenon. I missed shots on animals that you'd swear could only be attributed to black magic on the the critters part. So I have some empathy for these poor cops.

It takes a lot of :banghead: to get :evil: but it can be achieved with enough experience. Where does one get experience in gun fighting though? Simulation training might help to teach them how to postpone the adrenaline but are cops with stone cold killer instinct a good thing? I dunno about that one.

Bob F.
October 2, 2003, 12:38 AM
I'm glad my kids weren't camping out, or (more realistically) parked in those woods. Intentional misses are not acceptable! Better to not shoot at all. " The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss!"
In our Tac Pistol class (Level II) with mepro nite sites, buff colored targets, no light other than ambient sky, out in the boonies on a cloudy night, most of us actually shot better than in daylight, and we did pretty darn well in daylight! We had acclimated to the dark, no flashlight, campfires or anything else.
Bob

Tamara
October 2, 2003, 12:50 AM
One might ask him or herself = How many "piss poor" shots are running around that don't work as a peace officer but; carry a gun legally CCW.

Oh, quite a few, let me tell you.

Believe me, I'd've commented on the piss poor shooting involved whether this was Joe Sixpack or Johnny Law. There's no excuse for being a crappy handgun shot as a CCW holder. There's even less when it's part of one's job requirements and one is held up as a role model for why "only trained people" should have access to sidearms.

TheeBadOne,

Maybe she does. Maybe she's right, but this is still speculation at best (for mulitple reasons)

Actually, TBO, one of us got all our info on this incident from a newspaper article, and one got it from talking with several KCSD deputies over the days immediately following the incident. This is, in fact, the first news article I've seen or read on the topic, as I don't watch the local news or read the paper much. I heard about it first thing next morning from a KPD officer who stopped in to pick up some ammo (we give LEO's a 10% discount.) Not long afterwards, a deputy dropped by to pick up his 1911 that had been having some work done on it, and, as he came through the door, threw up his hands and said "Don't look at me, I wasn't there, and if I had been, I sure as hell wouldn't be showing my face in here today without a bag over my head." We didn't press any deputies for names, but one allowed as how "You wouldn't know any of those guys. At least not from seeing 'em at a gun shop or the range..." (The only reason I clicked on this thread in the first place is that I wanted to double check and see if they'd released the deputies' names yet, just to make sure...)

If you remember the thread about the man who shot the crazy home intruder with his handgun then beat him with his unloaded shotgun, I defended him against those who were becoming harsh on him.

As did I. He didn't CCW, apparently; he was just one of those zillions of folks who keeps a revolver in the house "just in case" along with an unloaded trap/skeet gun. He managed to bat .600 despite being apparently untrained. He got very lucky. My problem is when someone comments on six guys, who have officially been pronounced trained and qualified, batting a combined .036(!), possibly needing some remedial instruction, they're deluged with responses of "Cop bashing!", "Walk a mile in their shoes!", et cetera.

I've choked before. I've launched 12 gutterballs at a 50-yd popper and dropped myself from third place to last place in a match. The one time I've actually pulled a trigger in anger, I missed, and only luck got me out of the situation. I never expected someone to spring to my defense on those occasions, because there was nothing to defend: I screwed up. No "walk a mile in my shoes," no "bashing," just "Gosh, I need to learn from these mistakes and get more training and practice more often."

That's the same lesson we should be drawing from this: having a gun on your hip and punching paper on a controlled range once every six months does not automatically confer competence. Cop or CCW toter, it takes more commitment than that...

JohnKSa
October 2, 2003, 01:37 AM
Tamara wrote: quote:
-------------------------------------------
One might ask him or herself = How many "piss poor" shots are running around that don't work as a peace officer but; carry a gun legally CCW.
-------------------------------------------

Oh, quite a few, let me tell you.

Believe me, I'd've commented on the piss poor shooting involved whether this was Joe Sixpack or Johnny Law. There's no excuse for being a crappy handgun shot as a CCW holder. There's even less when it's part of one's job requirements and one is held up as a role model for why "only trained people" should have access to sidearms.

TheeBadOne,

quote:
-----------------------------------------
Maybe she does. Maybe she's right, but this is still speculation at best (for mulitple reasons)
-----------------------------------------

Actually, TBO, one of us got all our info on this incident from a newspaper article, and one got it from talking with several KCSD deputies over the days immediately following the incident. This is, in fact, the first news article I've seen or read on the topic, as I don't watch the local news or read the paper much. I heard about it first thing next morning from a KPD officer who stopped in to pick up some ammo (we give LEO's a 10% discount.) Not long afterwards, a deputy dropped by to pick up his 1911 that had been having some work done on it, and, as he came through the door, threw up his hands and said "Don't look at me, I wasn't there, and if I had been, I sure as hell wouldn't be showing my face in here today without a bag over my head." We didn't press any deputies for names, but one allowed as how "You wouldn't know any of those guys. At least not from seeing 'em at a gun shop or the range..." (The only reason I clicked on this thread in the first place is that I wanted to double check and see if they'd released the deputies' names yet, just to make sure...)

quote:
----------------------------------------
If you remember the thread about the man who shot the crazy home intruder with his handgun then beat him with his unloaded shotgun, I defended him against those who were becoming harsh on him.
----------------------------------------

As did I. He didn't CCW, apparently; he was just one of those zillions of folks who keeps a revolver in the house "just in case" along with an unloaded trap/skeet gun. He managed to bat .600 despite being apparently untrained. He got very lucky. My problem is when someone comments on six guys, who have officially been pronounced trained and qualified, batting a combined .036(!), possibly needing some remedial instruction, they're deluged with responses of "Cop bashing!", "Walk a mile in their shoes!", et cetera.

I've choked before. I've launched 12 gutterballs at a 50-yd popper and dropped myself from third place to last place in a match. The one time I've actually pulled a trigger in anger, I missed, and only luck got me out of the situation. I never expected someone to spring to my defense on those occasions, because there was nothing to defend: I screwed up. No "walk a mile in my shoes," no "bashing," just "Gosh, I need to learn from these mistakes and get more training and practice more often."

That's the same lesson we should be drawing from this: having a gun on your hip and punching paper on a controlled range once every six months does not automatically confer competence. Cop or CCW toter, it takes more commitment than that...

Ummm...

COP-HATER!!!!

TheeBadOne,

I'm coming around to your way of thinking.

I see now that it's unrealistic to expect a person to be able to effectively use the tools of their trade while under stress.

I also see that no matter what an LEO does, it should be excused by the "civilian" community because they don't understand how difficult it is to be a cop. Also, we should understand that because LEOs have dedicated their life to helping the public we should never say bad things about them.

Did I leave anything out?

John

PS. I like you, you can come and hose down my neighborhood with wild shots any day as long as you are trying to help.

PPS. I like you because you're a cop!

Covey Rise
October 2, 2003, 01:57 AM
Your average LEO makes around $30K, finding people that are in that income range typically do not want to take the time or training to become a prototypical good police officer, they just do enough to keep their job. Now jump up to the FBI where cops make more money, they take more pride and are professional and probably shoot a bit more.

It's the same in the business america.

BluesBear
October 2, 2003, 02:44 AM
Does anyone know what weapons, in what calibers these officers were using?

Were they department issued or officer purchased.
:confused:



If we knew then we could start "bashing" the guns instead of the "piss poor shooting".
:evil:

New_comer
October 2, 2003, 03:04 AM
They were using 40's. Way excessive bullet drop at 25 yards, which by this incident is about 4-5 feet.


Maybe they tried to compensate by "ballistic" shooting, aimed upwards a little but ended up over compensating , and hosed the woods instead...


They should have used the flatter shooting 9mm instead. :D:D:D

Cellar Dweller
October 2, 2003, 04:05 AM
Your average LEO makes around $30K, finding people that are in that income range typically do not want to take the time or training to become a prototypical good police officer, they just do enough to keep their job.

Salary is irrelevant, given that there are more than a few members here who find the money for ammo and range fees even during periods of unemployment.
Now jump up to the FBI where cops make more money, they take more pride and are professional and probably shoot a bit more. No, they just wear suits (which AUTOMATICALLY makes you "professional"). OK, if you were to triple LEO salaries would it make them better shots? Would it make them better cops overall? Likely your "average LEO" would continue to do just enough "to get by." Salary don't make the man (or woman), neither do the clothes. :scrutiny:
It's the same in the business america. I assume you mean "It's the same in (the) business (world), America." No, the ones who care about their job and skills find ways to improve. The business world is full of average Joes who do enough to "just get by," the ones who get ahead despite age or race or gender or cronyism/patronage disadvantages do so because they WANT to improve themselves, and find a way even if it has to be funded from their own pocket.

280PLUS
October 2, 2003, 08:42 AM
that further proves the plain and simple scared point,

this guy i knew was a river rat in nam, he rode those tiny boats up and down the rivers, sitting ducks mostly,

one day while they were all moored and watching the opposite bank a cute little monkey came up and took his sandwich away from him (or whatever it was he was eating),,, he took it back, then the monkey took it back and SLAPPED HIM. well, uh,,,he shot the monkey. He said upon hearing the report of his shotgun, the entire flotilla opened up onto the opposite bank, small arms, grenade launchers, rockets.

he said they mustve expended about $50,000 in ammo in the few seconds they were firing at will. Why? they were ALL scared, the least little bit of disturbance was enough to make every one of them start squeezing their respective triggers.

meanwhile, he was trying to hide the remains of the monkey, because if they ever found out why he shot...

i'd say, once one of the officers in this episode popped off a round, the rest panicked from hearing the shot and hence, lead flying everywhere immediately afterward.

Although training is the best way to avoid situations like this, unless you are a seasoned comvbat vet who firefights on a regular basis, chances are you will react in the same manner.

none of us knows, training or not, how we will react while under fire until it happens.

and ive heard it said that the loud talking bravado ones are usually the ones to crack under fire, while the quiet ones keep a cool head and do what has to be done.

all of us, including myself, should we find ourselves in a situation as this,,,

the very first thing you should be training yourself to do is keep a cool head,,,a cool head,,,don't panic,,,just relax and do everything just as you would any other day

a cool head,,,thats #1

have i said it enough??

i'll stop now

Covey Rise
October 2, 2003, 11:25 PM
Cellar

"Salary is irrelevant, given that there are more than a few members here who find the money for ammo and range fees even during periods of unemployment."

Your talking about gun fans/nuts here on the THR, not the LEO's community which has only a token few gun fans/nuts in their fraternity, one of the LEO's on the board made that point.

No, they just wear suits (which AUTOMATICALLY makes you "professional"). OK, if you were to triple LEO salaries would it make them better shots? Would it make them better cops overall? Likely your "average LEO" would continue to do just enough "to get by." Salary don't make the man (or woman), neither do the clothes.

I guess you have a beef against the FBI, because the FBI guys I know are very professional compared to our local police. And if you tripled LEO salaries you would not have the same LEO's anymore, more qualified people who care about their profesionalism would take their jobs. Your right, salary does not make the man, but the salary chooses the right man for the job. That was the orginal point I was trying to make.

I assume you mean "It's the same in (the) business (world), America." No, the ones who care about their job and skills find ways to improve. The business world is full of average Joes who do enough to "just get by," the ones who get ahead despite age or race or gender or cronyism/patronage disadvantages do so because they WANT to improve themselves, and find a way even if it has to be funded from their own pocket.

That was my point, your average LEO is just like your average business guy, just doing enough. But your motivated LEO's and Businness guys who do take time to improve their craft will not hold a 30k job, or if they do, which some do, they have self pride, but that is rare.

Enjoyed the discussion.

If you enjoyed reading about "25 yards - 28 shots - 1 hit..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!