City of Boston settles with Snelgrove family (FN303)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skunk Gun

The solution for this type of situation:

"New concept in non-lethal police riot weapons. The revolutionary Skunk Gun launches a live and (understandably) angry skunk into the crowd causing them to disperse immediately. Also aids in identifying riot participants up to 48 hrs later."

999
 
You haven't said anything new in several posts.


Feeling a little antagonistic, eh?

I am not sure what you think your post just added to the discussion, but whatever it was, I am sure you think it was profound.

Feel free to insult me unnecessarily as much as you want, it is the true measure of a man.
 
Lone_Gunman...

Sorry, did not mean to wound you so grieveously. I'll take it easy on you from now on. You can have the last comment, I'll get back to the discussion at hand.

Boston had a good year with having to close down for the Democratic Convention, the Red Sox winning, and John "Effing" Kerry losing. There were more riots then the one people are commenting on. In several places. And more pressures on the police both from rioters and their own supervisors than is generally reported. But then, many people are not concerned about this. They only want desperately to lay blame in a tragedy to promote their own agenda. You send police out in a volatile and dangerous situation and expect them to react flawlessly.

Tell me, would the young lady be alive today if Boston sports fans had not acted British soccer hooligans? Was that not the beginning of this tragedy? What blame do the rioters deserve for this?

"There is just no way to know if she even knew what was going on."

So you are saying that she was so dense that she could not see and comprehend the situation?
 
FPrice, I appreciate you taking it easy with me, I am very delicate.

Anyway, I guess my answer to your question is, no I don't think she really comprehended what was happening. The city police commissioner has admitted this, and stated that there was no evidence that she was doing anything criminal. This is from the police commissioner of the City of Boston, not the media or other editorialist.

The City has admitted fault and full responsibility, and has said she was not at fault.

So I think it is silly to try to argue anything else.

The rioters do deserve some blame in this as well, but I suppose that is all taken care of in the monetary settlement, since is the rioters (ie, taxpayers) and not the police that have to fork over the money.
 
FPrice, unless you were the person who killed her, that should not offend you.

I'll stand by my assessment of that officer. He killed someone he didn't mean to kill. He cost the city 5 million dollars. His department admits he was responsible for an unnecessary death.

I suppose the "dumbass" label was a little harsh, so I will back that down to "incompetent" instead.
 
i think the U.S. military's rules of engagement for lethal force might apply, even though this involves police and civilians.

a scenario was brought up in my rules of engagement briefing recently that asked, "if you encountered an adversary that was attempting to attack you, but he was standing in close vicinity to civilians/women/children, would it be proper to use deadly force given the posibility of collateral damage?"

in regards to this situation, i don't know if the rioters were simply causing trouble, or if they were threatening the police. the answer to the above question according to the US military, is if the adversary is attempting to physically harm you, you have every right to use deadly force against him even with the prescence of civilains.

granted, this all applies to the military, and i don't know how close it is to the polices rules for deadly force. also, it seems that the police were not really being threatened, but were just trying to subdue an unruly crowd. in that instance, the police had no right to fire shots into the crowd that could possibly cause the death of a bystander.
 
Know your target and what is beyond it. There is a very good reason why paintball fields require the use of specially designed goggles when you might be shot at while playing. There seems to be no mention that the officer who fired the shot that killed her was not certified and trained to use this "non-lethal" weapon. Several articles in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and on local news stations did mention this fact. Wouldn't this be a very big point for FN's defense?
 
Rise from your grave....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-02-22-07-24-46

Police getting rid of pepper pellet guns used in fan death


BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Police Department is getting rid of the pepper-pellet guns blamed for the death of a college student during Red Sox celebrations more than two years ago.

"Never. They'll never again be used in the city of Boston," police Commissioner Edward Davis told the Boston Herald for Thursday's editions.

The department's 13 FN303 pellet guns, which haven't been used since Oct. 21, 2004 when Emerson College student Victoria Snelgrove died hours after being struck in the left eye with a pellet fired by police, will be melted down and recycled into sewer caps.

Davis suggested dumping them in Boston Harbor.

The weapons and ammunition were bought for $36,000 with federal Homeland Security funds before the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Snelgrove's death, which occurred as thousands of people celebrated the Red Sox American League Championship Series Game Seven victory over the New York Yankees, was the first and only time the weapons were used by Boston police. Two other revelers were struck in the head, but survived.

Former Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole stored the FN303s in the department's armory following the death.

Davis met with the commission that investigated Snelgrove's shooting and decided they weren't fit for the department. The weapons were "much more powerful than what they were perceived to be," he said.

The department will use either horse patrols or pepper spray foggers for future crowd control issues, Davis said.

The move to dispose of the weapons, manufactured by FN Herstal USA, was supported by Mayor Thomas Menino.

"I fully support Commissioner Davis decision to get rid of the pellet guns," Menino said in a statement.

A spokesman for the Snelgrove family refused comment when contacted by the Herald.

The commission formed to investigate the incident concluded that Snelgrove's death was an avoidable tragedy caused by poor planning and "serious errors in judgment" by Boston police. The officers who fired the weapons were improperly trained in their use.

Snelgrove, a journalism major from East Bridgewater, was not targeted by police, nor was she behaving unlawfully, police have said.

All of the officers involved in the incident were either suspended, demoted or reprimanded, but no criminal charges were filed.

Boston paid a $5.1 million settlement to Snelgrove's parents. The Snelgroves also reached an undisclosed out-of-court settlement with the gun's manufacturer.
Because, you know, it is always the weapon's fault... :scrutiny:
 
I'm actually going to disagree with you here. Normally, I would be 200% behind you in saying that it is the person behind the trigger, not the gun that does the damage. But these guns were designed specifically as riot control weapons. Ie, to be shot at people and NOT kill them. That they were used as intended but killed nonetheless makes them unsuitable for their intended purpose.
 
nope

the guns were made to be shot at the ground around the rioters and
the cops shot at face level, killing a 21 year old woman.
Oakland CA pd had a similar problem with riot control guns, the British had the same problem with rubber bullets (when they were shooting at the Irish).
The cops were looking to inflict pain to get the crowd to comply.

Less then lethal is not non lethal and the cops who fired at face level
were either not trained well or they didn't care.
 
Right, the problems with "rubber bullets" in Northern Ireland caused Jeff Cooper to reiterate his proposal for using a suppressed .22 for riot control.

Assumption of the risk can be a defense in civil suits. However, here it is difficult to argue that a 21 year old female wilfully put herself in the line of this kind of harm.

I cannot see the suit against FN being as successful (or successful is any way), however, it is Massachusetts and not here.:scrutiny:
 
The Snelgroves also reached an undisclosed out-of-court settlement with the gun's manufacturer.

That's total BS.


This 'weapon' was designed as LESS LETHAL AND NOT TO BE SHOT AT THE FACE!!

The police misused it.

Now I bet FN discontinues it.

I might need to run out and buy one now.
 
City of Boston

Ultimately the City paying the 5 million will end up coming from the taxpayers pockets.
Sounds a lot like a situation got out of control.
Of course it would have been alright if one of the thrown items, i.e. bottle, or brick had accidentally killed someone in the crowd.
Sounds like police had to do something.
Training could very well have been an issue.
A frightened policeman could have been another problem.
This sound more like an accident looking for a place to happen.
 
Once a member of the "noisy sports fans" hurls a bottle at a mounted police officer, all "innocent bystanders" become elevated to "mob members".

This of course justifies randomly shooting a potentially lethal projectile into a crowd of mostly peaceful, if loud citizens.

The answer is that everyone should play by the same rules, and these kind of things would not happen, or at least there would be some kind of effective punishment for the perpetrator.
 
Of course it would have been alright if one of the thrown items, i.e. bottle, or brick had accidentally killed someone in the crowd.
Good luck proving responsibility in that case. You just won't be able to pin it on one person.

In this INNOCENT GIRL's case, however, the perpetrator is clear - the City of Boston. Of course, I'd love to see the cop who pulled the trigger punished accordingly, as well.
 
Murder is murder

Supercop fired a shot from a lethal weapon when leath force was neither justified or needed and an innocent person died.

According to Texas CCW laws, if shoot at a bad guy even if justifed under the law, and miss and hit and kill an innocent bystander I am guilty of murder!

Why should supercop be treated any differently than me?
 
It was the one sad story behind the Boston Red Sox defeating the mighty Yankees that year. Probably the greatest upset in Baseball history. Not to minimilize the poor girls death and her families suffering, I just remember watching the WS after the LCS, and kept thinking about the whole sad affair... I don't think the cop that fired that round ever meant to hurt anyone. They supposedly were not trained properly with those weapons.
 
I think the cop wanted to hurt some one

I don't think the cop that fired that round ever meant to hurt anyone

Even I know that you shouldn't fire it at face level and my training is armed security and ccw.
(well besides Nat Guard in the 70's)

imo the cop didn't think it would be lethal, but if you don't know that
a pepperball in your face is going to hurt like heck, then you aint smart enough to tie your own shoes.
 
I have personnaly been in an unruly Mob, and watched the LAW Enforcement Officers, Enforcing the Law change it into a riot. Their actions increased the property damage and the injuries.

They should have stood back and the Mob would have dispersed. yes there would have been some property damage, but less than what resulted from errecting barracades and squeezing 5000 drunk people into a small confined space with no escape route, while dousing them with pepper gas. Its like pounding on a live shell with a hammer and acting surprised when it explodes in your face.

I have also been in a situation where police did the opposite, giving the Mob a free escape route and the Mob quickly dispersed with little damage and no injuries.

Both of these situations happend in Philadelphia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top