Cops point gun at man thinking he is sniper

[joab]

I took basic at Leonardwood in 1980 and we did shoot to 500 meters 200 meter shots were gimmees although I did have a terrible time with the fifty meter for some reason
I was routinely making 500 meter shots and I was near sighted, and I'm damn sure not a Marine
There were people who had never even seen a gun before qualifying as sharpshooters

I have never considered myself an exceptional shot, maybe I am, maybe we were by todays standards
I always shot expert even on bad days
I'm not claiming that I could make those shots again, I just bought my first AR in 25 years last month.
But then I am also not claiming to be up to training in the weapon any more
But at least I am not telling you what I have heard or what I imagine to be true


And besides people
AGAIN the disputed range is between 100 and 200 yards
I was merely pointing out that a gun designed to be accurate and deadly out to 500 meters was more than up to a 200 yard shot
Claiming that it is not deadly enough to take the same shot at 500 yards in an urban environment is not even remotely addressing the discussion at hand

Don't get your back hairs up Cheese, I gave you a smiley.
I almost never do that unless I like you
I also never addressed the intelligence of the shot, just the capability of the weapon

RobTzu
where were you at Ft Useless
73rd Trans Jan81 to aug84
ST 1989

 

[MarkDido]

Cop 1: "This may possibly be the stupidest guy on the Planet."
Cop 2: "Maybe we should shoot him."

One of the best lines in "Ruthless People"

 

[Red Dragon]

Ah, good ol' fort Lost in the woods

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

1980? damn you are old! me too beat heck outa dying young don't it

 

[joab]

Not sure
I honestly never expected to live past 30 and didn't plan well for it

 

[PPGMD]

I was merely pointing out that a gun designed to be accurate and deadly out to 500 meters was more than up to a 200 yard shot

We aren't arguing that it wouldn't be able to hit the target at that range, the question is, can the shooter hit it? Or can the shooter identify the target at that range?

Now I do argue that the weapon system isn't that effective at 500 yards, operating at the far end of an accuracy and power curve of the weapon system isn't exactly something you want to do unless you have no other option. Particularly against enemies that may be wearing body armor since it's likely that even a basic soft armor vest would likely be able to stop the round at that range.

Also I would bet that your 500 meters qualification was with a 20" M-16? Much different from a 14-16" AR-15/M-4, not only is it a shorter barrel but different twist rates, and ammo considerations.

 

[Roccobro]

I'm sure if ANY of those cops had a .308 rifle or even a scope for their AR's they'd have used them. Just because you only carry a pistol for protection means you won't use it when the SHTF? I can hit a man sized target with my G21 at 100 yards. Not that hard with proper bracing and not an ideal gunfight distance, but is do-able.

C'mon guys. They were doing what they could with the equipment they had. Effective range, iron sighted, or whatever.. it was prolly all those two had and they took that chance.

If this situation filmed was after a shooting incident, I'm sure it was VERY prudent to point a rifle at a possible threat.

To those of you posting that have served, Thank You.

Justin

 

[joab]

We aren't arguing that it wouldn't be able to hit the target at that range,

You might want to reread some of the comments

the question is, can the shooter hit it?

Certainly

Or can the shooter identify the target at that range?

Probably not, which would explain why they did not take the shot but merely kept the subject covered until, I don't kow the snipers got there or the helicopter made an ID

Now I do argue that the weapon system isn't that effective at 500 yards

Argue it with the powers that be

operating at the far end of an accuracy and power curve of the weapon system isn't exactly something you want to do unless you have no other option.

and even 200 yards would be well within the accuracy and power curve, which as I have repeatedly said, is an easy shot for a gun designed with a may effective range of 500 meters.
Don't try to change the argument. No one is talking about the cops taking a 500 yard shot here except you

Also I would bet that your 500 meters qualification was with a 20" M-16?

Yes, but the effective target range of the M1 configuration is 500 meters not the 650 meters of the 20" A1 neither of which has anything to do with a 100 to 200 yard shot

And by the way
Point blank, contact range, a .22 will kill you deader'n hell
I dare you to prove me wrong

 

[PPGMD]

I'm sure if ANY of those cops had a .308 rifle or even a scope for their AR's they'd have used them. Just because you only carry a pistol for protection means you won't use it when the SHTF? I can hit a man sized target with my G21 at 100 yards. Not that hard with proper bracing and not an ideal gunfight distance, but is do-able.

Your confusing doable with advisable. Pointing a unmagnified weapon system at a target 200 yards away in a law enforcement environment is simply not advisable.

If they had fired on him and killed him, or someone in a neighboring housing unit, would you still be defending them?

 

[joab]

200 yards away

Still in dispute

If they had fired on him and killed him, or someone in a neighboring housing unit, would you still be defending them?

If they had simply done nothing because they didn't have weapons and optics up to your standards and he was a BG that started firing on someone in the housing development would you still be demonizing them

 

[PPGMD]

Certainly

You have more faith in their qualification then I do. Sure there are some officers that are good shots, but quite a few can barely hit targets at 25 yards, let alone 100-200 yards with a rifle.

Point blank, contact range, a .22 will kill you deader'n hell

With good shot placement yes. At 500 yards unmagnified with a armored target, with a 5-10" group it's a different story.

Remember that 85% of gun shots wounds are survivable in the US. And in many cases the person may not even realize that they are shot with the adrenaline of combat.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

You have more faith in their qualification then I do. Sure there are some officers that are good shots, but quite a few can barely hit targets at 25 yards, let alone 100-200 yards with a rifle.
really? you got guys can't hit at 25 yards? with a rifle? where? i mean in real life. you shoot much? my 6 year old hits at 25 yards with her rifle

 

[joab]

And in many cases the person may not even realize that they are shot with the adrenaline of combat.

But you're the one that said this didn't qualify as a combat situation

You have more faith in their qualification then I do. Sure there are some officers that are good shots, but quite a few can barely hit targets at 25 yards, let alone 100-200 yards with a rifle.

You can back that up I suppose?

You have personal knowledge of these officers shooting abilities?
You have personal knowledge of the department's overall shooting abilities?

Or is this merely a case of projection?
You don't feel that you can do it so therefore nobody but a superior well trained shooter could?

Even 200 yards with that weapon at a man sized target is an easy shot
How do I know?
I did it with boring regularity, I don't have to make unsupported suppositions or insults about another's ability to justify that assessment.

At 500 yards unmagnified with a armored target

Who said anything about armoured targets?
If your argument i so weak you have to keep changing the variables , is it really worth defending

 

[PPGMD]

You can back that up I suppose?

You have personal knowledge of these officers shooting abilities?
You have personal knowledge of the department's overall shooting abilities?

Or is this merely a case of projection?
You don't feel that you can do it so therefore nobody but a superior well trained shooter could?

What do you consider well trained? Yearly training of 40 hours? Or simply a single training class that they took as long ago as when they first became officers with that department?

I've made the shots, I know how hard it is for someone that practices 4 times a week like myself and has put thousands of rounds down range every year.

Most officers are not gun people. To them it's a tool, many only make due with the bare minimums. I have seen quite a few at the local ranges practicing in the week before qualification. I would rate the shooting that I have seen ranged from poor to descent, with a few exceptional shooters.

Who said anything about armoured targets?
If your argument i so weak you have to keep changing the variables , is it really worth defending

Even against an unarmored target it's unlikely that the shot will kill at that range without a scoped weapon. You are getting ballistics similar to a 22LR without the ability to make precise shot placement.

It's better then not being able to take the shot, but it's still at the tail end of the cartridge. Not something I would rely on, at 500 yards I would want a scoped bolt action rifle with ammo that achieves 1/2 MOA with that rifle.

I would of course prefer a 308 which has as much energy at 500 yards as 5.56 has at the muzzle. And of course a large diameter doesn't hurt.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

that would be

"Quote:
You can back that up I suppose?

You have personal knowledge of these officers shooting abilities?
You have personal knowledge of the department's overall shooting abilities?

Or is this merely a case of projection?
You don't feel that you can do it so therefore nobody but a superior well trained shooter could?

What do you consider well trained? Yearly training of 40 hours? Or simply a single training class that they took as long ago as when they first became officers with that department?

I've made the shots, I know how hard it is for someone that practices 4 times a week like myself and has put thousands of rounds down range every year.

Most officers are not gun people. To them it's a tool, many only make due with the bare minimums. I have seen quite a few at the local ranges practicing in the week before qualification. I would rate the shooting that I have seen ranged from poor to descent, with a few exceptional shooters.


that would be
no
no
no
yes
yes
to those questions?

 

[PPGMD]

cassandrasdaddy,

Yes I can back it up with statistics of officer shootings, even at less then 10 yards their accuracy is less then 30% across the nation, as low as 8% at some departments.

I don't know their personal levels, but unless they are an anomaly, I can gage it pretty well.

Projection not really just comparing skill level of the average LEO with the difficulty of the shot.

Actually I can hit the target, yes I can hit a standing man sized target at 200 yards unmagnified (I practice with the USMC target). Can I hit a true sniper that is kneeling or prone? Only from a bench rest.

Can I identify the target at that range? Nope, looking back at 200 yards I can see that a person is there, but no real details other then the fact that there is man there.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i reread my post and you just confirmed
no no no yes yes
with the last yes being qualified with you couldn't identify a man at 200 yards as a viable target
thanks
actually

 

[joab]

Yes I can back it up with statistics of officer shootings, even at less then 10 yards their accuracy is less then 30% across the nation, as low as 8% at some departments.

Please show that data

What do you consider well trained? Yearly training of 40 hours?

I had less than that when I was able to hit at those distances

Or simply a single training class that they took as long ago as when they first became officers with that department?

Is that the level of training that these officers had or that their department requires of those that they allow to carry these weapons in the field
Please cite

I would of course prefer a 308 which has as much energy at 500 yards as 5.56 has at the muzzle. And of course a large diameter doesn't hurt.

But AGAIN
We are not talking about a 500 yard shot
We are talking about making a (possibly) 200 yard shot with a gun designed to be effective out to 500 meters

Or are you saying that the 5.56 will not kill at that distance?

I know people whose only practice is hunting season that can make fifty yard shots on squirrels and you are telling me that a man sized target is too difficult at 100 to 200 yards?
You should probably be able to do that with an AK

 

[Funderb]

Ah, give the cops a break, they aren't trained to be real snipers the way the military snipers are, they are just doing what they think is right.
(From less than 100m away.)
The kid is stupid though. "Police are poiting guns at me, let me just sit here and film it." I don't know if there was something else going on, but if police have their guns out, be gone, you don't know where those bullets will land.

 

[grimjaw]

This idiot decides to try and film it.

From at least 100 yards away? How is that idiotic? He's completely clear of the scene and not interfering in any way. I can't think of a better way to film an incident. At least he wasn't on the street at ten feet. Where did this country go so wrong that a civvie with a video camera at ranges he couldn't even reach you if he threw it is suddenly a threat requiring a shoot-first-ask-questions-later response?

Now granted the person making the video should have exercised some more Darwin-related thinking and communicated with law enforcement somehow once he realized they had irons trained on him.

I only have this video to go on, but what I didn't see was the cops trying to identify the threat. I saw a shoot first ask questions later event in progress. I know *I* have always been taught and have heard frequently on this board that you should know your target and what is beyond. I submit they didn't know what the hell they were looking at and it was bad gun-handling on the part of law enforcement.

Surely Seattle has a sniper somewhere on the payroll. Call him in and have him glass the guy, jeez.

jm

 

[joab]

is suddenly a threat requiring a shoot-first-ask-questions-later response?

Who exactly shot first or at all

Surely Seattle has a sniper somewhere on the payroll. Call him in and have him glass the guy, jeez.

And just ignore a possible threat until the buck gets there?

Do you know what communications were going on off camera?

 

[joab]

Interesting comments from the cameraman

(my camera has a pistol like grip, and could have easily been mistaken from a distance).

I dont think i have ever seen a camera i would mistake for a rifle at any range
SeanRiney (9 months ago) Show Hide Marked as spam
(Reply) (Spam)
pistol-grip digi cam aiming out a window after a shooting might do it wouldnt look like a rifle though

there's actually a team of rooftop snipers that set up to take me out a few buildings across the way as well as a swat team that came into my building after I had left.

Five people shot and a shooter on the loose, and there is no reason to address what looks like a possible threat?
Stoopid cops, don't they know that they don't actually have to protect anyone

 

[grimjaw]

Who exactly shot first or at all

Allow me to quote from the rules of firearms safety.

DO NOT POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT INTEND TO DESTROY.
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND.

That's "point", not "shoot." I don't fault law enforcement when they point guns and use them as compliance tools in the face of possible threats, but its seems that they would be stating something to comply with. I didn't hear them or anyone else yelling at the camera kid to "PUT DOWN THE RIFLE!" Yes, if they thought camera-kid was going to shoot, I do think they would have shot back and I think they would have been justified in doing so, IF they had credible reason to believe he was armed.
And just ignore a possible threat until the buck gets there?

I didn't say ignore him. Somebody get a pair of frickin' binoculars. Send an officer over to the building. Get closer than 100 yards rather than stand around in the street. If SWAT was authorized and they had ARs out in the street, why didn't they have somebody with glass anyway? I don't know threat-response tactics, so someone will have to school me.

Do you know what communications were going on off camera?

No I don't, and I said as much when I admitted I only had the video to go on, and apparently no one else here knows eiither. I don't know what law enforcement knew or didn't know, what's behind the person with the video camera, or what the actual threat level was in the area. If someone wants to find related material that details the *facts* of the incident, I'm sure it would shed more light on this dark thread.

jm

 

[silverlance]

hm. I just started noticing that apparently this mistaken ID incident took place immediately after a real shooting. where did you guys get this from? was it in the dialogue, or did you look it up?

if this was indeed after a shooting, the cops' actions are understandable. they are making do with what they have, and although their lack of forethought and training shows they should be commended for their bravery in being willing to take on a sniper at an elevated concealed position from a low, unsupported, exposed position.

the lesson I took away from this video is this - first of all, don't go running into other people's firefights to be a rubbernecker; don't point a gun at anything unless you are certain of your target and what is behind it; finally, training is necessary for dealing with a variety of situations.

oh, and that light poles are p*** poor cover. then again, remember the state congressman who managed to dodge six bullets at point blank range by hopping back and forth behind a tree?

 

[joab]

DO NOT POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU DO NOT INTEND TO DESTROY.
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND.

And you somehow imagine that they did not intend to destroy their target if the necessity arose?

This is not the target range or a TV western where they can quick draw when the bad guy flinches

Get closer than 100 yards rather than stand around in the street

Leave your cover to get closer to a target so that you can address the target at a more extreme angle.
Are you familiar with the concept of defending a position from low ground, the odds are already stacked against you, why make them worse?

If SWAT was authorized and they had ARs out in the street, why didn't they have somebody with glass anyway?

Were those officers SWAT, I hadn't seen that claim yet

No I don't, and I said as much when I admitted I only had the video to go on,

But you then go on to explain how the cops were wrong in their actions based on what you admit is a lack of any knowledge of tactics

And doesn't a shoot first reaction require that someone actually shoot