Cops point gun at man thinking he is sniper

[grimjaw]

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

I do very much believe they intended to shoot if the necessity arose. What decides "necessity" in this case? Does camera-kid actually have a gun, and if not, where is the necessity? Was there a possible threat identified? If yes, then obviously they were justified. It doesn't matter that he didn't have a gun (or did he?), if it was reported that he was, looked like he did, then it seems to me (without being a lawyer) that law enforcement was justified.

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

I say there's a general lack of knowledge of any facts about the incident in question. So unless someone can produce facts, it's ALL (you, me, and Bobby McGee) speculation. I'm ready to condemn or forgive them ALL.

The title of this thread, "cops point gun at man thinking he is sniper," if FACT, is all the justification they need to be pointing in his general direction. The evidence will probably bear that out. Until evidence arises, I'm out of this smoke and noise.

jm

 

[JKimball]

Wow, there's a kid that can honestly say he has looked death in the face and laughed at it.

I don't get why the cop felt the threat was real enough to point his rifle at it, but not real enough to keep his body behind the pole. Bad call in my mind. Get some binos.

 

[Geno]

El Tejon said:

If the cops thought there was a remote possibility that the camera was a rifle two thing would have happened: 1. the cops would have gotten very small, and very flexible and very fast (like marsupials), 2. they would have shot back the camera sniper...

As silverlance said, it's a big display to justify their actions and their budget. Is they city going to let them keep their ARs if they never use them? Of course not. Use it or lose it.

Problem I see here is a pack of fools who failed to verify their target prior to acquiring it with the muzzle. Re: the use it or lose it, sounds about right to me. This tape should have been all over the news to allow them the opportunity to justify felonious assault...because that is all this was.

Oh, and lest I be misunderstood...all involved in this situation need to extracate their craniums from their posteriors. These cops need to be driving icecream trucks, and the fool with a video needs to be turned over Daddy's lap. This is one of the stupidist things I have ever viewed.

 

[PPGMD]

Please show that data

There are a number of studies that back up that number, the latest being the Violent Encounters study, the 8% number was from a NYPD study, and even that included gimme shots like hitting the car rather then the person controlling it, and officers committing suicide.

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

You're confusing hit with the most important thing in police work, target identification. Take a look at most buildings when there is a police presence outside, there will be a number of people both on the street watching, and in the windows, so may even be holding cameras of all shapes and sizes.

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

National average, most don't require continuing education of their firearm systems beyond the qualification (which can range from every two years to every quarter depending on department/state policy).

Qualification is no where as hard as a military qualification, Detroit SWAT for example, the maximum distance they use is 50 yards, only the snipers must qualify at longer distances. Even military qualification distances are moving shorter as noted above, 300 yards, and he notes that it can be a hard shot to take.

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

At 500 yards it CAN kill, it's unlikely to because you have little control in the shot placement and wide groupings. Remember that just because you can hit something at that distance doesn't mean that the shot was a killing shot. At 200 yards you got a descent chance of making a stopping shot, but can you identify the target?

You seem to get held up with the fact that you used to be able to do that shot and you assume that everyone else is able to. Most of us are asking is that shot a good idea when you can't get positive target identification?

You should probably be able to do that with an AK

Haven't shot an AK at that distance, but I figure I could after expending a few rounds finding out how the shots land at that distance.

 

[joab]

I do very much believe they intended to shoot if the necessity arose

But yet you post the rule about not pointing your gun at anything you are not prepared to destroy

I say there's a general lack of knowledge of any facts about the incident in question.

Well I will agree that you have a general lack of knowledge of the facts
But what is known is that
There had been a multiple shooting with one shooter still on the loose

The incident was still ongoing as there were still wounded on the ground very near to where the camera man was

The camera man admits that his camera could very well have been mistaken for a gun

The police were covering a suspect who kept ducking in and out of the window

As they were covering him snipers were positioning around the building and SWAT was entering the building

I'm out of this smoke and noise

.No doubt to take it elsewhere

 

[PPGMD]

Well I will agree that you have a general lack of knowledge of the facts
But what is known is that
There had been a multiple shooting with one shooter still on the loose

The incident was still ongoing as there were still wounded on the ground very near to where the camera man was

The camera man admits that his camera could very well have been mistaken for a gun

The police were covering a suspect who kept ducking in and out of the window

As they were covering him snipers were positioning around the building and SWAT was entering the building

So during all this, no one thought to break out a pair of binos, or even a spotting scope and take a look?

 

[joab]

There are a number of studies that back up that number, the latest being the Violent Encounters study, the 8% number was from a NYPD study, and even that included gimme shots like hitting the car rather then the person controlling it, and officers committing suicide.

I did not ask how many studies you thought there were I asked you to back up your claim with proof

You're confusing hit with the most important thing in police work, target identification. Take a look at most buildings when there is a police presence outside, there will be a number of people both on the street watching, and in the windows, so may even be holding cameras of all shapes and sizes.

Changing your argument again?
I am confusing nothing I am addressing you comments made before you decided to veer off

The police were covering a suspect that was ducking in and out of the window while directly engaging them, hardly what you would expect from rubber neckers

National average, most don't require continuing education of their firearm systems beyond the qualification (which can range from every two years to every quarter depending on department/state policy)

Were these national cops or local

At 500 yards it CAN kill

200 yards, can't you read
If you can not follow this simple aspect if the conversation why do you even bother demonstrating your lack of ability here

You seem to get held up with the fact that you used to be able to do that shot and you assume that everyone else is able to.

If I could the average shooter should be able to

Most of us are asking is that shot a good idea when you can't get positive target identification?

You might want to reread the comments that started this end of the discussion
And the cops did not seem to have any trouble IDing their possible target
Look at the video, their guns were trained directly at the lens
The fact that they were not able to ID the thing in his hands is evident by the fact that they did not shoot him but continued to cover him

Haven't shot an AK at that distance, but I figure I could after expending a few rounds finding out how the shots land at that distance.

Lets think about this
You could do it with an AK, after familiarizing yourself with the weapon but feel unsure that it could be done with an AR

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Try to keep it highroad guys. Attack the argument not the person.

 

[joab]

So during all this, no one thought to break out a pair of binos, or even a spotting scope and take a look

I don't know did they?

I'm betting that those snipers had access to scopes

But what did they see in those scopes?
Someone ducking in and out of windows going from room to room?

Or had he left and gone to his friends room by then?

Sorry, didn't see that comment until the jr, moderator came in

 

[Funderb]

Dang this thread is some hot stuff.
but I'll say this again:
1) cops are not trained like US military
2) they generally are not the brightest crayons in the box
3) To most cops, everything is a threat, and needs to be arrested. It's part of the "I have a badge and a gun, and will force my authority on YOU" mentality.
4) Cops are people too, and do make mistakes
5) I'm sure most of us probably could have made that shot with ease, with any rifle or carbine. I know I could.
But that's not really the idea of the discussion.
The good thing here is that no one is dead, and the cops got out of the donut snop to play for an afternoon.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[joab]

So cops are stupid jack booted thugs, but at least you admit that the gun could have made the shot,
Which is exactly what the discussion is about

 

[PPGMD]

I did not ask how many studies you thought there were I asked you to back up your claim with proof

The studies are proof of the poor accuracy of police officers. The Violent Encounters Study shows that 90% of police gun fights happen under 10 yards, and of the shots fired 70% of the shots miss the targets.

The NYPD study that tracked firearms usage in accuracy for 2005 showed that the entire department has a 8% hit rate, and that hit rate includes hitting the car of a fleeing suspect (even though they didn't hit him), and at least 2 police officers that committed suicide with their issued Glock. Just so you don't think the low number is an anomaly last year (2004's numbers) the hit rate was 10%.

So we have one study that tracked firearms usage of an entire department that figures their hit rate is 8%, another that tracks encounters across the country that puts the hit rate at 70%, and that the distances involved in the shootings is 0-10 yards 90% of the time. You should be able to find discussions about both studies here since they were both released in 2007.

So yes I do have some concern with them even remotely thinking about using their weapon at 200 yards.

Changing your argument again?
I am confusing nothing I am addressing you comments made before you decided to veer off

The police were covering a suspect that was ducking in and out of the window while directly engaging them, hardly what you would expect from rubber neckers

No it's the same argument that I have been making at 200 yards, their accuracy will suffer, and their target identification is about nill with unmagnified vision.

Were these national cops or local

Since not many departments are required to publish their hit rates for shootings (NYPD is the only department to my knowledge), all we have to go on is national averages for all police shootings, and the average is quite low (see the Violent Encounters Study that I summarized above).

200 yards, can't you read
If you can not follow this simple aspect if the conversation why do you even bother demonstrating your lack of ability here

I was mentioning both because when I goto 200 yards, you say that the weapon was designed for 500 yards, and you made those shots in basic. So I addressed both at one time, so you can't go from one to the other.

If I could the average shooter should be able to

First off you were using the M-16, not the M-4 type weapon system. Second someone who took BCT in 1999 mentions that the 300 yards shot was not an easy shot. So who is doing projection now?

You might want to reread the comments that started this end of the discussion
And the cops did not seem to have any trouble IDing their possible target
Look at the video, their guns were trained directly at the lens
The fact that they were not able to ID the thing in his hands is evident by the fact that they did not shoot him but continued to cover him

And what happens if there really was a sniper in that building and they fired. The police being fixated on this target would fire and kill an innocent civilian (and idiot, but still innocent). All it would have taken were a pair of binos to check if that was a camera or a scope.

Lets think about this
You could do it with an AK, after familiarizing yourself with the weapon but feel unsure that it could be done with an AR

How many times do I have to repeat myself, the shot and identifying the target are two separate things. I also avoid projecting my shooting onto other shooters, because I am also an anomaly, I put 20-30 thousand rounds down range a year, practicing drills 4 times a week.

Now the ability to see the target I can project because my eyes are slightly better then 20/20 in distance vision (20/14 during my last flight physical). At 200 yards I can see it's a man, I can aim at it, and fire at it. But without some sort of magnifying optics I would not be able to make any identification beyond the fact that the target is human, and the color of his cloths.

 

[Funderb]

I'd say it's an easy shot, I'm not really admitting anything, because I never said that it wasn't.

But I didn't mean for my comment to sound so..... grating?
I think that's an appropriate term, not all cops are like that, I've known some brilliant, genuinely benevolent cops, new and old.
A lot of the new guys, and the guys who have temperment problems are though.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"There are a number of studies that back up that number, the latest being the Violent Encounters study, the 8% number was from a NYPD study, and even that included gimme shots like hitting the car rather then the person controlling it, and officers committing suicide."

fascinating "thought"...
you don't see a difference between having to go from zero to shotting with lil or no notice to getting the ar out and getting to call and set your shot?or in your "thought" that doesn't impact accuracy

 

[PPGMD]

fascinating "thought"...
you don't see a difference between having to go from zero to shotting with lil or no notice to getting the ar out and getting to call and set your shot?or in your "thought" that doesn't impact accuracy

You are still talking about a 30% accuracy rate in one study, and 8% in another. At the distances involved even when you factor in surprise those numbers are depressingly low.

If trained police snipers with scopes rarely ever engage a target beyond 100 yards, does it really seem like a good idea to be pointing a patrol carbine with iron sights at a target beyond that distance?

Anyways this is turning into circular logic, we are debating the same point over and over again. I have proven my logic with studies, and personal experience. All you have to provide is a personal experience and the fact that these officers MAY buck the national average.

Neither one of us is going to convince the other.

 

[RobTzu]

@ Joab, Was at Fort Eustis Feb to May 2003 training up for an Iraqi deployment. Then we went to Kuwait and looked at each other for 7 months in my case. They sent some of us home early due to nothing to do. B co.5/159th Avn Regt.

I question that comment that cops were missing at 25 yards with a rifle...

 

[PPGMD]

I question that comment that cops were missing at 25 yards with a rifle...

I was puzzled by this so I reread the thread, I didn't mean that they couldn't hit a target at 25 yards with a rifle (though I am sure there are the very rare few that can't), I was speaking about handgun at 25 yards as part of a practice routine for qualification.

 

[joab]

I question that comment that cops were missing at 25 yards with a rifle..

That's one aspect of the "studies" that p is so ardently avoiding posting that I was getting at

you don't see a difference between having to go from zero to shotting with lil or no notice to getting the ar out and getting to call and set your shot?

That's the other

I was mentioning both because when I goto 200 yards, you say that the weapon was designed for 500 yards, and you made those shots in basic. So I addressed both at one time, so you can't go from one to the other.

Go back a read even slower, you can move your lips if you need to
I have repeatedly said that a gun designed to be effective out to 500 meters would certainly be within it's effective zone at 200 yards
Is there some way I can make you understand this better, or are you simply trying to divert from your dying argument

How many times do I have to repeat myself, the shot and identifying the target are two separate things

How many times do I need to repeat myself, they had IDed the target. They seemed to have a perfect bead drawn on him from what I could see

Your argument is falling apart

The weapon is fully capable of making the shot, many more than your one example have said so here.
The only evidence you have that the officers could not fully utilize the weapon to it's full capacity is some unlinked studies that you claim show poor performance with handguns for the average officer (not the ones qualified to carry the carbines)

You have gone from saying that the rifle is incapable of the shot to now saying that the officers are incapable of IDing the target, that they had adequately engaged.

Sorry Funderb, I'm always forgetting my smilies

 

[PPGMD]

How many times do I need to repeat myself, they had IDed the target. They seemed to have a perfect bead drawn on him from what I could see

Exactly how did they ID the target? Because if they IDed the target they wouldn't be pointing their guns at him.

The only evidence you have that the officers could not fully utilize the weapon to it's full capacity is some unlinked studies that you claim show poor performance with handguns for the average officer (not the ones qualified to carry the carbines)

You seem to think that carrying a carbine is a special duty, these days many departments are issuing patrol carbines to every officers. Depending on the department they likely have 3-5 firearms in the car for the normal patrol officer.

You have gone from saying that the rifle is incapable of the shot to now saying that the officers are incapable of IDing the target, that they had adequately engaged.

You have been misconstruing my argument this entire time. At no time have I said (or at least meant) that the rifle could not make the shot, heck a pistol in a vice can fire and kill up to a mile away if you get the angles right. I have said that the rifle is beyond it's effective range in that environment, in a police environment anything beyond 25-50 yards is the territory of a SWAT sniper, and even they rarely engage beyond 100 yards.

If you believe that it's perfectly ok for the average patrol officer to use his patrol carbine out to 200 yards in a urban environment with iron sights, you really need to goto a range where the police practice in the weeks before qualification and see how they shoot. These guns aren't just for SWAT anymore, many departments either provide, or allow officers to use POWs as a patrol carbines, qualifications and class requirements vary, not it's likely no where near as much practice as a soldier gets with his weapon.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

what factor does a pro like you use for surprise? how did your "study" quantify it?

 

[joab]

Depending on the department they likely have 3-5 firearms in the car for the normal patrol officer.

Source?
And what is this department's policy

You have been misconstruing my argument this entire time. At no time have I said (or at least meant) that the rifle could not make the shot,
I have said that the rifle is beyond it's effective range in that environment

And I say Bull as have many others familiar with the weapon

these guns aren't just for SWAT anymore, many departments either provide, or allow officers to use POWs as a patrol carbines,

Source? And what is this departments policy

not it's likely no where near as much practice as a soldier gets with his weapon.

How much practice do you imagine that a recruit gets with his weapon?
Or the average soldier for that matter, especially in 1980

If you believe that it's perfectly ok for the average patrol officer to use his patrol carbine out to 200 yards in a urban environment with iron sights, you really need to goto a range where the police practice in the weeks before qualification and see how they shoot.

If you believe that it is perfectly acceptable for police to do nothing until what they feel is the optimum equipment for the situation arrives you should review the Columbine story
Oh and I have shot with a few cops, actually do it fairly regularly

 

[PPGMD]

Source?
And what is this department's policy

I don't even know what department it is, so I don't know what this department has, but these days in the average patrol car you have the following:
Sidearm
Back Up Gun (optional officers choice)
Shotgun
Shotgun with Less Lethals (some departments prefer having two shotguns, some don't)
Patrol Carbine

The patrol carbine movment gained most of it's momentum after the North Hollywood shoot out, but I would say that 50-60% of the Florida agencies are either issuing patrol carbines, or allowing officers to keep a POW patrol carbine in the cruiser.

I think that after the shoot out 2 months ago, that most of the agencies in Florida are going to allow them in some form.

And I say Bull as have many others familiar with the weapon

Really you seem to be the only one really saying that.

How much practice do you imagine that a recruit gets with his weapon?
Or the average soldier for that matter, especially in 198

Probably more time then an officer gets with his weapon. Since the average patrol carbine course (like the one at Firearms Academy of Seattle) is 5 days. And depending on the department that might be the only training he gets with it.

If you believe that it is perfectly acceptable for police to do nothing until what they feel is the optimum equipment for the situation arrives you should review the Columbine story

Standing there for 2 minutes without getting binos to actually ID the target isn't the right thing to do.

 

[joab]

Standing there for 2 minutes without getting binos to actually ID the target isn't the right thing to do.

And you know this wasn't done? I love the uninformed Monday morning QBing going on here
The least little bit of research will tell you that SWAT and snipers had already been deployed and the officers on the street were merely covering a person acting suspiciously
How would your department have handled this

Probably more time then an officer gets with his weapon. Since the average patrol carbine course (like the one at Firearms Academy of Seattle) is 5 days. And depending on the department that might be the only training he gets with it.

Well that is about what the average recruit gets and more than the average soldier got in 1980
Out of 26 in my barracks 23 fired expert.
While that was not considered a noteworthy feat you didn't do it by missing anything passed 200 meters and you had about three seconds to make the shot
These officers had much more time than that

Really you seem to be the only one really saying that.

Are you blind or willfully ignorant, or are you only reading the posts that suit you

don't even know what department it is,

Nuff said

that most of the agencies in Florida are going to allow them in some form.

Already been discussed
Guess who is getting them, officers who qualify with the gun

I was speaking about handgun at 25 yards as part of a practice routine for qualification.

And that has what to do with shooting a carbine at 100 to 200 yards
You seem to be having trouble keeping up with the conversation
And we are still waiting for links to those studies you cited

I have proven my logic with studies, and personal experience.

No you haven't you have used conjecture backed up with irrelevant studies, that you have still failed to provide for us

Neither one of us is going to convince the other

At least I'm sticking to one argument

 

[PPGMD]

And you know this wasn't done? I love the uninformed Monday morning QBing going on here
The least little bit of research will tell you that SWAT and snipers had already been deployed and the officers on the street were merely covering a person acting suspiciously

If SWAT had already been deployed why would they continue to be covering him, someone had to brought binos with them. Based on the text and content of the video it doesn't seem that they came up to his room, instead someone finally got binos and saw he was another rubber necker.

Well that is about what the average recruit gets and more than the average soldier got in 1980
Out of 26 in my barracks 23 fired expert.
While that was not considered a noteworthy feat you didn't do it by missing anything passed 200 meters and you had about three seconds to make the shot
These officers had much more time than that

From what I understand BCT has changed a bit, more field exercises and shooting are being added in the last couple of years. Anyways it's not the shot that matters it's IDing him.

Are you blind or willfully ignorant, or are you only reading the posts that suit you

Really, it seems to me that only one other person has really jumped on this issue, and he has really say much, just doing something that I can't describe while staying on THR.

At least I'm sticking to one argument

So am I, check my first posts my concerns have always been having to do with using unmagnified optics to identify and fire on a subject in a crowded urban environment.

 

[MechAg94]

The first time I ever shot a rifle at 200 yards was with iron sights and I put them all on paper that wasn't any wider than a person. I did it with an AK also with the iron sights, though the drop was a lot more. Getting on paper is easy. Getting precise, small groups is not. I think anyone with some mimimum training could shoot decently at 100 or 200 yards with any AR. If he is only exposing his head, I probably wouldn't fire unless fired upon though.

The officers had obviously ID's a potential threat and were prepared to shoot if it became active. Some of the comments seem to assume that they were the only officers in the area. For all you know, there were 347 officers with scopes and binoculars out of the camera angle looking at this guy. If he wasn't active, but they still couldn't ID the camera, I would expect them to do just what they did. Stay put and keep him under observation while other officers close in.

Some of you are jumping on the cops as if they had started blazing away. I don't understand why you insist on doing so.