Great rifle shot takes out BG's firearm.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a good thread on why this shot was tactically unsound.

http://www.snipershide.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003923

Basically, it boils down to the fact that too many things can go wrong. The .308 bullet isn't going to stop there, it's going to ricochet and end up who knows where, striking who knows what. Also, fragments of the bullet or round could strike the subject. If a little piece of jacket had ended up in his eye, he could and would have sued. And then, the bullets in the firearm could very easily have detonated, which would have been another Not Good Thing. Read the thread, though, there are a lot of LEO's discussing this incident.
 
Just out of curiosity....

If this happened at all of 80ft. And they obviously didn't want to kill the guy. Could they have removed the gun with a bean bag/rubber bullet from a 12ga?

Lot less chance of something to screw up.

Smoke
 
isn't the act of attacking somebody elses weapon called "sundering"?

oh and about the rubber bullet idea for sundering, would it still disable the weapon? or would it just knock it out of his hands? (im not very educated on the damaging capabilities of rubber rounds)
 
Was there ever a time when peace officers were the voice of reason and people followed their orders out of respect? (not fear)
Click to expand...
No.

Some people only respect power. There was no shortage of these types of people 'back in the day', and the police had a lot more leeway dealing with them back then. A detour to the hospital en route to the jail met with very few frowns, very little paperwork, little opportunity to sue for redress, and no media coverage. The same is not true today.

Great shot, but fundamentally stupid response on the part of the LEO's. It reminds me of the time I walked out of the motel in Spenard and saw about thirty APD officers with rifles and shotguns aimed at the next door unit. The guy had called 911 and threatened to kill himself.

SO WHAT?! That's not an emergency. Just tell him to have fun and hang up. I faced far more danger from overzealous officers than from the suicidal eskimo next door.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its all well and good until the mentally unstable (by definition) suicidal guy decides to do something crazy, like shoot up the whole neighborhood.

When that happens, and it comes out that there was a 911 call from the guy stating "I HAVE A GUN AND I'M GONNA KILL MYSELF!!!!!!" and the police elected not to respond, can you imagine the hue and cry, especially from this board? Simple fact: they have a duty to respond. The method of response will vary by the particulars of the situation. It could be anything from one officer and an ambulance squad (for simple overdoses) up to a SWAT team shooting guns off of truck hoods.

As to whether it was tactically sound, or not...

I'm not a sniper. I'm not a SWAT team commander. I do know that in the shot referenced where the guy is in a lawnchair, holding the gun, that they had a good angle on backstop, no one else in the vicinity of the BG (for spall and shrapnel concerns), and the guy had sat there in the chair for about 45 minutes or so, going through a pretty solid routine (hold gun down, point gun at head, return gun to same position). They knew that he wanted to suicide-by-cop. After much negotiation (including a loooong time before he sat down and developed that pattern), it was decided that they needed to disarm him to save his life, and possibly the lives of others.

Good call? Bad call? I dunno. He's alive. He probably would not have been if they let him execute his plan.

Mike
 
Actually, this is the third shot of this type.
Click to expand...
Fourth, I think. I also remember seeing video of an idiot lying on his back pointing his gun at his chest. A cop with a pistol shot his gun from fairly close range. It didn't send it flying but it was pretty obviously ruined. The idiot looked at the gun, realized it was ruined, threw it away and gave up.
 
The problem with going less-lethal in this instance is tri-fold:

1. Less-lethal munitions are not precision-accurate like a .308 caliber rifle in the hands of a sniper. They are also shorter-ranged.

2. The BG has lethal force, and you're going to try less-lethal. By show of hands, which one of us wants to take our glorified Blooper, stand up and close on the mentally distraught gun-wielding suicidal nutjob? Anyone? Anyone? Thought not.

3. By taking action, you are precipitating an end to the standoff. The problem is that even if you hit the gun-wielding suicidal guy with the short ranged and inaccurate less-lethal muntions, they do not work 100% of the time. So...are we gonna try for a rifle shot with a fairly high chance of success (especially in the case of the one laying on the truck hood, and especially seeing as how you can 'call off' the attempt if the situation changes, probably without him ever knowing about it), or are we all gonna hop up, close with him and try to nail him in the chest with a beanbag and hope he drops his weapon?

Still- I dunno if it was a good call or not. But trying to finess a less-lethal weapon into this scenario is a definate no-go.

Mike
 
Fourth, I think. I also remember seeing video of an idiot lying on his back pointing his gun at his chest. A cop with a pistol shot his gun from fairly close range. It didn't send it flying but it was pretty obviously ruined. The idiot looked at the gun, realized it was ruined, threw it away and gave up.
Click to expand...

I remember this one, but I remember the gun flying away when hit.
 
Yes, you probably have some adware on your system then. Go to http://www.download.com and get both "Spybot - Search & Destroy" and "Ad-Aware." Both programs are free and we use them all the time at work (I'm a computer tech). Update and run them both every couple of days. If you have anything that just won't come off, drop me a PM and I'll help you with it.

Oh, and to keep it on topic... this guy maybe was angry/depressed over spyware on his computer. Just a guess though... I still think a beanbag to the eye would have taught him a good lesson.

-Colin
 
SWAT TEAMS -

c_yeager, just a quiet comment from an old man who's seen a lot of stuff go down in his life. Very little of it, BTW, have I viewed as an improvement.

I do not object to the police being trained in better accuracy with any weapon they may be called on to use. I do not object to them having the best weapons. I do not object to them being trained in the most modern tactics. I am willing to pay the taxes and to vote "yes" on the bond issues to provide these things to the police.

I do strongly object to the black SS-style uniforms and the jack-boots. So far, I haven't seen arm-bands, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I do object strongly to the militarization of our civilian, tax-paid city police.

I do strongly object to the "them vs us" attitudes thay come out of these classes with.

I do strongly object to the shaved heads and the "street strut" they've adopted around here.

They can yell, shoot or clear a room just as well if they are doing the shooting in identifiably standard "real" police uniforms instead of eleitist halloween costumes.

Now, if they should be uniformed that way, why not all the cops?

GrayBear
 
Thank you Red_SC:

Basically, it boils down to the fact that too many things can go wrong. The .308 bullet isn't going to stop there, it's going to ricochet and end up who knows where, striking who knows what.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed that this thread went to the second post for someone to point this out. The bullet just doesn't go poof upon impact, right? :eek:
 
I remember seeing a show that stated the bullet fired on the guy in the lawn chair's weapon was a frangible, compressed powder type. That should depreciate the chance of ricochet or splatter.
 
I don't see it either. Anyhoo....

It reminds me of the time I walked out of the motel in Spenard and saw about thirty APD officers with rifles and shotguns aimed at the next door unit. The guy had called 911 and threatened to kill himself.

SO WHAT?! That's not an emergency. Just tell him to have fun and hang up. I faced far more danger from overzealous officers than from the suicidal eskimo next door.
Click to expand...

Exact-amundo! Unless and until they threaten others beside themselves, then how is it possibly negligent to not respond? There's no evidence of a threat to others. If the nut job shoots up others after threatening only himself, and I'm on the jury in the civil suit against the police, the police get off scot free is my vote.

But if you do respond in this situation, if the gun is laid down by the subject, and you can get within that range (80 feet), then 3 or 4 beanbags to the head and chest would have been a smarter tactic IMO (maybe a few OC-filled paintballs as well), from multiple officers. You don't need to hit the weapon at that point, if you have an adequately disabling not-normally-lethal choice. In the words of Beavis: "Taser him, taser, TASER!"
 
Exact-amundo! Unless and until they threaten others beside themselves, then how is it possibly negligent to not respond? There's no evidence of a threat to others. If the nut job shoots up others after threatening only himself, and I'm on the jury in the civil suit against the police, the police get off scot free is my vote.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd like to have you on my jury. ;) Point is, someone is threatening to kill themselves with a gun. By definition this person is mentally unstable. So, you have been advised (as a police officer) that there is a mentally unstable guy with a gun in an apartment complex. Failure to respond is not an option. You may feel that it is, and thats your opinion. Society disagrees with you, however- as would the other 11 guys on my jury.
But if you do respond in this situation, if the gun is laid down by the subject, and you can get within that range (80 feet), then 3 or 4 beanbags to the head and chest would have been a smarter tactic IMO (maybe a few OC-filled paintballs as well), from multiple officers. You don't need to hit the weapon at that point, if you have an adequately disabling not-normally-lethal choice. In the words of Beavis: "Taser him, taser, TASER!"
Click to expand...
Assuming you can get close enough, and the gun was laying far enough away. Lots of assumptions there, though. And the main problem is that even if you hit him, he might not go down. I've seen a guy take 3 beanbags to the chest before he dropped a knife. Thats a chance I would not want to take if he had a handgun.

Mike
 
Coronach

you said after you hit him with the beanbag and "hope" he drops his weapon? have you ever seen Jackass: The Movie? that thing looked like it hurt so friggin bad, and did you see the bruise? i for one wouldn't be in the mood to get back up and gun anybody down!

but yea, good point about it being less accurate and at shorter range. you would have to bean him in the face to do any good and that probably wouldn't go over too well with the SWAT leaders.
 
you said after you hit him with the beanbag and "hope" he drops his weapon? have you ever seen Jackass: The Movie? that thing looked like it hurt so friggin bad, and did you see the bruise? i for one wouldn't be in the mood to get back up and gun anybody down!
Click to expand...
Yeah, but like I said later, I have seen a guy take three shots to the chest before he dropped a knife. :eek:

Just like bullets...nothing is 100%

Mike
 
I too don't think this is a tactically sound practice. Even with a Frangible, there is energy to be concerned with. The hammer of the pistol could have been torn off and launched at 1,000fps in just about any direction. A dozen bad things could have easily happened. This is like shooting into water, never a good idea.

Now, onto the marksman aspect, yes it was short range, however, consider that VERY few LE shots are authorized beyond 50yards, and almost none are ever authroized over 100yds. Infact, I know of NONE. It is actually imperically rather easy to shoot eyesocket level accurately at this distance. In theroey. At the range. After you're prepared, and sighted in with a few cold-bore rounds, when you're expecting it, and haven't done 90mph with the gun bouncing in your trunk. Says me from my comfy chair...

Yes, I think I *could* have made that shot. However, what's remarkable is that the shooter DID make it.

I'm very glad they are using very accurate and *durable* SWS (gun, mount, optic, accessory.)
 
The question is not should they have used a specialty impact (less lethal) round. The question is whether doing so would have increased the risk of death or serious injury to hostages, bystanders, or officers.

One of the most important developments in the use of less lethal is training that incorporates priorities. A use of less lethal that increases the risk to the deploying officer is only acceptable if it decreases the risk to someone of an equal or greater priority. The subject threatening himself or someone else, is of course the lowest priority. You will periodically see video footage of officers leaving cover to attempt to tase or thump someone threatening suicide with a gun. It is a mistake. Unfortunately, it is almost always given a unthinking positive spin in the news.

If they thought it was possible to do the same thing with a less risky weapon, they probably would have. But not by risking the life of someone besides the goober. Whether the tactic that they chose was appropriate, I can't say, they obviously felt it was based on the totality of the circumstances. I do wonder about which "circumstances" led to the decision though.
 
Am I the only one who just gets a broadband advertisement?
Click to expand...

it might have to do with the fact that this thread had taken a snooze for 4 months. I doubt that the news website carrys video for that long would take up alot of bandwidth.

where was the ZOMBIE THREAD post?
 
All I got was an advertisement too. Anybody have the video downloaded?
It reminds me of the time I walked out of the motel in Spenard and saw about thirty APD officers with rifles and shotguns aimed at the next door unit.
Click to expand...
What the heck were you doing in a hotel in Spenard! You should have known better. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Does using a bench-rest = cheating????
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
4K
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
OC Stops BG in Robbery
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Mp7
Mp7
L
  • Locked
Need help deciding on Rifle
Replies
14
Views
386
Reid73
R
B
  • Locked
20-20 winchester rifle
Replies
6
Views
535
bangaway
B
B
  • Locked
Flying with firearms
Replies
8
Views
752
swinokur
S
Back
Top