Shooting at armed man 184yds away... justified?

[gym]

The best one was when the sharpshooter shot the gun out of the guys hand, a few years ago.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/100695/sharpshooter/

 

[NASCAR_MAN]

Moral of the story is..."If ya' don't shoot at a someone, then they won't shoot back".

I say..."Job well done Mr. Policeman, I'm happy to learn that you are safe and well!"

NASCAR

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Pretty much any time someone shoots at a police officer, the officer is justified in returning fire. The term "justified" is a legal term, and being attacked with lethal force "justifies" defending oneself with lethal force. This is true for anyone, and more so for police.

Once you get beyond the legal justification, you can then look at whether the police had sufficient knowledge of who/what lay beyond their intended target, but they were on the scene and I wasn't so I'm not going to second guess the officer's decision. The idiot is behind bars, the officer wasn't injured, that's what counts.

 

[Destructo6]

It doesn't say whether there was another officer far closer to the suspect than the officer that fired the rifle.

Cops aren't obligated to wait until a suspects specifically targets them before firing in strictly self defense. Typically, the shoot rules allow the defense of your person, another officer, or a member of the general public.

 

[brigadier]

So tell me, are any of you are finding fault with this officer's shooting skills? I am not sure, but it sort of looks that way. Well, if that is the case, tell me this: Do you always hit that at which you shoot - with only one shot - or even with less than 8 -at that distance when the target is likely moving, and quite possibly using cover or concealment, and has a gun, that has already been fired at you, and the pucker factor has taken over. I have to wonder if I would have hit him.

Agreed. It's very hard to shoot accurately when on an adrenaline rush. At that range, most people would be lucky to hit at all under the circumstances.
At that range, hitting someone with a 410 is a gamble. People wouldn't gamble if they didn't occasionally hit the jackpot hence the officers actions justified.

 

[Erik]

"Shooting at armed man 184yds away... justified?"

Yes.

 

[LMTD]

I shoot pretty often at 200 yards, bench restm various other types of rest for this sort of reason.

That is a 12.5% hit percentage which for a 2' x 2' target is not something I would call hard, but, when you get down to the size of a person, whom is shooting back, well it ain't bad at all imho.

 

[KC&97TA]

Moral of the story is..."If ya' don't shoot at a someone, then they won't shoot back".

I say..."Job well done Mr. Policeman, I'm happy to learn that you are safe and well!" NASCAR

+1 and a million more

This goes back to KC's prospective on society... if I could only teach people 3 things; don't mess with LEO, they have a hard enough life and they will strike back - don't mess with wild animals they will bite - if you want to have toys and live an nice life, you're going to have to work hard and work smart, make good decisions and not party your brains out.

If anyone is really interested in a 1 to 8 hit ratio, try this; Go to your local range, put your target at 25 yards, load your rifle with 8 rounds, run in place for 30 seconds, then do 20 push ups, then do 20 jumping jacks... now fire 8 shots w/o resting the rifle on the bench in 10 seconds... go ahead and try it, let me know how you do, it's just 25yards with your heart pounding. You might want to ask the range personel before trying this, btw.

I think 15 rounds per kill is pretty good, and I've got a little bit of experiance with it, I've been giggleing the whole time thinking about 1 in 8 to stop a perp, is half my perspective at 15 for a kill

 

[Caimlas]

I suspect that this a) took place where someone was wearing a winter jacket, b) hit the battery of the cell phone, which is a lithium ion polymer brick, which likely means it has a high density with a fair amount of flexibility, I imagine.

And I think the officer did great. Almost 200 yards from a standing position isn't exactly an "easy shot" for most experienced shooters; nevermind under duress and at a moving target.

Hell, look at the hit/shots fired average for US servicemen - which is supposedly/argueably better than that of most, if not all, other nations. It's a bit lower than 1/8 I believe (NFI for special forces though)

 

[brigadier]

Pretty much any time someone shoots at a police officer, the officer is justified in returning fire. The term "justified" is a legal term, and being attacked with lethal force "justifies" defending oneself with lethal force. This is true for anyone, and more so for police.

So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?

 

[mekender]

So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?

typically they dont... there is usually one exception... police in some states may use lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon...

other than that, its the same as for a non-leo... threat of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a violent felony... at least thats the case in most states

 

[mekender]

So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?

typically they dont... there is usually one exception... police in some states may use lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon...

other than that, its the same as for a non-leo... threat of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, or to prevent the commission of a violent felony... at least thats the case in most states

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So why do police have more right to self-defense then anyone else?

Because a police officer is never subject to a "must retreat if can do so safely" rule. If your state of residence doesn't have one of those, you probably won't understand how crippling it can be.

 

[Huddog]

Yes.

 

[Acera]

I don't know about the rules the LEOs face there, but in a lot of Houston area police departments they have to use soft points for fear of over penetration. The best performance would have been with a military round (SS109 for example).

For the question, shooting to save other officers lives? Yes, I hope so!!

 

[DomMega]

So tell me, are any of you are finding fault with this officer's shooting skills? I am not sure, but it sort of looks that way. Well, if that is the case, tell me this: Do you always hit that at which you shoot - with only one shot - or even with less than 8 -at that distance when the target is likely moving, and quite possibly using cover or concealment, and has a gun, that has already been fired at you, and the pucker factor has taken over. I have to wonder if I would have hit him.

All the best,
Glenn B

As soon as your adrenaline begins to surge through your veins you can pretty much throw out your best day at the range as far as how good you think you are. When cops are faced with exchanging fire with a bad guy, there shot percentage generally goes down to about 18%, whereas at the range it was 7-8 times higher depending on how they have to qualify. Also we all know that cops don't typically practice as much as private citizens do, and even though our practice is more hours on the range it guarantees nothing in a real life situation. I'm pretty sure you'd be only half as good as your best day at the range, so you have to practice so much that it becomes a second nature thing. So instead of trying to remember everything you're suppose to do in that situation, with enough practice it just becomes instinct.

 

[ctdonath]

What does distance have to do with this?

We've had a number of "can/should I shoot someone X hundred yards away under condition Y?" threads here on THR. On the whole they tended to turn into bloodthirsty chest-thumping sessions, and eventually an edict was issued banning them outright. Methinks the only reason this thread hasn't been locked already is that it (A) involves an actual incident which (B) involved a cop.

 

[pete f]

Was the officer supposed to run up and knock on the guys window and ask is that a .410 or a .308? and then determine the distance at which it was now "proper" to shoot back?


A good shot with a 41 mag handgun can make the bullets land close enough at 200 yards that you would be wetting yourself.


Here's a little pearl of wisdom. When the cars that are painted black and white with the little gumball on the roof show up, shooting at them will not turn out well for you.

Now lets think a second string of thoughts here, Idaho is Elk and big bear country, I would think most who have access to weapons there have at least one serious elk or bear gun available, would you like the to think what would have happened to the officer had that been a .338 or 300 weatherby? Also, in the land where some people have mile long drive ways and are not considered wealthy, 184 yards becomes nearly bad breath distances.

 

[TimM]

It is certainly justifiable.

BTW,

(yes... .410 is a caliber, not a gauge)

Do you feel better now that you set us all straight? geez.

 

[Legionnaire]

Two units slowly pulled to within about 25 yards of the driver's side of the parked pickup. Kimsey unrolled the window and fired at officers behind a patrol car before Johnson returned fire.

Article linked by scrofchek says the officer was shooting to protect other officers as close as 25 yards from the perp. Sounds like a good shoot to me.

 

[jaschneider72]

Let me start by saying how refreshing it is to read the support for LEO's echoed above. I am a police officer in a city right next to the one this shooting happened in, and the reaction locally is much less supportive. People think a .410 "won't do damage", "can't kill you anyway" and my personal favorite "I'm upset the police didn't notify us that there was a suspicious person before all the shooting happened. I had to watch the news to figure out what happened!"

The officer was using 5.56mm hollow points, which don't survive the trip through windshield and dash very well. Overpenetration is an issue in LE; that's why we don't traditionally get to sling .308 FMJs downrange.

Personally I am glad he shot, even at 184 yds. Long cover is always a good idea. If I was the contact officer being shot at by a suspect, I would expect nothing else from the guys I work with.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Close To Home

This is about three or four miles from my house.

First I've heard about it.

Funny what you miss when you don't have TV or read the newspaper.

I recommend reading the actual article, rather than reading the guesswork postings and then responding to an event that didn't happen.

The officers that were taking fire were less than 50 yards away.

The officer shooting to protect them was at long range.

It's a good shoot.

 

[velojym]

Of course, GunKid coulda placed all 9 shots from his .22lr upper in the perp's head at 600 meters, within 1.2 seconds from behind his wheelbarrow.

This post has nothing constructive to add... just a bit of nostalgia, and I wonder what GK would have posted here (as if we didn't already know).

 

[XDKingslayer]

Hitting a man behind cover at 180 yards with 1 of 8 shots with iron sighs while under fire seems respectable to me.

And done on a rifle he shoots maybe once or twice a year tops.

 

[Wes Janson]

My question on this incident is, why was the covering officer that far out (were there any suitable closer positions)? Was the shot from an offhand, sitting, supported, or prone position? What cover was available in the area? Was the shot taken with iron sights, or an optic? 16" barrel or 20"?

So often 5.56 is a great choice, but then every once in a long while a situation arises that is best answered by 7.62. From the sounds of it, everyone involved in that entire situation had a tremendous amount of luck going for them.