Yes, the company can be officially on record as saying this thing can kill you, but we all know that was not the intention. They call it "less lethal" so they have a defense in court when something like this happens, but the intention of the weapon is to be non-lethal, no matter what the fine print in the package says.
Well...yeah. Is this, somehow, a bad thing? The weapons designer does everything in his power to make it unlikely to cause fatal trauma.
I understand your bit about 'false sense of security' but, if their training is anything like ours, it is stressed very very plainly to everyone, from the trigger puller on up to the commander at the scene, that these puppies
can kill. Naturally, BPD's training will be called into question. And that's not a bad thing when someone has died.
What happened to being responsible for every round you fire? I might as well switch my HD shotgun loadout to slugs because if any of my neighbors are injured or killed it'll be the burglar's fault, right?
Apples and oranges, first of all.
Second of all, this was a crowd control ordnance used against a crowd. If it was used
improperly, there is an argument here. If it was not, it was a round that was fired into a crowd that struck someone in the crowd. Not to be utterly cold-hearted, but...whats the issue?
I mean, lets examine this argument. The use a firearm against a valid target can be a poor idea if your backstop is a crowd of innocent people.
Lethal Force + Non-Target backdrop = Bad Idea.
This is less-lethal round designed to be fired into a crowd.
The Target is the crowd. Preferably an agitator, but the target is the crowd.
The backdrop is also, yes, the crowd.
Less-lethal round + targetable backdrop = Good Shoot.
This assumes the weapon was employed correctly!
If anyone is really saying that you cannot deploy a crowd-control munition unless you are absolutely certain that the only person targeted is a brick-and-bottle thrower and that no one else is possibly in the way of the shot, what they are really saying is that crowd control munitions can never ever be employed...because there are always other people in the way.
Its a riot. If there were no other people there, the entire situation could be resolved differently.
No, a round that is designed to be fired at an individual. Even Pepperballs (a less dangerous round) aren't safe enough to be to fired into a crowd.
As I said, your argument then is that there is no valid form of crowd control besides batons and sprays. Frankly? I disagree with this argument.
The fact that she was shot in the face means that something went wrong. Whether it was a training issue or officer incompetence will take time to tell (if such information is ever publicly released).
And I'm telling you that it could also be freak chance. Of course, I will also admit that it could be a training issue or a failure to follow that training. And the investigation's results should be public record. Certainly they'll be brought up at the inevitable trial.
The Boston Globe piece cited above has a much more damaging quote.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A tactical response unit officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that only a handful of officers in the unit have received training with the weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three possibilities:
1. The quote is true and correct and is
extremely damning.
2. The quote is true and correct, but only the officers who have had the training were issued the weapons (possible...we have tasers now, but not all officers have had the training. Don't have the training, can't carry the weapon)
3. The quote is not an accurate reflection of the situation.
Time will tell. Certainly the training will be a public issue at trial, if not well before.
People keep referring to it as a pepperball. It's not. FN's own website refers to it as an impact weapon.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The primary effect of the projectile is trauma, which directly neutralizes the aggressor. In addition, secondary effects from the projectiles can be delivered via a chemical payload depending on mission requirements."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Half the volume, and three quarters of the weight of the projectile is "granular Bismuth", which as we all know, is a non toxic substitute for lead. Only it's not contained like the shot in a beanbag, it's just in a plastic shell that splits on impact. That has the potential for problems. That's why beanbag manufacturers are so proud of the fabrics they use, and the quality of their seams. spraying little bits of metal around is a bad thing, particularly, it appears inside an eyesocket...
In case you guys were not sure, these are pictures of ACTUAL fired bullets from the riot (my buddy was standing right next to the girl who got shot).
Thank you. That does appear to be the FN's projectile. What is it properly called?
Also, the granular nature of the bismuth might be a problem in general, but thats not what caused the fatality here. It was, seemingly, sheer blunt trauma.
I was lucky enough to see that stuff was going down, and left when i saw it get dangerous. Right when i got back to my dorm, I saw the police attacking Kenmore Square.
As for my opinion, based on the actions of the crowd, force was justified, but perhaps not firing potentially lethal rounds into teh crowd.
Thats the thing...everything that works is
potentially lethal. The question becomes how to best attenuate that possibility.
A few smacks with a batton most likely would have been just as effective, and not left this girl dead.
In this I will disagree completely. Hand to hand melee is the way it used to be done, and it caused a lot more injuries and a lot more deaths.
Mike
