Name calling, Mr. Coronach?
No, simply many years of personal observation of "society's protectors" in action.
The Nazi storm troopers were also rather tame compared to some of the "boys in blue" I've witness in action over the years.
I dunno. I've spent several years watching "America's Gun Owners" in action, then, too. Want to be tarred with that brush?
The point I'm trying to make is that it is far easier to generalize and use slurs based upon the perceptions caused by a relative few in any given group than it is to take a thoughtful, considered approach. One requires thought, the other just a soundbyte.
Rule 4: Know Your Target and What is Beyond It
Pax hit the nail on the head. Yes, all impact-style crowd control munitions are
most effective if aimed for a certain body part of a rioter, preferably an agitator. However, all crowd control munitions are designed to be used (drumroll) against a
crowd. This means that their engagement envelope is not so limited that you must have one solitary rioter (a contradiction in terms) up against a solid brick wall before you can pull the trigger. Do you aim for, say, chest and below? Yes. Do you try to pick out an agitator to be the unwilling recipient of several ounces of munition travelling at 300 fps? Yes.
However, if you have a mass of people running arund and throwing bricks and bottles at you, do you stand there and wait for the perfect shot before you loose a round? No, you do not. You take aim at a rioter or a knot of violent people, try to keep it to the level of chest and below, pull the trigger, and reload.
These weapons are designed to be used against a
crowd. There will always be people in front of, beside, and behind the intended target. Guess what? They're targets, too.
Now. Was Snelgrove or anyone in Snelgrove's immediate area the target? Quite possibly no. Certainly Snelgrove was not. However, there should not have been anyone there, Snelgrove included.
Someone between Snelgrove and the police was the intended target (or the round took a very very freak bounce, which is also quite possible)...so despite what CNN says, it is exceedingly likely that someone in the "area" was being violent. As a matter of fact, the original news stories state that this happened just after a bottle was hurled at a mounted officer, and another officer in the vicinity shot the munitions into the crowd. So much for no one being violent in the area.
The main problem in relying on witness testimony about what was happening is this: witnesses can testify with relative certainty to what they
see. They cannot testify at all to what they
don't see. Think about this for a moment. You're in a crowd of yelling, jumping, shouting people. It's easy to lose track of the people you are there with...and if you cannot even keep a simple visual track on your friends, how can you state with certainty that
no one was engaing in any given activity anywhere in the square? That is why whenever I hear anyone say "Dude, I was there, and no one was throwing bottles" I automatically translate that into "I didn't see anyone throw any bottles." A fine distinction, you might argue, but when you also were there and had two bottles bounce off your shield, you
know that someone there was lobbing empties at you.
(and, heh, you know what? I didn't see anyone throw the bottle either...but unless it is suddenly raining Miller Genuine Draft, I know it was thrown)
Also, Matt Payne, perhaps I'm misreading...but I did not get the idea that a mounted officer fired the weapon. Generally, they don't give such weapons to mounted officers for the very reason you gave. Also, they are two handed weapons, and unlike the knights of old, most mounted officers are not adept that riding without use of reins.
The simple facts are this- a young woman is dead and it is a tragedy. It remains to be seen if this tragedy is the result of a freak chance, or if an officer was using a crowd control munition improperly.
Mike
