So much for "Less than Lethal"... Red Sox Fan Killed by Police Projectile

[Harry Tuttle]

FN 303
The FN 303 is designed to be the premier system for situations requiring less lethal response. Completely dedicated to reduced lethality and liability, the basis of the FN 303 concept lies in its ammunition. The .68 caliber, 8.5 g weight projectiles utilize a fin stabilized polystyrene body and non-toxic bismuth forward payload to provide both a more accurate, greater effective range than other less than lethal weapons. 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.

http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/ll_303.htm

The primary effect of the FN 303 is trauma. The shock delivered is 24.5 Foot Pounds (15J/cm sq) which directly neutralizes the aggressor. Secondary effects can be delivered via chemical payload chosen according to mission requirements.

 

[NineseveN]

Coronach hit the nail on the head. 10 ring all the way.

Those that have bias against the LEOs will never change their mind (until they need one usually). I am neither biased for or against LEOs, I have seen and been subject to them doing some pretty shady things, but I have also seen, been subject to and known some amazingly heroic, compassionate and selfless acts from LEOs. No group is really the sum of a few individuals, to lump them all together is a bad idea. Otherwise all blacks would be drug dealing gangsters and jobless bums. All Muslims would be terrorists. All southerners would be stupid, ignorant, arrogant racist buffoons. All gunowners would be war-mongering, frothing at the mouth, paranoid, anti-goverment baby killers that long to go on mass and random killing sprees and commit various felonies with said guns.

I'd hope we'd all be smart enough to know that none of these stereotypes are true and that bad news sells, good news barely makes it past editing.

 

[NineseveN]

Harry Tuttle:

Thanks for posting that from the FN website. Perhaps the training the officers received dictated that these rounds were not "unsafe" past a few meters as the graphs suggest. Again, the officer could have done everything right according to his or her training and someone still died. Unfortunately for everyone inolved, that happens.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Property crimes rarely call for potentially lethal force, so even if the riot were composed purely of car-tippers and tire-burners, shooting may not have been justified. But when thousands of people are, really, peacably assembled, and a couple dozen donkeyholes decide to break stuff, shooting what may well be a lethal weapon is certainly not justified.

No offense, but you do not make law nor departmental policy for when it is justified to deploy less lethal munitions. The FACT is that in this situation the pepperball and FN303 WERE in fact perfectly justified in being deployed. Riots are NOT simply "property crimes"!! And I don't think anyone is trying to say that there were "thousands of people peaceably assembled". The fact was that there were people out of control and those people along with EVERYONE else, including this girl, was told to disperse and leave the area. It's obvious that you've never seen a riot or tried to stop one. You can't underestimate the mob mentality when normally law abiding and calm people will get caught up in the crowd and go nuts. This can lead to people getting hurt, trampled, and killed by a number of means. Less lethal munitions such as pepperballs and the FN303 were made SPECIFICALLY for this purpose. As I stated before the old way of putting down a riot involved lines of officers with long batons and people getting hit. These new technologies are ways to try to lesson the injuries to people when stopping a riot. Obviously they are not fool proof and never had claimed to be.....that's why they're called LESS lethal instead of NON lethal.

Apparently to some people no matter what action the police take they will be wrong. If they fail to stop the riot and a person or personS get killed then they'll be wrong. If no one gets killed but the whole area is destroyed then the business owners and home owners of the area will say the police are wrong. And if as in this situation they come in and stop the riot and in the process, while following every procedure by which they were trained as we know of yet, someone gets killed.....they are wrong. So I'll tell ya what the next time a riot situation arises how about we have the police call up all you critics and let you handle the situation since you all know so much better. I'm sure you can solve the problem to EVERYONE'S satisfaction.

 

[Coronach]

If Dbl0Kevin will allow to clarify one point:

It is not yet clear whether or not the Boston PD officer that fired the round was, in fact, following procedure or not. However, it could easily come out that he did everything perfectly.

I believe that Dbl0Kevin said that in his last post (please correct me if I am wrong), but it was less obvious than it might have been. Jury is still out on if it was done by the book or not.

Also, to now expand upon one of his points: the cops get called to deal with riots, and the best way to deal with a riot is to catch it early, when it is in the first stages of turning violent. Once bottles start flying and property starts getting destroyed the cops either have to get a handle on it right freakin now, or by the time they start coming to grips with the situation it will be too late. And by 'too late' I mean that there will be many injuries, a lot of property destruction, and perhaps loss of life- and all of this is just from the riot itself, not from the police response needed to make the area safe. That will entail even more bloodshed and damage to property.

So the entire point of the police showing up, donning gear, issuing orders and then taking action is to prevent injury to persons and damage to property. To be perfectly blunt, if any street cop in the USA were asked which he would rather do, quell a riot or cruise his beat in his squad car, the answer would probably be a landslide victory for the daily routine.

No one wants to play Imperial Stormtrooper in the Rebel base, mmkay?

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I believe that Dbl0Kevin said that in his last post (please correct me if I am wrong), but it was less obvious than it might have been. Jury is still out on if it was done by the book or not.

Yeah I guess I didn't make it clear enough. What I meant was that as of yet we don't know of any officer violating policy on using less lethal munitions. If a policy WAS violated then the guy is gonna hang, but my point was that it is perfectly concievable for everything to be done by the book and the girl still to be killed.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Whether you support the police or not, does anyone here think there is a chance there won't be a civil suit against Boston, and possibly the gun manufacturer?

Does anyone think Boston and/or the manufacturer won't lose mega bucks over this?

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Whether you support the police or not, does anyone here think there is a chance there won't be a civil suit against Boston, and possibly the gun manufacturer?

This is America isn't it? Sadly I don't even have to answer that question.

 

[Coronach]

Well.

Lets see. You're on a jury. A girl is dead. Her family is devastated. A large city is the defendant.

The absolute most the girl did wrong was fail to leave an area when ordered to do so by the police.

You have the power to give her family a lot of money out of the city's coffers.

What do you want to do, before hearing the details?

Mike

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Coronach, let suppose the facts boil down to what you implied above...

Girl failed to disperse when ordered.

Policeman used weapon in accordance with policy. We'll say he was aiming at someone's torso, and they moved, and the girl got hit.

Weapon performed normally.

Girl hit in head and dies at scene.

When we boil to scenario down to that, do you think the city or manufacturer owe any financial liability in this situation?

Personally, I am not sure police should be using "less lethal" weapons.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Personally, I am not sure police should be using "less lethal" weapons.

Any better ideas on how to stop a riot or put down a mentally unstable suspect with a weapon short of shooting him?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Any better ideas on how to stop a riot or put down a mentally unstable suspect with a weapon short of shooting him?

Not really. Pretty much anything they use can be lethal.

Maybe if they didn't use the bisthmus, and just used pepper balls? Maybe if they didnt even aim at people, but instead hard objects? I don't know enough about the technology to suggest alternatives, but I do think the police officer never intended to kill this girl, and although he may have been briefed that this projectile was lethal, never expected anyone to die if he pulled the trigger.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

The bismuth in the 303 round makes them much more accurate than pepperballs,
removing it makes the 303 more likely to not hit where it is aimed.

Tom Kaye from Airgun Designs engineered the system to maximize accuracy.

It does strike with ~3 times the mass of a conventional pepperball

 

[Coronach]

Like everything, its all tradeoffs. We all know the physics. Lone_Gunman got it pretty much right- anything that works can kill. And the idea of shooting only objects assumes that there are objects to be shot. More often than not, its a large mass of people and not much else. You might be able to do the ground at the feet of the front line...you might not...and what if the front line isn't the problem?

Use chemical only? Doesn't provide immediate effect, and sometimes can't be used at all. Also, heck...there are arguments that for people with respiratory problems, OC or CS could be as deadly as a round to the head (not sure I buy it, but everything has its potential problems, it seems).

Best part? You still have to get the job done, regardless of what everyone and his uncle says about your weapons and/or tactics. I mean, I'm all for a sane after-action review. Someone died. But, lets be reasonable about it.

Mike

 

[firearms_instructor]

Just a few random notes...

- that FN303 round reminds me of a huge Glaser Safety Slug (remember the alleged goats?)

- to those who have implied that Ms. Snelgrove was at fault for not dispersing, or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I say we may never know if she was trying to leave, or if she was looking for a safe way to depart...

 

[cracked butt]

This is becoming one of the *lets blame and second guess the police for carrying out their duties as best as possible instead of blaming the criminals causing the incident* threads.

The rioters are the ones responsible for this mess. Unfortunately, city governments are perceived to have deep pockets and will be the the first to take the bla, I mean lawsuit.

 

[atek3]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/stein/stein17.html

 

[CannibalCrowley]

This entire discussion pretty much boils down to one question. Is the officer responsible for the round he fired?

We all know that limitations exist for certain weapons and the officer should've known the limits of his weapon. There may have been circumstances which made his choice difficult, but that doesn't change the question. Furthermore, if this officer isn't responsible for a round he fired, then should police be held responsible for any rounds they fire?

 

[flatrock]

This entire discussion pretty much boils down to one question. Is the officer responsible for the round he fired?

The officer is responsible for only using a level of force needed for the situation.

I think that in this case the use of the pepper balls was warranted.

The officer is responsible for not trying to intentionally trying to cause harm or injury that is not necessisary.

In this case that does not appear to be the case.

The officer is not responsible for unintended consequenses of the use of force that he was required to use by the actions of others.

Those that created the situation which required the officer to use that force bear the responsibility for those results.

If that's not the way things work, then law enforcement will become completely impotent because they can't do anything without getting sued, and good officers will choose other careers rather than have their lives and careers ruined by malicious lawsuits.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

from atek3's lew rockwell link:

 

[Coronach]

Interesting. Was that pic from Kenmore Square? It might be, but I've seen it before (possibly elsewhere talking about this incident, but possibly file footage).

Russ Stein's writeup is a nice piece of knee-jerk emotionalism, btw. So, all I can gather from his column is this:

1. I didn't see any violence.
2. I didn't see any property destruction (except for hundreds of people standing on cars, and its ok, I didn't park here. Its cool.)
3. The cops started all of this.
4. Some rhetortic about not being able to shoot DNC protestors, so they decided to shoot Red Sox Fans.
5. The cops are all Yankees fans.
6. The police shouldn't increase security in an area just because it had a riot (AKA blissninny feelgoodism: if the cops aren't there, we won't have a second riot, and they scare me anyway)

Ok, I made #5 up. But the rest was all in there.


Mike (Yankees Fan)

 

[Cosmoline]

The officer is responsible for only using a level of force needed for the situation.

True, but in this case shooting a woman in the eye and killing her was quite clearly excessive force for the situation. Anyone who fires a projectile is responsible for where that projectile goes. Period, end of story. The officer shot the woman in the eye, which was clearly excessive. Either he wasn't paying attention to his target, in which case he was reckless, or he was aiming at her head in which case it was intentional.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

flatrock

The officer is responsible for only using a level of force needed for the situation.
I think that in this case the use of the pepper balls was warranted.

Are you saying that lethal force was warranted? Just like the baton example earlier, a FN303 projectile (more dangerous than a Pepperball) should be considered lethal force when applied to potentially lethal area.

 

[Coronach]

CannibalCrowley.

Counterpoint: if an officer is attempting to subdue a resisting suspect, takes a swing at the suspect's arm to block a blow, and misses (due to the rather unscripted nature of a real event), and hits him in the head, does that mean that he should be charged with murder, felonious assault, whatever?

The point is this: if the officer took aim at Snelgrove's head and shot her in it, you have a case for civil liability and criminal charges.

As it is, there is no case for criminal charges that I can see thus far, but doubtless there will be an examination of the civil liability angle.

You insist on painting this as a scenario in which a person is using a firearm against a lone assailant. This is not that scenario.

Mike

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

My god some of these arguements make me want to SCREAM. I'd like to see some of these people that claim he obviously aimed for and shot her in the eye try to shoot a target the size of an eye at a range.......then I'd like them to repeat that shot in the midst of a RIOT. I don't know why I bother anymore because some people are clearly not listening to the way police procedure is written and less lethal munitions are deployed.

I think a good quote from Don Gwinn about sums up this discussion for some of the people here:

But hey, this is the internet! I have a keyboard, therefore I am an expert.