What's wrong with this picture.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
He is sideways to the threat. Thus his body armor is doing nothing. Put a bullet through his right arm and into the chest cavity and he's done. Another reason square your body to the source of the threat. (if you are wearing armor.)
 
I love the responses.
Hate to say it, but the term "armchair commandos" comes to mind. I'm sure he has a damn good reason to act the way he does and we, from our excellent view this one still provides can deduce everything he's doing wrong. AMIRITE!?
 
I think it's odd that the guy with the pistol is the only one firing, and on the run at that, while his partners with the rifles just hunker down.

I can't tell that he is even firing...looks like he is just changing positions (or something) while covering that direction. Pic looks like some of the other guys are covering that direction as well.

But that photo gives zero information about what is happening. So anything anyone says is just an assumption based on zilch.


I do like the hi-power though :D

Kudos to him for having an extended mag!
 
They look like they are in one of those LEO or Security force competitions like SPOTC. I do SPOTC every year at Wackenhut. I work as a range setter resetting targets for one of the many ranges they compete on and this looks like SPOTC or something very similar. But yes almost everyone got it it is just an extended mag on a Hi Power.
 
"If he is a US soldier he has a Hi-Power which would be a personal arm and illegal to have."
Those uniforms don't look much like U.S. Military, more like police.
 
I think the guy heading away from the camera has a Glock in his holster, but it isn't the focus and so it's kind of hard to tell. Couldn't really be anything else though.

That's the only other pistol I can see.
 
Quote:
Because he has good taste?

more than likely, there weren't enough glocks to go around.

I think they were short on glocks since they were off getting new Gen3 recoil spring assemblies in the Gen4 guns.
 
Pic looks like some of the other guys are covering that direction as well
they can't "cover" anything looking to the rear or not looking down the gun
There is a guy behind the Hi-Power user with his rifle pointed in the same direction as the Hi-Power user - we cannot see his head. There is another set of guys, one looking to the rear (covering maybe?), and one with his weapon pointed the same direction as the Hi-Power user, but perhaps shouting a command, watching something else that has happened...can't really tell, nor can we tell what happened prior to that photo.

Speculating why they are doing anything from one picture with little to no description is pointless in this case...there is nothing glaringly wrong with the picture that I can see and the assumptions people are making are just that...assumptions.


Answer to the thread: nothing wrong...looks like he's dropping his mag, but as others have said, it is almost certainly an extended mag.

026.gif
 
Heck, it's still not as bad as Pistol Ninja. Find the 'Diversity: because mag compatibility is for suckas' demotivator. If you can't find Pistol Ninja in the photo, your sight is worse than mine.

I agree with all of the things pointed out wrong, as well as there is something really screwy about the shooter's carriage and stance.
I suspect this photo was taken with a very long lens and the guy is actually running towards the guys with the rifles. Hell, I would too if all I had was a handgun!!
 
I can't tell that he is even firing...looks like he is just changing positions (or something) while covering that direction. Pic looks like some of the other guys are covering that direction as well.

But that photo gives zero information about what is happening. So anything anyone says is just an assumption based on zilch.

Right. Given the image, I don't see how anyone can determine that the guy with the Hi Power is firing, is running, direction he is moving, that the officer facing the rear isn't providing a "rear guard", that he is moving, that he isn't in the fight or that he is concerned about the camera.

they can't "cover" anything looking to the rear or not looking down the gun

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that the direction a guy faces determines wether or not he is providing cover. He is at low ready in the image and appears to be covering the 6:00 o'clock position. For all we know, he was sighting down his rifle but had to lower it so as to not scan another officer or officers moving through what would be his field of fire.

He is sideways to the threat. Thus his body armor is doing nothing. Put a bullet through his right arm and into the chest cavity and he's done. Another reason square your body to the source of the threat. (if you are wearing armor.)

Actually, no. The body armor is doing something. He does have some side coverage by it. Granted, he isn't making the best use of the armor's protection, but it is providing some protection.

I think that if a person was capable of putting a bullet through his right arm and into his chest cavity, that shooter could probably shoot him in the head as well.

why does he have a Hi-Power when the rest have glocks, or so it appears?

By "the rest," do you me the singular other officer whose pistol can be seen?

how do you know what's goin on from the threat if your crane necked lookin over at the sprinting banshee?

You can't see their eyes and so you don't know where they are or are not looking.
 
posted by Buck Snort
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mmepiphany
was that ever in question?

i thought that was obvious...are folks talking about his stance?


Yes.

i'm stunned, i thought it was obvious that he was running across an opening to a different position...especially since the first response referred to what they believed was a partially ejected mag.

perhaps the obvious, isn't always so ;)
 
i'm stunned, i thought it was obvious that he was running across an opening to a different position...especially since the first response referred to what they believed was a partially ejected mag.

perhaps the obvious, isn't always so

Well, we know it isn't a partial ejected mag. People also thought he was shooting. Do you see evidence of shooting or do you see a guy pointing a gun down range?

Given that it is a still image and how focuessed, what appears to be in motion on the guy with the pistol? The only thing that really looks to be in motion is his left hand, which could be doing a lot of things. Can you see his feet? Nope. So we can see it he is in mid stride or not.

People also suggested the guy facing rearward was in motion as well. Others have suggesting they knew where officers facting away from the camera are looking without being able to see their eyes.

So really, what is obvious about the behaviors in this photograph?
 
posted by Double Naught Spy
The only thing that really looks to be in motion is his left hand, which could be doing a lot of things. Can you see his feet? Nope. So we can see it he is in mid stride or not...

...So really, what is obvious about the behaviors in this photograph?

he isn't bending over as his posture isn't correct for that. (his head is too erect) his shoulders are hunched and his weight is thrown forward (of his center of gravity) over his legs which (as in the falling posture we adopt to walk or run) . his left arm is swinging backward (much as in a crawl stroke) he left front pants pocket is bunched (the left leg is raised) while his let pant leg appears to be in extension
 
I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that the direction a guy faces determines wether or not he is providing cover. He is at low ready in the image and appears to be covering the 6:00 o'clock position. For all we know, he was sighting down his rifle but had to lower it so as to not scan another officer or officers moving through what would be his field of fire.

are you serious? I dont know where you learned tactics, and I'd dare you ask someone whos been there what constitutes "cover", the answer is looking down your weapon scanning for targets. He is clearly in the open hence the pistol directed toward the threat, I sure as hell am not gonna expose myself in the open with my buddies looking all around. And the "low ready", position two, is a threat possible but not observed position, I.E. moving through the bush, walking a patrol in an urban street, these guys cleary think there is a legitimate threat to the left from our view and have a buddy crossing a danger area, any way you look at it they are wrong as two boys.. well you get the idea
 
he isn't bending over as his posture isn't correct for that. (his head is too erect) his shoulders are hunched and his weight is thrown forward (of his center of gravity) over his legs which (as in the falling posture we adopt to walk or run) . his left arm is swinging backward (much as in a crawl stroke) he left front pants pocket is bunched (the left leg is raised) while his let pant leg appears to be in extension

I saw all that too which is why I though he might be moving toward the camera. But he could just as easily be standing up from a crouching position to aim or look over a wall or other barrier.

But we really can't tell since there is not enough photo or info.


are you serious? I dont know where you learned tactics, and I'd dare you ask someone whos been there what constitutes "cover", the answer is looking down your weapon scanning for targets. He is clearly in the open hence the pistol directed toward the threat, I sure as hell am not gonna expose myself in the open with my buddies looking all around. And the "low ready", position two, is a threat possible but not observed position, I.E. moving through the bush, walking a patrol in an urban street, these guys cleary think there is a legitimate threat to the left from our view and have a buddy crossing a danger area, any way you look at it they are wrong as two boys.. well you get the idea

You can tell he's in the open? I don't see any "open" in front of him. Why? Because the photo does not show what is in front of him. Maybe there is, or maybe there is a wall and he's just looking over it.

Again, I will say that no one cannot tell bupkis from that photo about almost anything that is happening. Critique their tactics, claim there is XYZ in front or behind or wherever, assume the other troops (of which we can only see a few and not see them very well) are not doing their job - there is simply not enough information or photo to make any such judgment.


Here's another example of just such an assumption: Do you see that blurry guy that looks like he's kneeling? He's just behind the wall that says "Big Pam the hot girl" - only about a third of him is showing...really hard to see. Well it totally looks like he's starting to lean around the wall and shoot that running guy with the Hi Power that just ejected his magazine while all his buddies aren't paying any attention. That photographer was way lucky to get that photo just before everyone was killed.


Here's another screwy assumption: Boy, that Hi Power guy is a wanna be action hero...what a jerk for trying to look cool while there's a war going on...his buds are obviously calm about the whole situation. He just had to try and look cool for the cameras...serves him right that he dropped the mag out of his gun while showing off...lucky camera guy caught it.


Try and spot all the assumptions in those doozies :p



026.gif
 
People also thought he was shooting. Do you see evidence of shooting or do you see a guy pointing a gun down range?
Well, let's see...

Hammer cocked, safety off, finger on the trigger while running....if he's not shooting then he has some very poor gun safety habits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top