Guns aren't magic after all

[Leif Roar]

Also nice to note that the other 12 rounds failed to kill the suspect...wow.

Actually, I believe that she did roughly about average for the number of hits to the number of shots fired. I haven't been able to track down any first-hand sources, but I've seen numbers for the hit percentage of police in "live" encounters ranging from 12% to 25%.

One might bemoan that the police isn't overall better trained for gunfights but remember that most police officers very rarely get involved in gunfights. Their job really doesn't contain a lot of "gunwork" - somewhat flippant one might say that their job is really to not fire their gun.

The time and resources used to improve their responses in such situations would cut into either their actual police work, or their training in other skills which they actually need more in their day-to-day duties.

 

[Darat]

I think guns are magic.

The way any discussion about guns instantly turns normally reasonable posters into snarling, raving lunatics truly is magical.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

This story reminds of a passage from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon where Ronald Reagan is interviewing a young marine fresh from Guanacanal.

Paraphrasing:
"What advise do you have for any other young marines on their way to Guanacanal?"
"Shoot the one with the sword first."
"Smmmart. That's how you know they're officers right?"
"NO, motherf***er! Because he's got a f***ing sword! You ever had anyone running at you waving a f***ing sword?"

I think this pretty much sums up what was going through the officers mind. This was in an apartment building and must have been very close quarters. I'm imagineing the shooting officer standing slightly behind her partner with her gun drawn. The guy lunges, or makes a move and bang, bang, bang. She empties her clip, maybe jumping back while firing because the guy keeps coming.

 

[shanek]

Which argument is that?

That it's an unreasonable use of force to use a gun against someone not armed with one.

Sounds the other way around to my ear.

Suggests to me that if a pro can't get it right, what chance does an amateur have?

It isn't a question of "getting it right." It's a question of what guns are capable of doing and how the human body reacts to having a piece of metal thrust into it. Look over the gun threads and tell me that people on the gun control side don't have completely unrealistic expectations about the damage bullets cause to bodies. And this is someone who "apparently wasn't on drugs."

In fact, you've done that here to a small extent; you've immediately leapt to the conclusion that the officer did something wrong, when there's nothing in the story to suggest that.

 

[Leif Roar]

That it's an unreasonable use of force to use a gun against someone not armed with one.

I haven't seen anyone here make that argument.

It isn't a question of "getting it right." It's a question of what guns are capable of doing and how the human body reacts to having a piece of metal thrust into it. Look over the gun threads and tell me that people on the gun control side don't have completely unrealistic expectations about the damage bullets cause to bodies. And this is someone who "apparently wasn't on drugs."

Actually, I'd say that there are people on both sides of the argument that have unrealistic expectations about what damage bullets can do.

In fact, you've done that here to a small extent; you've immediately leapt to the conclusion that the officer did something wrong, when there's nothing in the story to suggest that.

She missed the target with several bullets, she hit her partner with two bullets. Both of those are "wrong" in the meaning "not good", even if they're not necessarily "wrong" in the meaning "not satisfactory."

 

[shanek]

I haven't seen anyone here make that argument.

Then I can only conclude you haven't been paying attention. How many times has the "what do you need a gun for" card been played here?

She missed the target with several bullets, she hit her partner with two bullets.

Where does it say how many of here shots missed? We don't know her hit/miss ratio and we don't know how much of a moving target he was. It does say she hit him "multiple times," and it also says he was in a violent rage and therefore probably wasn't the easiest target to hit. So you have no data to conclude anything about her skills with a firearm or how well she reacted to this situation.

 

[Leif Roar]

Then I can only conclude you haven't been paying attention. How many times has the "what do you need a gun for" card been played here?

I fail to see the connection. Who here has actually made the argument that "it's an unreasonable use of force to use a gun against someone not armed with one"?

Where does it say how many of here shots missed? We don't know her hit/miss ratio and we don't know how much of a moving target he was. It does say she hit him "multiple times," and it also says he was in a violent rage and therefore probably wasn't the easiest target to hit. So you have no data to conclude anything about her skills with a firearm or how well she reacted to this situation.

I don't think it's mentioned in the story linked to here, but the man with the sword was hit twice in the legs according to New York Times. I have also not concluded anything about her skills with a firearm or how well she reacted to the situation - except that I have made a comment that her hit percentage seems to be about typical for real life situations. I merely pointed out that her hitting her partner twice and missing the target with several shots were "wrong" in the meaning "not good" - I explicitly stated that this was not necessarily the same as "not satisfactory."

 

[zakur]

When the madman lunged at police, one cop fired 14 shots - bringing down the suspect but also hitting her partner twice.

14 shots. At one guy "lunging" at you. 14 shots. 2 of which hit your partner in the chest and leg.

Has this officer had ANY marksmanship training, at all?

The bloodshed erupted around 5 a.m., when Ivor Forbes, 32, allegedly butchered his wife in their Pelham Parkway apartment, using two ceremonial Japanese swords.

[...]

I noticed his wife was on the floor covered in blood," said a neighbor who went to the first-floor apartment at 2199 Holland Ave. after the noise woke him up. "He was naked."

"She was still alive, she looked at me like she wanted help but at the time I could not do nothing," said the neighbor, who didn't want his name used. "I was just terrified and afraid for her and afraid for my life, too."

The neighbor ran back to his apartment and called 911. About 5:15 a.m., the two cops knocked on the door and were greeted by the blood-stained, naked swordsman, police said.

A neighbour sees a naked man butchering his wife with samuria swords and phones the police . . . they arrive FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER? An armed assault with possible murder...and 2 officers respond 15 minutes later? And one of the officers shoots the other?

WTF?

A naked, samurai sword-wielding martial arts expert [Forbes] screaming, "I'm God! I'm immortal!"

[...]

[After being shot twice] Forbes was in stable condition at St. Barnabas Hospital.

Wow! He IS immortal!

"My brother was a wonderful person; he just had some emotional problems that we're still trying to sort out," Nicole Forbes said.

Emotional problems? Really?

 

[plindboe]

It isn't a question of "getting it right." It's a question of what guns are capable of doing and how the human body reacts to having a piece of metal thrust into it. Look over the gun threads and tell me that people on the gun control side don't have completely unrealistic expectations about the damage bullets cause to bodies. And this is someone who "apparently wasn't on drugs."

No, but he was clearly insane. He hacked his wife to death with a samurai sword and yelled "I'm God! I'm immortal".

Like Ian Osborne, your first post in this thread made perfect sense to me, until I noticed the word "control". If a veteran on the police force can shoot her partner twice in a stressful situation, what does that tell us if the gun is in the hand of an untrained civilian instead?

 

[zakur]

Description of the event from Newsday:

When they got to Forbes' apartment, they heard screams, Kelly said. The officers, whom police would not identify yesterday, pounded on the door.

The female officer, 46, a 17-year veteran, stood to the right of the doorway. The male officer, 27, a seven-year veteran, stood off to the left.

Forbes opened the door with blood smeared over his body, wielded an object and charged the male officer, according to police. Forbes said: "I'm God. Kill me."

Once in the hall he turned on the female officer, police said.

She fired. Two of the shots struck the suspect in the legs, felling him. Her partner was also hit by friendly fire.

14 shots. 2 hit the suspect. 2 hit her partner.

 

[corplinx]

A neighbour sees a naked man butchering his wife with samuria swords and phones the police . . . they arrive FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER?

Well duh, do you think they use personal teleporters?

Police respond to crimes after they have been reported, they don't have 3 bald psychics who tell them before crimes occur so they can go prevent them.

The only person who can defend you is the guy looking at you in the mirror.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

14 shots. At one guy "lunging" at you. 14 shots. 2 of which hit your partner in the chest and leg.

Has this officer had ANY marksmanship training, at all?

Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree).

 

[corplinx]

Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree).

The look on the attackers face when he realizes he hasn't killed the guy was priceless.

For the most part, my guess is that negligent discharges go unreported unless someone gets hurt. I've been on gun forums where some fool accidentally shot a wall or tv in his home. Of course, you never see the story about it in the news.

As for assaults, here the local trauma center has an over 99 percent chance of keeping you alive if you are brought into the trauma center alive. Of course, only gun fatalities make the news. There are many more people shot/stabbed/etc but by far and large people survive.

Of course, more people getting shot is not a positive thing. I just wish there was more perspective on the lethal nature of guns. If the only stories you hear on the news are the ones where stray shot hits a child in the head, you pretty much become convinced that guns work like they do in movies where the cowboys kill everyone in one hit.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted in "Newsday"
The female officer, 46, a 17-year veteran, stood to the right of the doorway. The male officer, 27, a seven-year veteran, stood off to the left.

Forbes opened the door with blood smeared over his body, wielded an object and charged the male officer, according to police. Forbes said: "I'm God. Kill me."

Once in the hall he turned on the female officer, police said.

She fired. Two of the shots struck the suspect in the legs, felling him. Her partner was also hit by friendly fire.

So we have a hallway containing a door which is bracketed by two officers. The suspect enters the scene by way of the door and is now between the cops. No wonder one of the uniforms was hit. He was directly in the line of fire!

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree).

That video was completely insane. It reminded me of on "Police Squad" when they would show Leslie Nielsen and the bad guy shooting at each in close ups and then go to a wide shot where they're about 2 feet apart.

 

[Leif Roar]

Reminds me of the recent caught-on-video episode of the kook who emptied his handgun in the direction of a lawyer outside a courthouse in L.A. Standing not 6-10' away and barely able to wing the man (who, I should add, was partially standing behind a small tree).

This isn't as atypical as you might believe. Most shooting incidents happen at less than 2 yards, and even at such short ranges most shots fired miss the target. This document has some interesting numbers: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS- What We Didn't Know Hurt Us.pdf

 

[Troll]

I always liked Hunter S. Thompson's idea from his campaign when he ran for Sheriff of whatever county Aspen is in.

The idea was that no police would be armed with anything more than a tear gas bomb. The idea being that the purpose of police would be to lower the level of violence, not raise it. The guns would be back at the station, and would be brought out readily in case of any violence problem not handled by the first not armed cop.

This way the police never fire the first shot, and if there is less a chance of the bad guy shooting first just because he thinks if he doesn't the cop will shoot first. If someone does shoot an unarmed cop, then the calvary is called and that's where the show of force comes in. I believe Thompson said something on the order of "to bring terrible vengence on anyone stupid enough to commit violence against an unarmed officer." I'm not big on vigilianteism, but he may be being a bit bombastic.

This is only going to work in places that aren't already de facto war zones, of course. Cops shouldn't be sent on suicide missions.

The idea is great for borderline utopias, but given that you can never predict what a person unkown to you is going to do, I'd have to say I'll stay at the station and you can be the one walking the beat

 

[zakur]

A neighbour sees a naked man butchering his wife with samuria swords and phones the police . . . they arrive FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER? An armed assault with possible murder...and 2 officers respond 15 minutes later? And one of the officers shoots the other?

WTF?

More info. According to a NYT article, the neighbor called police at 4:50 a.m., so make that a 25-minute response.

On the other hand, from the description in the NYT article, it appears the neighbor did not see or report any weapons, just the woman bleeding on the floor. The officers were responding to a "domestic disturbance call," which normally does not require the haste of a "shots fired" or "crime in progress" call.

 

[Luke T.]

Why oh why are narrowly applicable anecdotal stories used so often to support or condemn a very wide position? A cop screws up shooting a suspect and therefore ALL cops should have their guns taken away? Come on! This is like someone posting a link to a story about a homeowner killing a rabid burglar with a handgun to support the gun advocacy.

Geez. A misanthrope could use the same story in the opening post to say women shouldn't be cops...

 

[Khonshu]

25 minute response time desn't surprise me. Police are loathe to show up for domestics, if that's the way it was reported to them. It's the most dangerous situation for an officer to enter, and generally, at least one of the following happens:

1) "nothing happened here. No, I don't want my S.O. arrested" so there's not much of a case

2) They both gang up on the officer

3) The reporting member encourages the police to haul the other one off to jail, then refuses to cooperate in an investigation, and lets the offender come right back home

4) Repeat same call at same house sometime in the near future, with same result

Sometimes, they get both. It's actually rare that police show up for a domestic, make an arrest, press charges, and have their S.O. show up for court and testify against them.

It's just human nature not to rush into what your experience has told is going to be, from the officer's point of view, a complete waste of time & effort.