PDA

View Full Version : LA Cops fatally shoot car chase suspect on TV


G4scott
Feb 25, 2004, 12:57 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20040224/ts_latimes/laofficerskillsuspectasviewerswatchontv&printer=1

Although it's sad that it had to come to this kind of ending, I have to side with the police on this one. If this guy endangers their lives, as well as the lives of others, they were justified in using lethal force.

What's worse, is that this guy's family is probably going to sue the police department for wrongful death, and some good officers may lose their jobs. What good are police for these days if they can't do what's necessary to serve and protect?

krimson
Feb 25, 2004, 01:03 PM
Considering where the police officers were when they shot at the car, i'd say they weren't in immediate danger, although I wasn't actually there in the "heat of battle".

Stelliform
Feb 25, 2004, 01:09 PM
"Why did they have to shoot him so many times?" asked Emma Jean Killinger, the man's aunt. Killinger lived with her family in Malibu for the last three or four months, she said.

I do believe that most police departments only allow shoot to kill firing of weapons. I know the local departments have that policy. Sad that it was aired on TV though

G4scott
Feb 25, 2004, 01:17 PM
Either way, you don't mess with cops like that. You know that you might get shot if you do something stupid. It doesn't take that much brains to figure that out.

Sun Baked
Feb 25, 2004, 01:54 PM
The vehicle is a lethal weapon... if the vehicle was in reverse, then the cops standing behind the vehicle would most likely shoot.

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 02:04 PM
Actually, its not shoot-to-kill.

Its shoot-to-stop-the-attack. Unfortunately, we do not have Star Trekô technology type-2 phasers set on stun, so the next best thing to stop an attack is via blood loss, or CNS shutdown. That is the reality.

As to whether or not the shooting was justified, I was not there. But, I side with the cops on this one.

A few things to remember, a typical 9mm bullet has 396 ft-lbs of energy (115grains or 1/4 of an ounce, going at 1245feetpersecond or 850milesperhour). This can definitely kill.

A Ford Tempo weighs 2500lbs, and can go backwards up to 25MPH, or more, lets say a typical 10MPH. A Ford Tempo has 7616 ft-lbs of energy, thats 20times the energy!!!

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
The vehicle is a lethal weapon... if the vehicle was in reverse, then the cops standing behind the vehicle would most likely shoot.

Yep. Did you know that in a given year, more people get killed with vehicles than they do with guns?

One thing that I remembered working with cops when the conversation goes to seeing a perp on the street with a gun and the cops are in their squad cars. The cop not driving usually wants to have the car stop so he/she can draw their pistol on the perp. The cop that is driving always wants to step on the gas and drive at the perp. :p

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 02:43 PM
Everybody complains when Janet's boob shows up on the TV, yet there is silence from those same people when someone is killed on live TV. Yeah the news crews didn't know what was going to happen, but neither did the camera people at the Super Bowl. Seems like everyone's getting worked up about the cops being right or wrong, what about the media? Should chases be shown live? And why is it ok for a kid to see a live death and not a live boob?

As far as I can tell, the cops are well within their rights to shoot this guy. If you threaten a cop, you should count on getting shot. The media's sick obsession with ratings is another matter however. A cop chase isn't news, and it's certainly not worth breaking into another broadcast for. Instead of being outraged by the actions of the perp or the cops, be outraged at the media.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 03:26 PM
This all happened right in front of my house.. i was awaken by the gun shots and jumped out of bed... hearing nothing but sirens and the drone of about 15 helicopters above my head. I immedietely ran outside and saw the guy laying on the asphalt. This was before the cops had a chance to put up police tape and what not, I was standing maybe 20 feet away from the guy. There were cops just standing around as the guy lay there dying. One was drinking a coffee. About FIFTEEN minutes later, the first ambulace was on scene.

One of my neighbors actually witnessed the whole thing. He basically stated the same thing you can see if you watch the video from the helicopters. The driver did NOT ram the police officers, he accidently pulled into a driveway, mistaking it for a street, and began to back up SLOWLY. Just as soon as his reverse lights came on, BEFORE he even stated moving, 3 cops opened fire. MANY MANY rounds were fired (I heard most of them). The only reason the suspects car actually BUMPED the police car, was because he had been shot so many times, he opened the door to try to get out, but slumped and hit the asphalt, as the cops CONTINUED shooting him. His car then rolled into a cop car. There was no RAMMING and the cops lives were never at stake. Just another example of the cops making an excuse for their carelessness.

Oh, and btw, this was an armed robbery suspect who had robbed a gas station for 180 dollars with a KNIFE. The cops knew this, they knew he did not have a gun.

Also, according to the LAPD website, they stated "At least one shot was fired at the car just it collided at slow speed with a patrol car." link (http://www.lapd.net/main_NRM/nrm_show.asp?topic=NWS_HEADLINES&flattopic=1&LngKey=en&subject=NWS_1A959F92-2426-4653-9A21-4B72166394D1)

AFTER the car collided with a patrol car? Anyone who watches the video knows this is not true. Why do they lie? Especially when theres 10 videos fromt the different news channels. This was murder on behalf of the police. The guy was just a 23 year old kid. Sad. :(


On a side note, the guy pulled into the driveway of santa monica high school. So the cops were firing directly into the school. Although it was 6am, probably most students were not on campus... but who knows... seems pretty risky to me, especially when it wasnt necessary in the first place.

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 03:38 PM
The cops couldn't know he didn't have a gun. He could have had a knife AND a gun for all they knew. And if you try to evade arrest you are likely to wind up shot. That has to figure into your thinking when you run from the cops. It sucks that he was young like that, but even young thugs can be murderously dangerous.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 03:45 PM
sure if he had a gun (although i think if he did, he woulda used it to rob the gas station), and pointed it at the cops, I would agree. You have no choice but to bring him down. But all we was trying to do was get away, based on my neighbor who saw the whole thing, and all the videos I saw on tv, he had no intentions of "ramming" police. There is definetely a time when guns must be used by the police, this was not one of them.

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
As far as I can tell, the cops are well within their rights to shoot this guy. If you threaten a cop, you should count on getting shot. The media's sick obsession with ratings is another matter however. A cop chase isn't news, and it's certainly not worth breaking into another broadcast for. Instead of being outraged by the actions of the perp or the cops, be outraged at the media.

Janet's live boob was a staged planned event.
Cops shooting a perp backing a car at them is not a staged planned event.

Outrage at the media, maybe, but you do not need to be outraged. Media, has competitors, and you can chose to not support their business by maybe writing a small note to their advertisers. Nice to live in a competitve capitalist society? There is always an alternative available. :D

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Janet's live boob was a staged planned event.
Cops shooting a perp backing a car at them is not a staged planned event.

Outrage at the media, maybe, but you do not need to be outraged. Media, has competitors, and you can chose to not support their business by maybe writing a small note to their advertisers. Nice to live in a competitve capitalist society? There is always an alternative available. :D

How do you know this wasn't a staged, planned event otherwise known as suicide by cop? My point was that the MEDIA didn't know Janet's boob would be shown, just as they didn't know this guy would get killed.

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
sure if he had a gun (although i think if he did, he woulda used it to rob the gas station), and pointed it at the cops, I would agree. You have no choice but to bring him down. But all we was trying to do was get away, based on my neighbor who saw the whole thing, and all the videos I saw on tv, he had no intentions of "ramming" police. There is definetely a time when guns must be used by the police, this was not one of them.

Not really. There are special enhancement sentencing guidelines when a perp commits a crime with a gun, could be that the perp used a knife in case he was caught, they can't use it against him. But he could have a gun in the car. I would not want to second guess the cops on this one. I was not there.

I contend that its good that the cops got him. Maybe the next robber would drop the weapon, and give up peaceably as soon as sirens are heard. I used to remember stories told by old cops about when they were out on the beat, that when they came upon a perp, the perp would give up right away, and they would chat about the baseball game on the way to the station for booking. We have a more violent-type of criminal out there now. Police need to become more violent in order to cope. But this is still a bandaid to the problem of crime.

What we need is more violent-type of victim. A victim that fights off their attackers and stops the attack and makes the criminal run away.

jxyama
Feb 25, 2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
sure if he had a gun (although i think if he did, he woulda used it to rob the gas station), and pointed it at the cops, I would agree. You have no choice but to bring him down. But all we was trying to do was get away, based on my neighbor who saw the whole thing, and all the videos I saw on tv, he had no intentions of "ramming" police. There is definetely a time when guns must be used by the police, this was not one of them.

if you are the criminal, the burden falls on you to prove your harmlessness. i do not know if the shooting was justified in this case or not, but you cannot expect the law enforcement to take actions based on what they *think* they know. they act assuming the worst - otherwise, it could be them in the coffin.

speculating on possible intentions after the fact is useless.

i don't condone excessive use of force - but to examine this type of event under after the fact analysis of possible intentions is not fair to law enforcement officers.

sure if he had a gun (although i think if he did, he woulda used it to rob the gas station)

in the same light, if he had wanted to not get into further trouble, he would have stopped the car sooner.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 04:13 PM
ok but did he point his non exsistant gun at the officers? I wasn't aware of it if he did. All I am saying is, they are using the excuse "he MIGHT have been armed" and "he rammed our police car." The second one is a lie, the 1st is no reason to shoot someone, unless of course, he pointed a weapon at them first. If suspecting someone has a weapon is a reason to kill someone, whats to say they wont suspect you of a weapon when youre walking down the street and shoot you?

agreenster
Feb 25, 2004, 04:15 PM
Hey, all arguments aside--when you go and rob a store, you take your life in your own hands.

Sorry, but if you dont rob a store and run from the police, you wont get shot to death. Period. When someone is already demonstrating radical behavior with the potential to inflict harm, police not only have the right, but are required to act with deadly force.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Hey, all arguments aside--when you go and rob a store, you take your life in your own hands.

Sorry, but if you dont rob a store and run from the police, you wont get shot to death. Period. When someone is already demonstrating radical behavior with the potential to inflict harm, police not only have the right, but are required to act with deadly force.

so you are stating that anyone that runs from the police deserves to die? Wow thats pretty scary stuff, I'm glad you arent a police officer.

agreenster
Feb 25, 2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
When someone is already demonstrating radical behavior with the potential to inflict harm

Quoting myself for emphasis.

It isnt the first time someone has been killed in a robbery attempt, police or perp. (do a search on LaTimes, and you'll find more than a handful) Robbery is a SERIOUS offense, and if the police are threatened, in any way, there is a likelihood of a fatality.

Someone who commits robbery doesnt deserve to die, but someone who commits robbery and then runs from the police is just askin' for it. Police know that when perps stop the car and throw it into reverse, bad things happen.

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
so you are stating that anyone that runs from the police deserves to die? Wow thats pretty scary stuff, I'm glad you arent a police officer.

I wouldn't say deserves to die, but you have to know the odds of death increase dramatically when you rob a store and then run from the cops.

If someone pulled a knife on me, the very least that would happen is that they would never use that arm again.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
If someone pulled a knife on me, the very least that would happen is that they would never use that arm again.

I agree completely, I would do the same, and expect anyone, including the police to do the same. I respect the police and my best friend is a police officer with LAPD and I hear lots of stories. I know they have a tough job, and should get paid a lot more than they do for risking their lives everyday. All I am saying is that I feel these officers acted too quickly in this case. Sure if the guy was going to ram them, I agree they needed to shoot, but unless you have seen the video, or like my neighbor, witnessed it, please don't base your decisions based on what an LAPD spokesman said. Of course they are going to cover their asses.

I'm sure if you interviewed the driver of the car (not that you can now of course), you'd have a whole different perspective.

krimson
Feb 25, 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Actually, its not shoot-to-kill.

Its shoot-to-stop-the-attack. Unfortunately, we do not have Star Trekô technology type-2 phasers set on stun, so the next best thing to stop an attack is via blood loss, or CNS shutdown. That is the reality.

As to whether or not the shooting was justified, I was not there. But, I side with the cops on this one.

A few things to remember, a typical 9mm bullet has 396 ft-lbs of energy (115grains or 1/4 of an ounce, going at 1245feetpersecond or 850milesperhour). This can definitely kill.

A Ford Tempo weighs 2500lbs, and can go backwards up to 25MPH, or more, lets say a typical 10MPH. A Ford Tempo has 7616 ft-lbs of energy, thats 20times the energy!!!

How much energy from a Tempo moving 10mph can 3 Crown Vic's absorb before they would even move?

agreenster
Feb 25, 2004, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
but unless you have seen the video, or like my neighbor, witnessed it, please don't base your decisions based on what an LAPD spokesman said

I'm sure if you interviewed the driver of the car (not that you can now of course), you'd have a whole different perspective.

Okay, I think what you are failing to understand here is: We dont care.

Dont care of he meant to run the cops over or not, fact is he robbed a store at knifepoint and ran off and started a carchase. If he didnt MEAN to hurt anyone, he sure had a strange way of showing it.

Doesnt matter what your intentions are in a case like this. If it appears as tho' you are going to inflict harm, you're askin for it. He shoulda stopped LONG before he pulled into that driveway, then none of this would have happened.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Okay, I think what you are failing to understand here is: We dont care.

Dont care of he meant to run the cops over or not, fact is he robbed a store at knifepoint and ran off and started a carchase. If he didnt MEAN to hurt anyone, he sure had a strange way of showing it.

Doesnt matter what your intentions are in a case like this. If it appears as tho' you are going to inflict harm, you're askin for it. He shoulda stopped LONG before he pulled into that driveway, then none of this would have happened.

and what you are failing to understand is that HE DID NOT inflict harm on anyone, even if he had killed the gas station attendent, that doesn't give anyone the right to implement instant justice. That is what the justice system is set up for. Running from the cops is stupid, and will be punished, but Ive never heard of anyone getting the death penalty for simply running from the cops. The cops in this case didnt have the right to take his life either.

What you are failing to understand, is that every case is different, and many times, yes I side with the cops. This case is different, and you obviously are not familiar with it. I will not waste anymore time trying to point out your ignorance, while you sit here and basically state that every case is the same: when you run from the cops, youre "askin for it." :rolleyes:

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 05:10 PM
If you don't want to get shot, DO WHAT THE COPS TELL YOU! Sort it out later. If you have a legitimate reason that they should be leaving you alone, stay alive long enough to get to the station and explain. But when a cop tells you to stop, and get out of your car, you better do it!

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
If you don't want to get shot, DO WHAT THE COPS TELL YOU! Sort it out later. If you have a legitimate reason that they should be leaving you alone, stay alive long enough to get to the station and explain. But when a cop tells you to stop, and get out of your car, you better do it!

I agree completely. Ive been pulled over many times in my life and never did it occur to me to run. What you guys are failing to see, is that I am not encouraging running from the cops, I am not saying it is ok to run from the cops, and I am not saying these people should be let free. All I am trying to say is that IN THIS CASE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOOT 15 ROUNDS INTO THIS GUY. Why can't you people understand this, instead of taking everything I say and turning it into an argument. Sheesh.

What you are all basically saying is that all cases are the same. You have to understand that all cases are different. Every case that involves running from the police is not the same. Do you at least agree with me in this aspect? (i.e. A carload of thugs shoting guns out the window at the cops while being chased, vs. an unarmed little old man running from the cops because he has expired plates, is poor, and knows he cannot afford the fine and panics). Yes these are extreme cases.

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 05:22 PM
Look, setting aside the issue of whether this particular shooting was justified or not, running from the cops is not a good way to assure that you arrive home safely that night. Let's let the internal investigation determine whether the cops on the scene were justified in shooting the guy. I'll withhold judgement on that until I see more evidence one way or the other. I would suggest that you do that same.

But if you rob a store, don't be surprised if you wind up shot, either by the store owner, a random armed citizen, or the cops. Justified or not, mistake or not, that's dangerous work. OSHA don't have any guidelines for protecting the workplace of thieves.

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
Someone who commits robbery doesnt deserve to die, but someone who commits robbery and then runs from the police is just askin' for it. Police know that when perps stop the car and throw it into reverse, bad things happen.

Robbery (http://www.defend-me.com/California/California-Penal-Code-211-215.asp) in California is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

The fear in PC code 211 is The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family;
or The fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery.

Justifiable homicide (killing) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=75169928799+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) is defined for non police officers to be 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, ...

So, robbery is a felony. If the victim resists the commission of a felony (robbery), and kills the robber, I think the robber deserved that one.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 05:28 PM
Yes, running from the cops is not good or safe. We have established that. Definetely not a good idea.

But who's going to do the investigation? Are the police going to be investigating themselves? If I was investigating myself, I would not find myself guilty.. but hey thats just me.

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 05:29 PM
Yeah Frohickey, but you think poor people deserve to die too.... ;)

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Robbery (http://www.defend-me.com/California/California-Penal-Code-211-215.asp) in California is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

The fear in PC code 211 is The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family;
or The fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery.

Justifiable homicide (killing) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=75169928799+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) is defined for non police officers to be 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, ...

So, robbery is a felony. If the victim resists the commission of a felony (robbery), and kills the robber, I think the robber deserved that one.


ok.. but thats not what happened.

Dale Sorel
Feb 25, 2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
The vehicle is a lethal weapon...

Yep...shoot'm dead :mad:

Drkangel80
Feb 25, 2004, 06:26 PM
you think that this is gonna end up on one of fox's police shows?

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 25, 2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
This all happened right in front of my house.. i was awaken by the gun shots and jumped out of bed... hearing nothing but sirens and the drone of about 15 helicopters above my head. I immedietely ran outside and saw the guy laying on the asphalt. This was before the cops had a chance to put up police tape and what not, I was standing maybe 20 feet away from the guy. There were cops just standing around as the guy lay there dying. One was drinking a coffee. About FIFTEEN minutes later, the first ambulace was on scene.

One of my neighbors actually witnessed the whole thing. He basically stated the same thing you can see if you watch the video from the helicopters. The driver did NOT ram the police officers, he accidently pulled into a driveway, mistaking it for a street, and began to back up SLOWLY. Just as soon as his reverse lights came on, BEFORE he even stated moving, 3 cops opened fire. MANY MANY rounds were fired (I heard most of them). The only reason the suspects car actually BUMPED the police car, was because he had been shot so many times, he opened the door to try to get out, but slumped and hit the asphalt, as the cops CONTINUED shooting him. His car then rolled into a cop car. There was no RAMMING and the cops lives were never at stake. Just another example of the cops making an excuse for their carelessness.

Oh, and btw, this was an armed robbery suspect who had robbed a gas station for 180 dollars with a KNIFE. The cops knew this, they knew he did not have a gun.

Also, according to the LAPD website, they stated "At least one shot was fired at the car just it collided at slow speed with a patrol car." link (http://www.lapd.net/main_NRM/nrm_show.asp?topic=NWS_HEADLINES&flattopic=1&LngKey=en&subject=NWS_1A959F92-2426-4653-9A21-4B72166394D1)

AFTER the car collided with a patrol car? Anyone who watches the video knows this is not true. Why do they lie? Especially when theres 10 videos fromt the different news channels. This was murder on behalf of the police. The guy was just a 23 year old kid. Sad. :(


On a side note, the guy pulled into the driveway of santa monica high school. So the cops were firing directly into the school. Although it was 6am, probably most students were not on campus... but who knows... seems pretty risky to me, especially when it wasnt necessary in the first place.

Forgive me, but the law is that if you see lights and sirens of police or rescue vehicles, YOU PULL OVER!

Even though he robbed with a knife, he could have had a gun.

All I can say there is one less person that will be robbing innocent people....

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 25, 2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
Yes, running from the cops is not good or safe. We have established that. Definetely not a good idea.

But who's going to do the investigation? Are the police going to be investigating themselves? If I was investigating myself, I would not find myself guilty.. but hey thats just me.

Fortunately the LA Police are under stricter review, and what ever the out come; you can be assured that it will be proper.

I am as liberal as they come. But I am tired of people defending the actions of criminals that wreck havoc on our streets.

This guy had a choice. He was cornered. HE chose to backup towards the officers. HE MAY have started out slowly, but he could have sped up. And if he had and injured or killed police officers in the process, what would you be saying?

Personally as the son of a former law enforcement officer, I would be happier to see those officers to go home to their loved ones, then have the risk to their lives from someone that obviously did not care about anyone but himself.

Keep in mind those officers will have to live with their choice regardless what the department or the courts say.

it seems that you are siding with this perp. Have you ever talked with an officer involved in a deadly shooting? Justified or not, it is something they have to live with for the rest of their lives.

I will tell you that they have greater issues with their actions then many of the perps that kill innocent people to suit their own needs.

Sun Baked
Feb 25, 2004, 07:10 PM
Here in the Phoenix Metro area a kid was killed while holding a knife, he started towards the officers and refused to drop the knife.

It caused a community outrage -- because they didn't use non-deadly force. And that the kid was nowhere near endagering the officers, yet.

This was not the first time the officers had been called to this kids house to disarm him.

Because of this kid, tasers were put in the hands on most all the police officers.

A couple days ago a man holding a baseball bat was shot dead. After he refuse to drop the bat he was hit with the taser.

Since the taser didn't work, it allowed the guy to get close enough to put the officer in the hospital.

---

Sure knives, bats, and cars aren't dangerous at a distance -- but that distance can change real quick.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 25, 2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Here in the Phoenix Metro area a kid was killed while holding a knife, he started towards the officers and refused to drop the knife.

It caused a community outrage -- because they didn't use non-deadly force. And that the kid was nowhere near endagering the officers, yet.

This was not the first time the officers had been called to this kids house to disarm him.

...

Sure knives, bats, and cars aren't dangerous at a distance -- but that distance can change real quick.

When does one become responsible for their actions?

Sun Baked
Feb 25, 2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
When does one become responsible for their actions? Seems the kid was found responsible during the investigation for his own death, he was agitated and moved on the officers while brandishing a deadly weapon.

While he may have been a teenager, he was still a threat when there was no other alternative available at the scene.

Hold a knife and act like a raving lunatic, make threats to people lives (basically his own), refuse to drop the knife then make a move on officers.

Your either dead, or in the ICU.

---

The city/county found that this may have been an avoidable death if non-deadly force was available at the scence. So they increased the number of tasers in the field.

This backfired and place a cop in the hospital.

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah Frohickey, but you think poor people deserve to die too.... ;)

Deserve has got nothing to do with it. ;)

(BTW, everyone dies.)

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
ok.. but thats not what happened.

Just showing what the current laws are in California. The post was in reference to 'Robbers deserve to die'. Yes. I think that robbers deserve to die, same with rapists, murderers, child molesters, and probably a few others. Like scum, they steal oxygen. ;)

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
When does one become responsible for their actions?

What is your comfort level of a young fit man holding a knife threatening you?
100 yards?
50 yards?
25 yards?
10 yards?
5 yards?
1 yard?

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
What is your comfort level of a young fit man holding a knife threatening you?
100 yards?
50 yards?
25 yards?
10 yards?
5 yards?
1 yard?


Not sure, I guess that would depend on the person. I know if someone was running at me with a knife, Id take them down well before they were close enough to use it (then again Ive never owned a gun, or fired one for that matter, nor do I plan on it).

Actually, back in high school, a bunch of punks surrounded me in a parking lot and attempted to take my money while one brandished a knife (it was a small pocket knife but a knife non the less). I stalled them and when when I had opportunity, I turned and pushed a couple of the guys behind me out of the way and ran. Anyway, don't know the point of this story.. but that was deinetely out of my comfort zone :D

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by vwcruisn
Not sure, I guess that would depend on the person. I know if someone was running at me with a knife, Id take them down well before they were close enough to use it (then again Ive never owned a gun, or fired one for that matter, nor do I plan on it).


What is your definition of close enough to use it? The reason I bring this up is that the distance you think "close enough to use it" is not as short as you think it is.

vwcruisn
Feb 25, 2004, 09:04 PM
well i wouldnt sit there and map out a mathematical equation if thats what youre getting at.... and i couldnt just state a distance such as 20 feet.. im not sure how you want me to answer the question... i suppose it would be different for everybody and in every case... whats it matter really

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 09:15 PM
5 yards

Sun Baked
Feb 25, 2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
5 yards Won't give you much time to react with deadly force if you want to use try a taser first.

If you had back-up protecting you maybe, but you don't really have much time to react at 15 feet.

If somebody is walking towards you slowly and refusing to halt or drop the weapon, at 15 feet they are in the zone where they can kill you.

They can easily run or lunge at you.

---

If a car is moving toward you, where is the comfort zone?

All they have to do is mash the pedal and you're an instant hood ornament at 10-20 feet.

Frohickey
Feb 25, 2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
5 yards

Police Survival Shooting: How Close is Too Close? (http://www.recguns.com/Sources/XI3.html)
The first half of the tape is devoted to the "Tueller Drill." The "Tueller drill" is named for Sgt. Dennis Tueller, Salt Lake City Police, who also appears in this video. In 1983, he published the article "How Close Is Too Close" in SWAT magazine (Survival Weapons and Tactics). In this article, he discussed the results of a series of tests he had run. His tests showed that, with people of various ages, weights, and heights, they could on average close a distance of 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds. That time -- 1.5 seconds -- happened to be the "drill time" taught by Jeff Cooper at GunSite for drawing a handgun and firing two aimed shots. Knowing that people who have been shot do not always -- or perhaps even often -- fall down instantly, or otherwise stop dead in their tracks, Tueller concluded that a person armed with a knife or club at the so called "intermediate range" of 21 feet was a potentially lethal threat. The "Tueller drill" is now a standard part of all of Ayoob's LFI classes.

Personally, I think 5 yards is too close.

mactastic
Feb 25, 2004, 09:35 PM
I'm not going to be using a gun, so I'm ok with it being a little closer.;)

But if I do happen to have 1.5 seconds I can have a knife handy.

agreenster
Feb 25, 2004, 11:23 PM
I understand where you are coming from. You feel sorry for this dude because it wansnt blatantly obvious that he was willing to inflict harm on the police officers. Chances are, in fact, that he probably would have eventually stopped the car and surrendered.

But the sad truth is, in cases of high tension, especially in the city of LA, where shootings and killings happen way too often, police have to be extra cautious to not become a statistic. Should these cops have opened fire on this guy? In hindsight, probably no. But hindsight is 20/20, and I hate to say it but they probably did the right thing at the time given the circumstances.

I think what everyone is trying to say though (myself included) is that had this guy obeyed the law, not committed a felony, and not behaved in the exact same manner as someone willing to kill police or pedestrians to get away (as we've seen time and again in LA), then he probably would not have been killed.

Did he deserve to die? Hell no. It was obvious that he didnt intend harm. But he behaved as if he would, and at a moment when the police werent sure of his actions, they erred on the side of safety for their fellow officers.

I'm sorry, but this young man will get little sympathy from most of the people aware of the situation, right or wrong. I guess people nowadays have very little patience for criminals committing criminal acts.

And one more thing:

Think about this, what if he would have killed someone while speeding away from the place he robbed? Would the police have been more justified in killing him then? He could have easily done that, and was just lucky that no one crossed his path. This is no different than walking into a crowded mall with a shotgun and opening fire. So if you're a bad aim, do you still get taken out by police?

I know it isnt a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.

Anyway vwcruisn, I just felt like you were getting upset, and wanted you to know that I think we DO see where you are coming from, but when it comes down to it, the vast majority of people would have rather seen this ending than one where cops or pedestrians get killed. It IS unfortunate that this man lost his life. That can never be changed.

Diatribe
Feb 26, 2004, 04:01 AM
Crazy, I mean listen to you people... Robbers deserve to die, lethal force is all right cause he robbed someone and ran from the police, he could have had a gun...
I think they should stop someone like this, yes, but to shoot 11 or more rounds into that guy. I've seen pursuits where they KNEW that the guy had a gun end better than this. And what is it with someone deserving to die when they are running from the police? Are we in some kind militant dictatorship here? I don't think the police should act any less forceful when dealing with bank robbers, like the ones in North Hollywood a couple of years ago, but in a situation like this, use your brain here as a cop. I know they have a tough job and are underpaid, etc, etc, I have friends who are, but by all means if you are so freaking scared that you shoot at the next person IN ORDER TO KILL just cause he's backing up, THINK.
Sorry if this sounds like I'm agitated here, but some things I just don't understand. This is the only country where things end like this on a regular basis, when they don't have to.
Just my $0.02

bwilke
Feb 26, 2004, 09:31 AM
A slow moving car can turn in to a fast moving car very quickly.

Three officers fired about 11 rounds into the rear window of the car. Approx 4 shots per officer. Unsure how many times the guy was hit. Is 4 shots excessive? You shot until the attacker is neutralized.

If your target is in a car backing into you, where can you aim to stop him. Shooting out the tires will not stop a car. All you have is a head shot. These tend to be fatal.

Sorry, but I got to side with the police on this one.

agreenster
Feb 26, 2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Diatribe
And what is it with someone deserving to die when they are running from the police?

I dont think that is what we're saying, at least, thats not what IM saying.

My argument is a three-parter:

1) The police were right in killing him because at a moment of tension (having him surrounded, trapped, etc) they felt he was beginning to act in an aggressive manner, and had they not acted, they could have been killed. Now, if thats true, then they (the police) were right. If, however, it turns out that he was just putting the car in park, and his reverse lights just flipped on and they overreacted, then they were wrong....

But that leads me to point

2) In Los Angeles or any large city, 9 times out of 10, if a robbery is committed and a car chase insues, the perp is considered a danger/threat to society. (It happens so much, and many many times it has killed pedestrians and officers) He is instantly charged with wreckless driving, and his vehicle then becomes a weapon. Neutralizing that weapon becomes #1 priority. So therefore, overreaction by the police is expected, because they are aware of the damage this person is able to inflict. Yes, they still overreacted, but not because they are "bad" police officers, but because they know the statistics, and know that there is very high liklihood that this dude is gonna flip.

And finally

3) People dont deserve to die when they rob a bank and run from the police. (please re-read that so you dont get confused) But when you do such an action, you should know that there is a good liklihood that the situation could escalate (in this case, it did) and you could wind up shot. Its called risk. The police can misinterpret your actions (which they did) or you could lose your cool, and wind up getting shot. Therefore, ultimately, it is still the perps fault. Trust me, the po po will leave you alone if you dont do something to attract their attention.

Its the same thing that would happen to you if you brandished a fake knife on an airplane as a practical joke on an airplane (to a stewardess). No, you wouldnt deserve to die, but theres a good chance you would get shot by the air marshall.

Frohickey
Feb 26, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Diatribe
I think they should stop someone like this, yes, but to shoot 11 or more rounds into that guy. I've seen pursuits where they KNEW that the guy had a gun end better than this. And what is it with someone deserving to die when they are running from the police?

11 rounds. Do you know how long it would take to fire 11 rounds? With 3 cops, an average of 4 rounds a piece, that is still not a long period of time. I've gone through IDPA shoots, and it does not take a long time to shoot 4 rounds. And the cops have thought through whether to shoot or not. It requires 1.5 seconds to draw. Thats 1.5 seconds the bad guy could have used to give up. If you are a bad guy, the best way to NOT get shot by police is to give up BEFORE their sidearms clear the holster.

I knew a couple of police officers who shot and killed a man on NewYearsEve. They will carry the memory of that for the rest of their lives. The way I hear the story, they received a call for man with a gun, shots fired, so they have to approach it with the utmost caution. Happens the guy was shooting up in the air on NewYearsEve, and when he the cops arrived, he turns with the gun at the cops.

Frohickey
Feb 26, 2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by agreenster
3) People dont deserve to die when they rob a bank and run from the police. (please re-read that so you dont get confused) But when you do such an action, you should know that there is a good liklihood that the situation could escalate (in this case, it did) and you could wind up shot. Its called risk. The police can misinterpret your actions (which they did) or you could lose your cool, and wind up getting shot. Therefore, ultimately, it is still the perps fault. Trust me, the po po will leave you alone if you dont do something to attract their attention.


GIVE ME YOUR WALLET while pointing a deadly weapon causes fear of serious injury. The fear of serious injury, and likelihood of being able to carry out that injury gives you plenty of justification to act in self defense. Who initiated deadly violence? When a person initiates deadly violence against another, they have relinquished their right to life, IMO. Note, that violence is not a bad thing. Violence used to combat the intiator of violence is good. The more this happens, the less the likelihood of having violence be initiated.

krimson
Feb 26, 2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by bwilke
A slow moving car can turn in to a fast moving car very quickly.

Three officers fired about 11 rounds into the rear window of the car. Approx 4 shots per officer. Unsure how many times the guy was hit. Is 4 shots excessive? You shot until the attacker is neutralized.

If your target is in a car backing into you, where can you aim to stop him. Shooting out the tires will not stop a car. All you have is a head shot. These tend to be fatal.

Sorry, but I got to side with the police on this one.

Details were released today, there were 2 rounds of shootings, the suspect was hit 10 times. 9 in the "chest", and 1 in the left arm. IIRC


-edit: In case anyone hasn't seen the video, there's a snippet here (http://www.latimes.com/chase)..

MrMacMan
Feb 26, 2004, 08:01 PM
Whats worse?

ABC showed the shootout completly, 2 times.

I mean you show a boob censored 1000 times, but YOU SEE A GUY BEING FIRED AT AND FALLING OUT OF A CAR AND SHOW IT 2 TIMES?


What is WRONG with this COUNTRY!!??!!

I can take your word on it that he was killed, why do I need to see a REAL live, non-hollywood person DIE right infront of me.


This is worse then the ****ING brease that Ms. Jackson exposed.

Shame on ABC.

Shame on any network that plays it.

Where are the rules of broadcasting this?

Where?

mactastic
Feb 26, 2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman
I can take your word on it that he was killed, why do I need to see a REAL live, non-hollywood person DIE right infront of me.


This is worse then the ****ING brease that Ms. Jackson exposed.


My sentiment exactly. Where are the protections for my kid who's watching TV and sees an actual human being killed? This kind of thing has happened before, and it always happens during the day when young children are likely to be watching. How is that less offensive than seeing a breast with the nipple covered? Where are the congressional hearings? Where is the outrage? Why is this country so OK with violence, and so outraged by sex?

Les Kern
Feb 27, 2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Yep. Did you know that in a given year, more people get killed with vehicles than they do with guns?

Yeah, warms my heart to know that "only" 12,000 people were killed by guns last year. We need cars. We don't need guns.

Frohickey
Feb 27, 2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
Yeah, warms my heart to know that "only" 12,000 people were killed by guns last year. We need cars. We don't need guns.

Tell that to Virginia "Sue" Devoe (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3276). I guess she should be better off dead. Oh wait... wrong story. Since you are in Illinois...

Urban predator shot, paralyzed by female victim 10 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=2850)

What is the mantra that we always hear? If it only saves one life

mactastic
Feb 27, 2004, 02:48 PM
You gotta be careful with that 'if it saves even one life' argument, it could easily be used to mean the opposite of what you want it to...

Frohickey
Feb 27, 2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
You gotta be careful with that 'if it saves even one life' argument, it could easily be used to mean the opposite of what you want it to...

Its not me that brought forth the 'if it saves even one life' argument. You hear that from the other side that would like to curtail a civil right. I'm the one that wants more freedom and responsibility, remember? ;)

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 27, 2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern
Yeah, warms my heart to know that "only" 12,000 people were killed by guns last year. We need cars. We don't need guns.

What we need is sentencing that makes sense. What we need are judges in criminal proceedings that try to to second guess the law (Though Martha is happy there are judges like that).

Does it seem right that someone with the right amount of Pot, gets a longer term then some that gets behind the wheel of a car at 2 to 3 times the legal limit and kills someone? The state does not have to prove that the amount of Pot was for "distribution", only that the amount can "be" for distribution.

But this goes beyond simple ideals of right and wrong. We have allowed our justice system to be hijacked by the rich and the politicians. All in the name of the state and local budgets.

It goes to the simplest of laws, including traffic laws. We have allowed *******s to hijack the hiways doing speeds 15-30mph or better. To allow them to park in no standing or parking zones. To allow them to park going north bound in a south bound lane. It may seem trivial, but if the simple laws can not be enforced or obeyed, what hope for the more serious laws?

It is time for us to demand that all laws be punished under the constraints of the law to their fullest. Bush may have a point about activist judges (though he owes his office those type of judges IMHO).

It is time for the ordinary person to stan up and demand that criminals be held accountable for their actions. No matter what the offense, even if we are caught in that net.

It can only lead to a better society.

Frohickey
Feb 27, 2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
[B]What we need is sentencing that makes sense. What we need are judges in criminal proceedings that try to to second guess the law (Though Martha is happy there are judges like that).

But this goes beyond simple ideals of right and wrong. We have allowed our justice system to be hijacked by the rich and the politicians. All in the name of the state and local budgets.

It is time for the ordinary person to stan up and demand that criminals be held accountable for their actions. No matter what the offense, even if we are caught in that net.

It can only lead to a better society.

OJ Simpson got off on 2 murder charges. He's rich. Politicians are mostly lawyers. Its when you have lawyers writing law that things get messy and convoluted.

One problem that we have is the multitudes of obscure laws and regulations made by politicians over the years trying to fix something, but these laws have unintended consequences. I bet that over the course of a single day, you break at least 20 laws that are on the books. Sounds like some of these laws should be sunsetted. I would go for an automatic 10 year sunset of all laws passed, subject to a periodic renewal by the legislatures. That would get rid of the cruft of stupid laws.

When you have stupid laws, you end up with people not following them, and that ends up eroding the respect for the law.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 27, 2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
OJ Simpson got off on 2 murder charges. He's rich. Politicians are mostly lawyers. Its when you have lawyers writing law that things get messy and convoluted.

One problem that we have is the multitudes of obscure laws and regulations made by politicians over the years trying to fix something, but these laws have unintended consequences. I bet that over the course of a single day, you break at least 20 laws that are on the books. Sounds like some of these laws should be sunsetted. I would go for an automatic 10 year sunset of all laws passed, subject to a periodic renewal by the legislatures. That would get rid of the cruft of stupid laws.

When you have stupid laws, you end up with people not following them, and that ends up eroding the respect for the law.

You have the issue of a jury of your peers. Unfortunately unless we are wanting to limit access to lawyers by what you can afford, we have no solution. I was referring more to those of us that did not have the deep pockets of O.J. Simpson.

I will not get into whether O.J. was guilty or not.

mactastic
Feb 27, 2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Its not me that brought forth the 'if it saves even one life' argument. You hear that from the other side that would like to curtail a civil right. I'm the one that wants more freedom and responsibility, remember? ;)

Originally posted by Frohickey
Tell that to Virginia "Sue" Devoe. I guess she should be better off dead. Oh wait... wrong story. Since you are in Illinois...

Urban predator shot, paralyzed by female victim 10

What is the mantra that we always hear? If it only saves one life

Oh. I guess we should just ignore you when you post then? Were you not trying to justify the ownership of guns on the basis of it saving a life?

Frohickey
Feb 27, 2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Oh. I guess we should just ignore you when you post then? Were you not trying to justify the ownership of guns on the basis of it saving a life?

Do anything you want. Its a free country. At least, it is right now, anyway.

I don't need to justify anything. Its already the supreme law of the land.

darkwing
Feb 27, 2004, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
A few things to remember, a typical 9mm bullet has 396 ft-lbs of energy (115grains or 1/4 of an ounce, going at 1245feetpersecond or 850milesperhour). This can definitely kill.

A Ford Tempo weighs 2500lbs, and can go backwards up to 25MPH, or more, lets say a typical 10MPH. A Ford Tempo has 7616 ft-lbs of energy, thats 20times the energy!!!

Except the bullet puts all of its energy into a small contact area, while the truck only puts its energy into the points it comes into contact with you. This means the bullet will do a lot more damage since the truck is only giving you the percentage of its energy proportional to the contact area.

Steve

Frohickey
Feb 27, 2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by darkwing
Except the bullet puts all of its energy into a small contact area, while the truck only puts its energy into the points it comes into contact with you. This means the bullet will do a lot more damage since the truck is only giving you the percentage of its energy proportional to the contact area.

Steve

Percentage of its energy proportional to the contact area? Its not like the car has to hit a wall of people as large as the potential contact area. If the front grill of the car is 5 feet wide and 2 feet tall, and the contact area with a hit on a person is only 2 feet wide and 2 feet tall, you are still hit with 100% of the energy (assuming negligible air resistance) at the time of contact. Then, depending on the density of the materials involved, you could have some energy wasted in deforming the car, or energy used in deforming the person.

Okay, let us say that the bullet is 100% efficient, and the Ford Tempo is only 40% efficient. Which would you rather get hit on the chest area by?

Some bullet wounds are survivable, same with some vehicle/person collisions. But the outcome of that is really because nothing vital was hit.

The bullet being smaller would require a more precise aim before its lethal. A car with the larger area would not require as much a precise path.

Okay, so the bullet hits you in the chest and destroys your heart leaving the lungs and other vital organs intact. Are you any more dead than if the car hits you in the chest cavity and crushes the heart, lungs AND other vital organs?

As anecdotal evidence, how many stories have you heard of deer being shot by rifles and running away never to be found (bad hunting practice, IMO), and how many stories have you heard of deer being hit by a car and getting killed. There is a small industry made around products designed to help track wounded deer shot by hunters. ;)

Sun Baked
Feb 27, 2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay, let us say that the bullet is 100% efficient, and the Ford Tempo is only 50% efficient. Which would you rather get hit on the chest area by? Getting run over by a car, you might be dissipating more energy over a larger part of your body -- at the expense of massive knee (lower leg or hip damage) and good chances of massive head injuries.

You also run the risk of having more injuries that'll cause multiple disabilities for the rest of your life.

A bullet is going to concetrate your injuries to a smaller area, and the risk of a major permanent multiple disabilities is much smaller for a single shot.

darkwing
Feb 27, 2004, 10:19 PM
Hey I didn't say you were wrong! I simply meant that the numbers you used are way disproportional in favor of the truck, but it should be considered that the truck hits you on a large area. The point I was drawing was that if you hit a wall with your fist or hit a wall with your forearm using the same force, the fist does more damage. When wrestlers fall, they smack the ground with their arm on the way down to absorb some of the impact. Just something to consider.

I didn't think about what the other guy said that gunshot wounds are often survivable, while getting run over causes multiple damage.

I didn't mean my comment to make me sound anti gun. I own several and don't get in front of bullets or cars. :)

Steve

AngryLawnGnome
Feb 28, 2004, 01:39 AM
bad idea, media

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 28, 2004, 07:53 AM
One thing that has not been brought up to my knowledge is the effect of the media (in particular in the LA area, and the news copters).

There appears to be far more car chases in LA, with the news people following every move, then in other areas of the country. Do they end up creating a problem themselves, or even worse creating the news?

Here in the DC area we have just came up to speed with news copters. But with all the restricted airspace, and other air traffic; they have restricted abilities.

So the question becomes as the public how much do have a right to know about?

mactastic
Mar 1, 2004, 06:32 PM
Do anything you want. Its a free country. At least, it is right now, anyway.

I don't need to justify anything. Its already the supreme law of the land.

Talk about the biggest cop-out to an argument I've seen in a while...

I'm disappointed in you Frohickey, you can do better than that! ;)

Frohickey
Mar 1, 2004, 06:47 PM
Hey I didn't say you were wrong! I simply meant that the numbers you used are way disproportional in favor of the truck, but it should be considered that the truck hits you on a large area.

I didn't mean my comment to make me sound anti gun. I own several and don't get in front of bullets or cars. :)

Steve

The numbers quoted were realistic numbers to energy posed by typical projectiles. A 2500lb Ford Tempo with the same energy as a typical 9mm bullet going at 1245fps (396ftlbs) would be going 2.2MPH. I think you can dodge that, or survive that (unless you are being pinned to a wall by it). :D

A 115gr 9mm with the same energy as a 2500lb Ford Tempo going 10MPH would be going 5461fps, Mach 1 is around 770MPH, and this would be Mach 4.8! :eek:

Fun with numbers.

Yeah, getting in front of cars or bullets is usually a very bad idea. Everyone I know is very allergic to those.

Not really saying that anyone was anti-gun. I'm just saying that a car is a potential deadly weapon. And with the types of velocities it can achieve in a very small amount of time, its very deadly.

Okay, out of topic question... 45 or 9mm. :D :D :D

Frohickey
Mar 1, 2004, 06:48 PM
Talk about the biggest cop-out to an argument I've seen in a while...

I'm disappointed in you Frohickey, you can do better than that! ;)

Well, why don't you start a proper thread then? ;)

Sun Baked
Mar 1, 2004, 08:21 PM
The numbers quoted were realistic numbers to energy posed by typical projectiles. A 2500lb Ford Tempo with the same energy as a typical 9mm bullet going at 1245fps (396ftlbs) would be going 2.2MPH. I think you can dodge that, or survive that (unless you are being pinned to a wall by it). :D

A 115gr 9mm with the same energy as a 2500lb Ford Tempo going 10MPH would be going 5461fps, Mach 1 is around 770MPH, and this would be Mach 4.8! :eek:

Okay, out of topic question... 45 or 9mm. :D :D :DSmith & Wesson Model 500 (http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/2003/9/top_gun/print.phtml) ;)

For the days when you're out hunting for big cars to shoot.

mactastic
Mar 2, 2004, 09:38 AM
Well, why don't you start a proper thread then? ;)

'Bout what? Guns? Haven't we done that one to death - several times aready? :D

krimson
Mar 2, 2004, 10:15 AM
Okay, out of topic question... 45 or 9mm. :D :D :D

9mm ;)

Frohickey
Mar 2, 2004, 02:13 PM
9mm ;)

Kinda weird that during the late 80s and early 90s, you have lots of police departments go over to use the 9mm. It was the era of the wondernines. Now, they have been slowly getting back to bigger and slower. First from the 40short&weak ;) and actually going back to the 45acps.

JMB must have gotten something right back in 1911. :D

krimson
Mar 2, 2004, 02:44 PM
Kinda weird that during the late 80s and early 90s, you have lots of police departments go over to use the 9mm. It was the era of the wondernines. Now, they have been slowly getting back to bigger and slower. First from the 40short&weak ;) and actually going back to the 45acps.

JMB must have gotten something right back in 1911. :D


I think many agencies here have gone back to the 45. I'd go to, but i haven't found a 2x stack that fit well in my hands.

Counterfit
Mar 2, 2004, 03:55 PM
Smith & Wesson Model 500 (http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/2003/9/top_gun/print.phtml) ;)

For the days when you're out hunting for big cars to shoot. :eek:

Sun Baked
Mar 2, 2004, 04:08 PM
>Counterfit

I was waiting for somebody to notice, compare the 50 Magnum to the "typical" 9mm.

The "light" load is a 275-grain Barnes X copper hollowpoint bullet. Muzzle velocity is 1665 fps and it produces 1668 ft.-lb. of energy. It is more than adequate for any game up to and including elk.

A 400-grain jacketed softpoint at 1675 fps and 2500 ft.-lb. of energy is available for larger game.

Those heading to Alaska, Africa or even Jurassic Park will want the 440-grain hard-cast lead, gas checked, flat point load. At 1625 fps and 2580 ft.-lb. of energy, it will handle anything a handgun hunter is likely to pursue.

The numbers quoted were realistic numbers to energy posed by typical projectiles. A 2500lb Ford Tempo with the same energy as a typical 9mm bullet going at 1245fps (396ftlbs) would be going 2.2MPH. I think you can dodge that, or survive that (unless you are being pinned to a wall by it). :DWith the 44 Magnum laid claim to being the most powerful handgun in the world, its standard load produced about 900 ft.-lb. of muzzle energy.

Frohickey
Mar 2, 2004, 04:28 PM
>Counterfit

I was waiting for somebody to notice, compare the 50 Magnum to the "typical" 9mm.

With the 44 Magnum laid claim to being the most powerful handgun in the world, its standard load produced about 900 ft.-lb. of muzzle energy.

Actually, the 44Magnums claim to fame had already been superceded when the Dirty Harry movie came out.

As to the 50SWMag, its not the most powerful either. There are revolvers that can fire the 45/70 cartridge, and there is also the 500Linebaugh Maximum. Think of that as 50SWMag's big brother. 1/10th of an inch longer, a bit more ME.

I think that with the police agencies going back to 45ACPs, and stuff. I think its just a way to sucker the taxpayer into paying for their new toys.