Ricochets and the Like

[BLR]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-usa-shooting-empirestate-police-idUSBRE87Q04X20120827

The point I was attempting to make in a past thread is illustrated perfectly here. 3 shot, 6 struck by fragments.

With modern, non traditional "cup and core" bullets, like the Barnes Copper HP and especially the Golden Sabers, this has become a larger liability now, when discharging a sidearm with no real backstop. Fact of the matter is that bullet bits and asphalt went flying in that instance.

Now to the tactics bit: I'm not a police officer. I don't want to be. That said, judging by the comments from everyone, it appears that handling out of control dogs isn't exactly uncommon. My suggestions were off the cuff, and reflect not having to deal with the problem. But if it happens with the frequency that is alluded to here, you cops need to spend some time developing a solution to the problem. Discharging your pistol toward a charging dog toward a crowd and a prostate man is a bad idea anyway you choose to slice it up.

So, a recomended solution? How about a bean bag from shotgun? Or half a dozen. Those won't hurt the bystanders, no matter how stupid they are. How about game netting? Again, a solution to the problem should be developed that maximizes safety. And again, I'm just thinking out loud.

As much as I sympathize witth the dog over the milling around bystander that was attacked, the safety of the bystanders should have been priority No. 1 in the officers minds.

[Le Français]

For the reasons you point out, firing a gun in that specific situation does present a significant risk to bystanders. Yes, it would be preferable to employ options less likely to cause harm to no-shoots, and just as likely to stop the dog. However, officers often find themselves in situations that could best be resolved with the aid of a tool they simply don't have at their disposal right then. In these cases they are obliged to use what they have.

Any police officer reading this can remember a time (probably many times) when the information they got from Dispatch was so limited/unclear that when they got to the location, the situation was completely different from what they had gleaned on the way. A "minor property damage crash" that's actually a severe personal injury crash, etc.

With regard to using less-lethal rounds from a shotgun:

Do you exit the car shotgun in hand just because there is a dog present? At what point do you chamber-load that rubber round (if you even have one), bearing in mind that now if lethal force is needed it will take you that much longer to get to the buckshot or slug? Or do you have a dedicated less-lethal shotgun? In that case, what specific facts dictate when you will opt to grab it instead of the real thing? The presence of dogs?

[BLR]

For the reasons you point out, firing a gun in that specific situation does present a significant risk to bystanders. Yes, it would be preferable to employ options less likely to cause harm to no-shoots, and just as likely to stop the dog. However, officers often find themselves in situations that could best be resolved with the aid of a tool they simply don't have at their disposal right then. In these cases they are obliged to use what they have.

Any police officer reading this can remember a time (probably many times) when the information they got from Dispatch was so limited/unclear that when they got to the location, the situation was completely different from what they had gleaned on the way. A "minor property damage crash" that's actually a severe personal injury crash, etc.

With regard to using less-lethal rounds from a shotgun:

Do you exit the car shotgun in hand just because there is a dog present? At what point do you chamber-load that rubber round (if you even have one), bearing in mind that now if lethal force is needed it will take you that much longer to get to the buckshot or slug? Or do you have a dedicated less-lethal shotgun? In that case, what specific facts dictate when you will opt to grab it instead of the real thing? The presence of dogs?

Very well stated rebutal.

Again, that situation and ones like it, do not represent a common problem for me. So what I say should be tempered with that.

Here is what I observed: two officers, somewhat preoccupied with talking on their radios, standing clear from the prostate fellow. Goes on for some time prior to start of the video, and some time after start of the video. Dog is obviously stepping up his defense of his master during the entire time - which is greatly exasperated by the guy who is circling the prostate fellow. Not a good situation developing. Dog charges that fellow, then the officer, who fires, ostensibly, because he has no recourse.

So, let me restate the above and see if anyone disagrees:
1. Officers (2) on scene.
1a. Both communicating with dispatch. Do both need to be? It would seem not to me, but I'm not a cop.
1b.Neither moving people away/standing between dog/guy and crowd. Neither take advantage of the limited "backstop" of the parked car.
1c. What do you think the likelyhood that the officer could repeat that shot is? Did he train for it? How lucky a shot was it?
2. No move by either officer to prevent guy who precipitated the attack from approaching the dog. And his first circling approach was not the one that precipitated the attack.
2a. He did this several times, IIRC.

Now, based on DocGKRs post in the previous thread, as well as a few others, this seems to be a relatively common scenario. So, in that light, it should be something they are prepared for, yes? Meaning, it should be in the back of their minds that putting the dog down might be a legitimate outcome, yes? So, has a study been done on how to approach that task? Again, discharing a weapon in the general direction of a crowd seems overly risky to my mind.

So here is the point, restated: The scenario is common enough that apparently people on the forum have delt with it. So, preparation is a valid course of action. It would seem a logical course of action to work with Animal Control to work out a solution. Once a solution is arrived at, that is a mode of incapacition for a rabid dog, then it is implimented.

What would be wrong with Cop 1 staying "on scene" and Cop 2 fetching his less lethal bean bag shotgun as soon as rabid dog presence is determined? Then preemptively dealing with it?

And the overall point is this: we learn by observing mistakes and revising training. I'm not saying those two did anything "wrong" - just that the outcome and safety factor could have been WAY better with proper preparation and planning. Fact of the matter is that attack did not happen the minute the cops got on scene. There was time to plan and act. And the cops are lucky no one was hurt. It doesn't pay to tempt provenance. Would a bean bag put down an attacking dog? I don't know. I've never fired one, much less been hit by one. Would a bean bag followed by a good game net have solved the problem?

To speak more specifically to the "do you even have one" refering to the rubber round - why wouldn't you? This seems to be a non issue to me. Why wouldn't you have them? And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the dog shouldn't have been shot. He was attacking. I'm saying discharging a sidearm toward a crowd and a prostate individual is not likely the best of solutions. Maybet the equation goes like this: crowd + dog = less lethal? After all, they are in a densely populated city, right? That means fate of the projectile is concern, right? The presence of the crowd may be a legitimate reason to drag out the less lethal option. But I don't buy the "what if you don't have it" rational. They are cheap, readily availible and reliable. As for a dedicated one? I'd say yes. As for budgetary constraints - our police chief never went on TV and requested funds for less lethal alternitives. If he did, I'd doubt it would be shot down, no pun intended.

[DocGKR]

Bean bags generally do NOT reliably stop large aggressive dogs, especially when they are charging; bean bags usually do work against breeds like maltese, bichon frise, chihuahua, and maybe up to Cavalier King Charles Spaniel sized dogs--of course so does a good pair of boots. Bean bags have killed people. Unlike specialized tactical units that have time to prepare for events, patrol officers generally only have what is on their duty belt when going into a unknown public encounter--typically baton, chemical spray, possibly Taser, and handgun. Given those options, when confronted with an aggressive charging dog, I am going with the handgun every time. If the situation is non-critical, non-time intensive, then giving animal control a call and waiting the hour or so for them to show up is an option--of course you are out of service that whole time. Note that if officers have a shotgun loaded with slugs or buckshot, many agencies prohibit those weapons from being loaded with less lethal rounds; most agencies around here have dedicated less lethal shotguns that not all patrol officers have.

[Lomshek]

So far as fragments injuring folks this stood out to me from Doc's news link.


However, the hollow-point bullets are more prone to fragment or ricochet when they hit a hard object such as the concrete planters used at the popular tourist attraction as security barriers against terrorist attacks, studies show.

Does anyone know (I haven't see anything) about whether the bystanders were hit by pass-through bullets that exited the bad guy or just good old fashioned misses. Not much can be done about pass-throughs without losing penetration but misses can be dealt with (minimized) by better training.

I'm not at all beating up the cops in this shooting and don't want this to become a "cops can't shoot" discussion. The quote above and the article's feel seemed to be how dangerous hollow points are because they fragment on objects. Nothing (of course) is said about FMJ bullets staying whole and still richocheting and (probably) being more dangerous because they retain more mass.