The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Combat
 
Terminal Ballistics
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Something that has come up in the past in other threads and also the recent trayvon martin thing (relating to a different case though) was the amount of rounds fired by police officers in many cases... I think professor X brought up some case where a guy who pulled out his wallet for ID in the dark was assumed to have a gun and 4 police officers fired 41 times in total (19 hits).


Why this happens is somewhat answered in the links provided etc, at least from a terminal ballistics standpoint... But let's discuss training and psychological factors some relating to this... I've repeatedly noticed people critizising or expressing disbelief over the volume of fire in such cases...

So clearing up some of the factors involved might help future discussions of other cases (That's me, ever the optimist in the face of insurmountable odds hahaha).

Especially interested in Jim's view of course, as LE/former LE.

FWIW I think those of us who have commented in this thread previously are likely all on the same page on this anyway, but for other people reading it might be an interesting discussion to follow.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

borrek
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2008
Posts: 909

My brother-in-law is on the SWAT team of a major US metro, and after a large training event he ended up with 10,000 rounds of Federal T223A (a 55gr round). Two thousand of those rounds worked their way into my possession, so I can't complain about the price but it looks like the penetration depth is only 7.5"

For my purposes - those purposes being simple home defense - I think this stuff will be fine until I run out. Next purchase will likely be something different though.

I thought maybe it was only their training round because it isn't FMJ. I asked my bro-in-law, and he said they use the same rounds for training and entry. Seems odd given the general consensus on what defines an effective round.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

borrek wrote:
My brother-in-law is on the SWAT team of a major US metro, and after a large training event he ended up with 10,000 rounds of Federal T223A (a 55gr round). Two thousand of those rounds worked their way into my possession, so I can't complain about the price but it looks like the penetration depth is only 7.5"

For my purposes - those purposes being simple home defense - I think this stuff will be fine until I run out. Next purchase will likely be something different though.

I thought maybe it was only their training round because it isn't FMJ. I asked my bro-in-law, and he said they use the same rounds for training and entry. Seems odd given the general consensus on what defines an effective round.


Many, many (departments/agencies, armies, what have you) are either mislead on the issue or completely unaware.


Anyway... That penetration depth could very well be fine depending on the situation. A head on shot to a vital area as defined previously in this thread... I.e., if you simply don't need more penetration depth. But if the guy is aiming a gun at you, standing obliquely (is that the word?) and so on... 7.5 is really short man (well, at least in porn :)

Seriously, if I were truly worried about getting into a HD situation, I'd use your stuff as training ammo and make sure to have at least one mag or a few worth of something around which passes the FBI standards.

HD gunfights are rare, but when they happen, you don't exactly want to end up like the FBI agents in Miami either...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2146

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
borrek wrote:
My brother-in-law is on the SWAT team of a major US metro, and after a large training event he ended up with 10,000 rounds of Federal T223A (a 55gr round). Two thousand of those rounds worked their way into my possession, so I can't complain about the price but it looks like the penetration depth is only 7.5"

For my purposes - those purposes being simple home defense - I think this stuff will be fine until I run out. Next purchase will likely be something different though.

I thought maybe it was only their training round because it isn't FMJ. I asked my bro-in-law, and he said they use the same rounds for training and entry. Seems odd given the general consensus on what defines an effective round.


Many, many (departments/agencies, armies, what have you) are either mislead on the issue or completely unaware.


Anyway... That penetration depth could very well be fine depending on the situation. A head on shot to a vital area as defined previously in this thread... I.e., if you simply don't need more penetration depth. But if the guy is aiming a gun at you, standing obliquely (is that the word?) and so on... 7.5 is really short man (well, at least in porn :)

Seriously, if I were truly worried about getting into a HD situation, I'd use your stuff as training ammo and make sure to have at least one mag or a few worth of something around which passes the FBI standards.

HD gunfights are rare, but when they happen, you don't exactly want to end up like the FBI agents in Miami either...



I agree with everything C_C wrote.

A couple considerations:

1.) 7.5 " is way shorter than I would prefer. In all honesty I think it is making a 5.56 weapon so sub-optimal I might rather have a handgun. I will explain my reasoning. Unlike a blade, you are not going to be able to clear limbs/objects out of the path of the bullet. If someone is enough of a threat that your best way to solve your problem is to launch pieces of metal through their anatomy, RIGHT FUCKING NOW, then you have already strayed from whatever your "ideal scenario" is.

It is highly likely that scenarios where you might shoot someone involve them holding a weapon, or at leat being in a "fighting posture". This tends to involve them putting their arms between you and their upper thoracic, cervical, and cranial targets. Regardless of if we describe this scenario as a "dynamic situation" that forces us to "resort to kinetic options" or a "clusterfuck" there is a good chance you and your target will both be moving and covering up. I am not a particularly impressive guy physically, but going through my upper arm is going to eat up a lot of 7.5 " and maybe not leave enough to reach the heart. Imagine if it was someone scary.

If you are shooting through an arm we need to think about the skin on the exit side of the limb. Skin is stretchy and remarkably good at protecting against penetration. On the entry side it is sort of "held inplace" by the tissue underneath, muscle, fat, etc. so it is easy to push an object, or a bullet through. On the far side the skin is able to stretch/pull away from the underlying structures. This sort of acts like an airbag to the bullet and slows the velocity of the round considerably. It is fairly common for surgeons, medical examiners, and hunters to find expanded rounds "just under the skin" at the far end of a wound track. I think the figure is that the skin can count as 2-3" of gel for penetration.

That round is a fragmenting soft point, so we can expect it to either be in smaller pieces or at least deformed/yawed so it is no longer hitting pointy end first when it gets to the chest/head. This will further lessen its ability to penetrate. I am not saying it "will not work", just that there are many other options that would "work" more often.

2.) Some departments are really concerned with "over penetration". This shit doesn't exist. The worry that someone downrange is going to serve as a backstop to rounds that struck the badguy and exited is a fucking non issue. I say this because generally cops miss more than they hit. I think the nation wide average is about 20% hits for rounds fired. I am not being critical. I just think that the bullets going past the target that are marked "occupant" are going to be a bigger hazard than an already deformed round that had the target's name on it.

3.) The situation's where a SWAT officer may be shooting and yours differ in psychology. The "entry" team knows they are going to do some shit and is able to be the aggressor at least tactically. I am not saying they instigated it on a moral level, just that they get to gear up and go. People in this situation tend to shoot far more accurately than someone having to solve a "Oh fuck" problem, in their living room.

4.) If you are concerned about penetrating interior walls then I would suggest a non-barrier blind round that still penetrates a minimum of 12" of 10% gel. The reality is that anything that will penetrate enough bad guy will probably penetrate an uncomfortable amount of wallboard. Because of that it is better to pick a load that will allow you to solve the problem with a minimum of rounds, because make no mistake. The asshole that you are shooting is a bigger threat to you, your family, and society as a whole than your misses.

5.) Those are pricey rounds. They could work for training, but I would try to trade at lest some of them with someone for a more effective ammo.

6.) What weapon will you be firing them in? Do you know the twist rate of the barrel?

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FrozenNinja
Level 4

Join date: May 2009
Posts: 1331

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Something that has come up in the past in other threads and also the recent trayvon martin thing (relating to a different case though) was the amount of rounds fired by police officers in many cases... I think professor X brought up some case where a guy who pulled out his wallet for ID in the dark was assumed to have a gun and 4 police officers fired 41 times in total (19 hits).


Why this happens is somewhat answered in the links provided etc, at least from a terminal ballistics standpoint... But let's discuss training and psychological factors some relating to this... I've repeatedly noticed people critizising or expressing disbelief over the volume of fire in such cases...

So clearing up some of the factors involved might help future discussions of other cases (That's me, ever the optimist in the face of insurmountable odds hahaha).

Especially interested in Jim's view of course, as LE/former LE.

FWIW I think those of us who have commented in this thread previously are likely all on the same page on this anyway, but for other people reading it might be an interesting discussion to follow.


Well lets get it on then

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2146

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Something that has come up in the past in other threads and also the recent trayvon martin thing (relating to a different case though) was the amount of rounds fired by police officers in many cases... I think professor X brought up some case where a guy who pulled out his wallet for ID in the dark was assumed to have a gun and 4 police officers fired 41 times in total (19 hits).


Why this happens is somewhat answered in the links provided etc, at least from a terminal ballistics standpoint... But let's discuss training and psychological factors some relating to this... I've repeatedly noticed people critizising or expressing disbelief over the volume of fire in such cases...

So clearing up some of the factors involved might help future discussions of other cases (That's me, ever the optimist in the face of insurmountable odds hahaha).

Especially interested in Jim's view of course, as LE/former LE.

FWIW I think those of us who have commented in this thread previously are likely all on the same page on this anyway, but for other people reading it might be an interesting discussion to follow.


I have written several posts for that thread in GAL and each time I think better of it.


RE the Amidillo shooting I think you are talking about

First, there are a ton of "institutional" issues with the NYPD's set up and upper level administration and it has led to enough WTF that I think it is miracle there are any half assed decent officers in that city.

Off the top of my head; starting pay that makes officers immediately eligible for food stamps, administration making it massively clear they will not support officers who are trying to do the right thing, an administration that leads/motivates primarily by fear of punishment, "a fuck minimum standards" policy of hiring, a hiring process so flawed that entry background checks are completed after officers have been working for some time (sometimes this means actual felons are LEO's), a pay scale that promotes retirement as the only reason to work, etc. There are a whole bunch of reasons to not believe/not trust the NYPD as an institution.

Really, it is a miracle that ALL of the good cops they have don't flee to other departments or go federal.

As for the actual shooting.

When people are reacting/trying to solve problems with handguns seems to be a tendency to "go cyclic". It is not so much a lack of aiming as it is a disconnect between aiming and shooting. This seems to happen even with highly trained individuals who have demonstrated good shooting when they are in an "aggressive" posture.

NYC is actively hostile to private firearms ownership in general and handguns in particular. I have nothing good to say about the mayor or the policies regarding this issue. This means the average cop in NYC is not a "gun guy". The officers may have first held a gun, much less fired one, in academy. How competent can we expect them to be? How much practice can the non-SWAT officer's realistically get?

The equipment choice is brutal. The department issues Glocks, but uses a NY++ trigger spring. This brings the weight of pull up to over 12 pounds and is an absolute obstacle to marksmanship. Saddling novice shooters with a trigger like that is working against them. Doing it to people who may have to shoot to save their lives is truly negligent.

Have I said fuck the NYPD's administration for the situation they have created yet?

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Something that has come up in the past in other threads and also the recent trayvon martin thing (relating to a different case though) was the amount of rounds fired by police officers in many cases... I think professor X brought up some case where a guy who pulled out his wallet for ID in the dark was assumed to have a gun and 4 police officers fired 41 times in total (19 hits).


Why this happens is somewhat answered in the links provided etc, at least from a terminal ballistics standpoint... But let's discuss training and psychological factors some relating to this... I've repeatedly noticed people critizising or expressing disbelief over the volume of fire in such cases...

So clearing up some of the factors involved might help future discussions of other cases (That's me, ever the optimist in the face of insurmountable odds hahaha).

Especially interested in Jim's view of course, as LE/former LE.

FWIW I think those of us who have commented in this thread previously are likely all on the same page on this anyway, but for other people reading it might be an interesting discussion to follow.


I have written several posts for that thread in GAL and each time I think better of it.


RE the Amidillo shooting I think you are talking about

First, there are a ton of "institutional" issues with the NYPD's set up and upper level administration and it has led to enough WTF that I think it is miracle there are any half assed decent officers in that city.

Off the top of my head; starting pay that makes officers immediately eligible for food stamps, administration making it massively clear they will not support officers who are trying to do the right thing, an administration that leads/motivates primarily by fear of punishment, "a fuck minimum standards" policy of hiring, a hiring process so flawed that entry background checks are completed after officers have been working for some time (sometimes this means actual felons are LEO's), a pay scale that promotes retirement as the only reason to work, etc. There are a whole bunch of reasons to not believe/not trust the NYPD as an institution.

Really, it is a miracle that ALL of the good cops they have don't flee to other departments or go federal.

As for the actual shooting.

When people are reacting/trying to solve problems with handguns seems to be a tendency to "go cyclic". It is not so much a lack of aiming as it is a disconnect between aiming and shooting. This seems to happen even with highly trained individuals who have demonstrated good shooting when they are in an "aggressive" posture.

NYC is actively hostile to private firearms ownership in general and handguns in particular. I have nothing good to say about the mayor or the policies regarding this issue. This means the average cop in NYC is not a "gun guy". The officers may have first held a gun, much less fired one, in academy. How competent can we expect them to be? How much practice can the non-SWAT officer's realistically get?

The equipment choice is brutal. The department issues Glocks, but uses a NY++ trigger spring. This brings the weight of pull up to over 12 pounds and is an absolute obstacle to marksmanship. Saddling novice shooters with a trigger like that is working against them. Doing it to people who may have to shoot to save their lives is truly negligent.

Have I said fuck the NYPD's administration for the situation they have created yet?

Regards,

Robert A


Did this somehow affect you in particular at some point ? (if you don't mind talking about it)
It just seems that you feel quite strongly about these issues... I personally don't know much about the NYPD...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

FrozenNinja wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Something that has come up in the past in other threads and also the recent trayvon martin thing (relating to a different case though) was the amount of rounds fired by police officers in many cases... I think professor X brought up some case where a guy who pulled out his wallet for ID in the dark was assumed to have a gun and 4 police officers fired 41 times in total (19 hits).


Why this happens is somewhat answered in the links provided etc, at least from a terminal ballistics standpoint... But let's discuss training and psychological factors some relating to this... I've repeatedly noticed people critizising or expressing disbelief over the volume of fire in such cases...

So clearing up some of the factors involved might help future discussions of other cases (That's me, ever the optimist in the face of insurmountable odds hahaha).

Especially interested in Jim's view of course, as LE/former LE.

FWIW I think those of us who have commented in this thread previously are likely all on the same page on this anyway, but for other people reading it might be an interesting discussion to follow.


Well lets get it on then



Right... I'm currently only awake because of a a felt kilogram of caffeine (and because I have to be haha), so forgive me for being something of a scatterbrain and all...


Let's see.

First off, you should know about terminal ballistics (read the links linked in the OP, inform yourself about the 1986 miami shootout (FBI) ) as that is a critical factor usually.

But basically... You can pump someone full of bullets and he may well continue to do whatever it is he was just busy doing... Or simply not go down... Not just in a situation where he is the aggressor, but in pretty much any situation... Provided no CNS or psychological stop occurs.


Anyway...


!

Remember the police officers stated that one of them stumbled and fell, causing them to think he'd been hit... During what they thought was a firefight... Plus before then, they started shooting because they mistook the purse for a gun... Now I'm arguing this from the assumed standpoint that they were not lying. If they were lying, then this all goes out the window and they were simply wrong to shoot.)
Supposedly he also ran from them at first before stopping and then pulling out what they thought was his gun (but was a purse). I believe it was also dark?


Secondly... You want to stop the threat as quickly as possible. Having the guy faint half a minute or several minutes later from blood loss doesn't help much if he's been shooting at you in the meantime.

!



1) Training.

1a) Poor training (most often the case): People usually think you shoot someone with a gun and they just sort of fall down and die or whatever. It's a shock to many (even soldiers using rifles) to find out that this is rarely how it works.
In other words, you are under stress thinking the guy is pointing a gun at you or pulling one out, you shoot as you should in that case, but the guy does not go down as you expect and suddenly your colleague goes down instead. OH shit, why won't the bad guy go down? So you keep pulling the trigger in sort of a fog/panic until the mag is empty or the guy goes down.
Even if he does go down, it can take a while for this to even register... You might see it but reflexively keep pulling the trigger.

Apart from this, handguns have a very short sight radius and are thus difficult to fire accurately compared to shoulder-fired weapons, same for their trigger issues (easy to throw a shot) and so on. Getting accurate hits on the guys' critical areas (CNS is pretty much the only reliable way of stopping him via physical damage IMMEDIATELY) or hits at all is thus quite difficult especially under stress and when you can't stand at the range with plenty of time to aim and stationary targets.

1b)

Ironically, similar stuff is still true in the case of well-trained shooters... Usually one shoots center visible mass. In many cases, there is not much there to cause an immediate physiological stop/what is there is incredibly unlikely to be hit and damaged (spine... Heart shots do not usually cause immediate incapacitation, you just bleed out and pain is not something to rely on in such circumstances).

I.e. you can be the best shooter in the world and especially with handguns (which are all crap for the purpose of quickly stopping a threat regardless of caliber to put it bluntly) you can still hit the guy 5 or 10 or howevermany times center visible mass and he will still be standing there and or shooting you or whatever.

Nothing you can do apart from continuing to engage. In fact, most often one is taught to keep shooting until the threat is stopped/no longer a threat. The whole "2 in the chest, 1 in the head" thing is often just pure fantasy in actual gunfights... Many pistol firefights invole a crazy amount of dodging around desks/cars/whatever cover is available getting off snapshots one-handed, reloading in a panic, missing half the time or more and only few critical hits on the target that are even capable of stopping it quickly.
Of course that does not seem to be the case in this incident so much, but the point is as long as the guy didn't go down, they would not have stopped shooting (and should not have, provided they did really think he had a gun), and even once he was down it's possible they continued like many other people, trained or not, would have due to psychological factors.



2) Terminal ballistics, discussed in the OP etc, important to know about. Reason why targets often don't go down, depending on where they were hit, whether there was a psychological stop or not...
I don't know what load the officers were firing/issued... Many agencies use ammo which does not meet the FBI standards and is thus less likely to, even with good shot placement, be able to immediately incapacitate the target or cause enough bleeding to incapacitate relatively fast (the latter being irrelevant as any kind of bleeding incapacitation takes longer than it takes to fire those 10 shots by a long shot, no pun intended)... If that was the case, it may be one more reason for the number of shots fired.

Bullets also do not actually knock people down. The person's reaction to the bullet does (i.e. fainting, from sudden psychological shock/surprise or being incapacitated from a CNS hit or some such and thus collapsing and so on), so unless one of those things happens, the guy is likely to remain upright until incapacitated somehow, which in turn means he still appears as a threat which in turn means that the officers will/should continue to fire.

3) Psychological factors affecting the shooters already discussed partially... Anyway... Under stress and even with great training (which they were unlikely to have received... Most soldiers don't either), the number of shots fired (also consider the number of misses... Which actually weren't too bad, but highly unlikely if this was some sort of execution rather than a panic response by the officers to a guy apparently pulling a gun) is pretty much what one would expect and does not in itself indicate great hatred for the victim or whatever, nor is it ludicrous (even though it naturally seems so to those who are not familiar with this stuff).


  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Eh, I'm no good at organizing my thoughts right now, I'll bail out for today and get back in the debate tomorrow, cheers. Just not sure if I'm making good sense at the moment.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2146

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Did this somehow affect you in particular at some point ? (if you don't mind talking about it)
It just seems that you feel quite strongly about these issues... I personally don't know much about the NYPD...



I am not in any way associated with NYPD.

All of the states surrounding NY, I live in one of them, are somewhat affected by Mayor Blomberg's quest to end private fire-arms ownership in The United States. He has gone so far as to hire private agencies to conduct illegal purchases out of state to "expose" how easy it is.

I have to confess that I object to disarming the public on both legal and philosophical grounds.

With regards to the actual Diallo shooting, 41 rounds spread by 4 officers was probably 3-4 seconds of firing.

If the officer's narrative is truthful, they started firing because Diallo made a motion both consistent with reaching for "papers" or drawing a weapon and one of the officers tripped leading the others to believe he had been downed by gunfire. It reads as sort of the "perfect storm" of mis cues. I understand the "not guilty" verdict. Fuck ups like that would be "malpractice" but not "criminal negligence" in medicine.

People who have emotional or mental stances that make them view guns/gunfire as "wrong" or those without familiarity to shooting and the effects of gunshot wounds may flip out about the number of rounds, but in and of itself firing 4 or 40 times does not make a good shoot "bad".


Regards,

Robert A



  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Did this somehow affect you in particular at some point ? (if you don't mind talking about it)
It just seems that you feel quite strongly about these issues... I personally don't know much about the NYPD...



I am not in any way associated with NYPD.

All of the states surrounding NY, I live in one of them, are somewhat affected by Mayor Blomberg's quest to end private fire-arms ownership in The United States. He has gone so far as to hire private agencies to conduct illegal purchases out of state to "expose" how easy it is.

I have to confess that I object to disarming the public on both legal and philosophical grounds.

With regards to the actual Diallo shooting, 41 rounds spread by 4 officers was probably 3-4 seconds of firing.

If the officer's narrative is truthful, they started firing because Diallo made a motion both consistent with reaching for "papers" or drawing a weapon and one of the officers tripped leading the others to believe he had been downed by gunfire. It reads as sort of the "perfect storm" of mis cues. I understand the "not guilty" verdict. Fuck ups like that would be "malpractice" but not "criminal negligence" in medicine.

People who have emotional or mental stances that make them view guns/gunfire as "wrong" or those without familiarity to shooting and the effects of gunshot wounds may flip out about the number of rounds, but in and of itself firing 4 or 40 times does not make a good shoot "bad".


Regards,

Robert A





Agreed... Bad lighting/darkness and such don't help... If I were in such a situation (for what it's worth) I'd first show my hands clearly and follow instructions, while telling the officers what I am doing (i.e. "can you see my hands alright? Ok, my ID is in pocket X, do you want to pull it out? Should I?" if getting confirmation to do it myself "ok, I'm pulling it out now"... This is especially true if they have hands on their guns/guns drawn...
Just because I know that making myself look like a scared fool is a lot better than causing any misconceptions as to what I'm reaching for/holding in my hands.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I have been in similar situations as the officers' (provided they didn't lie that is)... Arguably under more tense background circumstances, but anyway. I know how this can go wrong due to honest mistakes that simply aren't avoidable unless you simply freeze up yourself (which will get you killed/hurt if the guy really does have a gun, so damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of).


  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2146

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...



No, no. That IS a valid technique. See my response to Sento at the top of this page:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...14&pageNo=4

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...



No, no. That IS a valid technique. See my response to Sento at the top of this page:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...14&pageNo=4



Hahahaa.


Just imagine male porn star xyz going "I'M GOING TO PULL IT OUT NOW, OFFICERS!".

Obviously they'd go "GUN, GUN!!!" no matter what he pulls out ;)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

hungry4more
Level 2

Join date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6749

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...



No, no. That IS a valid technique. See my response to Sento at the top of this page:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...14&pageNo=4



Hahahaa.


Just imagine male porn star xyz going "I'M GOING TO PULL IT OUT NOW, OFFICERS!".

Obviously they'd go "GUN, GUN!!!" no matter what he pulls out ;)



I'll try to continue with this stuff tomorrow, as I really need to be getting to sleep now...just wanted to add my $0.02.

As Robert A mentioned, 41 shots over a few seconds by 4 guys isn't hard to believe at all, as being a "knee-jerk" reaction. Honestly, I'm quite surprised they scored 19 hits. But I mean shit, that's about 10 rounds per officer; in a stressful situation, suspect maybe making a sudden unannounced movement towards his waistband/belt, you can't fairly say (without any other evidence, such as video tape or multiple un-involved eyewitnesses) that they did that just because of his skin color.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2146

hungry4more wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...



No, no. That IS a valid technique. See my response to Sento at the top of this page:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...14&pageNo=4



Hahahaa.


Just imagine male porn star xyz going "I'M GOING TO PULL IT OUT NOW, OFFICERS!".

Obviously they'd go "GUN, GUN!!!" no matter what he pulls out ;)



I'll try to continue with this stuff tomorrow, as I really need to be getting to sleep now...just wanted to add my $0.02.

As Robert A mentioned, 41 shots over a few seconds by 4 guys isn't hard to believe at all, as being a "knee-jerk" reaction. Honestly, I'm quite surprised they scored 19 hits. But I mean shit, that's about 10 rounds per officer; in a stressful situation, suspect maybe making a sudden unannounced movement towards his waistband/belt, you can't fairly say (without any other evidence, such as video tape or multiple un-involved eyewitnesses) that they did that just because of his skin color.


You replied to the wrong quote tree.

This one is about getting buck naked.

Your salient points are out of place.

Otherwise, I see it much the same.

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

hungry4more wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...



No, no. That IS a valid technique. See my response to Sento at the top of this page:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...14&pageNo=4



Hahahaa.


Just imagine male porn star xyz going "I'M GOING TO PULL IT OUT NOW, OFFICERS!".

Obviously they'd go "GUN, GUN!!!" no matter what he pulls out ;)



I'll try to continue with this stuff tomorrow, as I really need to be getting to sleep now...just wanted to add my $0.02.

As Robert A mentioned, 41 shots over a few seconds by 4 guys isn't hard to believe at all, as being a "knee-jerk" reaction. Honestly, I'm quite surprised they scored 19 hits. But I mean shit, that's about 10 rounds per officer; in a stressful situation, suspect maybe making a sudden unannounced movement towards his waistband/belt, you can't fairly say (without any other evidence, such as video tape or multiple un-involved eyewitnesses) that they did that just because of his skin color.




FWIW, here is my response to your racism/lack thereof in the military post in the other thread (apologis), since we have some other guys with a mil/LE background in here, they might respond too even though it's not terminal ballistics related as such...

:

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

hungry4more wrote:
Hmm, just saw this story on TV for the first time today. Apparently the kid was on his phone with his gf as it was happening, and repeatedly asked Zimmerman why he was following him, etc etc...sure seem to throw [even] more suspicion Zimmerman's way. Glad that they're protesting this and insisting on a full investigation. How the hell you gonna shoot an unarmed person with no eyewitnesses and not even get taken into custody?

hit the gym, I think it's a very community-specific thing. My wife is black, and the only "racist" type thing I see even somewhat regularly is black dudes apparently telling her she should get with "a real man" aka them. They should be glad I've never seen/heard this happen in person. She's told me of this happening multiple times though.

Having said that, I'm based in a military town, being in the Marines; so there is a larger than normal "minority" population in the area. On a somewhat related and interesting (to me) note, I VERY rarely see racism popping up in the military, as compared to civilian life...can't help but wonder if it's because of the greater interaction with varying races that tends to occur in the military. Thoughts on this from other people with military background?


When you're sitting in some shitty FOB with no running water and surrounded by mountains full of people who like to take pot shots at you...
When you're escorting someone from the embassy through a labyrinth of crappy roads surrounded by houses with people on the rooftops all staring at you...
Or when you've been stuck on some rooftop with all of 3 other friendlies with little to no immediate support available and surrounded by people who may or may not want you dead...

Do you think about what race (or sex for that matter, that one's come up in the forums quite a bit too) those 3 or 10 or howevermany other guys on your side are? Especially if you aren't fresh out of boot camp and already know that you really do only have these people to depend on at that moment.

It's something that doesn't really matter then, right? Same for much of the other petty crap you get in civilian life, or even possibly in the rear echelons (no offense to the support people mind you) where it's more "I'm going to work" and not as much "I'm going into combat".

There is something to certain parts of military/paramilitary life that binds people together. You have bigger things to worry about than each other, usually. So I guess sort of an us vs. them thing (i.e. people banding together against whomever they perceive as an enemy... Be that smelly bearded people in bedsheets with ancient russian guns or some asshole superior), or alternatively a sense that, as I said before, you only have those few people to rely on.



Of course having a middle eastern muslim (for example) on the team might still be an issue for obvious reasons. I guess that sort of invalidates what I said before, at least in specific situations.





Edit: Congrats on getting married btw!





In addition to this (sorry for the off-topic stuff, I can't pm people and hungry can't view my profile/e-mail address properly):

I think you get even less racism the more a hunit has been in combat together/the more veterans you have... In my organization most people started out with substantial military before joining too so there's even less of that going on.

Mostly because of what I wrote above...


I have seen racism in the military/paramil organizations more with kids fresh out of some form of school who still think life is about partying, drugs/booze and vanilla sex. I.e. people who haven't really gone through anything much that would bind them together in a substantial way and who basically have their heads still stuck up their asses.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Robert A wrote:
hungry4more wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...



No, no. That IS a valid technique. See my response to Sento at the top of this page:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...14&pageNo=4



Hahahaa.


Just imagine male porn star xyz going "I'M GOING TO PULL IT OUT NOW, OFFICERS!".

Obviously they'd go "GUN, GUN!!!" no matter what he pulls out ;)



I'll try to continue with this stuff tomorrow, as I really need to be getting to sleep now...just wanted to add my $0.02.

As Robert A mentioned, 41 shots over a few seconds by 4 guys isn't hard to believe at all, as being a "knee-jerk" reaction. Honestly, I'm quite surprised they scored 19 hits. But I mean shit, that's about 10 rounds per officer; in a stressful situation, suspect maybe making a sudden unannounced movement towards his waistband/belt, you can't fairly say (without any other evidence, such as video tape or multiple un-involved eyewitnesses) that they did that just because of his skin color.


You replied to the wrong quote tree.

This one is about getting buck naked.

Your salient points are out of place.

Otherwise, I see it much the same.

Regards,

Robert A




hahaha

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

hungry4more
Level 2

Join date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6749

Robert A wrote:
hungry4more wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ah, edit to the above: I wouldn't say "Pulling it out now" (hahaha) but state clearly what it is I'm pulling out, i.e. my I.D... Messed that one up...



No, no. That IS a valid technique. See my response to Sento at the top of this page:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...14&pageNo=4



Hahahaa.


Just imagine male porn star xyz going "I'M GOING TO PULL IT OUT NOW, OFFICERS!".

Obviously they'd go "GUN, GUN!!!" no matter what he pulls out ;)



I'll try to continue with this stuff tomorrow, as I really need to be getting to sleep now...just wanted to add my $0.02.

As Robert A mentioned, 41 shots over a few seconds by 4 guys isn't hard to believe at all, as being a "knee-jerk" reaction. Honestly, I'm quite surprised they scored 19 hits. But I mean shit, that's about 10 rounds per officer; in a stressful situation, suspect maybe making a sudden unannounced movement towards his waistband/belt, you can't fairly say (without any other evidence, such as video tape or multiple un-involved eyewitnesses) that they did that just because of his skin color.


You replied to the wrong quote tree.

This one is about getting buck naked.

Your salient points are out of place.

Otherwise, I see it much the same.

Regards,

Robert A



Oops, yeah we can pretend I wasn't responding to the penis references. G'night!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Wow, 600mg of caffeine and my spelling goes down the drain.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2146

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Wow, 600mg of caffeine and my spelling goes down the drain.



Is there a link? I measure my coffee consumption by pots and I cannot spell well at all.

For Borrek:

Link to 5.56 Duty ammo thread.

http://m4carbine.net/...ead.php?t=19881

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Wow, 600mg of caffeine and my spelling goes down the drain.



Is there a link? I measure my coffee consumption by pots and I cannot spell well at all.


Don't know, it's probably more me not having slept in a long time and the caffeine not really doing anything to keep me alert. I am immune to any positive effect of any stimulant, ever, and receive the negative effects double-strength.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Robert A
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2146

Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Robert A wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Wow, 600mg of caffeine and my spelling goes down the drain.



Is there a link? I measure my coffee consumption by pots and I cannot spell well at all.


Don't know, it's probably more me not having slept in a long time and the caffeine not really doing anything to keep me alert. I am immune to any positive effect of any stimulant, ever, and receive the negative effects double-strength.



Water. Lots of it. And B-vitamins.

My old stand by when drinking too much coffee, and I have a pretty high value for too much, is to drink one cup of water for every cup of coffee. If you are banging stimulants you are likely de hydrated. A B-complex seems to help as well and neither are going to hurt.

Regards,

Robert A

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

Revolvers have come up recently in the forum, so, let's talk about them some for...

... HD/CCW use

... as a Mil/paramil side-arm

... Competition shooting

... Collecting/for fun

All those particular uses require different setups/guns, and then there's the question of whether a revolver makes more sense as a choice than other available options etc... So DD, Jewbacca and tom63 (if they want to join us), let's hear your thoughts.

Advantages, disadvantages, whatever you want.


I'll join in later.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Cephalic_Carnage
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8850

And for any newcomers: Actual terminal ballistics info at the start of the thread.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report