London

[Oorang]

When you fire five rounds in quick succession you get "Muzzle Climb" if five rounds hit him (which is all it says, it does NOT say he was hit in the head) you can figure the first round would be the best aimed and all succeeding rounds would be a little higher. Most officers are taught to aim a little low and allow the climb to compensate.
Also when you are taught to fire a weapon you aim for the area most likely to create a hit. Ergo the torso. However in this situation you would have to have your head override your training and fire for the head.
So you have to figure out where the officer would have been most likely to aim the first round. Knowing that the head is a hard target and knowing the torso is off limits, I would assume he would have aimed his first round at the base of the skull and the following five hits would have "walked" upwards. HOWEVER as it was a moving target in a crowded area with multiple other factors like trains to affect your aim and concentration, there is no telling where that first round actually hit. Given that 5 rounds hit him one is forced to conclude that even if not initially or successfully he probably sustained multiple gunshots to the head. The first round to hit the skull might not have been through and through but that would mean that it would probably have bounced around the cranial cavity. Successive rounds would have an increasing chance of through and through penetration as the skull weakens. The size of the exit wound would depend on the tumble of the bullet (determined by range). But since he was struck form behind and entrance wounds are smaller than exit wounds if there was full penetration on all rounds we would probably have one faceless criminal. Other wise you just have a soggy skull in the back.

 

[litrelord]

Should we be worried about you Oorang?

Anyway, I was basing it on the eyewitness acount (which could easily prove false) that said

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.

So he was on the floor and still when they shot him. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do. Perhaps you need 5 shots if it's in the back of the head to make sure the person is dead. I don't want to think too much about it if possible. Hopefully that's information I'll never need to know.

Still quite shocking though if you can imagine how the scene must've unfolded.

 

[Smitty]

Looks like the police have taken the no nonsense approach to suspects now...

Good.

Although it does remind me of NYC in the 70's when one particular incident caused a significant change in the Police dept's warning shot policy: Officer's comments at the investigation (in your best Brooklyn accent): "The perpertator refused to stop, so I fired a warning shot that proceeded to strike him in the back of the head."

Oorang good analysis. Note that depending on the load and the target a 9mm can be a pretty light weapon. Case in point the Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago. But in the hands of special forces, well that's a different ball game. As for human head shots, just about anything'll do; it depends on how much you want on you. :wink:

Smitty

 

[al_b_cnu]

Pennysaver - perhaps you'd like to revise your slogan:
It's not the fall that kills you but the bullets in the head?



Alan

 

[Greg Truby]

It will be interesting to see what more we learn. But if I was the officer and the guy was wearing a bomb, and my fellow officers, innocent bystanders and myself were within the probable blast radius and it looked like he was reachin' for a switch -- I'd empty the clip if I thought more shots meant lessening the chance of him successfully hitting the trigger.

 

[just_jon]

Unless they took turns of course.

Not sure I could blame them. And I agree w/ Greg above - if that's a bomb on your back, you're gonna be wearing all of this clip on the inside, pard.

Reminds me of the woman claiming self defense in the shooting death of her husband. Was hit 8 or 9 times.

With a 2-shot derringer.

 

[_Jarrod_]

If I was trying to stop the guy from setting off his bomb, I'd keep squeezing until my gun was empty. It's a little gruesome, but better to be safe and protect yourself and those around you imo.

 

[Smitty]

Pennysaver - perhaps you'd like to revise your slogan:
It's not the fall that kills you but the bullets in the head?

I'll consider it, but only if I go back to my last line of work, which often required carrying a gun(s).

I'll actually be quite impressed if the gun was shot 5x and 5 bullets entered the target/suspect. Case in point a recent LAPD shooting where over 130 rounds were fired at a suspect vehicle and the guy was hit once. (There have been several such incidents recently ).

As Ted Nugent said: "Gun control is being able to hit what you aim at..."

(Please note that my tone is not one of political divisiveness, but just commentary...hence the nature of the Lounge)

But before we go overboard thinking it was brutality, overkill (literally), etc., let's think about the situation and the overwhelming desire to protect and still allow freedom to exist. I think Israeli's might have a differing viewpoint regarding shooting people who run away, but since I'm not about to go there, I can't say for sure.

As a friend of mine who used to fly Cobras and Apaches says: "You can run, but you'll just die tired."

Maybe I'll change my sig to that.

Smitty

P.S. If you hadn't noticed, this is a war; not necessarily specifically aimed at you or me, but anyone who is not like "them", and unless you live in someplace like Northern Saskatchewan, it is going to be a part of your world. So in addition to gangs, road rage, work, the normal crime we deal with, etc., you have this. Whether you like it or not.

 

[Norie]

It's just been announced the guy had no connections with the bombings or bombers.

Apparently he lived in a block of flats that was under observation.

Oh, and he was dressed 'suspiciously'. whatever that means.

 

[Smitty]

It's just been announced the guy had no connections with the bombings or bombers.

Apparently he lived in a block of flats that was under observation.

Oh, and he was dressed 'suspiciously'.

I just heard that on the radio. That's a bummer and it's going to detract focus from the people who started it. Regardless, if you run from the police, even if you've done nothing wrong, then the assumption is that you have or were/are about to. Police 1, Moron 0.

Smitty