quote:

---

At least they shot her in the hip, not the chest or head, as the LAPD has been known to do.

---

I'm actually surprised about this. Usually police departments train their officers that as soon as they make the decision to fire their weapon, it's "shoot to kill." That's why there are so many tragedies involving people with toy guns being killed. It may sound brutal and excessive, but if the gun were real, then it would be necessary.

I am always sad when someone carrying a fake gun is shot. If only people with fake guns would DROP THEM when confronted with police, tragedies like this could be avoided.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I know.

That's why I tend to think they DID listen to the family yelling that it was fake.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Or, you know, only use bright green or hot pink toy guns. In addition to dropping them when confronted, of course.
 

---

Posted by boogashaga (Member # 8881) on :
 
Let me see if I get this straight:

1) Police fire 4 shots at the woman.
2) They only hit her once.
3) That shot hit her in the side of her thigh (or hip).

How far away were they? 100 yards? The lady should be thanking God that the police cannot shoot very well or she would be dead!

What happened to the other 3 bullets? Where did they go? KetchupQueen--did they hit your car in the carport? People talk all of the time about the "training " that the police forces have. 1 out of 4 gives me 25% on my calculator. Should we rate that peripheral hit as less than one?

The LA County Sherrif's Department recently fired about 120 (?) shots at a white SUV and didn't hit the driver, as I recall--all at a distance from the curb to the car in the street. I guess that the lady should be glad the Sherrif's Department didn't show up. You too, KQ, or you might have new air-conditioning for the side of your apartment!

You must live in an exciting part of town. All that we had was a "drive-by" near the front of my place (12 shots) on Xmas Eve. I can't wait for NYE!!
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Shooting at someone is always much harder than shooting at paper targets.

I can think of several instances where a policeman and a perp had a shootout at point blank range that ended with both mags empty and no one shot.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Spoken by someone with no pratical experience with handguns. 25% isn't bad in a real life situation, actualy.


Also, police are NOT taught to shoot to kill, or to aim at the head. The head is one of the worst place to aim. It moves a lot.


They are tuaght to aim "Center Mass", just like the Army is, as it is the easiest to hit.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
It wasn't clear in the article about why she called the police in the first place. Anybody else catch that?
 

---

Posted by boogashaga (Member # 8881) on :
 
"Someone with no practical experience with handguns." I'll have to remember to introduce myself that way in the future; it should be good for a laugh.

NYPD=17% in actual gunfights (worst % among major police forces in the country)

LAPD actally has the best ratio in this category in the nation at 32%.

Do you know who has the BEST ratio? Armed civilians beat all major police departments. Check it out for yourself.

"No practical experience." Great!

25% might be acceptable for you and your family or you and your local police force, but I hope that you aspire to better results.
 

---

Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
 
so does that mean you actually have some practical experience with handguns, or do you just think it's funny that you come off that way? if you do really have practical experience with handguns i think that means you must've shot at people. how'd you do?
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
Aaargh! A handgun has more uses than just "shooting at people."

-

-

I have lots of practical experience with computers; that doesn't mean I've used them for diagnosing an illness.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Do you know who has the BEST ratio? Armed civilians beat all major police departments. Check it out for yourself.

---

Just a guess, but I bet cops are more likely to manage to bring someone down WITHOUT actually killing them.
 

---

Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
 
Brian, you're right, hanguns are great nutcrackers, hammers, and, in a pinch, drills. i'm sure i missed one or two other suggested uses.
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
I'm not saying that handguns aren't primarily intended to shoot living things--including people. I'm saying that if someone says they have "practical experience" with handguns, then automatically assuming they "must've shot people" is ignorant, inflammatory, unfair, and just plain wrong.
 

---

Posted by boogashaga (Member # 8881) on :
 
Gentlemen & Ladies, I apologize that I have not gotten back to the thread sooner. The kids are all here for the holidays and poor 'ole Dad just doesn't get the keyboard time that he normally does. Let's see, to answer the stuff in the order posted:

Airman4--My "record" currently stands at 4 out of 5. By this I mean that I hit the "target" with 4 out of the 5 shots that I have fired in the few actual gunfights I have been in. The "miss" was into a cinderblock wall which stopped the slug (bullet). The effect in this last encounter, however, was that the "bad guy" froze and dropped his weapon and complied with my orders. And no, no one has died from any of these encounters. These all occured before I took any advanced training in these areas.

Brian--Sir, there ARE many other uses for a sidearm including plinking as well as serious Olympic-style target shooting. I must admit that I have never utilized a sidearm for nutcracking, however. Personal discipline can be fostered by firearms usage through intensive training (not just screwing around) that will carry over into other areas of your life. In the eastern civilizations, martial arts were one of the ways that were utilized to bring "focus" into one's life, to help them find "the way." When you see the suffix "do" behind a martial art (ie: judo, karatedo, kendo, busido, tae kwon do, hapkido, etc) that is what that symbolizes. It comes from the Chinese "dao" (Tao). If one gets into serious shooting, enhanced discipline is required.

Rivka--All peace officers everywhere thank you for the comments that you made about their ability to only "wing" a suspect, that is to bring them down without killing them. In this arena, I personally bow to the greatness of Roy Rogers, who never shot and killed anybody. He always seemed to shoot the gun out of their hand and then moved in to finish the "bad guys" off with his fists. All hail the "King of the Cowboys!" Unfortunately, this is not the case or the reality of what happens nowadays. As someone posted above, the concept of "center mass" is utilized as a generalized aiming point. The idea here is somewhat reminiscient of the old movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," wherein Robert Redford's character (Sundance) is teaching Paul Neuman's chracter (Butch) how to shoot people. He told him to try and shoot them in the middle of their body. That way even if you missed by several inches, you still "hit" them. By the way, the "slugs" (or bullets) in the old cowboy guns were a lot bigger than what most people use today.

Regarding the utilization of "center mass," no less an authority than Plaster states (on page 134):

"Because society quite rightly imposes a taboo on the taking of human life, our paper targets usually are abstract and lacking in enough detail to understand where or why we're placing a shot. I've never seen a silhouette target that identifies the location of the brain, spine, heart, kidneys, liver, and major arteries, though, in fact, these are our true targets, not a simple silhouette or vague center-mass."

"The concept of shot placement has become well developed for pistol engagements, so we're refining already researched issues and upgrading them so we can rationally estimate when an intended shot will incapacitate instantly, rapidly, or not at all."

Plaster's book was intended for shooters of rifles, as opposed to sidearm shooters, but the point is still a valid one. I have noticed in the last several years, however, that there are targets that you can purchase at most indoor handgun ranges that show certain details that Plaster mentioned. There are also targets that show "bad guys" in menacing poses, purhaps in an attempt to bring more realism into training.

I hope that this helps.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
It's the apartment across from us, and as I said, we (and, luckily, most of the neighborhood) were out at the time. From what I heard, she called 911 saying she was suicidal-- and said on the phone that the gun was fake. I hadn't heard about how many shots were fired, that's scary. There are children who live in those apartments.

I do believe that there is a law in CA about toy and water guns only being in bright, non-realistic colors, but that doesn't apply to "historical replicas" and such-- which is what this apparently was. It does make me think even less of the common sense of that family buying one for their 5 year old, though (although, having met them, I will tell you that I didn't think too much of it to begin with. *sigh*)
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
I'm glad it turned out to be a fake gun though, at least you and your family are safe, K-Queen.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
There are laws in most states about toy and water guns being non-realistic colors, or at the minimum having a brightly colored component that will easily distinguish it from a real weapon (e.g. almost all air soft guns have a removable barrel tip that is bright, safety-vest orange).
 

---