5 ms·

Interesting that none of the news articles I've read about this cover the aspect that police is shooting guns in the air in a populated area. Aside from the dro

by avar 13y ago

Interesting that none of the news articles I've read about this cover the aspect that police is shooting guns in the air in a populated area. Aside from the drone issue that's highly dangerous behavior, you don't know where those bullets are going to land.

ihsw 13y ago
Such indiscretions will be forgiven by the courts because the police will have acted in the interest of public safety, look at the Chris Dorner fiasco in Los Angeles, USA for example.
- avar 13y ago
  Yes, if they're actually acting in the interest of public safety, e.g. if a stray bullet meant for a dangerous gunman hits an innocent civilian. The Chris Dorner fiasco came about because the LAPD fired on civilians they believed to be Dorner, they were incompetent in doing so, but firing on a suspected dangerous gunman is not a bad thing in principle. But as far as I can tell the cops had no reason to suspect that there was any imminent danger from these flying robots, and were firing in the air just because they didn't like being recorded. Firing into the air in a civilian area seems to me to be a much bigger issue than them trying to suppress news coverage of protests.
LoganCale 13y ago
Considering that they've been recorded intentionally firing teargas canisters at the heads of protesters, I don't think they're overly concerned about their wellbeing.
maxmcd 13y ago
I was under the impression that firing into the air, especially in limited amounts, was generally non-fatal. The Wikipedia article on Celebratory Gunfire seems to confirm my assumption. Deaths and injuries are possible, but usually only accompanying large amount of gunfire. There actions are still not without fault, but I can imagine a few more important aspects of this issue that we could be debating. "Highly Dangerous" seems excessive
- gfody 13y ago
  http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50 http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50 In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.
  - MichaelApproved 13y ago
    I remember it differently. The bullet would tumble back down so long as the angle didnt allow for the bullet to arc over. You do t have to shoot up perfectly for it to fall backwards and tumble down. There's a pretty wide margin for shoot up that would cause the bullet to fall back on itself and not cause as much harm as a bullet which held an arc.
- pondababa 13y ago
  It's unlikely that it will hit someone, but it can, so you don't do it. Remember rule 4: know your target and what's beyond it. You don't pull the trigger unless you know where each projectile will come to rest.
jlgreco 13y ago
If protestors wanted to shoot down police drones, they could do it safely with birdshot. Well, for some very limited values of safely. Actually firing the shotgun would very likely cause return fire directed at the crowd.
- blutack 13y ago
  A 2.4GHz or GPS jammer would be a safer solution. Most of the police multirotors are standard consumer models without milspec GPS or communications.
shpxnvz 13y ago
It's not as dangerous as people tend to imagine. A bullet will lose sufficient velocity so that it no longer lethal relatively quickly. As an example we can use FBI specs for maximum range of the NATO standard issue M855 cartridge for 5.56mm , which is 3600 yards. Ballistics show a trajectory with 2200 foot drop at that range and a final velocity of 490fps with a retained energy of only 33ft/lbs (about 3% of muzzle energy). To attain impact at 3600 yards requires the rifle to be elevated at about 11 degrees. In reality, the bullet is likely to lose enough rotational velocity that it will destabilize much earlier, which will even more rapidly decrease velocity and power. So, put simply, for this cartridge shooting in the air at an angle greater than 11 degrees relative to the horizon would not be particularly dangerous.
- beachstartup 13y ago
  > angle greater than 11 degrees relative to the horizon would not be particularly dangerous. unless there are buildings, of course.
  - shpxnvz 13y ago
    Oh yes, of course. I've never heard "shooting in the air" used to describe shooting directly at a building, though, so I was making an assumption there.
    - beachstartup 13y ago
      something tells me the police shooting at drones are not going to care either way.
- matt_ 13y ago
  someone in AZ got killed by a bullet fired in the air. They made it illegal and named the law after her. So no. It can very much still be fatal
  - shpxnvz 13y ago
    The ballistics calculations don't lie. For this story you heard... what cartridge was used? What bullet weight? What muzzle velocity? Where was the gun pointed? Do you have any actual information to share?
jmadsen 13y ago
There was a case not many years ago at New Years in New Orleans of a woman dying from this, and if you "DuckDuckGo" it you can find other similar news stories. So for all the mathematics posts in reply to your post, the real answer is, "Yes, it can happen. Yes, it is a dangerous thing to do"

by avar 13y ago

ihsw 13y ago

Such indiscretions will be forgiven by the courts because the police will have acted in the interest of public safety, look at the Chris Dorner fiasco in Los Angeles, USA for example.

avar 13y ago
Yes, if they're actually acting in the interest of public safety, e.g. if a stray bullet meant for a dangerous gunman hits an innocent civilian. The Chris Dorner fiasco came about because the LAPD fired on civilians they believed to be Dorner, they were incompetent in doing so, but firing on a suspected dangerous gunman is not a bad thing in principle. But as far as I can tell the cops had no reason to suspect that there was any imminent danger from these flying robots, and were firing in the air just because they didn't like being recorded. Firing into the air in a civilian area seems to me to be a much bigger issue than them trying to suppress news coverage of protests.

LoganCale 13y ago

Considering that they've been recorded intentionally firing teargas canisters at the heads of protesters, I don't think they're overly concerned about their wellbeing.

maxmcd 13y ago

I was under the impression that firing into the air, especially in limited amounts, was generally non-fatal. The Wikipedia article on Celebratory Gunfire seems to confirm my assumption. Deaths and injuries are possible, but usually only accompanying large amount of gunfire. There actions are still not without fault, but I can imagine a few more important aspects of this issue that we could be debating. "Highly Dangerous" seems excessive

gfody 13y ago
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50 http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50 In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.
- MichaelApproved 13y ago
  I remember it differently. The bullet would tumble back down so long as the angle didnt allow for the bullet to arc over. You do t have to shoot up perfectly for it to fall backwards and tumble down. There's a pretty wide margin for shoot up that would cause the bullet to fall back on itself and not cause as much harm as a bullet which held an arc.
pondababa 13y ago
It's unlikely that it will hit someone, but it can, so you don't do it. Remember rule 4: know your target and what's beyond it. You don't pull the trigger unless you know where each projectile will come to rest.

jlgreco 13y ago

If protestors wanted to shoot down police drones, they could do it safely with birdshot. Well, for some very limited values of safely. Actually firing the shotgun would very likely cause return fire directed at the crowd.

blutack 13y ago
A 2.4GHz or GPS jammer would be a safer solution. Most of the police multirotors are standard consumer models without milspec GPS or communications.

shpxnvz 13y ago

It's not as dangerous as people tend to imagine. A bullet will lose sufficient velocity so that it no longer lethal relatively quickly. As an example we can use FBI specs for maximum range of the NATO standard issue M855 cartridge for 5.56mm , which is 3600 yards. Ballistics show a trajectory with 2200 foot drop at that range and a final velocity of 490fps with a retained energy of only 33ft/lbs (about 3% of muzzle energy). To attain impact at 3600 yards requires the rifle to be elevated at about 11 degrees. In reality, the bullet is likely to lose enough rotational velocity that it will destabilize much earlier, which will even more rapidly decrease velocity and power. So, put simply, for this cartridge shooting in the air at an angle greater than 11 degrees relative to the horizon would not be particularly dangerous.

beachstartup 13y ago
> angle greater than 11 degrees relative to the horizon would not be particularly dangerous. unless there are buildings, of course.
- shpxnvz 13y ago
  Oh yes, of course. I've never heard "shooting in the air" used to describe shooting directly at a building, though, so I was making an assumption there.
  - beachstartup 13y ago
    something tells me the police shooting at drones are not going to care either way.
matt_ 13y ago
someone in AZ got killed by a bullet fired in the air. They made it illegal and named the law after her. So no. It can very much still be fatal
- shpxnvz 13y ago
  The ballistics calculations don't lie. For this story you heard... what cartridge was used? What bullet weight? What muzzle velocity? Where was the gun pointed? Do you have any actual information to share?

jmadsen 13y ago

There was a case not many years ago at New Years in New Orleans of a woman dying from this, and if you "DuckDuckGo" it you can find other similar news stories. So for all the mathematics posts in reply to your post, the real answer is, "Yes, it can happen. Yes, it is a dangerous thing to do"