I've watched those high-speed police chases on TV shows (which probably means I've been totally filled with mis-information) but I've often wondered why, when police are chasing a vehicle, doesn't a helicopter direct rifle fire directly down onto the vehicle?  A high-speed police chase is definately a life-threatening danger to both police and innocent bystanders.  Why then don't the police send a choper to direct .308 rifle fire down into the engine block of the fleeing vehicle?  The danger of this fire hitting anybody else is minimal as the fire is directed straight down onto the vehicle, and it would no-doubt quickly end high-speed police chases and thereby save the lives of many LEO's and innocent bystanders.

One would have to be a pretty good aerial gunner to hit a car doing 80+ from a chopper doing similar speed.

Doing what you suggested would be implementing a deadly force action.  You can argue that a police chasing a vehicle at 80 mph will warrant deadly force, but this is not always the case....and what LARRYG posted...it would be very hard to do.

medcop

it just takes prcatice i know it would be hard...but when i was a kid and didnt know it was illegal we did a "science" ptoject that showed you could hit a quarter at 40 miles an hour from a moving car. we wanted to show that if gang members practiced drive by's that they would only hit there intended targets and not other students. SO while it is hard I dont think it would be impossible if the targets matched speed, and an engine is a big target.



but most LE departments wont even let you shoot at them if they are shooting at you and your vehicle is still moving its against SOP to return fire untill your vehicle is stoped..go figure

Now I have never done this, but it would seem to me that if you're hovering above a vehicle going 80 mph (i.e. your chopper is also doing 80 mph) then the moment you fired your bullet it would say have 2750 fps of velocity downward, but that bullet, by Newton's laws, would also have 80 mph of velocity, from the chopper's motion, going in the same direction of the escaping vehicle.  Therefore, correct me if I'm wrong, you wouldn't have to lead the vehicle at all, just account for the slowing of the tangential wind resistance on the bullet of 80 mph (120 fps I think).  Also, seeing all the deadly crashes, it would appear that recklessly driving a vehicle at high speed would be as much a threat to innocent life as would recklessly waving a firearm - people would be killed by the weapon (i.e. car/gun) if deadly force is not taken to stop the perp.  As Bin Laden's terrorist's have shown us, a plane loaded with explosive jet fuel is as much of a weapon as a bomb.  In a like manner of thought a car is just as much of a weapon as say a firearm is.

Even if you match speeds, you gotta factor in wind resistance and how much to lead the target.  If you point right at it and fire, not only does the wind affect the round, but the target will not be where you aimed when the projectile arrives.  The bullet will tend to go straight and not move laterally as both targets are.

One reason it doesn't happen is it would be a hard shot with too much danger of hitting innocent people on the road or in the area.  Another thing is that lethal force can't be used for a misdemeanor or even a fleeing felon.  A fleeing felon can be killed if he has just killed or severly injured a citizen or officer or if there is reasonable grounds to believe that he will kill or severely injure a citizen or officer in the near future.  A misdemeanor offender can be killed if he places the officer in a situation where the officer fears for his life or great bodily harm.

Ok, but I bet it could be done. I have played paintball (on private land) with dune buggys both going about 35-45Mph and been able to score hits on the driver. Not as fast but can be done. Again I know it wouldnt be easy. I dont think Departments would ever allow it but it can be done, I THINK.

P.S. and paint balls only fire like 300FPS

Like any firearms training training training

No offense to LEOs, but look at some police shooting statistics. Most police cannot hit a man-sized target at 10 feet. You want them to start hosing down the freeways with rifle fire?

This would never fly because if a chase becomes too dangerous for the public and the police, all they have to do is let them go. As much as this sucks, it is a safer option than trying to shoot a moving vehicle from a moving vehicle.

You're doing 35 and about 5 feet apart.  Huge difference.

sf46 - One could wait until the fleeing vehicle was relatively clear of innocent people before firing.  Also a high speed vehicle is very much in danger of hitting innocent people.  You say that a fleeing felon can be killed if he has just killed or severly injured a citiizen or officer, or if there is reasonable grounds to believe that he will kill or severely injure a citizen or officer in the near future.  So you don't think that a Corevtte going 130 mph up I-5 isn't a grave danger to a citizen or officer.  Shouldn't we PREVENT the injury of a citizen or officer , rather then just waiting for the perp to hurt someone and then take him out?  Shouldn't we be proactive????

 Accounting for the tangential wind is leading the target.  The second that bullet leaves the barrel it is being affected by what is basically an 80 mph wind.  Try aiming directly at a stationary target while you are stationary with an 80 mph cross wind see if you don't have to make an adjustment, in effect, leading the target.  Gunners on B17's had to lead even fighters coming straight in from the side, due to wind.

35 one 40 the other thats 75mph and we are not 5 feet apart more like 20-35 ft apart..yeah a lot closer than a heilo would be but I am driving and shooting at the same time....LIKE I SAID NOT EASY BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE. and NO DEPARTMENT WOULD EVER ALLOW IT.

Lawyers across the country would foaming at the mouth to get some of the action.

I'm sure the lawyers are already foaming at the mouth because of the damage caused by high-speed pursuits.  Your damned if you do and damned if you don't.  You might as well do.

The Dept I work for dosnt even have a helicopter...maybe we could mount some BB guns on Giant rubber band powered Balsa wood planes.

burn

What dept. do you work for? Do yall even have a crop duster?[;)]

Burn - how many high speed pursuit's do you get a month in your dept?

Comanche County Sheriff's Dept.....we dont even have Dept Equipment. All our gear(firearms, equip belts, ammo) has to be self bought...both full time and reserve officers...Our Local PD. Lawton PD gives there officers equipment. but they dont have a chopper either. we are only like 100,000 people here in Lawton, Ft. Sill, and Comanche County.

The average is probably about 1 or 2 a week per night time officer, but its all out in the county and people shut down pretty quickly ussaully....Im no longer full time im just a reserve now ...I work for a District Judge full-time. there is generaly only 3 deputies on per shift. its all the dept can afford for a county this size..third largest in OK its pretty bad plus they dont pay for shit. but somebody has to do it. two regular deputies then a Cpl or a Sgt.

Yea, I guess a chopper is not really in your dept's budget.  I'm sorry you have to buy your own equipment, at least you're able to get just what you want.

I live in OKC and it seems like somebody gets in a pursuit everyday around here.

Just couple of things I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Say you/they try it.  If you hit the engine block there is not to tell where the bullet will ricochet to and who it might hit.  Same if you hit a concrete road.  

Now say you kill the driver.  Now you have 2500-4000 lb bullet moving at 80-150 mph.......  How much energy will that projectile have?

Interesting concept, but probably not a good idea.  Not to mention that fair trial stuff in the Constitution.

not realy I cant afford the H&K USP .45 I use a Glock21C

Hey a Glock's a good gun.  The USP rated just slightly below the Glock 23 by Gun Test Mag, just slightly.

You've got to be shitting me! This is a joke, right?[rolleyes]

Just send in Spectre-ZZZZZZZZZIP, no mo bad guy, no mo car, no mo road...

[b][size=1]Don Out[/size=1][/b]
[b][size=4][red]AIRBORNE!
2/505 PIR
H-MINUS[/red][/size=4][/b]

Sukebe - Think about it!  You don't consider a Corvette going 130 mph a danger to society that needs to be deal with?!?  I suspect that your suggestion  would be to put a letter of repremand in the Corvette driver's file, after he kills 2 LEO's, so that the next time he comes up for a promotion or salary increase he might not get as much??  I suspose that your idea of solving the problem of terrorist attacks, such as 9/11, is through meditation and herbal tea.  The bleeding heart liberal web site ain't this one.  Oh wait, I hear your mother calling you, time for you to go home; you can't stay out past dark you know.

The helo idea is a little extreme, but I have often wondered why the police don't shoot holes through the radiator, especially in those pursuits that last for hours. A radiator is a pretty easy target and once holed the vehicle ain't going too much farther. Maybe instead of shooting it, it could be holed with something like a spike strip for tires. Maybe even at the same time.
Or maybe I spend too much time talking to my dog.

Yea, they should shoot something, just to stop the vehicle.  I was driving west on I-80 just west of Denver a year ago, and in the very narrow median was a wounded elk.  The elk had obviously wandered into traffic, been hit, had it's hip broken, and been knocked into the median.  Just as we were driving by a Colorado State trooper shot the hobbling elk, right in the median strip, with some very large caliber rifle.  We were down range when the trooper fired.  Now if they shoot elk to prevent them from injuring people, why don't they shoot Corvettes going 130 mph.  We were obviously endangered by being down-range from the troopers rifle fire.  I'd feel much safer having a chopper shooting straight down on a car, then be down range from a trooper shooting a large caliber rifle at a wounded elk.  They do one, which is more dangerous, why don't they do the other.

Metal telescoping spike attached to the rear bumper of LEO vehicle, get in front, use brakes

[b][size=1]Don Out[/size=1][/b]
[b][size=4][red]AIRBORNE!
2/505 PIR
H-MINUS[/red][/size=4][/b]

Now that's thinkin, you must have a smarter dog than I do. [:)]

Edited because I can't type.

No money, no helicopter. And we probably get into 5 -10 vehicle pursuits a week. Hell we have just about gotten into a no pursuit policy anyway. I am a supervisor and probably call off several vehicle pursuits weekly. Just not worth it anymore, you know civil liablity and all.

What I always find amazing is that in those docu-drama shows how these officers will ram this guy from every direction, do the pitman and all that maybe wrecking 5 units. They must have an unlimited pool of reserve cars because they are high fiving each other and things like that. We wreck one unit and we are in tears as we know if the unit is not repairable you are on foot pretty much. But maybe those other departments have unlimited funding. Don't know. It's depressing.

It's the voices, really!!!



[b][size=1]Don Out[/size=1][/b]
[b][size=4][red]AIRBORNE!
2/505 PIR
H-MINUS[/red][/size=4][/b]

Yep, that's pretty much the atitude that resulted in 6000+ casualties in NY....
Yes, by all means, lets be SAFE!! Don't resist, do what you're told, Bend over, and spread your cheeks, we're playing it safe.

It's a good thing we didn't have that attitude a couple hundered years ago. The constitution would have never been drafted. Hell, somebody might have been hurt...

"It's the safest thing to do" is pretty much just an excuse to sit on your ass, and do nothing.

I've been asked many times of my opinions on High speed pursuits. Here's How I like to answer it.
It's a nice sunny day, and you and your family are out in the yard. A van screeches to a halt in front of your house. A grungy biker looking scrote jumps out, grabs your 8 year old daughter, and throws her in the van. The van speeds away as you watch in horror.
I'm sitting a block away. I see that van bust through a stop sign. I pull behind him, and hit my overheads. he doesn't stop. I remember my dept.'s policy, stating that I am not allowed to engage in vehiclular pursuits. It's simply not safe. We would normally try to watch the suspect vehicle with our helicopter, but it's not flying at the moment.  Gee, sorry. Hope everything works out OK...But rest assured, I'm taking this report, and we'll all be on the lookout for your daughter.

Are you comfortable with the "Let's be safe" pursuit policy?
I'm not...
We need to get over this "Turn the other cheek" mentality. If you're not willing to get bloody to defend yourself, or your people, then get ready to watch somebody take it away from you.
The way you stop pursuits is to adopt the "Zero Tolerance" approach. they WILL NOT get away. They will be stopped, no matter what. Once the word gets around. There will be no more high speed pursuits.
How many highjackings do you see on Isreali aircraft? Anybody know why? The logic is sound.
What's the difference between Joe the Idiot piloting a car through a busy intersection at 100 mph, and Joe the idiot standing on the street corner firing an AK47 aimlessly through the same intersection? How would you expect the police to deal with Joe the idiot with his AK47?
Do we just stand back, and wait till he runs out of ammo? After all, if we shoot at him, someone could get hurt...
Why would you want the Police to deal with Joe the idiot in the car any differently?
The ususal argument is, "if you stop chasing him, he'll quit running". BS....He's being chased to begin with because he was either involved in a crime, or driving like an idiot. Either way, he needs to be stopped.

The police are damned if we do, damned if we don't. But what the hell, by all means, let's be safe....

Rich

Hound slips into his Joe dirtbag personality---
I do not like high-speed pursuits and I think they should be absolutely banned---doubling an unsafe situation is not the best way to handle this...so what is? And on this one I do not have an issue with police---none, nada, zilch....Here's the question-Does any one know of any high speed chase where a perp doesn't have priors? Why is he on the streets? On the tube the other night, a person had 19 prior DUI's.....that's lethal injection time. Lock them up, deport them, or make sure they never drive again...no thumbs or something.

Around here there are pursuits pretty regularly.  No money for a chopper. In AR. the fleeing charge is a misdemeanor if the reason you are pursuing is a misdemeanor. It's only a felony if the original charge was a felony. Obviously during a misdemeanor pursuit it could turn into a felony pursuit quickly if the person fleeing committed a felony while fleeing, like trying to run over someone or using the vehicle as a weapon to ram other cars. However it would be hard to explain whyyou shot and killed a 15 year old who took his parents car out for a joyride. Most of our pursuits end up with the vehicle fleeing, wrecking.

Not really. How about..Because he was endangering innocent motorists by driving 100 mph through busy streets? The Police aren't baby sitters. It's up to the parents to teach their kids about right and wrong. When I was 15 I didn't drive. I didn't have a license. And I DAMN sure wouldn't have taken my parent's car without permission. What the Police would do to me would have been merciful compared to what my father would have done. I was taught right and wrong from an early age. Here again, if Jr is standing on a street corner busting rounds down the street from his AK47, The Police aren't suppose to shoot him, because he's 15?  His age doesn't even come into the equation. His behavior is all that matters. Remember columbine High? Poor little mis-guided youths. They are just as determined, and every bit as deadly as any 30 year old man. They are dealt with just the same.
Jr won't be running from the Police, if he knows he's about to get his little mis-guided ass shot off the road....
Youths of today aren't ignorant of the law. They are very street smart. The internet has given them a window on the world that I didn't have at thier age. That "he's just a dumb little kid" excuse doesn't cut it anymore.
The DPS here in Texas will pursue, and follow you till you do something Stupid(Moreso than running), then your ass belongs to them. 12 guage time. It usually only takes one shot,(Usually at the tires) and the turd jumps on the brakes. To the bleeding hearts out there, the method is crude. Maybe so, but it's VERY effective....

Rich  

Ronin - You said it much better then I could.  They say that countries are born stoic and die epicurian.  Guess we're all a bunch of pusssies now.

Teenagers don't think like adults, but they are expected to act like them.  A teenager who stole his parents car and runs from the police because he is scared and doesnt know what to do is quite different from one that is intending to kill people by shooting at them.

I also think it would be a bad idea to shoot at people fleeing from police in a moving vehicle because the vehicle isn't going to stop itself if the driver gets shot as he is flying down the freeway doing 100+ speeds.  The car will end up going somewhere that it could hurt people not involved at all maybe even the pursuing officers.

For that matter, why not just give LEO's the old Army Cobras and Apaches and let them take out the suspects with a Hellfire?

I hope you were joking about hosing down a car with .308. If not, you are really clueless about the variables involved in hitting a moving target.

Well, you have your opinions, I have mine. Mine are based on 23 years in the pursuit business.

Rich

I've been in a couple of high-speed pursuits.

The last one was with a motorcycle on country roads without any other traffic. Tried to stop him for failure to stop at a stop sign and 100 mph. If it started becoming "dangerous" I would have terminated the pursuit. As it was it went for 5 miles, 3 minutes before I lost sight of him.

Prior to that I was eluded by a car that hit about 140 mph on a 2 lane road and ducked off. I found the car but was never able to prove who was driving. This was also a stop for traffic violations. I was considering terminating this one also, but 1 mile from where he lost me another officer was set up with spikes.......

I too watch those wildest police videos. My question for many of them is why do the police continue to pursue? Many involve known offenders and minor offenses on crowded streets. Those pusrsuits should probably be terminated.

Chasing drunk/reckless drivers and crimes against person suspects who are not known by name are much more difficult. If you stop pursuing a drunk or reckless driver they don't become sober and responsible. If they crash after the pursuit the question will be why the police didn't continue the pursuit at least with a LEO on his tail the public would be alerted to the drunk/reckless driver by the presence of the police car's lights and siren. Unknown felony suspects that run to keep their identity from being determined or to be able to dispose of evidence of their crimes are a tougher call.

Spike strips work, and how. Helicopters work if they are available. Pursuits are also less dangerous if ALL drivers are paying attention to what is going on around them.

Well I guess your weren't kidding. FYI I'm 37, been a cop for going on 14 years(lieutenant), mom's dead and I stay out as late as I want these days. My earlier post was just a polite way of saying that while you may not be a complete idiot, your suggestion is idiotic.

Maybe my post about letting someone go was not entirley understood. I am not advocating that this is the best response or that I agree with it, but it is the safest option. This isn't opinion it is a fact. If a pursuit becomes too dangerous the safest way to end it is too terminate the pursuit.

I don't like this option because it sends the message that if you run you can get away. When I was in highschool Dallas PD had a policy not to pursue at speeds over 90 mph. You can imagine the results, people ran all the time at speeds of 100+. Of course PD still persued, but only at speeds of 90mph[:)]

I think one problem with high speed pursuit is that some LEOs take the pursuit way to personally. They can't let someone go because this person had the audacity to flee from THEM. The persuit then becomes a personal quest to catch the suspect no matter what the end results.

No matter what your opinion of pursuits is, it's still a moronic idea to shoot at fleeing suspects from helicopters.  

yep, I'll give you that one....:)

Rich