There should be some TV show where the main characters are from Internal Investigation.
Have them try their best, meet a wall of silence and ambivalence and corruption, not really succeed, and end each episode saying "this case is totally not based on this case, because the real life case is even sadder".
Maybe just flash forward some of the cases where someone gets taken to court and say "he got transferred to another place /shrug shoulders".
It's impressive how fully media portrays Internal Investigations as bad guys getting in the way of good cops trying to investigate a case.
There should be some TV show where the main characters are from Internal Investigation.
Have them try their best, meet a wall of silence and ambivalence and corruption, not really succeed, and end each episode saying "this case is totally not based on this case, because the real life case is even sadder".
Maybe just flash forward some of the cases where someone gets taken to court and say "he got transferred to another place /shrug shoulders".
It's impressive how fully media portrays Internal Investigations as bad guys getting in the way of good cops trying to investigate a case.
Sometimes by being honest but unrelenting joyless sticklers that get in the way of the "rulebreaker that gets results".
But usually, by being even more corrupt than the police they're investigating.
There should be some TV show where the main characters are from Internal Investigation.
Have them try their best, meet a wall of silence and ambivalence and corruption, not really succeed, and end each episode saying "this case is totally not based on this case, because the real life case is even sadder".
Maybe just flash forward some of the cases where someone gets taken to court and say "he got transferred to another place /shrug shoulders".
I feel like they don't know how to write those kind of shows in a way that isn't just super depressing in a way a procedural isn't supposed to be.
There should be some TV show where the main characters are from Internal Investigation.
Have them try their best, meet a wall of silence and ambivalence and corruption, not really succeed, and end each episode saying "this case is totally not based on this case, because the real life case is even sadder".
Maybe just flash forward some of the cases where someone gets taken to court and say "he got transferred to another place /shrug shoulders".
It's impressive how fully media portrays Internal Investigations as bad guys getting in the way of good cops trying to investigate a case.
Sometimes by being honest but unrelenting joyless sticklers that get in the way of the "rulebreaker that gets results".
But usually, by being even more corrupt than the police they're investigating.
I'm pretty sure the only positive portrayal of Internal Affairs I can think of is Rene Russo's character in Lethal Weapon 3, but even then she's getting in the way until she has sex with the good guy and stops trying to block their investigation and starts breaking rules with them.
There should be some TV show where the main characters are from Internal Investigation.
Have them try their best, meet a wall of silence and ambivalence and corruption, not really succeed, and end each episode saying "this case is totally not based on this case, because the real life case is even sadder".
Maybe just flash forward some of the cases where someone gets taken to court and say "he got transferred to another place /shrug shoulders".
If I wanna be depressed while watching TV, I'll turn on the news.
Forgey has previous law enforcement experience. He comes to West Lafayette after serving as a deputy with the Miami County Sheriff's Department for the past three years. He also worked for two years in the Miami County Jail and another three years prior to that as a Cass County dispatcher.
Forgey says working as an officer in this large of a department is a dream come true.
"In high school, I really didn't know. I wasn't sure what I wanted to do,” Forgey said. “It wasn't until my junior year... I took a criminal justice class. I got to do a couple ride alongs and I was like, ‘This is it.’ There was nothing that suited me better than being a police officer."
This is the maddening root of the problem, imho. All those men* whose Calling is to be abusive assholes to other people, and who absolutely cannot be allowed to do that.
In an earlier statement, South Whitley Town Council noted Schimmel’s actions were “flawed, but not worthy of dismissal,” and that “the force involved appears consistent with police academy training.”
However, due to “continued safety concerns” for Schimmel, residents and town employees, officials opted to fire him
Real squirmy shit there. "We admit no wrongdoing" energy
And wouldn't you know it, this isn't his first gig in law enforcement either.
South Whitley Town Council reviewed a separate background check and a psychological evaluation Schimmel did during a different police stint, but officials neither provided nor commented on any details on those evaluations.
Immediately proving Calica's point. There's always another PD.
In an earlier statement, South Whitley Town Council noted Schimmel’s actions were “flawed, but not worthy of dismissal,” and that “the force involved appears consistent with police academy training.”
However, due to “continued safety concerns” for Schimmel, residents and town employees, officials opted to fire him
Real squirmy shit there. "We admit no wrongdoing" energy
And wouldn't you know it, this isn't his first gig in law enforcement either.
South Whitley Town Council reviewed a separate background check and a psychological evaluation Schimmel did during a different police stint, but officials neither provided nor commented on any details on those evaluations.
Immediately proving Calica's point. There's always another PD.
But it was creating a fake search warrant that is at the heart of the charges filed Monday by Special Prosecutor Rodney Cummings.
The charges stem from a Nov. 16, 2023, call to a fraternity house in the 300 block of North Street. Police could tell someone was smoking marijuana on the house's balcony, so Forgey created a counterfeit search warrant for the house, according to prosecutors. He then presented it to the fraternity's president.
After waiting for the frat's president to comply and identify who was smoking pot on the balcony, Forgey used the ruse of the search warrant to enter the fraternity house without the proper lawful authority, according to prosecutors.
Both charges are Level 6 felonies, carrying a possible sentence of six to 30 months in prison if convicted.
The CA Supreme Court today ruled that police unreasonably detained a man who tried to avoid police by ducking behind his car (seriously they had no other reason to stop him). The concurrence is particularly biting.
Importantly, naïve or ill-informed notions of police
interactions must not shape our Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence and must not compromise Californians’ Fourth
Amendment rights. It may be a reasonable response for an
individual to reflexively “freeze” or flee when being approached
by officers. (See Skalstad, Transformative Mediation Twenty
Years Later: An Invitation to Discuss Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder and Legal Ethics (2016) 1 Concordia L.Rev. 1, 17 [“the
fight-flight-freeze response is a reflex and the product of the
autonomic nervous system”].) As numerous judges before us
have recognized, many individuals — including, particularly,
people of color — commonly hold a perception that engaging in
any manner with police, including in seemingly casual or
innocuous ways, entails a degree of risk to one’s safety. (See
Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 132 (conc. opn. of
Stevens, J.) [“Among some citizens, particularly minorities and
those residing in high crime areas, there is also the possibility
that the fleeing person is entirely innocent, but, with or without
justification, believes that contact with the police can itself be
dangerous”].) This perception is based on the unfortunate and
longstanding realities of policing in many minority communities
across the country, as well as the police killings of Oscar Grant,
Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Akai Gurley, Tamir Rice, Calvon
Reid, Anthony Hill, Eric Harris, Dontay Ivy, Walter Scott,
Freddie Gray, Jr., Greg Gunn, Deravis Rogers, Terence
Crutcher, Jordan Edwards, Dennis Plowden, Jr., Stephon Clark,
Chinedu Okobi, George Robinson, Jimmy Atchison, Javier
Ambler II, Ryan Twyman, Elijah McClain, Cameron Lamb,
William Howard Green, Manuel Ellis, Breonna Taylor, Daniel
Prude, George Floyd, Andre Hill, Calvin Wilks, Jr., Quadry
Sanders, Jayland Walker, Tyre Nichols, Ta’Kiya Young and her
unborn child, and thousands of other people in the last decade
alone. (See, e.g., Police Shootings Database, The Washington
Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/
investigations/police-shootings-database/ [as of May 2, 2024].)
In short, police killings of Black and Brown children, men, and
women “have occurred with distressing frequency throughout
the country and here in California.” (B.B. v. County of Los
Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1, 30 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.).) Due to
this searing history and the present day experiences of far too
many people in the United States, for generations, legions of
parents in minority communities have given their children “the
talk” — detailing survival techniques for how to navigate
interactions with police “all out of fear of how an officer with a
gun will react to them.” (Utah v. Strieff (2016) 579 U.S. 232, 254
(dis. opn. of Sotomayor, J.).) Given this context, it is apparent
why attempting to avoid police officers reflects, for many people,
simply a desire to avoid risking injury or death.
+16
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Speaking of the talk, I got a version of that a quarter century ago from campus police in a presentation for international student orientation. They covered things like if you are pulled over, stay in the car and try to keep your hands visible.
At the time, it seemed so silly to me. I thought to myself: if I'm pulled over, obviously I'll get out, walk over to the police officer, and shake hands. I have manners, thank you very much.
The "acorn? acorn." police department has fucked up *again*, and this time someone has died.
After knocking softly twice and not identifying themselves, they burst into an apartment and killed the man inside. We know this because he was on a Facetime call with someone else at the time, because the police aren't saying shit.
They might have a harder time covering this one up as the man they shot was Senior Airman Roger Fortson and I'm sure the Air Force is..displeased. Not the first time the cops have randomly killed a solider though.
Most of what I "know" about guns I learned from TV, so, honest question: is firing a weapon inside an apartment building as wildly irresponsible as it seems?
Most of what I "know" about guns I learned from TV, so, honest question: is firing a weapon inside an apartment building as wildly irresponsible as it seems?
A lot of people on the internet will tell you that it depends on the age of the building (affecting how it was built), what kind of gun and what kind of bullet.
These people are assholes and apologists.
Yes, shooting a gun in a building presumably full of people is absolutely wildly irresponsible.
So, par for the course for the subject of this thread.
+23
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Most of what I "know" about guns I learned from TV, so, honest question: is firing a weapon inside an apartment building as wildly irresponsible as it seems?
Most of what I "know" about guns I learned from TV, so, honest question: is firing a weapon inside an apartment building as wildly irresponsible as it seems?
A lot of people on the internet will tell you that it depends on the age of the building (affecting how it was built), what kind of gun and what kind of bullet.
These people are assholes and apologists.
Yes, shooting a gun in a building presumably full of people is absolutely wildly irresponsible.
So, par for the course for the subject of this thread.
As a general rule, if a gun isn't fired in the direction of a target or something you are trying to kill an absolute ass-kicking is due to the shooter.
Most of what I "know" about guns I learned from TV, so, honest question: is firing a weapon inside an apartment building as wildly irresponsible as it seems?
A lot of people on the internet will tell you that it depends on the age of the building (affecting how it was built), what kind of gun and what kind of bullet.
These people are assholes and apologists.
Yes, shooting a gun in a building presumably full of people is absolutely wildly irresponsible.
So, par for the course for the subject of this thread.
As a general rule, if a gun isn't fired in the direction of a target or something you are trying to kill an absolute ass-kicking is due to the shooter.
Shouldn't that be "is fired in the direction of something you aren't trying to kill"?
After all, you might miss. Or the bullet might hit your target and keep going.
edit: removed exclamation points because I didn't want this to be misconstrued as sarcasm
If bullets weren't good at going through things, plate mail armor would never have gone out of fashion.
Platemail was actually just fine at stopping bullets. It went out of fashion because its heavy and requires training to use but breastplates were common in the pike and shot era and their primary value was in protecting people against bullets. Breastplates were used up until the 1850s (ok technically later than this but they were no longer effective) on troops that required more training like heavy cavalry.
Plate armor went out of fashion because you could use that same steel to make more guns. And since guns were so easy to use compared to heavy armor you could have far more people with far more weapons. This wasn't the case with a swordsman. Because it takes lot of training and experience to be good. So keeping your swordsmen around longer made them a lot better. But with guns, all men are tall. If the man with the gun dies you can replace him.
+3
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Plate stopped being remotely effective against direct hits probably at least some time before WWI, they didn't drop armor simply because it was costly. If wearing full plate mail would've let you march across No Man's Land and take a trench with six guys, you bet your ass both sides would've had plenty of the stuff. You could wear semi-effective armor maybe in a defensive position, but you simply couldn't wear enough to provide real protection and be mobile; even a "light" .30 caliber machine gun would cut you to pieces, nevermind a heavy .50 cal. That's why it took the advent of the tank to overcome machine guns and deal with trench warfare because you could finally mount enough armor to stop modern weaponry and not get shredded by near misses by stuff like artillery.
Once bullets stopped be soft round lead slugs and aerodynamic hardened rounds designed to penetrate, simple steel plate couldn't remotely keep up and could only be effective against light stuff like shrapnel. Modern infantry armor that can stop military rounds is some pretty advanced ceramic shit and even then, it's basically ablative armor in that it is rapidly degraded by repeat hits.
I am not sure that’s true. I don’t think machine guns killed armored cavalry I think industrialization killed cavalry. Guns and armor co-existed for a long time. As did field artillery and armor. And modern troops still wear body armor, more advanced and lighter armor yea. But it functionally has the same purpose as ye olde plate cuirass. It’s to protect you from incidental small arms fire and keep the solider alive because live soldiers retain knowledge and are expensive.
So first off we have to understand that armor has never been to make you immune to weapons. It’s always to make you resistant. All armor eventually fails. It’s there to prevent you from being debilitated and to allow you to survive if you are debilitated. Plenty of knights died at Agincourt but this did not make knights obsolete or mean that plate wasn’t effective against arrows. Knights still fought successfully for a hundred years after that (well into the age of cannon).
Like. Will a 30 cal machine gun obliterate plate armor? Yea but it’s going to obliterate modern infantry body armor too if we have the same impact pattern on both. But so will a 12 pound howitzer or Gatling gun or Ager Gun. If cannon didn’t end body armor I don’t see why machine guns would.
What killed plate was that cavalry had nowhere to maneuver. The battlefields had been pounded to mud and the combat trench and fortifications extended over the entire continent. You wouldn’t make it across the line in plate because you couldn’t ride a horse across it let alone walk. The enemy could let you come and then kill you with a sword.
And it’s not even like Great War infantry didn’t wear steel plate armor! They did! They just only wore it on their heads. Granted it wasn’t rated to stop bullets… but 70% of casualties were from fragmenting explosives… which it was effective against.
I think modern body armor is telling. It’s that armor comes right back as soon as infantry troops are valuable. It doesn’t have a lot to do with it being effective or not. It’s always been effective. It’s just not worth it unless troops are valuable.
Goumindong on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Basically every movie car chase where the back end of the car is riddled with bullet holes? Yeah, in the real world everyone in that car would be dead. Bullets are good at going through things, and that's civilian pistol rounds. Once you get into rifle rounds or stuff designed for military use, they're really good at going through things.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
If it’s a long rifle… maybe. But while bullets are good at going through things they’re not great at going through lots of things. The bullet has to go through the trunk but then it has another solidish piece in the back seat and then another in the front seat. (Plus anything in the trunk) And it has to do this without fragmenting or losing so much velocity that it still is dangerous or deviating in trajectory so that it doesn’t impact.
That is. A single car door isn’t going to save you at close range. But the whole rear of the car? Probably.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I think you might be overestimating the stopping power of the cushions in your average fold down rear seats.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The four rules of shooting I was taught at my local range were.
1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
2. Do not point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Do not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
4. Be sure of what you are aiming at and what is behind it.
Since you can't be sure that the wall behind what you're shooting at in an apartment building isn't just half inch drywall you shouldn't be shooting at anything.
The four rules of shooting I was taught at my local range were.
1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
2. Do not point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Do not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
4. Be sure of what you are aiming at and what is behind it.
Since you can't be sure that the wall behind what you're shooting at in an apartment building isn't just half inch drywall you shouldn't be shooting at anything.
My (mostly uninformed) understanding about shooting indoors is that it's not just that the bullet will go through things you don't expect, but that it will fragment and/or ricochet in ways that would seem like cartoon physics if they weren't real. It's profoundly irresponsible even if you did have a reason to kill the person you are shooting, which of course they did not in this case.
No one told those rules to our nearby gun range (who has a buddy buddy relationship with the sheriff dept). Which is why our HOA has a lawsuit against them because people keep finding bullets in their yards, roofs, etc.
Lawsuit is necessary because they - and the sheriff - kept shrugging and saying "can't prove it was them".
To avoid going too deep into the weeds on guns and ammunition, overpenetration is and should always be a concern when shooting any gun. It is less of a danger with smaller (9mm / .40 caliber) handgun rounds that most modern semiautomatic handguns use than larger caliber handguns or rifles, but even a .22 (or birdshot) will penetrate multiple layers of drywall / interior walls and still have enough energy to injure or kill someone.
There are frangible rounds (basically compressed powder) that are designed not to penetrate but outside of live fire training they are very niche. The only law enforcement I've ever heard of carrying them are Air Marshals - the bad of any hole in a plane far offsets any lack of stopping power.
Pretty much the only 'responsible' example of an indoor police shooting I can think of was Ashley Babbitt on January 6th. The officer attempted to de-escalate, gave clear warnings, and when forced fired an aimed single shot from a crouched position at an upward angle to minimize (but not fully eliminate) the risk to anyone but his target.
Wasn't one of the purposes of the beanbag round, beside being "less lethal", that it was a reasonable substitute in cases where you had concerns like overpenetration?
This feels like something that would have been tested by Mythbusters
As you may recall, they had a very bad time with an errant cannonball that escaped the testing range, went across a highway, through a house, and then into a minivan - it was a minor miracle that nobody was hurt.
I am not sure that’s true. I don’t think machine guns killed armored cavalry I think industrialization killed cavalry. Guns and armor co-existed for a long time. As did field artillery and armor. And modern troops still wear body armor, more advanced and lighter armor yea. But it functionally has the same purpose as ye olde plate cuirass. It’s to protect you from incidental small arms fire and keep the solider alive because live soldiers retain knowledge and are expensive.
So first off we have to understand that armor has never been to make you immune to weapons. It’s always to make you resistant. All armor eventually fails. It’s there to prevent you from being debilitated and to allow you to survive if you are debilitated. Plenty of knights died at Agincourt but this did not make knights obsolete or mean that plate wasn’t effective against arrows. Knights still fought successfully for a hundred years after that (well into the age of cannon).
Like. Will a 30 cal machine gun obliterate plate armor? Yea but it’s going to obliterate modern infantry body armor too if we have the same impact pattern on both. But so will a 12 pound howitzer or Gatling gun or Ager Gun. If cannon didn’t end body armor I don’t see why machine guns would.
What killed plate was that cavalry had nowhere to maneuver. The battlefields had been pounded to mud and the combat trench and fortifications extended over the entire continent. You wouldn’t make it across the line in plate because you couldn’t ride a horse across it let alone walk. The enemy could let you come and then kill you with a sword.
And it’s not even like Great War infantry didn’t wear steel plate armor! They did! They just only wore it on their heads. Granted it wasn’t rated to stop bullets… but 70% of casualties were from fragmenting explosives… which it was effective against.
I think modern body armor is telling. It’s that armor comes right back as soon as infantry troops are valuable. It doesn’t have a lot to do with it being effective or not. It’s always been effective. It’s just not worth it unless troops are valuable.
There has been no mention of "armor is ineffective", only that plate armor was made ineffective by modern weapons, not cost. Quality old-fashioned plate armor was absolutely meant to be proof against everything but freak random chance and specialized anti-armor tools, typically in the hands of another person in heavy armor. Nobody typically survived any kind of moderate injury when plate armor was still effective, you usually died of infection anyway; you had to be reliably proof against injury, not merely resistant. The vast, vast, vast majority of losses in Agincourt was because the armored infantry was too exhausted from moving across muddy terrain to be able to fight effectively, resulting in them basically being trapped by their own armor and killed/executed. The armored troops were so exhausted crossing bad terrain they simply couldn't fight. The cheap stuff had more limited resistance but it was still enormously proof to damage short of being hit dead-on by a longbow at relatively close range. But the French side had plenty of protection to make it to the English lines; in a different season without muddy terrain, the English forces would've been utterly slaughtered by armored troops not trapped in mud. None of which has anything to do with armor being effective, just bad commanders getting too full of themselves.
Further, yes, plate armor survived into the age of cannon and made it basically as far as mechanized firearms with mass-produced penetrating rounds. Up until that point, hardened shaped steel still could reliably resist soft rounded lead. But right around 1850, the shaped, pointed ball round was invented and boom, plate armor became virtually useless almost instantly. An armor plate that could take a thousand arrows or a hundred slow, soft lead shots was easily pierced by one high-velocity jacketed penetrating round.
And by the late 1800s, industrialization made plate armor dead easy and cheap to make, it just didn't matter because plate armor is not effective against modern weapons. If you only wear enough to move and fight, you don't have enough protection. If you wear enough to be protected, you can't move. And even though modern armor has only limited effectiveness, the relatively high cost of the armor is considered well worth it to have experienced troops rather than dead cheap rookies. From the early 1900s to about the last 30 years, the only effective use of plate has been shrapnel mitigation. But if the army could spend ten million bucks to make a single soldier proof against anything but a tank or artillery? Absolutely they would do that, the issue isn't cost, it's that armor can't remotely protect like plate armor was designed for.
Posts
It's impressive how fully media portrays Internal Investigations as bad guys getting in the way of good cops trying to investigate a case.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Sometimes by being honest but unrelenting joyless sticklers that get in the way of the "rulebreaker that gets results".
But usually, by being even more corrupt than the police they're investigating.
I feel like they don't know how to write those kind of shows in a way that isn't just super depressing in a way a procedural isn't supposed to be.
The closest you get is something like The Shield.
I'm pretty sure the only positive portrayal of Internal Affairs I can think of is Rene Russo's character in Lethal Weapon 3, but even then she's getting in the way until she has sex with the good guy and stops trying to block their investigation and starts breaking rules with them.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
If I wanna be depressed while watching TV, I'll turn on the news.
This is the maddening root of the problem, imho. All those men* whose Calling is to be abusive assholes to other people, and who absolutely cannot be allowed to do that.
*and women/etc., to be sure; but mostly men
https://www.wane.com/top-stories/south-whitley-officials-elaborate-on-firing-of-officer-involved-in-controversial-traffic-stop/amp/
Real squirmy shit there. "We admit no wrongdoing" energy
And wouldn't you know it, this isn't his first gig in law enforcement either.
Immediately proving Calica's point. There's always another PD.
Cops and Catholic priests.
https://www.jconline.com/story/news/local/2024/04/29/ex-west-lafayette-police-officer-faces-two-felony-charges/73496611007/
you hired a cop named FORGEY.
Wow what a colossal idiot, even beyond what one might normally expect.
Technically speaking, at that time, I think all but Kentucky bordered Indiana and had legalized it? This might have been prior to the Ohio vote.
But like, this was 100% weed purchased in Michigan or something and I bet he was big mad about that.
At the time, it seemed so silly to me. I thought to myself: if I'm pulled over, obviously I'll get out, walk over to the police officer, and shake hands. I have manners, thank you very much.
Now I understand why they were giving that talk.
After knocking softly twice and not identifying themselves, they burst into an apartment and killed the man inside. We know this because he was on a Facetime call with someone else at the time, because the police aren't saying shit.
They might have a harder time covering this one up as the man they shot was Senior Airman Roger Fortson and I'm sure the Air Force is..displeased. Not the first time the cops have randomly killed a solider though.
A lot of people on the internet will tell you that it depends on the age of the building (affecting how it was built), what kind of gun and what kind of bullet.
These people are assholes and apologists.
Yes, shooting a gun in a building presumably full of people is absolutely wildly irresponsible.
So, par for the course for the subject of this thread.
Probably more.
As a general rule, if a gun isn't fired in the direction of a target or something you are trying to kill an absolute ass-kicking is due to the shooter.
Shouldn't that be "is fired in the direction of something you aren't trying to kill"?
After all, you might miss. Or the bullet might hit your target and keep going.
edit: removed exclamation points because I didn't want this to be misconstrued as sarcasm
TV gunshots get stopped by bars, tables, couches.
Real gunshots don't give you that courtesy.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Plate was actually designed to stop bullets. It's just incredibly expensive.
Platemail was actually just fine at stopping bullets. It went out of fashion because its heavy and requires training to use but breastplates were common in the pike and shot era and their primary value was in protecting people against bullets. Breastplates were used up until the 1850s (ok technically later than this but they were no longer effective) on troops that required more training like heavy cavalry.
Plate armor went out of fashion because you could use that same steel to make more guns. And since guns were so easy to use compared to heavy armor you could have far more people with far more weapons. This wasn't the case with a swordsman. Because it takes lot of training and experience to be good. So keeping your swordsmen around longer made them a lot better. But with guns, all men are tall. If the man with the gun dies you can replace him.
Once bullets stopped be soft round lead slugs and aerodynamic hardened rounds designed to penetrate, simple steel plate couldn't remotely keep up and could only be effective against light stuff like shrapnel. Modern infantry armor that can stop military rounds is some pretty advanced ceramic shit and even then, it's basically ablative armor in that it is rapidly degraded by repeat hits.
So first off we have to understand that armor has never been to make you immune to weapons. It’s always to make you resistant. All armor eventually fails. It’s there to prevent you from being debilitated and to allow you to survive if you are debilitated. Plenty of knights died at Agincourt but this did not make knights obsolete or mean that plate wasn’t effective against arrows. Knights still fought successfully for a hundred years after that (well into the age of cannon).
Like. Will a 30 cal machine gun obliterate plate armor? Yea but it’s going to obliterate modern infantry body armor too if we have the same impact pattern on both. But so will a 12 pound howitzer or Gatling gun or Ager Gun. If cannon didn’t end body armor I don’t see why machine guns would.
What killed plate was that cavalry had nowhere to maneuver. The battlefields had been pounded to mud and the combat trench and fortifications extended over the entire continent. You wouldn’t make it across the line in plate because you couldn’t ride a horse across it let alone walk. The enemy could let you come and then kill you with a sword.
And it’s not even like Great War infantry didn’t wear steel plate armor! They did! They just only wore it on their heads. Granted it wasn’t rated to stop bullets… but 70% of casualties were from fragmenting explosives… which it was effective against.
I think modern body armor is telling. It’s that armor comes right back as soon as infantry troops are valuable. It doesn’t have a lot to do with it being effective or not. It’s always been effective. It’s just not worth it unless troops are valuable.
Basically every movie car chase where the back end of the car is riddled with bullet holes? Yeah, in the real world everyone in that car would be dead. Bullets are good at going through things, and that's civilian pistol rounds. Once you get into rifle rounds or stuff designed for military use, they're really good at going through things.
That is. A single car door isn’t going to save you at close range. But the whole rear of the car? Probably.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
2. Do not point your gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Do not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
4. Be sure of what you are aiming at and what is behind it.
Since you can't be sure that the wall behind what you're shooting at in an apartment building isn't just half inch drywall you shouldn't be shooting at anything.
You'll never make it as a cop with that attitude.
Lawsuit is necessary because they - and the sheriff - kept shrugging and saying "can't prove it was them".
There are frangible rounds (basically compressed powder) that are designed not to penetrate but outside of live fire training they are very niche. The only law enforcement I've ever heard of carrying them are Air Marshals - the bad of any hole in a plane far offsets any lack of stopping power.
Pretty much the only 'responsible' example of an indoor police shooting I can think of was Ashley Babbitt on January 6th. The officer attempted to de-escalate, gave clear warnings, and when forced fired an aimed single shot from a crouched position at an upward angle to minimize (but not fully eliminate) the risk to anyone but his target.
Or is being in an enclosed space too problematic?
As you may recall, they had a very bad time with an errant cannonball that escaped the testing range, went across a highway, through a house, and then into a minivan - it was a minor miracle that nobody was hurt.
Further, yes, plate armor survived into the age of cannon and made it basically as far as mechanized firearms with mass-produced penetrating rounds. Up until that point, hardened shaped steel still could reliably resist soft rounded lead. But right around 1850, the shaped, pointed ball round was invented and boom, plate armor became virtually useless almost instantly. An armor plate that could take a thousand arrows or a hundred slow, soft lead shots was easily pierced by one high-velocity jacketed penetrating round.
And by the late 1800s, industrialization made plate armor dead easy and cheap to make, it just didn't matter because plate armor is not effective against modern weapons. If you only wear enough to move and fight, you don't have enough protection. If you wear enough to be protected, you can't move. And even though modern armor has only limited effectiveness, the relatively high cost of the armor is considered well worth it to have experienced troops rather than dead cheap rookies. From the early 1900s to about the last 30 years, the only effective use of plate has been shrapnel mitigation. But if the army could spend ten million bucks to make a single soldier proof against anything but a tank or artillery? Absolutely they would do that, the issue isn't cost, it's that armor can't remotely protect like plate armor was designed for.