Expert Marksman? Where do they get these guys?

[Gunpacker]

Been a bit ill lately, watching a lot of TV. One of the shows was an examination of a crime where a police officer was shot at night by a either his partner and brother or a suspect firing a 30-30 Marlin from 217 yds in the darkness. Now, there were several things about the shooting to question, but one thing presented by the defense "expert marksman" as evidence made me want to scream, and no one really questioned his expert marksmanship.
The defense hired an ??Expert Marksman?? who proceeded to do a thorough examination of the ability of someone to hit someone else from 217 yds at night with the aforementioned 30-30. (As if there were no light to shoot by)
Now, I know that I am not the "most expert" marksman around, but have competed enough that I consider myself having been knowledgeable at least.
The defense marksman proceeded to shoot in daylight from an elbow rested position in daylight to make the test even more absolute. He fired a total of 14 shots at a head simulated target at 200 (or 217) yds and this is the result.
1 (one) hit on the head size target. And one close. He stated that he was surprised that he hit it even once. AAAAIIIIIIEEE.
I am sure that there are more than just me here that would be disappointed if they missed such a target more than a couple of times from that range with support. Not to mention that elbow support is not real great. This guy was supposedly shooting from his pickup, allowing hand support, which is much more solid.
As for darkness, the prosecution did bring out that the officers were standing by and well lit by a patrol car with flashing emergency lights.
I cosider myself a sort of expert on that too, having attended a police academy where one of the full stages of qualification was fired using only emergency lights for vision. I fired 100% on that stage, as I did on all stages of my qualification thru the academy. Man, I was really good with that 685 at that time, and I really look back on that accomplishment as one of the highlights of my shooting career.
The outcome of the trial was that the suspect was found "not guilty" and set free. It really was a strange and questionable shoot, but even so, the lack of knowledge on the part of prosecutors and police failed to present the evidence in proper light. With jurors knowing even less, this could have tipped the trial. Can't say for sure, but man, it had to be hard for jurors with testimony almost saying that it was it was impossible for the suspect to have hit the officer.
No one ever even mentioned bad luck or chance.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Expert only means someone with passable knowledge who is willing to make statements and get paid for them. Those of us with proficiency in firearms know better than to claim to be "experts."

 

[hnk45acp]

The percentage of people in the general pop. that can make a 200 yard headshot in the dark is probably pretty slim, thereby the "expert" moniker

 

[nitesite]

I know that what I'm about to add isn't to the point of your post.

I spent eight years in the Regular Army. There are three levels of competency for rifle marksmanship:

Marksman - the lowest tier of a passing qualification score

Sharpshooter - the middle tier of points scored

Expert - the highest level for points achieved on the Army qualification course.

It's a pet peeve of mine to hear that somebody is an Expert Marksman. It is practically an oxymoron.

Anyway, on the subject of your post, I find it deplorable that such an outcome was arrived at by a competent jury.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Speaking of being "practically an oxymoron", I think "competent jury" also qualifies.

 

[Feanaro]

The percentage of people in the general pop. that can make a 200 yard headshot in the dark is probably pretty slim

Just because he hit the head doesn't mean he was aiming for it. Even the dumb and blind get lucky sometimes.

 

[Avenger]

Speaking of being "practically an oxymoron", I think "competent jury" also qualifies.

And I'm starting to wonder about the phrase, "practically an oxymoron" as well.....LOL

I haven't trusted expert testimony since the OJ trial.

 

[nitesite]

Sheesh~ Tear apart my intended meaning simply because of the words I hurriedly typed.

Would you feel better if I used the phrase "contradiction in terms"? Would that make you feel better?

And from a Constitutional standpoint, we all must accept the jury process as being made up of competent individuals, or else the whole judicial system as we know it is meaningless. And YES, there are such things as competent juries. Have any of you who found some reason to mock my words ever served on jury duty? Ever been a police officer? Ever served in the military? If so, did you feel competent?

Like it or not, that's how it is.

We now take you back to the point of the original post....

 

[Limeyfellow]

The guy who made the shots was an airforce officer who qualifed as expert. Besides he made two hits in fourteen shots. He only made one in the first ten shots.

Suffice to say it is not too bad shooting with iron sights at 217 yard with a 30-30 lever action and the idea who shot twice and hit twice at that distance in the dark.

The officer claimed his partner was hit through the window in the right eye socket, and that the shot officer was on the drivers side of the car. Then there was the lack of blood inside the car where he just had been shot through the head and the powder burns on his face, from which the defense claimed that the officer who survived was shootly wildly, supported by the officer's handgun rounds being found embedded in the car and when the shot officer looked back to see what the hell he was doing, his partner accidently shot him in the head.

There was some questions though on what type of bullet did the damage. One forensic team claimed it was a high powered rifle bullet, and the other a 9mm bullet.

 

[jerkyman45]

I saw a little of this program, didn't the brother fire wildly into the night, striking and killing his brother/partner? IIRC, the two were driving in a patrol car, following a pick up. They stopped the car 217 yards from the pick up when it stopped, they heard a shot, and both got out. The driver called it in, and the passenger started firing blindly. He struck the hood of the car, and accidently shot his brother in the head. They determined the brother shot him because of the evident stipling on the face and neck of the victim. Didn't see anything on this "expert marksman" but he sounds pretty much like an idiot.

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

I don't know about you guys... but in broad daylight 200 meters is a long way for me to be taking head shots at the Ivan targets on a USGI range. Yeah, yeah, "I must be an awful shot" no doubt. But I've been shooting a long time and I wouldnt be confident with such a shot.

Now, make it the same shooting at night and it becomes even more questionable. Could an average person be reasonably expected to be able to make such a shot under stress with iron sights in the dark?

 

[plexreticle]

200 yard head shot with a 30-30 lever gun is a good or lucky shot.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Only two possibilities.


One, this was a super lucky (or unlucky depending on how you want to look at it) shot. OR, the brother (cop) shot his partner. Whatever the case, this guy was shooting at police.


Here's what I think happened. The guy DID fire 2 shots at them, hence the shell casings found at the scene with very, very similar case head markings. However, I don't think he hit anything. Meanwhile, the rookie cop gets out of the car and starts blasting over the roof of the car (note the bullet hole he put into the patrol car's roof - this guy was slipping on the mud as well as spraying wildly, not to mention the poor judgment of firing at a target 217 yards away with a 9mm). His brother probably wanted to get out also and get behind the car for cover. When he did so, he got hit in the head by his trigger-happy panicked brother.


I think the cops know that it was friendly fire, but in their whole gang-like brotherhood mentality, feel as though it is still the fault of the other guy because he instigated or engaged in a gunfight. Much like how if I hit an innocent bystander in Florida trying to defend myself, it falls on the perp - not me. Cops are very clannish like that. His death is in their view and the state's view the fault of the suspect regardless of who actually sent the bullet through his skull.


There was some blood in the car, but c'mon. A headshot WITH exit wound in a car from a .30-30 and there's going to be a huge mess. The prosecution's story? The hat he was wearing contained the spray. That's total bs. How could it do that? Does the spray come out only at 170-180 degrees in a perfect flat cone with no center spray from the exit wound to stay caught in the hat? Ridiculous.

The bullet would have had to gone 217 yards, through the crack in the window, into the cop's eye, out the back-side of his head...then were did it go? Are we to believe that it went out the other window with an officer standing there shooting? Or somehow vanished into thin air? Did it not hit the windshield or something else? It did not exit perfectly at the rear of his head. So if he was facing the shooter and took it in the eye, it exited more on the rear right side ...so it would have had to hit the dashboard or windshield. It this shot happened, a .30-30 at 217 yards, in the middle of the night, just happened to go through a half opened window, strike the cop in the eye, exit the rear-right side and then somehow exit the vehicle without striking any other part of the vehicle, which would imply the passenger side window or door, of which the brother cop was standing in that space firing over the roof of the car....then that is a MAGIC bullet.


Whatever the case...the real point here is about the standards of justice. Beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of doubt. He goes free. If you disagree, I know that stinks - but that's the price we pay for liberty and freedom. Trust me, you wouldn't want it the other way.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

As for all these people saying the shot isn't that hard....I think it is, for just about everyone.


Reminds me of these accuracy rants I have here on THR. Magically on the internet, groups from such a rifle are 1" maybe 2" (which would make you a contender for Highpower championships) ...meanwhile, EVERY SINGLE TIME I am at the range, the lever guys are making paper plate groups at best. At best. Most of them do not even shoot 100 yards. They all shoot on the 50 and there they are still making large groups. Many even have scopes! I guess my area is full of terrible shots. Or maybe I'm unlucky and have only seen dozens upon dozens of lousy lever gun shooters who can't shoot 217 yard head shots. Same thing with milsurps, AK's and everything else. I haven't seen any magic sub-2 MOA AK's ...nor do I see many sub-moa AR's either. They are pretty rare, sans the guys with match-grade ammo and a freefloated Krieger shooting off a rest using a good scope.


I'd be willing to bet 9 out of 10 THR lever gun shooters cannot score a single headshot on an IDPA target at 200 yards in 5 shots. Forget 217 yards. Irons just like this guy did in this case.


If we reject the aimed shot theory of the prosecution, then we are putting a highly improbable shot up against the theory of a wild blasting rookie cop who just happened to be shooting over the door of his partner.


You can criticize the definition of "expert" too. The point was to show the improbability of the shot. Which greatly reduces the chance it was him. At least the Airforce guy has had some training. He was firing during the daylight, off of a rest and barely hit the target. Ridiculous to attack that based on his skills. The idea is that it's not impossible. I'm sure if you dug up some trick-shooter or true expert they could do it and do it a lot. We don't put people in prison for what .000000001% of the population can do when it is their life-long profession or possess some type of unique talent.


Think about it. Most people are not gun knowledgeable. A jury, who will like have received all their gun knowledge from TV could be easily made to believe that shot isn't that hard, or at least believe it is likely enough to have been from the defendant. I can't even begin to describe the ignorant things non-gunowners say all the time about firearms. People believe TV is exaggerated and fake of course, but believe it or not they still apply a radically fictional standard of shooting to what they think is real. Everyone I know or talk with in the other areas of recreational interests I have are not into firearms. People have crazy ideas.


It is any wonder that when you take them to the range for the first time, the first thing they say when shooting a B-29 silhouette at 5 yards is "wow, that's a lot harder than TV" ...because they usually only hit it once.

 

[oldcop1971]

I saw most of that show...

I was not convinced that the 30-30 shooter was the actual guilty party. IIRC, the partner officer was the deceased's brother who was riding as a reserve officer, and who had little police experiance. I would consider a fully llighted car a "bullet magnet" in the dark and would either dark-out or get away from the car. I also seem to remember that there had been previous trouble (with gun involved?) with this perp, which was why they stopped so far away from him. I can easily see the panicky rookie accidentally hitting the other officer. I can also see where it MIGHT be possible that the investigators a) reached the wrong conclusion or b) tried to cover up the facts and improperly charge the 30-30 guy with murder. However, if he was shooting at the police, the death would have been related to his felonious assault on the police and thereby make him culpable for the death.
I emphatically reject the previous poster's blanket assertion that ALL cops are 'gang like' and routinely conspire to cover up/ misstate facts in an investigation.
oc71

 

[bogie]

1894 Winchester, at 200 yards...

I'd figure 2 MOA, plus 2 MOA shooter error.

Which means I'd figure that the shooter would have about a 30% chance of scaring the bleep out of the cop.

Unless the shooter sucked. In which case, we're looking more like 95%...

 

[browningguy]

I definately would be lucky to make a head shot at over 200 yards with an open sighted 30-30. Now if it was scoped, maybe.

 

[ilbob]

Open sights with a 30/30 at night? I think the expert did about as well as could be expected on a head sized target.

I have seen gun test type reports where they rave over 3 inch groups at 100 yards with special ammo with this type of gun.

 

[rdhood]

Anyway, on the subject of your post, I find it deplorable that such an outcome was arrived at by a competent jury.

The guy is an "expert marksman" until the opposing attorney proves otherwise, or provides his own expert to testify. A jury with absolutely no rifle experience would have no way of knowing... in the confines of the jury box... whether this guy truly was expert or not. Certainly they could research it outside of the jury. But they are supposed to come to a conclusion from the testimony and evidence ONLY. Thus, it is the opposing attorney's job to either show that this guy is NOT an expert marksman, or to provide his own rifleman to give evidence to the contrary.

 

[farscott]

Open sights with a 30/30 at night?

Heck, seeing the stock iron sights on a Marlin lever action is impossible for me at night; I lose the front sight very quickly with stock irons in certain daylight. I had to switch to the Ashley/XS sights with a Williams peep insert to shoot the irons with any kind of consistency at 75 yards, which is where my 336 is .35 Remington is sighted.

No way I could use that 336 at night to deliver aimed fire.

 

[JamisJockey]

Tv, People....tv....

 

[Headless]

Man, I have really got to come watch some of you guys shoot. 217 yards is a really long way to shoot a head sized target with any kind of certainty without any optics using only the stock iron sights...
And this was in the dark.

 

[K3]

I definately would be lucky to make a head shot at over 200 yards with an open sighted 30-30. Now if it was scoped, maybe.

I could hit a head sized target at 200 with a .30-30 using irons.


An elephant head maybe.


But, the bullets would probably just bounce away and piss the elephant off.

 

[Poper]

I know that stinks - but that's the price we pay for liberty and freedom. Trust me, you wouldn't want it the other way.

+1 - And that's a fact!

I sat on a jury (grand theft case) where the perp had burglary tools, opportunity, motive and skill set but verdict was not rendered because one jurror was convinced the cops had "framed" him. There was no testimony or evidence presented for this defence but she could not be convinced her opinion was invalid or not applicable. The Judge ruled a mistrial and scheduled a later hearing date. I never heard the final resolution of the case.
Another example of your tax dollars (and freedom) at work.

Poper

 

[ARK9mm]

Was this a made-for-tv movie or a bio of a real case?

Either way, i bet Mark Wahlberg could do it!