|PRISON PLANET.com Copyright © 2002-2004 Alex Jones All rights reserved.|
Police Blot: Intended Consequences
Ted Lang | October 27 2004
The recent murder this past week of a 21-year-old Emerson College journalism major by a Boston “peace officer,” should be the final event in proving the idiocy of the James Brady query: “Why do you need a gun when we have police?” The obvious answer in light of the Victoria Snelgrove killing is: To protect ourselves from them! That has always been the precise intent of the Second Amendment anyway!
Imagine if an “ordinary” civilian had placed a high-powered, ballistically poor performing paintball long gun in another citizen’s face, and discharged a paintball filled with pepper spray at a range of only ten or fifteen feet? Would that deliberately caused death be treated differently? Would the perpetrator be identified and booked? The paintball is not a rifled slug, nor does the paintball long gun qualify as a “rifle.” A long gun with rifling is called a “rifle.” Rifling groves [and lands] cause the projectile to spin, improving both range and accuracy. Where am I going with this?
First, let’s consider the purpose and primary intent of this weapon. It is basically a high-powered gas operated non-firearm. It uses a locking mechanism that when released by trigger pull, introduces a sudden and powerful blast of gas [or air] under high pressure that drives a projectile in a chamber down the barrel and out the muzzle. The barrel is a smoothbore like a shotgun, meaning a lack of rifling that would greatly improve accuracy, power and range. The design of such a weapon was never intended for these purposes!
Its primary function is to serve as a temporarily debilitating restraint in terms of quelling a riot or the advance of an angry crowd on police without killing anyone; hence, the term “non-lethal.” Since this non-lethal riot control weapon is neither designed for pinpoint accuracy or killing power, the gas assist serves only as an agent for the delivery of the real weapon; namely, temporarily debilitating pepper spray. And that being the primary intent, the delivery of a form of teargas, the use of the launching weapon is totally dependent on its appropriate use as designed: to deliver teargas.
Considering the foregoing, the intent on the part of the police officer in using such a weapon is to avoid being closer than ten or fifteen feet away from a rioter to avoid an immediate physical encounter. This strongly suggests that the non-lethal gas-operated pepper gas launcher is to be employed at a much greater distance, probably no less than twenty-five feet. And since the accuracy and a velocity required to injure are not factors, the obvious conclusion is that such a weapon was designed only to be operated at long range distances of probably even more than twenty-five feet – and certainly not discharged by aiming the weapon at a citizen’s face.
Now let’s examine how the tear gas pellet itself works. Upon contact after being discharged at a human target, intending a chest or lower body point of contact and projectile rupture, the pepper spray rises. Considering the nature of the restraining element itself, namely, the need to rise in order to effectively be inhaled and reach the intended target’s eyes, the weapon must be deliberately aimed low. And in order to become proficient at its use, just as is the case with all American uniformed and undercover services that are equipped with firearms and other weapons, there is indeed both a requirement, as well as a responsibility, on the part of the potential user to be proficient with his/her government-issued weapon.
The foregoing sets forth both the capabilities of the non-lethal weapon used by Boston Police to kill Victoria Snelgrove, as well as its obvious intended correct use, the method and means of deployment, and the intended effect. How then did Boston Police actually use this supposedly non-lethal weapon? If such a non-lethal weapon killed an innocent citizen, a bystander in a crowd of “rowdies,” it is undeniable that it was deliberately used in a lethal way, and in a way that deviated entirely from both its intended purpose and design. It can be likened to a criminal using a screwdriver to stab someone to death, or a hammer or baseball bat to obtain the same cessation of another’s life; and that’s called “murder!”
By the way, what is the “errant” officer’s name? Do we have a photo of this example of Boston’s finest? How about an address on the alleged perpetrator? Aren’t these facts about an alleged wrongdoer always published in the newspaper or broadcast story? Why the secrecy now? Who were the officers that killed Alberta Spruill in New York?
A photo of a sauntering, strutting Boston Police jackboot was posted on the web. The jackboot was walking down a row of people who were not advancing on police. No, instead, it clearly showed the cop aiming his non-lethal long gun right at the faces of each individual in that line of unarmed people in a jeering threatening manner, and at a very lethal range of about ten to twelve feet! He was threatening to shoot [and kill] anyone who “gave him trouble” [his call].
Most disturbing, are increasing reports by eyewitnesses, somehow originally missed by the media, that absolutely no one was rioting! The government uniformed thugs and jackbooted killers were having their own fun with their new federally funded gas-operated paintball guns of death. The citizens of Boston were celebrating the joy of winning a sporting event – the Boston Police were enjoying the sport of killing an unarmed college girl.
E mail your comment on this article to firstname.lastname@example.org and have it posted here.