Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

James Hart wrote:
Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:09 -0700, (Marc Reeve)
wrote:

Cartoon of a stretch of desert highway with the standard "Speed
checked by aircraft" sign, with an F-4 with CHP markings and a full
bomb load flying above.

I had that on a placard over my desk for years, except that the road
sign had an F-4 silhouette on it as well.

I found this one on the web a while back
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/speedenforcementbyair.jpg

And here's a somewhat more old-fashioned one:
http://www.kjon.com/cartoons/gm-002.html

Sadly, no one seems to have the Phantom version online.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Then there was the T-38 with LAPD markings that appeared in the film
"Dragnet" (the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks version)...

"Thank God it's Friday!!!"
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 03:35:55 -0500, "Don Harstad"
wrote:


"Mutts" wrote in message
.. .

Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
problems for law enforcement?

Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?

When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
even without a cannon.

Whats up? public outcry or something?

Discharging a firearm toward another is considered deadly force. The use of
deadly force is very restricted, and understandably so. Simple traffic
violations have never been considered to justify the use of deadly force.

Regarding the bank robbery, the use of deadly force from a helicopter might
have been justified, but the circumstances might not have been conducive to
its use. Too great a chance of injuring a bystander, for example. I
certainly don't have enough knowledge of that particular event, but I have a
feeling that just about every alternative was being considered.

The use of a cannon by police would be entirely too risky.

On the other hand, there were times when I would have welcomed a chance to
call in an air strike. grin

Don H.

Also imagine how much this would *cost*-- not just the helicopter,
but the training, which I imagine would be rather intense . All
this for a system that would almost never be used, and would provide a
continual drain on the police force.
At least in California, there is already some law being pushed to
drastically limit the rights of officers to initiate high speed
chases, so you can see the likelyhood of them getting permission to
blow up a fleeing car.

If you wanted a more realistic and doable idea, I would suggest
passing some form of law that would expidite the ability of the police
to request military help in a situation where they're outgunned. If
it's bad enough that you need a helicopter gunship, you'd be better
off calling for people who practice all the time in using htem.

Mutts wrote:


Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
problems for law enforcement?

Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?

When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
even without a cannon.

ISTM that a much better target for the cannon might be the
centre of the vehicle's roof...why waste a perfectly good engine
block?...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news | Mutts wrote:
|
|
| Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
| problems for law enforcement?
|
| Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
| of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?
| Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?
|
| When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
| it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
| even without a cannon.
|
| ISTM that a much better target for the cannon might be the
| centre of the vehicle's roof...why waste a perfectly good engine
| block?...
| --
|
| -Gord.



Certainly would have saved a lot of time and expense on the OJ trial.



"If you can't find the hands, you must acquit"




Cheers


Dave Kearton

"Mutts" wrote in message
...

Wouldnt a cannon on a police helicopter solve a lot of
problems for law enforcement?

Until it missed and hit something innocent.

Is it possible to put a round right through the engine block
of a suspect fleeing and stop them from killing innocents?

Ask the Israelis, they have lots of experience taking out cars in an urban
environment. Then again, they aren't worried about collateral
damage..........

Seems like that kind of accuracy is possible now isnt it?

Perhaps a simplified low cost homing weapon. One round, one hit. Make it low
yield, just enough to do the job but not enough to take out too much if it
misses.

When those guys were robbing the bank in LA, seems like
it would have been an easy shot to make from a helicopter
even without a cannon.

Helo Sniper would be sufficient. Unfortunately it's not cost effective to
have every police helo carrying a trained sniper.

Whats up? public outcry or something?

Most likely public outcry would stop it, then the cost.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.