Of Bear Attacks and Police Shootings

[togor]

Two Backcountry trips in the can this summer, in Minnesota and Wyoming. Carried bear spray, but no bear encounters.

Did some reading up on the use of spray, which got me thinking a bit about alternative strategies for police. A study of bear attacks in Alaska showed that spray is about 98% effective in preventing human injury, whereas firearms are about 50%. Given how quickly bears can move it's not hard to see why.

But a charging bear has similarity to police confronting someone holding a knife. The argument is that an assailant can cover ground so quickly, that deadly force is authorized before they even take a first step. Well most people would consider a charging brown bear at least as deadly as a mentally unstable person with a knife, so maybe agencies can save more lives and protect their officers too by issuing cans of bear spray and training officers how to use it.

Just a thought.

[barretcreek]

Be glad you didn't meet Bullwinkle.

Got a link to the study? My definition of a bear charge/attack involves 'powder burn distance' and around here any bear that gets that close is serious.

[togor]

Be glad you didn't meet Bullwinkle.

Got a link to the study? My definition of a bear charge/attack involves 'powder burn distance' and around here any bear that gets that close is serious.

https://www.gohunt.com/read/skills/hunting-in-grizzly-bear-country-sidearm-vs-bear-spray#gs.9i6745

Spray any bear within 10 yards unless winds are exceptional. Don't wait for a charge. That's the range of the cans. Any non-lethal encounter with a human that scares the bear is good education.

There are a few good training vids on YouTube showing how use spray. Some bad ones too and you will be able to tell the difference.

I have 3 cans past expiration as of this year, so that's some good practice for next year.

[Vern Humphrey]

Be glad you didn't meet Bullwinkle.

Got a link to the study? My definition of a bear charge/attack involves 'powder burn distance' and around here any bear that gets that close is serious.

Police already have and use pepper spray. There are videos of prisoners in prison training to deal with pepper spray.

[togor]

Short range stuff though. Bear spray cans are designed to reach out and touch yogi in a way that those little perfume dispensers that police normally carry are not.

[Vern Humphrey]

Police already have and use pepper spray. There are videos of prisoners in prison training to deal with pepper spray.

Added: https://www.activeresponsetraining.n...h-pepper-spray

[dryheat]

Why would any normal person need to take pepper spray(in the face) training? Bear spray is $75 a can at some sporting goods stores. Money well spent if you really need it.

[togor]

Vernon insists on missing the point of the post, which is that LONG RANGE cannisters of spray represent an alternative to police just dropping a mentally unstable person.

This came up when I read about an Austin, TX LEO who is charged now for two separate shooting incidents months apart.

As for cops taking it in the face in practice, I think it's mostly just to get them over the hump of using it on someone. The training is for the sprayer, not the sprayee.

[lyman]

Vernon insists on missing the point of the post, which is that LONG RANGE cannisters of spray represent an alternative to police just dropping a mentally unstable person.

This came up when I read about an Austin, TX LEO who is charged now for two separate shooting incidents months apart.

As for cops taking it in the face in practice, I think it's mostly just to get them over the hump of using it on someone. The training is for the sprayer, not the sprayee.

you edited your post after his initial post,


LEO,like .mil, are trained to use it, and have it used on them to show the effects on each other,
so you comments don't really make sense,



LEO have options for several supply's and suppliers, dispersal, direct stream, gel etc, and generally 10% cap/pepper,
your bear stuff is usually lower than 10%,



so who missed the point?

[barretcreek]

In all three of the reports, the general theme is that the researchers are heavily biased towards the use of spray as opposed to firearms

Apples vs sheepherders jacks. Spray is deployed first as a deterrent, HC-FN is last resort. Spraying Yogi will rarely end in paperwork. Popping a cap is 99&44/100 guaranteed to result in official interest. That's why I said 'powder burn distance'. Shoot a bear 30 feet away and you may as well shoot the game warden too-it'll be the same result.
Spray and Col. Colt come out at the same time, after which it is your call as to the situation. Better to have the choice.

And LE needs an absolute policy. Strong hand for weapon, weak hand for non-lethal. No more of this 'thought I grabbed the Taser'.

[togor]

Is a bias towards spray unreasonable? Would I be criticized for being biased towards spoons over forks when eating soup?

With spray, deterrence is the key, and achievable without a direct hit. With a sidearm clean misses and non-critical hits on bears are more likely. Remember the context of that link is how to protect against surprise bear encounters while in the bush for other game. So it's not anti gun by any means. I know guys though who just want to carry the sidearm in that circumstance, and don't feel like going into the details of the decision.

But the original thought goes towards LEOs who feel it necessary to drop someone with a knife at 10 yards. I can't help but think "damn if they used something like bear spray first then maybe they don't kill the guy and look at a possible homicide charge." But some guys just aren't wired that way I guess in that they don't trust anything but their duty piece.

[lyman]

Is a bias towards spray unreasonable? Would I be criticized for being biased towards spoons over forks when eating soup?

With spray, deterrence is the key, and achievable without a direct hit. With a sidearm clean misses and non-critical hits on bears are more likely. Remember the context of that link is how to protect against surprise bear encounters while in the bush for other game. So it's not anti gun by any means. I know guys though who just want to carry the sidearm in that circumstance, and don't feel like going into the details of the decision.

But the original thought goes towards LEOs who feel it necessary to drop someone with a knife at 10 yards. I can't help but think "damn if they used something like bear spray first then maybe they don't kill the guy and look at a possible homicide charge." But some guys just aren't wired that way I guess in that they don't trust anything but their duty piece.

you are rambling,,,



are you suggesting the the LEO carry a different version of pepper spray, or bear spray, than they already may?

did you realize there are many varieties of spray? some which may not be available to the public (will have to defer to the LEO's on the board like Art)


why use spray, why not a taser? again, a thought for the LEO's who are trained for that stuff

[Vern Humphrey]

Why would any normal person need to take pepper spray(in the face) training? Bear spray is $75 a can at some sporting goods stores. Money well spent if you really need it.

These are not always normal people -- some of them are planning to commit serious crimes when they get out of prison, and are training to overcome the effects, so they can kill the cop who uses it.

[dryheat]

That's kind of what I was getting at. Those devices that crooks use to steal your charge card are manufactured by someone. There are folks out there who want the bad guys to win. Or at least don't care as long as they make a buck.

[togor]

you are rambling,,,



are you suggesting the the LEO carry a different version of pepper spray, or bear spray, than they already may?

did you realize there are many varieties of spray? some which may not be available to the public (will have to defer to the LEO's on the board like Art)


why use spray, why not a taser? again, a thought for the LEO's who are trained for that stuff

If you don't like my rambles them don't read, or go catch that plane if you're in too big a hurry to spend time here.

It's the cracker barrel, and it's August. There's no need for speed, and the pace of any conversation sets itself.

Now you and Vern are correct that there are already non-lethal devices on the LEO's belt. However, when he says "drop the knife", does not get compliance, and shoots the person, then fat lot of good that taser or spray was, right?

Which got me thinking of bears in a chance meeting on a trail. If human ingenuity can devise a means of dealing with that, then surely there's no need for cops to kill people who are off their nut, holding a knife to their own throat (as in the Austin, TX incident, for which the LEO has been subsequently charged).

Good question on the taser. Maybe the chances of a good strike fall off with range.