Why Don't They Just Shoot Them in the Head?
July 13, 2010 5:22 AM Subscribe
Why are criminals made to wear bullet proof vests, yet their heads are left completely bare?
Due to the recent media attention concerning the arrests of Joren Van Der Sloot and the "Barefoot Bandit", I've noticed that when the police are transporting these people, that they have them wearing bullet proof vests, yet their heads are left completely uncovered. If they're wearing the vest to avoid being shot in the chest, what's to stop a would-be assassin from just shooting these people in the head?
Due to the recent media attention concerning the arrests of Joren Van Der Sloot and the "Barefoot Bandit", I've noticed that when the police are transporting these people, that they have them wearing bullet proof vests, yet their heads are left completely uncovered. If they're wearing the vest to avoid being shot in the chest, what's to stop a would-be assassin from just shooting these people in the head?
The body is a bigger target. A shot fired from any distance isn't nearly as likely to hit the head, particularly if it's a hand gun that's involved. Although actually the bigger risk is probably from stabbing.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 5:32 AM on July 13, 2010
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 5:32 AM on July 13, 2010
The chest is the easiest target to hit, with a very high likelyhood of incapacitation when hit. The head is a much smaller and more difficult target to hit.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 5:32 AM on July 13, 2010
posted by C17H19NO3 at 5:32 AM on July 13, 2010
Best answer: The answer is "nothing," but there are two reasons it still makes sense not to have escorted people wear helmets.
First, as Silvertree mentioned, the head isn't actually all that big. If a marksman is a good enough shot to be able to pull off a headshot at a sufficient distance that he wouldn't be spotted by police, he's probably good enough to hit them somewhere not protected by armor. As armor slows you down anyways, this just makes things easier for him.
Second, armor doesn't actually absorb any of the kinetic energy of a bullet, it just spreads it out enough to keep the bullet from penetrating. You still have to stop the thing. On your torso, this is going to knock you over and result in some pretty significant bruising. But a headshot, even if you're wearing something tough enough to keep a bullet out of your skull, is still going to jack you up pretty majorly, possibly even breaking your neck. So what's the point?
posted by valkyryn at 5:35 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
First, as Silvertree mentioned, the head isn't actually all that big. If a marksman is a good enough shot to be able to pull off a headshot at a sufficient distance that he wouldn't be spotted by police, he's probably good enough to hit them somewhere not protected by armor. As armor slows you down anyways, this just makes things easier for him.
Second, armor doesn't actually absorb any of the kinetic energy of a bullet, it just spreads it out enough to keep the bullet from penetrating. You still have to stop the thing. On your torso, this is going to knock you over and result in some pretty significant bruising. But a headshot, even if you're wearing something tough enough to keep a bullet out of your skull, is still going to jack you up pretty majorly, possibly even breaking your neck. So what's the point?
posted by valkyryn at 5:35 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: 1. The head is a smaller target, and simply less likely to be hit than the trunk (although, obviously, a hit could easily be fatal).
2. Look at soldiers' helmets: generally, the crown and back of the head are protected, but the front is bare so the personal can see. Unless a prisoner is going to be carted around with a steel drum on his head, some part of the head will be exposed. Does not explain why a battle helmet isn't used, but's it's illustrative of the tradeoffs inherent in armoring someone. Even if you have a helmet, the force of a bullet to your helmet will Mess You Up.
3. Ok, we give the prisoner a helmet. What about his arms?!? And legs!?! Someone could shoot a prisoner with a poison dart! See 2: unless cops are going to encase prisoners in full-body armor, there is some risk, which they have deemed is acceptable.
4. Lastly, cops aren't making prisoners do their armor-clad perp walks down Main Street. A police van or cruiser most often (at least where I'm from) lets the prisoners out in a protected area. The photos of, say, Tim McVeigh wearing body armor that come to mind were taken in court, where all the audience has already been screened at a security checkpoint. In that regard, making him wear a bulletproof vest in a (supposedly) gun-free area is, in a way, an abundance of caution. The risk is that a civilian will steal an officer's gun--but the police trust/hope that they can prevent that or stop the would-be shooter before he can hurt anyone.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:39 AM on July 13, 2010
2. Look at soldiers' helmets: generally, the crown and back of the head are protected, but the front is bare so the personal can see. Unless a prisoner is going to be carted around with a steel drum on his head, some part of the head will be exposed. Does not explain why a battle helmet isn't used, but's it's illustrative of the tradeoffs inherent in armoring someone. Even if you have a helmet, the force of a bullet to your helmet will Mess You Up.
3. Ok, we give the prisoner a helmet. What about his arms?!? And legs!?! Someone could shoot a prisoner with a poison dart! See 2: unless cops are going to encase prisoners in full-body armor, there is some risk, which they have deemed is acceptable.
4. Lastly, cops aren't making prisoners do their armor-clad perp walks down Main Street. A police van or cruiser most often (at least where I'm from) lets the prisoners out in a protected area. The photos of, say, Tim McVeigh wearing body armor that come to mind were taken in court, where all the audience has already been screened at a security checkpoint. In that regard, making him wear a bulletproof vest in a (supposedly) gun-free area is, in a way, an abundance of caution. The risk is that a civilian will steal an officer's gun--but the police trust/hope that they can prevent that or stop the would-be shooter before he can hurt anyone.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:39 AM on July 13, 2010
There's no point, really. Bulletproof vests are a very tough fiber weave that will flex a fair amount, but will resist a bullet and diffuse the energy of the shot. It is common to get broken ribs and terrible bruising when shot wearing a vest. Check out the impact in this video.
A helmet made of the same material wouldn't stop a bullet from shattering the skull, killing the person even if the bullet didn't penetrate through the material. A helmet made of metal plating thick enough to resist bullets would be heavy and impractical, particularly when it's unlikely that a shooter would be able to hit the head in the first place.
posted by Menthol at 5:44 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
A helmet made of the same material wouldn't stop a bullet from shattering the skull, killing the person even if the bullet didn't penetrate through the material. A helmet made of metal plating thick enough to resist bullets would be heavy and impractical, particularly when it's unlikely that a shooter would be able to hit the head in the first place.
posted by Menthol at 5:44 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Here's an example. A helmet might stop or deflect a low power bullet, but pretty much any rifle is going to destroy your head, helmet or no.
posted by Menthol at 6:08 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Menthol at 6:08 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
(Also, couldn't a helmet be used as a head-butting weapon?)
posted by applemeat at 6:09 AM on July 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by applemeat at 6:09 AM on July 13, 2010 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: I knew that the Hive would know! Thanks guys!!
posted by Hanuman1960 at 6:17 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Hanuman1960 at 6:17 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
On your torso, this is going to knock you over
That's because the vest isn't rigid, and actually does kind of a shitty job of diffusing the impact over a large area. Basically, it turns a stab into a punch. You keel over because of the pain, not because of the kinetic energy. (Mythbusters proved this twice. A bullet simply doesn't have enough momentum behind it.)
This, of course, allows the vest to be flexible, and not a major impediment to movement. The performance is in most cases good enough to stop the bullet from penetrating, which is all that really matters.
posted by schmod at 6:23 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
That's because the vest isn't rigid, and actually does kind of a shitty job of diffusing the impact over a large area. Basically, it turns a stab into a punch. You keel over because of the pain, not because of the kinetic energy. (Mythbusters proved this twice. A bullet simply doesn't have enough momentum behind it.)
This, of course, allows the vest to be flexible, and not a major impediment to movement. The performance is in most cases good enough to stop the bullet from penetrating, which is all that really matters.
posted by schmod at 6:23 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you're imagining some kind of sniper as the shooter, I don't think the vest will even do anything against that. High-powered rifles are high-powered.
So the person has to get in close with a pistol, and with a good perimeter there is a very large chance of the aim being off or someone getting a hand on their arm in the act of shooting. So protecting the biggest target is more valuable than protecting all the target.
posted by smackfu at 6:31 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
So the person has to get in close with a pistol, and with a good perimeter there is a very large chance of the aim being off or someone getting a hand on their arm in the act of shooting. So protecting the biggest target is more valuable than protecting all the target.
posted by smackfu at 6:31 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Mythbusters proved this twice. A bullet simply doesn't have enough momentum behind it.
Oh, yes it does. What the boys proved is that getting shot isn't going to knock you across the room like it does in the movies. And they're right: it won't.
But there's still enough kinetic energy to unbalance you to the point that you fall over, particularly if the bullet hits a bone like your skull. I mean, think about it: unless you actively keep yourself upright, pushing you over doesn't take much effort. A gentle nudge will do it, and a punch will do it quickly.
Which is relevant, because yes, turning a stab into a punch is exactly what it's going to do.
posted by valkyryn at 7:57 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh, yes it does. What the boys proved is that getting shot isn't going to knock you across the room like it does in the movies. And they're right: it won't.
But there's still enough kinetic energy to unbalance you to the point that you fall over, particularly if the bullet hits a bone like your skull. I mean, think about it: unless you actively keep yourself upright, pushing you over doesn't take much effort. A gentle nudge will do it, and a punch will do it quickly.
Which is relevant, because yes, turning a stab into a punch is exactly what it's going to do.
posted by valkyryn at 7:57 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm guessing the vest is Security Theater, like taking off your shoes at the airport.
posted by neuron at 8:32 AM on July 13, 2010
posted by neuron at 8:32 AM on July 13, 2010
The cops don't want another case like Lee Harvey Oswald.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:37 AM on July 13, 2010
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:37 AM on July 13, 2010
If you're imagining some kind of sniper as the shooter, I don't think the vest will even do anything against that.
This bears repeating. A kevlar vest of the kind you typically see police and SWAT wearing will protect you from handguns and shotguns (buckshot and birdshot), but will do nothing against a rifle. For that you need a vest with thick ceramic or steel plates, and that equals weight -- 30 or 40 pounds easily, which means restricted movement and greater cost. These are generally only found in the military. So whenever you see someone strap on kevlar, just remember that it's going to do nothing to protect the person from a sniper perched in a window or rooftop.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:03 AM on July 13, 2010
This bears repeating. A kevlar vest of the kind you typically see police and SWAT wearing will protect you from handguns and shotguns (buckshot and birdshot), but will do nothing against a rifle. For that you need a vest with thick ceramic or steel plates, and that equals weight -- 30 or 40 pounds easily, which means restricted movement and greater cost. These are generally only found in the military. So whenever you see someone strap on kevlar, just remember that it's going to do nothing to protect the person from a sniper perched in a window or rooftop.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:03 AM on July 13, 2010
But there's still enough kinetic energy to unbalance you to the point that you fall over, particularly if the bullet hits a bone like your skull. I mean, think about it: unless you actively keep yourself upright, pushing you over doesn't take much effort. A gentle nudge will do it, and a punch will do it quickly.
Not to be confrontational, but you missed my point. The bullet knocks you over because it f%&*ing hurts. Not because it's got a lot of momentum behind it.
posted by schmod at 9:44 AM on July 14, 2010
« Older How long do you feel sore after you exercise?... | Picking an English Premiere League team for an... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Silvertree at 5:29 AM on July 13, 2010 [1 favorite]