7/31/2012 Miami Gunfight Video

After another look, I believe the officer in the red truck only shoots once. Rested on the bed, to the head of the shooter ending the fight. That's an impressive shot in a stressful situation.

By this time, the middle officer has forgotten about his potential suspect, and made it to the rear of the red truck.
 
Now for the biggie. Notice what happens to the guy being held. When the shooting starts, he is released and ignored. He goes between the vehicles and to the right away from all three officers. Had he decided to draw a gun at that point, things would have ended very badly. The middle officer who released him and turned his attention towards the active shooter is lucky to be alive also.

My perception was that the immediate response was to react to the obvious threat as they should have. Also the training helped them to fall back in a defensive position because the second guy or a guy in the house could pose another threat, better safe than sorry.

That's at least two out of three right in their response to the given situation.
Plus i give them plausible correctness on the third for a possible 3 of 3 because the suspect that ran appeared to be avoiding gunfire as much as the police. I would guess they had him in their peripheral vision.

I think they made no serious error there IMO. Still would have loved to see the debriefing as to how they did after the battle ensued.
 
He should also be reprimanded for his inability to control his weapon. The two shots at the ground, one of them while he was tuned the other direction were a danger to everyone. Another 20 degrees and he would have sent that round towards the officer on the left.

No. He had been shot at that point. I think if you are shot in the gut several times you get a little lee way on muzzle awareness and control. Still he was lucky.

I did notice however that the 3rd officer to arrive hesitated about two seconds before drawing his weapon. When the shooter exited the vehicle with his gun out he should have drawn while backing away instead of backing away and then drawing. A minor point really.
 
Personally, I would not choose the word critical. There were obvious mistakes made that police themselves are sure to point out to future trainees or as a review into the shooting.

I would and did use the word "critical" in specific reference to not checking the cars and for specific reasons as out stated. Yes, there were mistakes, but there is a combination of issues at hand. It is am impossibility to clear all spaces all the time and still proceed while at the same time dealing with a known suspect.

Did the cops appear to have tunnel vision. Yep, but also had a perceived threat with which to deal. That brings up a serious logistical issue as to whether you ignore the perceived threat and check for other threats or not. Somebody should have been looking around, but officers 1 and 2 were fixated on the threat. That is why I commented that I thought officer #3 who wasn't handling the threat should have been looking around and wasn't.

During the gun fight, none of the officers are checking their sixes. Mistake or necessary risk. At about 7:20 in the video, the shooting is over (for the time being and as it turned out, for good) and the suspect originally approached by the cops is being ordered to an awaiting officer who is out in the open. Mistake or necessary risk? The officers who arrive in squad cars do not stop and clear the area before proceeding. The just out of their cars and run with tunnel vision to a new area of safety behind vehicles in the street. It doesn't even appear that they all have their guns drawn before exiting their vehicles as at least one appears to be drawing his gun as he runs and one who runs behind and between the vehicles in the street appears to be empty handed. Mistakes or necessary risks?

Did anyone notice that it took backup 6 1/2 minutes to get there!
Yep, three posts above yours.

I believe this was anything but a "knock and talk". There's no reason for multiple unmarked cars to converge quickly unless it was some type of bust or arrest attempt. My guess is the department labeled this as such rather than admit this was a poorly executed bust.

Yes.

Given the number of vehicles in the drive way, these guys are extremely fortunate that no one else joined in the fight from another vehicle or the house.

Or the trees, roof, houses across the street. You really can't secure everywhere all the time.

Second, he steps right into the open in front of the shooter as the shooting starts.

He steps in front of the shooter? LOL! He corners the tree in order to have a shot at the threat from the car. The officer closes to the street does the same thing in the opposite direction, forcing the guy behind the tree to deal with threats from multiple and widely spaced directions. In short, the officers catch the perp in a cross fire where the perp is then exceptionally limited in the directions he can move and is shot multiple times in the process.

He should also be reprimanded for his inability to control his weapon. The two shots at the ground, one of them while he was tuned the other direction were a danger to everyone.

Yeah, I don't know what he was thinking. :rolleyes: He had only been shot 3 times in the gut at that point and probably realized his ability to fight was rapidly declining and so was firing hail Mary shots just to try to get the guy to stop shooting him anymore. I agree that he should not have been pulling the trigger, but I seriously doubt anybody will reprimand him for firing at that point.

Another 20 degrees and he would have sent that round towards the officer on the left.

But it didn't go that way so complaining about it is moot.

I noticed that that the first car to arrive, the white one that backed out of a spot on the other side of the street, appeared to have a line of sight to the BMW while the first man was getting into it. Perhaps the angle isn't what it appears to be, but how did they not see him coming out of the house before they approached it?

I don't think the angle is good from the driver's side of the white car plus there are multiple trees and branches, along with the BMW that all help block the view. Even if a decent view, he may not have had eye on that spot at the time. We don't know what job the officer in the white car was tasked with doing and in what direction.
 
Just a comment on a point already made - but it remains perhaps one of the more important points I take away from this: it's the high capacity pistol argument. How many guys do you see reload?

A gunfight will always be a "come-as-you-are" proposition: whatever you have in your hands when it starts is what you'll open up with. Since these LEOs only appear to have handguns available to them, as you count the seconds - ask yourself when would have been a good time to reload?

I mostly EDC small autos that hold around six rounds, with two spare magazines, and every time I see a scenario like this I wonder why I'm not packing a full-size pistol with double-stack magazines...

To add onto garryc's comment: '...you cannot have too much ammo in your pistol when you are defending yourself'...

:cool:
 
Personally, I would not choose the word critical. There were obvious mistakes made that police themselves are sure to point out to future trainees or as a review into the shooting.
I would and did use the word "critical" in specific reference to not checking the cars and for specific reasons as out stated. Yes, there were mistakes, but there is a combination of issues at hand. It is am impossibility to clear all spaces all the time and still proceed while at the same time dealing with a known suspect.

After a reread it's hard to disagree with you. In fact critical does describe the mistake made. Good point!
 
The main point, not enough officers! You are dealing with criminals, with hide gun shirts on. There is no such things as pot busts, visiting uncles, family members etc. You have to assume you are approaching danger!

Everything/person/vehicle/bush you have to clear on the way in.

It does not have to take for ever, but it must be thorough, then the Officer on your six is checking as well. Strolling in? Not so safe.

Maybe the walk to talk Officer might have a pistol, but second wave, back up, M4
in hand. All with radio communication.

The only time to stroll? When you are going home.
 
The main point, not enough officers! You are dealing with criminals, with hide gun shirts on. There is no such things as pot busts, visiting uncles, family members etc. You have to assume you are approaching danger!
I can see your point. Just as long as it doesn't have the appearance you are rolling up with military like force for something that is not necessarily a military action.

People could fear that the government was over arming for a police-state and that would not do anything for gaining or maintaining trust that the government, local or otherwise, was not gearing up.

They would have had more police had there been an an actual warrant as well.
More than likely sheriff's.
 
Just a comment on a point already made - but it remains perhaps one of the more important points I take away from this: it's the high capacity pistol argument. How many guys do you see reload?

A gunfight will always be a "come-as-you-are" proposition: whatever you have in your hands when it starts is what you'll open up with. Since these LEOs only appear to have handguns available to them, as you count the seconds - ask yourself when would have been a good time to reload?

After the initial volley everyone moved to cover. I would have been looking for a long gun of some kind at that point and cursing myself for not having it in the first place. Long gun not available I would have been reloading.
 
if a Cop needs Hi Cap pistols, so do we, hence my Glock 19 (16 rounds ready to go) malfunction, or whatever, a spare G17 magazine on the belt!

Not to much to carry. And everyone, a bright Surefire LED Flashlight, day or night, sat next to that spare mag.
 
if a Cop needs Hi Cap pistols, so do we, hence my Glock 19 (16 rounds ready to go) malfunction, or whatever, a spare G17 magazine on the belt!

Not to much to carry. And everyone, a bright Surefire LED Flashlight, day or night, sat next to that spare mag.


That's my exact setup there Brit!

5ebazema.jpg


And sometimes even...

yhyru5eq.jpg


Also can't forget...

mapeheza.jpg
 
Head on a swivel...

This is what the USMC DIs & cadre mean when they say; "keep your head on a swivel" ;).

Not to nit-pick or play Monday morning QB(even when it is Mon morning, :D), the tactical officer/narco agent should have scan for threats as he went towards the door.
Cover agents or SWAT members in a undercover unit could have done a intel sweep prior to the main raid & IDed the male subject in the vehicle.
Not to be picky either, but in many cases, you can "tell" if a vehicle near you is occupied, unless the car had dark tints or the Miami cop's view was blocked, he may have seen the subject or part of the subject in the front seat.
As other military & spec ops trainers say too; the battlefield is 360, so keep that in mind. ALWAYS scan for threats, even if you think the main subject is down or secured. "Seeded" back-up or buddies or what I call; "yard-birds" :mad: may pop up and cause more problems. It's common in some LE ops or security incidents.

CF
 
All points taken. I concede that I may have been a little too critical of many things.

I still think that the middle officer letting the potential suspect out of his sight was a possibly lethal mistake though.

How about this scenario. Middle LEO loses sight of original suspect who disappears behind right vehicle. Suspect then pulls a pistol and shoots middle officer from the side. He is now in a position to engage two other officers from behind. Being as how one bad guy has already pulled a gun and is shooting at this point, how far fetched could this actually be?
 
I'll be very critical. They blew the whole deal because the cops went on what looked to be a raid but one guy was late in the red pick up and the cop in the white car wasn't paying attention/parked in wrong spot and the first cop that walks to the door is not even looking around for a threat.

They under estimated the bad guys and it got one of them seriously wounded.

Maybe they will send a real team on future raids. 10 men ready to do battle if need be. 10 men so all angles are covered front,back and sides.

That's my opinion and its a trained one. Drugs are big money business and people are willing to die over it,just like the video proved.

The guys in the video look like they should have showed up after the raid to search the house........not conduct the raid.
 
Well, without further criticizing the officers, I will say this: I forwarded a link to the Captain in charge of our training division.
 
hot wash; orange county fl sheriff office gunfight...

In the late 2000s deputies in the Orange County Sheriffs Office got into a massive gun fight with over 300 rounds fired. It was in a stash house/drug house that had a 911 hang up.
A few deputies were wounded & a few subjects were shot. It was a huge mess.
The event showed that any LE op can go sideways very quickly.

CF
 
Tunnel vision kills, looks to me like they got hyper focused on suspect 1 and lost situational awareness. I'm guilty of it too, almost caused me to have a real bad day over in the sandbox one time. Learned my lesson though, there's always a second and third threat, even if there's not there is.

An officer in a covering position back at the street behind the car would've been a good idea too but now I'm being an armchair QB.
 
I forwarded a link to the Captain in charge of our training division.
Now that is something I cant wait to hear about. Really be nice to assess our assessments! Give us a chance to grade our selves on what we thought was right wrong or whatever.

Welcome back from the sandbox Tucker 1371 and thanks for your service. Also good point.

Ive had my share of bad lead my way compared to some and it's nothing to brag about from my end for sure, but i have friends that felt the lead and the dead more than any man should. (nam)
Then again that's why they did what they did and you did what you did, so many of us stateside don't have to. I'm reminded to often when i think of my brother GRHS.

Anyway glad you can tell the tale and thanks again.
 
Funny how the article infers that verbally indentifying themselves as "police" was enough to verify their authenticity to the perp, even though having badges, "police radios" and the word "police" on their armor was a common technique of thieves.

For my part, I would be very suspicious of some men wearing body armor over their t-shirts who come up to my door asking to search my house. I wouldn't start shooting at them, but then again I'm not a drug dealer. What I would do is ask for identification and then call the police to verify that the men at my door were genuine before deciding what to do next.

Ivan
 
Back
Top