Other than the horrid tactics, I really can't fault them that much. It is easy being armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight, seeing things from the camera's viewpoint. Now, that circular shootout? Duh, what were they thinking? That the bullets would just magically stop as they passed by the BG? Number of shots fired doesn't really affect the quality of the shoot, there's other tactical reasons to shoot rather than aimed fire directed at the BG -- the concept of suppressive intimidation fire is quite well known and defendable. Either the shoot was justified, or it wasn't -- the number of shots fired is just a statistic.
Did anyone see the video of those policemen railing that SUV with bullets yesterday?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
I don't care that they are cops. Anytime 10 guys shoot up the area, they better have a MUCH better reason than I have yet heard about in this case.
Simple plain dumb luck that one of the officers or an innocent civilian is not dead -- those officers involved in this need to get down on their knees and give thanks for that. They basically forgot and/or ignored all of their firearms training, if they ever had any.
Got to stop now, too wound up -- will start saying bad things.
Spotted Owl
New member
Likewise, I just love some of the feelings here and elsewhere that cops are perfect and anything they do is right and justified. Cops are not perfect, just like anyone else. When they do something wrong, they should be called on it rather than have it swept under the rug. If the investigation shows that these cops were not justified in shooting, then they should be disciplined or fired. I just don't see how anything justifies the cop's reaction in this case. The guy in the car was unarmed--what made the cops believe they needed to open fire on him?
Quote-"The guy in the car was unarmed--what made the cops believe they needed to open fire on him?"
The perp allegedly tried to run down a cop. So instead of getting out of the way, the cop takes the shot. His compatriots, hearing the shot begin shooting "back". The result is what you saw in the video. At least 1 journalist has done some analysis about these types of shooting.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/23/arws082301.htm
The perp allegedly tried to run down a cop. So instead of getting out of the way, the cop takes the shot. His compatriots, hearing the shot begin shooting "back". The result is what you saw in the video. At least 1 journalist has done some analysis about these types of shooting.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/23/arws082301.htm
FrankDrebin
Moderator
There are people on this forum who have defended the idea of shooting someone that is walking toward you when they don't stop after being told (which is basically exactly the kind of on-duty shooting for which a Michigan State Police trooper was just arrested and charged with second degree murder which carries up to life in prison upon conviction). This is without any evidence of a weapon being used by the bad guy. The officers in this case had a hell of a lot more cause to shoot than the standard many people here reserve for themselves, and as was already mentioned, the number of shots and number of officers mean nothing in this case, but for the second-guessing administrators who will say too many rounds were fired. So their tactics could have been better. Big deal. They don't get paid for pretty rolling-on-the-ground-to-cover-like-we-do-at-the-IPSC-club tactics. They get paid to take the bad guy into custody with minimal damage and that's what they did.
At what point did you know he was unarmed? Before the cops started shooting or after? I keep hearing from other people here that you don't have to wait to see a gun before you shoot someone. When you get a run on shots fired and the vehicle you try to stop subsequently flees, you don't think it would be reasonable to believe the driver had someting to do with firing shots.....in Compton?????
Twoguns
I'm a former LEO. I have no personal cross to bear with any law enforcement agency, but I do have eyes, and I did look at the tape. What I saw was a blantant case of bad decision making, overkill, and disregard for the safety of the people these guys are being paid to protect.
I didn't see anyone being dragged to death! Where I live is not all that hi-tech, but at least the police have spike mats.
I'm a former LEO. I have no personal cross to bear with any law enforcement agency, but I do have eyes, and I did look at the tape. What I saw was a blantant case of bad decision making, overkill, and disregard for the safety of the people these guys are being paid to protect.
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, it is a feeling of resentment at the fact that there is a huge double-standard when it comes to accountability and entrusted responsibility in terms of firearms handling and even prowess and ability. The laws for non-cops are such that we second-class citizens are not allowed the benefit of the doubt to even have certain types of firearms with certain types of accessories and configurations locked up in our own homes. Meanwhile the privileged few, including politicians, celebrities, connected elites, and cops are exempted from such hard-core and very punitive laws. The implication is that they are more deserving, more in need, more important, and allegedly more qualified to carry and use firearms.
Obviously, it is true that cops need to have firearms on their person, but should the others categorized above have any more rights than the rest of us? NO. But they do. And in the case of cops, shouldn't they who have this huge privilege and responsibility to carry and use firearms be highly trained and proficient in both skill (hitting what they intend to hit) and in the quick thinking necessary to avoid making critical and potentially deadly mistakes and avoiding collateral damage (i.e. hitting innocent bystanders or even their fellow officers)? YES. That said, mistakes will still happen, but nothing like what happened in that video. That was absolutely ridiculous.
In the end however, what do you think will happen to these cops? My guess is that they will get at most a slap on the wrist and continue on their jobs without any additional training. Meanwhile they will continue to enjoy more access to newer and more advanced un-neutered designs of weaponry at which the second-class Californians will only be able to drool. More and more restrictive gun laws towards second-class citizens will be endorsed by police departments and passed by state legislature to further the divide. And finally, more and more such incidents will occur, most of which will be barely noticed, if at all.
One more thing. If a non-cop carrying a firearm in the state of California was involved in a justifiable shooting (i.e. self defense) which was totally clean and highly skilled, that person would be absolutely raked over the coals in comparison to what will happen to these cops. That person most certainly would face jail time and would have to lose a lot of money in the legal system (lawyers, etc).
So I hope I somewhat adequately summed up why there are some negative feelings towards cops in this incident.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they were going after the guy because they believed he was involved in a shooting. The fact that he was unarmed wasn't something they could reasonably know at the time. Perhaps next time they should consult the Psychic Friend's Network so they can know whether the guy really has a gun or not?
Assuming you believe your life is danger and need to defend yourself... how many shots is too many shots? The fact is that deadly force is deadly force whether you fire one shot or one hundred shots. I've never seen any deadly force law that says deadly force is justifiable only if you fire less than X many shots.
So, the only question I see here is whether the officers reasonably believed there was grounds for employing deadly force at the time. If the investigation finds that's the case, then it's a good shoot, otherwise it's not.
Assuming you believe your life is danger and need to defend yourself... how many shots is too many shots? The fact is that deadly force is deadly force whether you fire one shot or one hundred shots. I've never seen any deadly force law that says deadly force is justifiable only if you fire less than X many shots.
So, the only question I see here is whether the officers reasonably believed there was grounds for employing deadly force at the time. If the investigation finds that's the case, then it's a good shoot, otherwise it's not.
And by endangering the entire neighborhood...these highly trained gentry have ensured that any sympathetic citizen who could report an incident, assist them in some way, or even speak up for the PD...probably won't....
The person in the car, no saint. But it seems this event was a very good example of poor training or outright panic.
As for the car being a 3,000 pound weapon, maybe so. But so is a patrol car, and it too can be used as a block or impediment. Still...100 some rounds discharged into the vehicle, immediate surroundings and area...isn't exactly safe either.
Jeesh, as bad as Compton might be, it isn't ww-2, and mayhaps bringing back 'walking fire' or fire suppression, is a bit misplaced.
The person in the car, no saint. But it seems this event was a very good example of poor training or outright panic.
As for the car being a 3,000 pound weapon, maybe so. But so is a patrol car, and it too can be used as a block or impediment. Still...100 some rounds discharged into the vehicle, immediate surroundings and area...isn't exactly safe either.
Jeesh, as bad as Compton might be, it isn't ww-2, and mayhaps bringing back 'walking fire' or fire suppression, is a bit misplaced.
The quality of thier tactics, or lack there of as the case may be, has little to do with whether the deputies' use of deadly force was justified. I don't doubt that the tactical failure that caused one of the deputies to be hit in the crossfire will be addressed, regardless of the result of any investigation into the use of force.
"Bullets smashed through windows and hit the walls of at least five homes on the residential street in Compton, California. A full investigation into the police shooting has been ordered.
A police shootout in Compton, California, has residents questioning why so many shots were fired, Joel Connable reports.
Wild Police Shooting Caught On Tape
California Police Shooting Investigated
* 120 Rounds Were Fired At Suspect’s Vehicle
* Wounded Suspect Apparently Unarmed"
Just the kind of inflammatory headlines I'd expect to see in NYC media. Sounds a lot like the ones we had recently in Palm Beach County earlier this year.
They were chasing a suspect in a shooting. The guy ran. What would youi be thinking? I'd think he was near the shooting. Running means he did SOMETHING wrong if not actually involved in shooting.
He wasn't armed with a gun? How do we know he didn't chuck it out the window somewhere?
He wasn't armed at all? Sure, he didn't have any of those little bitty 230 gr 45 jhp's I carry- he had a 28,000,000 gr. SUV.
Even the anti-cop article stated this guy was trying to run over police officers. He was a threat and had to be neutralized.
Number of rounds fired- the guy was inside an automobile. He was a moving target behind cover- auto glass and steel.
Bad tactics- I can't argue with that. Crossfire was probably due to tunnel vision. Everybody was focused on the threat, which is pretty much a natural response.
Frank Drebin:
"So their tactics could have been better. Big deal. They don't get paid for pretty rolling-on-the-ground-to-cover-like-we-do-at-the-IPSC-club tactics."
I resent that remark. IDPA guys do that rolling on the ground behind cover stuff. C class IPSC guys like me utilize the stand-out-in-the-open-and-shoot-fast-and-miss-a-lot tactics, because we know (or hope) we aren't getting shot at in a match.
I say "hope" 'cause sometimes people do focus on the target under pressure, and forget where their muzzle is in relation to the other shooters.
Supports the "tunnel vision" thing I mentioned earlier. Seriously, if score makes a competitor focus on their target rather than their gun, what happens when somebody's shooting at you or running you over with a car?
A police shootout in Compton, California, has residents questioning why so many shots were fired, Joel Connable reports.
Wild Police Shooting Caught On Tape
California Police Shooting Investigated
* 120 Rounds Were Fired At Suspect’s Vehicle
* Wounded Suspect Apparently Unarmed"
Just the kind of inflammatory headlines I'd expect to see in NYC media. Sounds a lot like the ones we had recently in Palm Beach County earlier this year.
They were chasing a suspect in a shooting. The guy ran. What would youi be thinking? I'd think he was near the shooting. Running means he did SOMETHING wrong if not actually involved in shooting.
He wasn't armed with a gun? How do we know he didn't chuck it out the window somewhere?
He wasn't armed at all? Sure, he didn't have any of those little bitty 230 gr 45 jhp's I carry- he had a 28,000,000 gr. SUV.
Even the anti-cop article stated this guy was trying to run over police officers. He was a threat and had to be neutralized.
Number of rounds fired- the guy was inside an automobile. He was a moving target behind cover- auto glass and steel.
Bad tactics- I can't argue with that. Crossfire was probably due to tunnel vision. Everybody was focused on the threat, which is pretty much a natural response.
Frank Drebin:
"So their tactics could have been better. Big deal. They don't get paid for pretty rolling-on-the-ground-to-cover-like-we-do-at-the-IPSC-club tactics."
I resent that remark. IDPA guys do that rolling on the ground behind cover stuff. C class IPSC guys like me utilize the stand-out-in-the-open-and-shoot-fast-and-miss-a-lot tactics, because we know (or hope) we aren't getting shot at in a match.
I say "hope" 'cause sometimes people do focus on the target under pressure, and forget where their muzzle is in relation to the other shooters.
Supports the "tunnel vision" thing I mentioned earlier. Seriously, if score makes a competitor focus on their target rather than their gun, what happens when somebody's shooting at you or running you over with a car?Of other concern is what will happen in Compton in the next few days as a result of this incident.
As already noted, the driver in this incident was an idiot.
However, presenting the general concept that someone leaving (or running) an area automatically equates to guilt, seems a bit shaky.
Independent of this case (obviously) there are areas of this country where involvement with court officials is avoided, even when people are entirely innocent. Something which was learnt by experience....
Also interesting insofar as much talk of potential reasons to shoot appears on this forum...what would some of the posters here do if their house was subject to being fired upon, maybe without knowing the reason for the fulisade. Granted, in the barrio (only place which I can speak of from experience) the occasional round hitting a house happens...but it's not that common.
Would it be OK, if we knew it was the PD doing it?....
As already noted, the driver in this incident was an idiot.
However, presenting the general concept that someone leaving (or running) an area automatically equates to guilt, seems a bit shaky.
Independent of this case (obviously) there are areas of this country where involvement with court officials is avoided, even when people are entirely innocent. Something which was learnt by experience....
Also interesting insofar as much talk of potential reasons to shoot appears on this forum...what would some of the posters here do if their house was subject to being fired upon, maybe without knowing the reason for the fulisade. Granted, in the barrio (only place which I can speak of from experience) the occasional round hitting a house happens...but it's not that common.
Would it be OK, if we knew it was the PD doing it?....
Wow.
That was a lot of rounds.
That was a horrid "road block" or whatever you want to call it.
It would be nice to see the aerial view of the incident to see how it was handled, rather than an amateur video of 10 seconds.
I have no problem with what they did.
The whole situation would have been avoided had the driver stopped when the lights and sirens came on - as you never know what may happen. ie: The shooting "lack of firepower" article that has been going stong for some time now.
That was a lot of rounds.
That was a horrid "road block" or whatever you want to call it.
It would be nice to see the aerial view of the incident to see how it was handled, rather than an amateur video of 10 seconds.
I have no problem with what they did.
The whole situation would have been avoided had the driver stopped when the lights and sirens came on - as you never know what may happen. ie: The shooting "lack of firepower" article that has been going stong for some time now.
To the best of my knowledge, standard issue for Deputy Sheriffs in that area is the Beretta 92FS 9mm, and that appears to be what was used in the video. You can't really tell anything about the effectiveness of the rounds because there's no information on where the suspect was hit and what part of the vehicle the rounds that hit him had to penetrate before doing so.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Ah, I apologize then..
I couldn't care less about guilt. I care about reasonable suspicion and probable cause. As far as all of the rounds flying around the neighborhood, how many do you figure missed the truck or at least weren't stopped by the truck? A 9mm hollowpoint is not likely to go through and through an SUV unless through the glass. What were the chances of any of those missed rounds hitting anyone considering the number of stray rounds fired in the ghetto every year that actually hit someone accidentally? You're in a high density urban area. Guess what your backstop is likely to be? A HOUSE!! That's just the price you pay for living in the city. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot because I had a house instead of an earthen berm behind my target.
As far as resenting the cops because you can't play with the kinds of guns that SOME of them carry, I bet you REALLY hate Norm Abrams when he builds an exact reproduction of a Chippendale buffet in 40 minutes....
And incidentally, all you have to do to carry the same toys as the cops is to do the same thing they did to qualify to carry them. Namely, stay out of trouble to the extent that you can pass the background check, be able to take a psychological test that doesn't make you look like a gun crazy nut case, and go through the police academy. Age is barely even a factor anymore.