Don't try This at Home

I'm not sure what the issue is? The bad guys were shooting at the police officers with total disregard for bystanders. The police had already been chasing them at a high rate of speed for some time, which could have easily killed or severely injured other motorists. The officer could not get off a good shot weak-handed, but got the job done with a good two-handed grip. I believe the officer chose this location to return fire since the road was fairly narrow, reducing the chance of hitting bystanders. Good guy wins, one bad guy dead, and the other shot. Sounds like a win to me.

You think Safelite will replace that windshield as a road hazard? LOL
 
Wow.
I have a serious problem with the first 11 of 18 shots fired while bouncing in the car through the window while moving, with deflection through the window.

Hard to see what was behind the target (like pedestrians or people in their homes).
(And had to be really rough on his ears)
 
Last edited:
The shots thru the windshield were just stupid. Almost ZERO chance of hitting the driver. Now your windshield is hard to see through...all while driving at a high rate of speed down city streets.

Just not smart

Its funny because the shots out the drivers window (at the rear tire) where against policy, but those are the ones that got the vehicle stopped.

He would have been better served to TVI (PIT) the suspects vehicle. When he pulled alongside to shoot at the tire, he was perfectly positioned. Got too focused on his gun and forgot the patrol vehicle is a better tool
 
"...I'm not sure what the issue is?..." It's called reckless driving, distracted driving and careless use of a firearm, up here. There's absolutely no reason for a cop who is driving to also be shooting. Cops are, generally speaking, lousy enough drivers. Of course, there's one law for cops and another for everybody else.
There was a local copper a few years ago who was running though a residential neighbourhood discharging his firearm for no apparent reason. A bullet went through a window and struck a wall over a crib, empty at the time. Cop said he was chasing somebody. Outright lie and no reason to have had his firearm out of the holster. No charges laid. Sounded like a locker room bet to me.
 
I love all the armchair quarterbacking. Suspects were firing at the officer on busy streets with multiple lanes in both directions. The officer was firing at the suspects on a 2 lane one-way street. First shot fired around 3:20. After the first shot breaks the glass, structural integrity goes and the other rounds pass through much more easily. After about 6-7 shots, the officer is able to pull next to the suspects and fire more rounds at them. Is it possible that the officer actually made some good hits which slowed the driver down? It sure seems like the driver was hit when their vehicle slowed and eventually crashed into a wall.

Some agencies might have policies that prohibit high speed chases, but these guys just killed someone and were shooting at the officer on "crowded" streets.
 
I wondered, like the OP, whether that was an option brought up in training. I haven't seen it before, but in this extreme situation I can see its justification. The only other way to use the firearm would have been one-handed (weak hand, if the LEO is in the right-handed majority) un-aimed fire. Since the person being pursued was clearly dangerous, the only other option would have been to continue pursuit without a clear end point, which would have had its own risks. This might be one of those times when we need to accept a positive outcome for what it is, and realize that good and safe alternatives were not readily available.
 
If deadly force is authorized and [if] the situation is dire enough, you have to think outside the box. I don't know what was going on in this video but if stopping that car was critical to saving lives and his use of deadly force was within policy... I tip my hat to him. I think that Officers should be given a wide latitude regarding how they carry out their duty. At the same time I think they should be held highly accountable for the end result. All I can say is that my conscience is not shocked by what I see in this video. Use of force is never pretty and it always comes with measurable risk. The bottom line is that he achieved what he has set out to do and it did not appear that any bystanders were injured as a result. If I had to hazard a guess, I would suspect that this was no ordinary pursuit.

"...I'm not sure what the issue is?..." It's called reckless driving, distracted driving and careless use of a firearm, up here. There's absolutely no reason for a cop who is driving to also be shooting
Click to expand...

oh for crying out loud.... really?
 
Since it's not obvious , then let's see his scores at qualification . He had a nice group on his windshield , can he get a group that on the perp at speed and that distance ?
Actual scores during shootouts can easily be less than 20 % hits ! That includes close range shooting, and standing perps .
How's the Cop's hearing ?
 
mete said:
Since it's not obvious , then let's see his scores at qualification . He had a nice group on his windshield , can he get a group that on the perp at speed and that distance ?
Actual scores during shootouts can easily be less than 20 % hits ! That includes close range shooting, and standing perps .
How's the Cop's hearing ?
Click to expand...
I believe you left out checking for what's behind the target.
 
Hey if a couple innocent people are killed in the gunfire, no problem, they got the bad guys! Totally and completely irresponsible actions on the police's part. I would like to hear what the supporters of these police officers would say if one of their loved ones was killed by a bullet that missed it's intended target.
 
Good judgement - Bad technique.

Looking at simply the end result, I have a hard time criticizing how he brought the situation to a close.

My only disappointment is with how the officer made some really sorry moves with regards to weapons handling. The thumb of his support hand went around the back of the beaver-tail when shooting with both hands. When exiting his cruiser he let one faux pas turn his reload into a slow-moving train-wreck.

If he is making these simple, basic weapons handling mistakes, it makes me wonder what else he may be lacking/forgetting in his training. It's possible this officer is either untrainable or hasn't trained enough, at least with regards to marksmanship.

Aside from these awkward mistakes, I have a hard time faulting the officer for his decision. Execution could have been better.

To address the armchair tacticians who think they know better regarding his decision making process - I hope that your diffidence doesn't determine your fate should you find yourself in a similar situation, though it probably will.

For naysayers who believe shooting through a windshield doesn't work should read up on the Raymond Davis incident in Lahore, Pakistan.
 
Laughable amount of armchair quarterbacking by people who have more than likely never been in an even remotely comparable situation, and an excellent example of trying to figure out how to apply the black and white expectations society has of Police Officers to the dirtiest and grayest of situations.

The "what ifs" are endless. What if one of those deflected rounds had struck a pregnant mother walking with her children to church? A murderer. What if the Officer had elected not to shoot, and instead of crashing into the elementary school, the two young men driving the expedition had successfully made entry, as one of them attempted to do, and children were injured or killed as a result? A coward.

Policies are always clear as mud on such issues. Most agencies I know of read something along the lines of "Officers shall not fire a weapon from a moving vehicle. . . UNLESS it is absoultely necessary to apprehend a suspect immediately to protect innocent lives (ie suspect actively driving and shooting).

Alls well that ends well. Society's motto in regards to the police, of whom they expect to be godlike in situations like this, knowing every detail and every possible outcome before and during an event, perfectly preserving every life and piece of property and successfully apprehending criminals every time. The reality is situations like this have NO right answers, and it's more like trying to catch as many pieces of a collapsing tower as you can before it hits the ground. There's always collateral damage. The actions that saved lives during last week's incident may result in them being lost if applied to todays, and there is no rewind button.

I won't criticize the Officers actions in any way. I believe he had nothing but the best of intentions, performed to the best of his knowledge and ability, and luckily for him, achieved the desired outcome with no loss of innocent life.

A few tactical take aways that could potentially assist someone's thought process in other situations.

Shooting through auto glass, especially windshields, produces unpredictable (for the most part) results, and isn't an effective way to hit a target, seek alternatives.

A large number of bullets can be fired in a very short amount of time in bad situations. Carry enough ammunition and practice reloads.

Time and distance are on our side. . . . until they aren't. Threats should be constantly reassessed as they could evolve (such as gunmen trying to enter a school) at any given second, requiring a complete change I'm tactics.

Just my humble thoughts on the matter.
 
Again, this is the tactics forum. I don't know what people expect. If this forum, of all the subforums available to us, doesn't allow us to question decisions I don't know what we're supposed to do here. Does second guessing happen more to police than others? Yes. This is in no small part due to the fact that we have access to the stories as they relate to police more than private citizens and many police now wear body cameras that allow playback of an event that was frankly unheard of not too long in the past. Debating decisions that are/were made, considering the possible implications, and finding areas where additional training might have been helpful and in turn identifying where we might be served by additional training are all what I expect from any AAR and yes this forum. Frankly I'd be worried if all we were allowed to do was agree with what police did all of the time. I say this as someone that has spent hundreds of hours being trained by people that were in many cases former law enforcement and considers a number of them friends. Police serve us. That's the reality. We, as the ultimate employers of police and from whom they derive their authority, should pay attention to what they do. This includes waiting for both sides of the story and not jumping to conclusions.

As for this video in particular, I admit I was surprised at the discharge of rounds from the officer driving the car. The potential for damage to civilians seems more acceptable than I would expect, but I don't have personal knowledge of that street and the body cameras don't show everything. To me it seems a pitting manuever would be more effective at stopping the car, and I say this as someone that has seen handgun rounds discharged at tires to very little effect as well as bullets diverge in their paths from laminated glass. In the end it seems to have worked, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I would submit there is a difference between a discussion about tactics and armchair quarterbacking.

The armchair quarterback, from the comfort of the aforementioned armchair and from behind the safety of the screen, after being able to review all of the facts of the case multiple times, and with 20/20 hindsight, implies the right (or wrong) choice in any given circumstance was obvious, take command of the term "should have", and suggests that had they been there, everything would have been fantastic.

A tactical discussion, while it can sometimes take entire situations into account, focuses more on specific circumstances, factors, and mindsets, discussions possible problems and repercussions, alternative solutions, and how one might train to be able to actually apply these lessons in real life situations where things are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

While I've tried to leave police tactics out of this since they would be difficult to apply, the discussion might include such things as the fact that the precision immobilization technique (P.I.T.) is a maneuver not generally trained to every officer in several large cities, and only PIT certified Officers may perform a PIT. A PIT performed by a non certified Officer is called ramming someone, and although I believe this would have been an appropriate course of action, if not the best, many departments expressly prohibit it, removing that concept from the spectrum altogether for the educated Officer who knows their departments policies.

Other discussion points of police tactics could include the deployment of stop sticks, the availability of long guns, K9, helicopter, ETC.

I just tire of hearing "he's a hero" when things go right, and "he's a murderer" or "he's a coward" when they don't. It's never that simple. It's not a question of whether the actions taken were perfect, it's a matter of whether or not they were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances as known at the time.

Again, I have zero problems with honest tactical discussion. Things can always go better and should, I just try to refrain from casting judgement on those who were acting to the best of their knowledge, training, and ability, regardless of what the outcome may be.
 
I'm not sure what the issue is? The bad guys were shooting at the police officers
Click to expand...

Go get a used windshield, take it to the range, set it at an angle, and shoot targets through it. If you hit something, let us know.

Shooting through a front window shows a lack of training and threatens bystanders.
 
Ton said:
I would submit there is a difference between a discussion about tactics and armchair quarterbacking.

The armchair quarterback, from the comfort of the aforementioned armchair and from behind the safety of the screen, after being able to review all of the facts of the case multiple times, and with 20/20 hindsight, implies the right (or wrong) choice in any given circumstance was obvious, take command of the term "should have", and suggests that had they been there, everything would have been fantastic.

A tactical discussion, while it can sometimes take entire situations into account, focuses more on specific circumstances, factors, and mindsets, discussions possible problems and repercussions, alternative solutions, and how one might train to be able to actually apply these lessons in real life situations where things are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

While I've tried to leave police tactics out of this since they would be difficult to apply, the discussion might include such things as the fact that the precision immobilization technique (P.I.T.) is a maneuver not generally trained to every officer in several large cities, and only PIT certified Officers may perform a PIT. A PIT performed by a non certified Officer is called ramming someone, and although I believe this would have been an appropriate course of action, if not the best, many departments expressly prohibit it, removing that concept from the spectrum altogether for the educated Officer who knows their departments policies.

Other discussion points of police tactics could include the deployment of stop sticks, the availability of long guns, K9, helicopter, ETC.

I just tire of hearing "he's a hero" when things go right, and "he's a murderer" or "he's a coward" when they don't. It's never that simple. It's not a question of whether the actions taken were perfect, it's a matter of whether or not they were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances as known at the time.

Again, I have zero problems with honest tactical discussion. Things can always go better and should, I just try to refrain from casting judgement on those who were acting to the best of their knowledge, training, and ability, regardless of what the outcome may be.
Click to expand...

I think that difference can be less pronounced than you think, or that difference is often a result of someone's own opinion of the event. I haven't seen anyone here say that if they were there things would have gone fantastically. I have seen people express surprise at what they think was reckless decision making. At the time I made my last comments 1/4 of the comments mentioned armchair quarterbacks. We had more people, IMO, complaining about armchair quarterbacks than what I see as true armchair quarterbacks where they were condemning without offering alternatives or insight. I sometimes think that term is used to stiffle any discussion that the person using that term doesn't like.

I'm not trying to monopolize this thread, so I'll stop there.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Nathan, there is a significant amount of LEO firearms training now-a-days about shooting from with the vehicle and through the windshield. See Kyle Lamb & Richard Nance on the Guns & Ammo site, for instance. I don't know about the officer/department in this video, but officers and operators ARE being trained to shoot from inside vehicles and through the windshield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top