Let's discuss the North Hollywood shootout

G

Glockeroo

Moderator
What could the police have done differently to end the situation much quicker? The gunmen were able to keep the police at bay for a long time. What do you think could have been done differently, and what have officers learned since the incident? Is there standard training included now for officers because of the North Hollywood ordeal? After rewatching the shooting unfold, I was surprised that out of all the first officers to arrive to the scene, not one was equipped with a high-powered rifle to at least give the gunmen a run for their money.

I would like to hear your opinions of the tragic day.
 
The most relavent lesson was to not prohibit line officers from employing slugs in their shotguns.

Other relevant lessons largely centered on providing the means for non-tactical unit personnel to effectively and efficiently meet a-typical threats head on. Lessons that might not have been learned at that time had a few slugs been on hand.
 
Another factor, according to reports I've read, is that officers were trained to only shoot COM. None were trained to take a head shot if COM hits weren't working out. Mind you, it does take some cajones to return fire against a FA long gun when all you have is a handgun.

Not having shotgun slugs and training to use them was a huge problem.

Until that incident, police did not consider it "likely" that one or two men would have full-auto weapons, let alone any full-auto .308 weapons.

The situation didn't unfold the way most cops would expect. Usually you might expect the perps to throw a few rounds or fire a dozen shots and then flee towards his escape vehicle. These guys more or less stood their ground and seemed more intent on shooting the cops than immediately getting away.
 
They had perfection: Glocks.:rolleyes:;)

Seriously. Officers are not trained for that kind of combat. Glocks are NOT accurate at that range. Most police calibers are incapable of penetrating even the most basic vest, or armour, or, the ammunition is designed to expand, rather then penetrate.

The tactics of hiding behind a car become deadly when the bad guys are using rifle rounds capable of going through most everything in your average car. Cover in this case was non-existent. None of the weapons LAPD carried were capable of long range shooting, and, or, the officers were not capable of shooting at that range. It's the classic,
"You brought a pistol to a rifle/machine gun fight."

LAPD could have had a cheap rifle, like a Mosin Nagant, and, with proper ammo, and multiple positions, have been able to put the guys down quickly...
 
Bill

Bill said "The situation didn't unfold the way most cops would expect."

You win the Big Bingo pot of the night for that one, brother. One of the real lessons in this gunfight, and in other historic high profile police gunfights. Luck of the draw exists, never be happy with a minimum standard, have some plan for the unexpected.

I keep dusting off this old saying from Clint Smith, even though he is a Marine, got to give him a tip of the hat for this one.

"the fight is never what you THINK it will be. It is gonna be what it's gonna be, the only variable is what YOU are going to do."


By the way nice to read your words again.

Good Luck & Be Safe
 
CBS's "60 minutes had a program on them...

as part of their usual tirade.
In it the LAPD & FBI knew of these guys for a year and had no plans developed.
It just coincidence that it happened during the BJC & her majesty's tenure!
 
Glocks are NOT accurate at that range.
Click to expand...
Curious, what kind of practical** accuracy do you expect from a semi-auto service pistol?

**shot offhand or using a field expedient rest from behind cover.


This group was shot offhand. I purchased the Glock used from a gun shop/range that was closing down. It was one of their rental guns and was completely stock at the time this group was shot
attachment.php
 
LAPD

Weren't they still using Beretta and S&W? I don't believe the Glock was in service yet. A 10/22 and a cool head would have done more than anything.
 
Let's discuss the North Hollywood shootout

What could the police have done differently to end the situation much quicker?
They could have been responsible for their own skill level (which we all ultimately are anyway) and capable of making rested head shots from behind cover, to 50-75 yards.
The gunmen were able to keep the police at bay for a long time. What do you think could have been done differently, and what have officers learned since the incident?
Hopefully, to shoot.
Is there standard training included now for officers because of the North Hollywood ordeal?
The is no 'standardized training'; individual departments set their own.
After rewatching the shooting unfold, I was surprised that out of all the first officers to arrive to the scene, not one was equipped with a high-powered rifle to at least give the gunmen a run for their money.
Sarge's Administrative Control Theory: Generally speaking, the larger the agency, the greater the restrictions on the individual member. I doubt those officers could just throw a 94 Winchester in the trunk cuz they thought they might need it that day...
Seriously. Officers are not trained for that kind of combat. Glocks are NOT accurate at that range.
THIS officer is. THIS officer has trained others for 'that kind of combat'- long before 'North Hollywood'. Not all of us have sit on our thumbs, waiting for somebody to 'issue' us skill.
Click to expand...

I believe John answered the question on service pistol accuracy quite nicely. Good shooting, Amigo.
 
#1: The crooks had, in fact, been arrested just a few months before this incident (don't recall what agency, but it wasn't the LAPD). They had firearms at the time of the arrest, which were confiscated, but returned to them due to "lack of evidence" of any crime.

#2: The crooks had practised their procedures, and pretty much knew what police response times were. The shooting didn't originate from an alarm call or a call to 9-1-1, but a 2-officer unit that happened to observe the crooks coming out of the bank.

#3: The crooks were hyped-up on pain pills. During the exchange of gunfire, both crooks took hits from pistols or revolvers, but they shook off the pain....or were hit in their body armor which covered most of their bodies and limbs.

#4: Several officers that were within range of attempting head shots had to back off, due to the background behind the crooks (residences, moving vehicles). The crooks could have cared less about hitting innocent people.

#5: Slugs in shotguns were forbidden by the LAPD at the time. Likewise, rifles were forbidden to be utilized by "patrol" officers at the time, due to the lack of training, liability issues AND the costs involved in training and issuing rifles to patrol officers.

The LAPD (and several other agencies) have increased their training, purchased shotguns specifically for shooting slugs, have purchased "UPR" (Urban Police Rifles) and have deployed numerous trained sharpshooters in all of the geographic divisions.
 
Seriously. Officers are not trained for that kind of combat. Glocks are NOT accurate at that range. Most police calibers are incapable of penetrating even the most basic vest, or armour, or, the ammunition is designed to expand, rather then penetrate.
Click to expand...
Uh, Socrates. Glocks are more than accurate at the range, and 2nd, those cops had Berettas.
 
#5: Slugs in shotguns were forbidden by the LAPD at the time. Likewise, rifles were forbidden to be utilized by "patrol" officers at the time, due to the lack of training, liability issues AND the costs involved in training and issuing rifles to patrol officers.
Click to expand...
The lack of shotgun slugs and lack of training were probably the biggest problems. Shotguns slugs, even if they don't penetrate kevlar, cause massive blunt force trauma, they are easily capable of breaking ribs, or a persons spine if you shoot them from behind. Those types of injuries will bring someone to a stop, probably not instantly though, regardless of whether they are on pain pills or not. A head shot with a Slug, game over man.
 
A revolting development....

My oldest son, despite my admonitions to find honest work instead, recently started the police academy. About that same time he also bought the first Glock that's ever been 'in the family'. He seems to have inherited my gift for finding lemons and his factory-reconditioned G22 soon gave light-strike FTF's. Off it went to a Glock LE armorer friend who corrected a few things and this afternoon, I took it out for a test drive.

Standing unsupported at 25 yards, I fired 10 rounds of WW/USA 165 FMJ at a LEE target you can print off the internet. I aimed each shot but triggered them as soon as the sights settled in the black. While not as neatly centered as John's group pictured above, seven of those ten went in 2 3/4 inches and three flyers opened it to six. The gun was obviously more accurate than my ability to hold it- and more than accurate enough for rested, 50-yard noggin' shots- once zeroed with a specific load.

The revolting part is that I shot this disgusting, soulless plastic sproing-popper about as well as I would have shot my 1911... and on the second magazine I ever fired through the G22.

I may have to give these things another look.
 
It is my understanding that the Police officers responding were only issued #4 buckshot. Slugs would have given the officers a better chance in my opinion. I believe a pistol is made to fight your way back to a rifle which none of these officers had.
 
That gets a lot of press but the fact is that a pistol is for solving whatever emergency you find yourself in, when you couldn't plan for having the long-gun along.

Besides which, if your problem is 25-50 yards away and you can't hurt it- you ain't fighting your way back to nothing.
 
You win the Big Bingo pot of the night for that one, brother. One of the real lessons in this gunfight, and in other historic high profile police gunfights. Luck of the draw exists, never be happy with a minimum standard, have some plan for the unexpected.
:
:
"the fight is never what you THINK it will be. It is gonna be what it's gonna be, the only variable is what YOU are going to do."
Click to expand...

When you're being fired upon, do something. Do Anything. By doing something your odds are 50-50 and if you do nothing the odds are 100% that you'll die.
--Academy instructor talking about firefights and ambushes

The most appalling part of this is that it's not the police who are to blame for the lack of proper equipment. It's lawyers and spineless politicians running the city.

Cops are not trained for the kind of incident they fell into that day in Hollywood. All it did was reveal that the training the cops did have was focused on following doctrine and not solving the problem.

(At one time in the 60's, LAPD training on shotgun involved various standing and kneeling positions. After a gunfight in a parking lot where an officer stopped the shooter by firing under several cars from prone, the officer was reprimanded for not following training doctrine by using one of the taught positions. :rolleyes:)

I think PD's are now focusing on doctrinal shooting techniques to get people qualified, but then spending some time on what's possible to solve the problem at hand.
 
Lack of official education disclaimer... *I am just a red neck utilitarian with a survival mindset...

Got the legal stuff out of the way.
IMHO Ya'll have hit the points on the head. I can only expound a bit.
Training... City guys with a career mind set and lack of training.
LAPD... A city agency with the aforementioned lawyers and politics.
Weaponry and ammo... Severely limited by above lawyers and politics.
Bad guys... Trained, armed and unhindered by rules of law or rules of engagement... And they intended to win and survive.

Lookin' at the most rural of LEA's I see both benefits and deficits.
The only deficits I see are lack of man power (not normally needed) and lack of infrastructure technology in some cases (simply too expensive for the smallest forces), Of these not the least is limited radio range and no cell phone signal for backup calls.

Benefits are NUMEROUS.
Limited manpower (yes it is a benefit too) leaves less guys to teach and train.
The smaller force often requires the officer to supply their own weapons. This means they are unfettered by dept. bean counters and since self supplied some legal responsibility is removed from the dept. The officer gets to choose weapons they are familiar and comfortable with.
Lack of infrastructure technology is a point of interest as the officer KNOWS he is alone out there much of the time thus imparting a heightened state of awareness and self reliance and accountability.
Last I can think of is these smaller forces tend to have very stable officers capable of judicial discretion and allowed to think for them self. These same officers are often avid hunters and shooters who self train all year with thousands of rounds compared to the 25 or 50 shots many big city officers fire each year.
Hope I wasn't too off base...
Brent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top