Newhall shootout in California

Federal LE vision standards; Miami FBI event...

One of the big factors in the FBI/Platt-Matix event was how a FBI special agent in the car crash, lost his eyeglasses and drew his BUG(a 5 shot J frame revolver).
His vision & aim were a serious problem. That part of the incident may have led to the changes in federal law enforcement policy about corrected & uncorrected vision standards.
I was offered a 083 police job(paygrade GS-06) with a LE agency in the late 1990s. The LE agency(now a part of the US Dept of Homeland Security) had strict medical requirements and I was told I could not wear eyeglasses on duty.
Because of the big FBI Miami event, I could understand it.
Clyde F

ps; A few years ago, gun writer & tactics trainer Massad Ayoob had a good magazine item about using safety glasses or protective eyewear on duty(even if you have 20/20 or clear vision). Ayoob stated having 2 pairs of eyeglasses or wearing safety lenses on duty is a smart move. ;)
 
In the Miami Shootout SA Grogan lost his glasses. He engaged with his SW 459 9mm. Grogan was an excellent shot, but obviously suffered because of the lost glasses. Grogan was SWAT qualified, the status authorized him to carry the 9mm semi-auto.

SA Hanlon removed his primary SW revolver and laid it (in holster) on the seat beside him. In the impact of his car against a retaining wall prior to the gunfight starting his gun went flying, he then drew his backup snub from an ankle holster and crossed the street under fire to the rear of Grogan and Dove's vehicle. Hanlon fired all 5 shots from the snub and was wounded while attempting a reload. He was then wounded again, more seriously when Platt advanced on his and Dove/Grogan's position.
 
Last edited:
Luggo has it exactly right.
(Edited to add that nothing I saw indicated the one gun was still in it's holster. It was later found wedged between the seat and the 'B' pillar on the passenger side. The FBI did not train to draw while seated in a car at that time.)

Not many folks know a white delivery truck drove through the shooting at it's height - it had to have taken hits. But it was never found.

As for me, I believe that every day is going to be THE DAY, and act accordingly. In fact, I just had to deal with a case from 1971, where the violator, who is now a Doctor, stood to lose everything. Could he still pose a threat? He could have lost his Doctor's license, home, and gone to prison - you bet he could, as I was the sole surviving officer that could testify against him.

And one day it was THE DAY for me - but my training and mindset allowed me to use an 'alternative weapon' to protect the public.
 
Last edited:
For anyone who may be interested, Massad Ayoob reviewed this incident at great length in his American Handgunner column "The Ayoob Files." He likewise reviewed the FBI Miami incident in those pages as well. Both are done in his usual exhaustively researched, well-written style. You can find both articles in his "The Ayoob Files: The Book", available on Amazon.com. It's a great read and a must-have for any student of self-defense. For what it's worth, the 25th anniversary of the Miami incident is coming up on 4-11-11....wonder if the lame- stream media will ignore it [gee, what are the odds]?
 
Lessons learned; Miami FBI incident Michael Gross: NBC's Family Ties...

I would add to this topic that another "lesson" from the Platt-Matix shooting event was what I call; the Superman Syndrome.
Both the violent subjects & a few of the FBI special agents were in "plainclothes". Residents in the Miami area had called 911 & informed police there was a drug or gang shooting going on. :(
This to me is a good reason for LE or armed/licensed security to wear raid gear or uniform items that CLEARLY display the agency name or position(hats, windbreaker jackets, patches, vests, etc). In the extreme conditions of a shooting incident or critical event, IDing who's who is VERY important.
In the mid 2000s, I bought a polo type uniform shirt from www.Galls.com that had SECURITY on the front & back of the garment. I wore it on armed details and wanted to be clearly visible when I had a sidearm on duty.

Clyde
ps; Actor Michael Gross, who played the easy going dad on the hit NBC sitcom Family Ties also had a role in the NBC TV movie about the FBI shoot-out. Gross played one of the bank robbers(with Starsky & Hutch's David Soul). He learned a lot about weapons & firearms for the production and later supported the NRA and 2A issues in the public. www.IMFDb.org
 
Roaddog,

I dislike playing Monday morning quarterback on an event that I do not have all the information. To say the officers failed to hit their opponents is only half a statement and failed to mention where the LEO bullets went, if such information is available. It is easy to make guess that do not look for deeper causes.

LEOs have a history of failing to put a bullet into subjects they can almost punch in the nose. Or they cannot hit a person across and down an alley when they hip shoot. Point shooting or aimed shooting is never the answer ALL the the time. IMHO, people miss close opponents because they shoot at the whole man rather than concentrate on a fixed point on the opponent's body. Just like the quail hunter who shoots at a covey goes home empty handed.
 
Joseph Wambaugh, a retired LA detective wrote the "Onionfield" about the Newhall incident, if I remember correctly. Good read.
Click to expand...

The Newhall incident involved CHP officers; the Onion Field incident involved LAPD officers who were kidnapped, one was killed.
 
Application of lessons learned

In the Army, there is a formal process of integrating lessons learned into doctrine. I expect is is the same with law enforcement. In the case of these shootouts that have gone badly, I wonder if it is valid to attempt to apply lessons learned to the different circumstances of a typical concealed carry person. Police have an affirmative duty to engage a target, just as we did in the Army. The tactics differ somewhat with armed private civilians. We seek to avoid trouble when possible and I expect attacking an enemy who is advancing or attempting to engage us is less likely.

I agree that these events need to be studied and lessons learned integrated into doctrine. It is interesting to read about it, and attempt to critique it from the outside. What would outsiders learn when some key facts are closely held?

When some of these events occurred, I was still a soldier. I recognized that police at the time did not train in the same tactics we did. The mission and situation differed. As the police began to face some rudimentary combat tactics the too some losses and adjusted to the new normal. The military faced similar problems with IEDs. It is not always easy to anticipate how conflicts will evolve.

What is it they say about the best laid plans once we meet the enemy?
 
The Newhall incident involved CHP officers; the Onion Field incident involved LAPD officers who were kidnapped, one was killed.
Click to expand...

At Newhall, two CHP officers (in one car) pulled up behind the suspects who had threatened a vehicle on the freeway. The driver got out his side next to one patrolman. The other patrolman went to the passenger side.The passenger opened his door and shot that patrolman. Then the driver shot the distracted patrolman right next to him.

When another CHP car showed up they were under fire immediately. The bad guys now had the officers' weapons. Those two patrolman didn't last long. A witness in the restaurant tried to help. He came out and grabbed an officer's .357 and opened fire--it wasn't fully loaded. One of his shot was the only one that hit a bad guy---who wasn't seriously wounded. With his gun empty, the smaritan fled.

One bad guy later invaded a home and took hostages--who weren't harmed. The other went to a trailor where an armed individual was threatened and persuaded to surrender his weapon and come out---he did. He was severely beaten with his own weapon. The bad guy either had no weapon, or it was empty.

One suspect ended up a suicide. The other went to prison.

In the Onion Field incident, an officer surrendered his weapon to the bad guys who had his partner at gun point. Then both LAPD officers were driven to an oinion field. One was executed, the other escaped.:cool:

Ayoob gave an excellent account of the Newhall incident in his book: The Ayoob Files: The Book.
 
kenno wrote: "I used issue 357 ammo on a deer once the bullet failed to penetrate the rib cadge on a quarting shot angle from a 6" barrel."

Can you tell us something about the load?
 
hhb wrote: "Joseph Wambaugh, a retired LA detective wrote the "Onionfield" about the Newhall incident, if I remember correctly. Good read."

It is indeed a good read but it certainly is NOT about the Newhall incident!:rolleyes:
 
One more point...

Sleuth has the key point to both the Newhall and Miami tragedies: Mindset.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to discredit any officers or agents involved.

At the time of the Newhall incident, the California Highway Patrol were primarily traffic officers. They are certified 'peace officers' in the state of California, but their duties are primarily traffic code violations. They were ready to identify suspect drivers, issue warnings or citations and if need be, physically take custody of a violator. The officers knew that, the CHP administration knew that and that was the way it was.

They were not mentally ready to shoot and possibly kill someone.

The FBI agents in Miami suffered from the same mindset - or lack thereof. They were ready to find the bad guys and arrest them. Not one of those agents on scene backed away or ran. But they didn't have it in their heads they might have to shoot and possibly kill anyone.

Sleuth has mentioned they were all armed, but not in a state of 'preparedness' for action. To me, that's the key. It's that knowledge of 'this could be the day'.

In the spirit of transparency, Sleuth and I are colleagues and friends of long standing. We've argued these incidents, agreed on them, disagreed on them and incorporated the serious and ugly lessons. I am happy to report it seemed to have worked. We got out alive.

So far.
 
As usual, Archie "has my 6." Thanks, pal.

BTW, another issue revealed by the loss of the 4 CHP officers was the effect of their 'clean uniform' policy. At the time, if a Sgt. saw an officer with dust on his shoes, the officer got a reprimand! "Not upholding the high standards of the CHP."
As a result, officers did not walk up to cars on the passenger side, nor did they take a proper cover position.
 
FHP; trooper hats, duty uniform...

A few years back, a sworn deputy with a central Florida county told me how; "in the old days", Florida Highway Patrol Troopers were mandated to wear the issue hats when they made traffic stops.
After a few FHP state troopers were attacked or shot at while fixing the headgear, the agency changed the SOP.

I'd heard the NYPD & the PBA union(police labor group) had a dispute too over uniform caps.
While I served on active duty as a lower enlisted MP in the early 1990s, our company CO(commanding officer) got a huge bug up his backside about how we(patrol MPs) wore our issued duty gear. The same Captain(0-3) never said #%+* to the MPs under his command while he served as MP operations officer on the same post.
 
The FBI agents in Miami suffered from the same mindset - or lack thereof. They were ready to find the bad guys and arrest them. Not one of those agents on scene backed away or ran. But they didn't have it in their heads they might have to shoot and possibly kill anyone.
Click to expand...

Bite your tongue before you say that about Ed Mereles. He was in the fight from the start and performed above and beyond the call of duty.

Grogan lost his glasses and couldn't see. To place yourself inside his head, or the heads of others, is taking quite a bit of liberty with the subject---isn't it?:cool:
 
Grogan lost his glasses and couldn't see.
Click to expand...
One could say that the fact that his glasses weren't strapped on (like athletes do with their glasses to prevent them from being lost) is strong evidence that he didn't have it in his head that he might be driving toward a life or death struggle.
Bite your tongue before you say that about Ed Mereles. He was in the fight from the start and performed above and beyond the call of duty.
Click to expand...
No one's saying that they didn't do their best once they found themselves in the middle of a bad situation. The point is that in spite of what they knew to be true about the bad guys, they went into the situation not as if they were readying themselves for a horrendously lethal situation that could easily cost several men their lives--they went into it more as if it was just business as usual.

You say Mireles was in the fight from the start. If that's true then why wasn't he wearing his body armor? Are you saying he was ready for a gun battle but decided not to wear his vest? Clearly that would be ridiculous. He performed well under pressure but he obviously went into it like the others--not really expecting anything out of the ordinary.
 
You say Mireles was in the fight from the start. If that's true then why wasn't he wearing his body armor? Are you saying he was ready for a gun battle but decided not to wear his vest? Clearly that would be ridiculous. He performed well under pressure but he obviously went into it like the others--not really expecting anything out of the ordinary.
Click to expand...

Apparently your definition of being in the fight "from the start" means the start of the work day. Mine is when the fight started, without respect to what equipment they should have been wearing when it did, or their mindset before the fight.

Where Mereles is concerned, his mindset was extraordinary, and he killed both Platt and Mattix, if I recall.:cool:

As for the others, I suspect their mindsets before and during the fight were very similar to the majority of LE officers who go to work on any given day.:cool:
 
Last edited:
It's not my definition or yours that matters, it's the context of the comment that you responded to.
The FBI agents in Miami suffered from the same mindset - or lack thereof. They were ready to find the bad guys and arrest them. Not one of those agents on scene backed away or ran. But they didn't have it in their heads they might have to shoot and possibly kill anyone.
Click to expand...
Clearly he's not saying anything about their performance once the fight started, he's talking about their mindset. They were ready to do their job, they didn't run or back away when it started. But their mindset going into it was clearly not ideal.
Where Mereles is concerned, his mindset was extraordinary, and he killed both Platt and Mattix, if I recall.
Click to expand...
A person who goes into a potential armed encounter with his body armor in the trunk does not have an "extraordinary mindset".

I agree that once he got into the fight he did very well and his mindset DURING the fight leaves nothing to be desired. But clearly he didn't go into the fight with the proper preparation and that makes it obvious that his mindset was less than ideal going into the fight.
As for the others, I suspect their mindsets before and during the fight were very similar to the majority of LE officers who go to work on any given day.
Click to expand...
Given that a large percentage of LE officers go to work on any given day wearing their body armor even though they aren't on a stakeout looking for heavily armed bank robbers suspected of several murders, it's fairly safe to say that your suspiction is incorrect.
 
Wambaugh's Hollywood novels; LE body armor stats...

Joseph Wambaugh(who was a sworn police officer/LAPD) wrote in one of his popular "Hollywood Division" novels that about 30-40% of sworn LEOs killed in the US every year were wearing body armor.
Some spec ops troopers & armed professionals do not wear vests or body armor on a regular basis. Retired US Navy SEAL officer, Richard Marcinko, www.DickMarcinko.com stated he didn't wear body armor because it would "slow him down". ;)
I'm not saying protective vests or armor are not worth it, but they are not a replacement for proper tactics or training.
 
Marcinko is an interesting character--I'll leave it at that. That aside, he didn't carry body armor around but then not access it when he needed it; he made the conscious decision (whether good or bad) that he was not going to use it. That's very different from carrying it around in the trunk because you think it might be useful but then not putting it on during a stakeout focused on arresting heavily-armed violent felons.

As it turned out, the vests wouldn't have done much good given that Platt did his work with a rifle. Again, that's a moot point. I'm not speaking to the effectiveness of the vest. The point isn't whether they're effective or not, nor whether there are good reasons for not wearing them.

The point is that if you have essential equipment in the trunk instead of on you when you could reasonably expect that you would need it, you need to work on your mindset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top