• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Saw a TV special on a North Hollywood shootout

E

EyeMWing

Banned
Tactically, these cops SUCKED. Sure they were WAY under-armed.

But they waited WAY TOO LONG to go raid the gunshops. They took the WRONG guns from the gunshops (AR15's - should've taken the biggest, baddest 30-06 scoped hunting rifles they could get). When they commandeered the armored truck, they used it as a rescue vehicle instead of ending the battle by crushing the suspect vehicle and the suspect in it and running over the one that was still on foot. Either of these courses of action would've brought the conflict to a quick and painless conclusion.

Take a hunting rifle into the dentist's office where your officers were taking refuge (through the back door which they conducted "rescue" operations through) and cap both suspects out the front windows, from which they were clearly visible. It's not that hard. AR15's just piss them off more and get more lead thrown in your direction - because your bullets are actually coming close to hitting them.

Of course, there was no tactical precedence for this, but it all seems like common sense to me - hell, if I were a cop in this situation, procedure can sh!t in it's hat - I'm doing whatever it takes to A) Live B) Make sure everyone else lives C) Make damn sure that these pricks DON'T live.

Of course, that's why I'm not a cop.

Also, what the hell was SWAT doing? 25 minute response time? The dispatchers said they were being AIRLIFTED (They actually drove... Through LA... Couldn't find a chopper?)
 
Welcome to several years ago.


Oh, and the only casualties were the bank robbers themselves, IIRC...you can't ask for a much better outcome than that.
 
it is very easy to come up with a plan that works after the fact. try doing that in a situation filled with unknowns, perps in body armor firing automatic weapons at you, and see how well you do.
 
Originally posted by: bradruth
Welcome to several years ago.


Oh, and the only casualties were the bank robbers themselves, IIRC...you can't ask for a much better outcome than that.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, I'm watching TV, dammit.

But still, 41 minutes is a helluva long time for sh!t to go wrong. Those pricks deserved what they got, but they also deserved it quite a bit sooner. If they'd been just a little bit smarter things could've gotten REALLY messed up.
 
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: bradruth
Welcome to several years ago.


Oh, and the only casualties were the bank robbers themselves, IIRC...you can't ask for a much better outcome than that.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, I'm watching TV, dammit.

But still, 41 minutes is a helluva long time for sh!t to go wrong. Those pricks deserved what they got, but they also deserved it quite a bit sooner. If they'd been just a little bit smarter things could've gotten REALLY messed up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there were a lot of problems with the LAPD's response, and it became a learning experience. For one, they're allowed to carry higher caliber weapons nowadays (not just the Beretta 9mm). There's an LAPD officer that posts here who would be able to provide a lot more detail, but considering their limitations they did a tremendous job.
 
Originally posted by: bradruth
Welcome to several years ago.


Oh, and the only casualties were the bank robbers themselves, IIRC...you can't ask for a much better outcome than that.
Click to expand...
And one of those was a self inflicted shot. The guy on foot shot himself in the head rather than be captured. The cops followed procedure, which, in retrospect saved lives. They contained the threat to a small area, they took hits themselves rather than allow civilians to be shot and ultimately, they took the robbers down. Several civilians were injured, but survived.
Nice of you (the OP) to offer your uniformed opinion, though.
BTW, should you think that the LAPD tactics haven't improved, you would be sorely mistaken.
Every shift now has at least one NATO type assualt weapon, and there are far more automatic weapons for the officers to use to qualify and practice with.

 
Thank God the assault weapon ban was in effect during that time. If the crooks had bayonet mounts and short stocks, it would have been good game for the lapd.
 
Originally posted by: FleshLight
Thank God the assault weapon ban was in effect during that time. If the crooks had bayonet mounts and short stocks, it would have been good game for the lapd.
Click to expand...
</sarcasm>
There , I fixed it for you. 😉
 
The cops likely grabbed the thing they were trained on (AR-15) from the gun shop rather than trying to learn on something new in the heat of battle.
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
The cops likely grabbed the thing they were trained on (AR-15) from the gun shop rather than trying to learn on something new in the heat of battle.
Click to expand...

Hrm, quite possible. I will say that I may be a little biased since I personally play with large caliber hunting weapons and am used to destructive power over range, whereas an urban police officer would have little experience with such arms.

And Raven Shield sucked. Game was too easy. Enemy was too stupid, too predictable, too easy to kill.

It also seems to me that they kinda sucked at containing the threat and that the suspects stayed where they were on their own accord (They DID just walk/drive away with what appeared to be no resistance) - but that may have been the TV's fault. But yes - I'll be the first to admit that I've never been placed in that situation and have no idea how things actually transpired. I only know what the magical box told me.
 
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Tactically, these cops SUCKED. Sure they were WAY under-armed.

But they waited WAY TOO LONG to go raid the gunshops. They took the WRONG guns from the gunshops (AR15's - should've taken the biggest, baddest 30-06 scoped hunting rifles they could get). When they commandeered the armored truck, they used it as a rescue vehicle instead of ending the battle by crushing the suspect vehicle and the suspect in it and running over the one that was still on foot. Either of these courses of action would've brought the conflict to a quick and painless conclusion.

Take a hunting rifle into the dentist's office where your officers were taking refuge (through the back door which they conducted "rescue" operations through) and cap both suspects out the front windows, from which they were clearly visible. It's not that hard. AR15's just piss them off more and get more lead thrown in your direction - because your bullets are actually coming close to hitting them.

Of course, there was no tactical precedence for this, but it all seems like common sense to me - hell, if I were a cop in this situation, procedure can sh!t in it's hat - I'm doing whatever it takes to A) Live B) Make sure everyone else lives C) Make damn sure that these pricks DON'T live.

Of course, that's why I'm not a cop.

Also, what the hell was SWAT doing? 25 minute response time? The dispatchers said they were being AIRLIFTED (They actually drove... Through LA... Couldn't find a chopper?)
Click to expand...

Sounds like you obviously have never shot a gun nor know anything about tactics.


http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html

Outgunned? That's about the only thing in your entire paragraph that made any sense.
 
There were several casualties. There were only two killed, the criminals.

I wouldn't have chosen a .30-06 for use downtown.
 
The shoot out was kind of like 9/11 in the fact up till that time, nothing like that had ever really happend and I doubt LAPD or even 'D' Platoon had really trained for such a contingency... I think the LAPD did the best it could under the circumstances... And it was quite fortunate that the perps were as inept as they were, with no tactical inclination or apparent plan of action...

The shoot out scene in Heat, while loosely based on the LA shoot out, had the benefit of technical consultation from a former SAS member and one other guy whose name escapes me at the moment, but is supposedly highly regarded as well...

Edit: RagingBITCH, just read the link you provided, thanks! It was nice to meet you in PDX, hope you felt better after you left, and had a good time while you were there!

Dave
 
What I don't understand is why they simply didn't shoot the robbers in the head where they had no armor. I have shot handguns and realize hitting a a moving watermelon is no easy task at 50-100 yards, but half a dozen cops going thru a couple of magazines a piece is due to render the robber incapictated with a hit to the head region on at least one lucky pull of the trigger from a 9mm Beretta.
 
Originally posted by: Brackis
What I don't understand is why they simply didn't shoot the robbers in the head where they had no armor. I have shot handguns and realize hitting a a moving watermelon is no easy task at 50-100 yards, but half a dozen cops going thru a couple of magazines a piece is due to render the robber incapictated with a hit to the head region on at least one lucky pull of the trigger from a 9mm Beretta.
Click to expand...

Hit percentages in shootouts average out to 17%. Now, take into account that most shootouts occur within 6 feet. Apply those odds to a long-distance attempt at a headshot with a handgun, keeping in mind the intense stress that one would feel in that situation.

Not to mention that in a residential area with many civilians around, firing wildly isn't an option when you have to take into account what lies BEHIND your target.
 
Originally posted by: bradruth
Originally posted by: Brackis
What I don't understand is why they simply didn't shoot the robbers in the head where they had no armor. I have shot handguns and realize hitting a a moving watermelon is no easy task at 50-100 yards, but half a dozen cops going thru a couple of magazines a piece is due to render the robber incapictated with a hit to the head region on at least one lucky pull of the trigger from a 9mm Beretta.
Click to expand...

Hit percentages in shootouts average out to 17%. Now, take into account that most shootouts occur within 6 feet. Apply those odds to a long-distance attempt at a headshot with a handgun, keeping in mind the intense stress that one would feel in that situation.

Not to mention that in a residential area with many civilians around, firing wildly isn't an option when you have to take into account what lies BEHIND your target.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better. This isn't counter-strike people. If you die, that's it.
 
Originally posted by: bradruth
Originally posted by: Brackis
What I don't understand is why they simply didn't shoot the robbers in the head where they had no armor. I have shot handguns and realize hitting a a moving watermelon is no easy task at 50-100 yards, but half a dozen cops going thru a couple of magazines a piece is due to render the robber incapictated with a hit to the head region on at least one lucky pull of the trigger from a 9mm Beretta.
Click to expand...

Hit percentages in shootouts average out to 17%. Now, take into account that most shootouts occur within 6 feet. Apply those odds to a long-distance attempt at a headshot with a handgun, keeping in mind the intense stress that one would feel in that situation.

Not to mention that in a residential area with many civilians around, firing wildly isn't an option when you have to take into account what lies BEHIND your target.
Click to expand...

I realize that if this were in a neighborhood that you would never do such a thing, but at one point the robbers were in front of a large windowless white building, one driving a car and the other firing from behind the car. Had 4 officers simply empty a magazine a piece in that scenario while aiming in the upper portion of the robber's body, one bullet would more than likely avoid the armored areas of the assailants body.
 
Originally posted by: KLin
Originally posted by: bradruth
Originally posted by: Brackis
What I don't understand is why they simply didn't shoot the robbers in the head where they had no armor. I have shot handguns and realize hitting a a moving watermelon is no easy task at 50-100 yards, but half a dozen cops going thru a couple of magazines a piece is due to render the robber incapictated with a hit to the head region on at least one lucky pull of the trigger from a 9mm Beretta.
Click to expand...

Hit percentages in shootouts average out to 17%. Now, take into account that most shootouts occur within 6 feet. Apply those odds to a long-distance attempt at a headshot with a handgun, keeping in mind the intense stress that one would feel in that situation.

Not to mention that in a residential area with many civilians around, firing wildly isn't an option when you have to take into account what lies BEHIND your target.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better. This isn't counter-strike people. If you die, that's it.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with dying. If the guy is shooting his 100 round drum at you, you take cover. If he is not, however, you use every bullet you can possibly get off to hit the man before he leaves empty parking lot and takes to the streets.
 
Originally posted by: Brackis
Originally posted by: bradruth
Originally posted by: Brackis
What I don't understand is why they simply didn't shoot the robbers in the head where they had no armor. I have shot handguns and realize hitting a a moving watermelon is no easy task at 50-100 yards, but half a dozen cops going thru a couple of magazines a piece is due to render the robber incapictated with a hit to the head region on at least one lucky pull of the trigger from a 9mm Beretta.
Click to expand...

Hit percentages in shootouts average out to 17%. Now, take into account that most shootouts occur within 6 feet. Apply those odds to a long-distance attempt at a headshot with a handgun, keeping in mind the intense stress that one would feel in that situation.

Not to mention that in a residential area with many civilians around, firing wildly isn't an option when you have to take into account what lies BEHIND your target.
Click to expand...

I realize that if this were in a neighborhood that you would never do such a thing, but at one point the robbers were in front of a large windowless white building, one driving a car and the other firing from behind the car. Had 4 officers simply empty a magazine a piece in that scenario while aiming in the upper portion of the robber's body, one bullet would more than likely avoid the armored areas of the assailants body.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not how the real world works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top