PDA

View Full Version : Newhall shootout in California


roaddog28
April 6, 2011, 03:48 PM
Its be 41 years since the shootout in which four California Highway Patrol officers lost their lives. Since then changes in tactics by CHP has been introduce much like the FBI Miami Shootout in 1986. I have a question to all of the current LE officers and Retired LE officers. One of the things CHP determined was the officers killed were carrying S&W model 28 loaded with 357 magnum ammo. But the failure of the officers to hit there suspects was one of the factors that resulted in their deaths. From what I understand the officers trained with 38 special ammo but carried 357 ammo for "business" I have heard this before with other agencies. My question is why not practice with the ammo that a officer is going to carry in the field? The difference in shooting 38 special versus 357 magnum ammo is a lot. Is it because the agencies were afraid of overpentration hurting innocent bystanders? Is it because of lack of training buy the agencies? Why did officers carry 357 magnum revolvers when they only practiced with 38 specials? To me if they were not going to use the 357 magnum then just carry a 38 specials like the old S&W model 10 or 15. In the FBI Miami shootout several agents carried model 13 357 magnum revolvers but used again 38 +Ps. Although the final report after the shooting indicated the failure of the 9mm Silvertip round as not powerful enough but the same thing could of been said about the 38+P round. A 357 magnum round or a better 9mm round used by the agents might have ended the gunfight sooner.
I would like some opinions by current or retired LE about why a law enforcement agencies would not let their officers or agents carry the best possible ammo in their service carry guns. For guys that did not carry revolvers this applies to you to. Did the agency train and supply you with the most effective ammo to do you job?

Regards.
Howard

Sleuth
April 6, 2011, 06:46 PM
There were two factors involved:
The "game" in those days was bullseye, and qualification was on bullseye targets fired one handed. The preferred ammo for bullseye was wadcutters.
When I started in 1970, even the Treasury Dept qualified one handed on bullseye targets.

Then there was a cost savings, wadcutters being cheaper then the 158g RNL ""killing"" ammo - which we learned to call "STOP! Or I'll wrinkle your suit!" ammo.

We got in so few shootings in those days, they felt the cost savings were a good tradeoff. Who thought that? The bean counters, who never faced a bad guy.

One of the less known factors of Newhall was that the officers were found with empty brass in their pockets. They found the range officers required clean ranges, so in 'training' brass went into officer's pockets to be dropped into brass barrels, so the officers would not have to bend down.
They were told "on the street, you'll just drop your brass". Nope, they did as they had been trained.

hk45ctp30
April 6, 2011, 08:28 PM
When I joined the U.S. Border Patrol in 1974, we were issued Ruger Security Six pistols in .357 Magnum. However, we qualified and trained with .38 wadcutters. Right before graduating from the Border Patrol Academy in Los Fresnos, Texas, we actually were handed 3 .357 Magnum 158 gr. SP bullets, just to let us know how much our pistols would recoil with the full-power duty loads. Man, did they kick!! Like the gentleman before this post said, all of our shooting was done with bulls-eye targets. We did regular shooting, rapid fire shooting, and timed shooting. A few years later, the Justice Dept. had us switch over to the Treasury load, which were 110 gr. HP +P ammo. We found they were essentially worthless, and many times they wouldn't even chip the paint on a car. The Border Patrol finally went to the .40S&W pistol when we were issued the Beretta 96D Brigadeer pistol. After that, all Agents qualified with the standard full-power 155 gr. HP. That still remains true today.

Andy Taylor
April 6, 2011, 09:47 PM
First, I am not, nor have I ever been a LEO. I have, however, studied LE firearms training and tactics as it has progressed through the years. The above posts are spot on.

Bullseye target training at the range. I am sure a good many LEOs were killed over the years due to this type of training.

The Newhall CHP officers were killed with empty revolvers stuffing brass into thier pockets. This was quite common training practices back in the day. I like to think that those officers did not die in vain, as many LEOs (and others) have been saved due to the lessons learned.

As to the Miami FBI shootout: The Winchester 9mm silvertip was about as good a 9mm round as one could get back then. The final, fight stopping rounds fired that day were .38 Special LSWCHP +P (Now known as the "FBI load") fired by SA Edmundo Mireles from his personally owned 4" S&W 686.

Many agencies issued .357 revolvers and .38 ammo, either for training or both training and duty. The FBI issued the .357 M13 revolvers with .38 ammo. Agents could request magnum ammo for a particular assignment if they felt the need. If the supervisor agreed with the agent(s) they would be issued the magnum ammo.

Training with .38s and carrying .357s. That was almost always a budget issue.

ClydeFrog
April 6, 2011, 10:23 PM
I'm not a current sworn LE officer but I'm aware of the Newhall CA event & brought up the topic in my 2008 armed security class.
The big issue that stuck with me(from noted author & use of force training expert Massad Ayoob) was how the deceased police officers were found with spent revolver cartridges in their uniform pockets.
Ayoob & other major LE instructors(correctly) pointed out why proper skill training & tactics are so important. Officers or other armed professionals should train using real world conditions & re-enforce the best methods to deal successfully with use of force or shooting events.

Clyde F

pendennis
April 6, 2011, 11:06 PM
...was a "perfect storm" of poor armament and tactics, combined with two perps who were going to shoot it out, no matter what. The perps were outmanned 4-to-1, but still managed to kill two FBI agents and wounded several others.

There's a good write-up on Wikipedia, and it's been discussed thoroughly here, and on other sites. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fbi_miami_shootout

This incident was also the genesis for the development of the .40 S&W round.

Luggo
April 6, 2011, 11:26 PM
Newhall...

Only 1 of the 4 officers is believed to have had brass in his pockets.

Officer Frago was killed by Twining while approaching the passenger door of the suspects vehicle. He was struck twice in the chest and died immediately, he never fired a shot from the shotgun he was carrying. He did not have brass in his pockets.

Officer Gore exchanged shots with Twining after Frago went down from a distance of 8-10 feet diagonally over the trunk of the suspects car. Gore missed all shots, Davis who was being searched by Gore spun away from Gore as he engaged Twining, and then shot and killed Gore. Gore had no brass in his pockets.

Pence and Alleyn arrive. Alleyn is armed with a shotgun initially. Advances to the rear of Gore/Frago car, racks the slide and ejects a live round onto the pavement. He empties the shotgun, takes a position at the rear of the Gore/Frago vehicle to engage with his .357. He was hit in the face and upper chest by a shotgun blast.

Pence, leaves the car and moves to the rear of his vehicle. He engages the suspects empties his revolver and crouches down to begin a reload. He is hit in the leg, as he attempts to reload. He is the shot by one of the suspects at point blank range who had advanced on him. He is believed to have had brass in his pocket from the reload.

There a plenty of training failures to go around in the incident. The "brass in pockets" thing applies only to Pence. It doesn't lessen the failure of training the officers, but for the sake of accuracy it only applies to one. Each of the others had plenty of fatal mistakes as well.

JohnKSa
April 6, 2011, 11:44 PM
Moving to Tactics & Training.

One bright spot in the Newhall incident was that the acknowledgement that there were tactical and training issues allowed positive actions to be taken to correct the issues.

Contrast that with the FBI Miami shootout where the FBI chose to blame the caliber used and largely glossed over the tactical and training issues that were brought to light by the shooting.

JC57
April 6, 2011, 11:48 PM
Former LEO here, from back in the 70s through early 90s. (I believe Newhall had occurred a few years before I started because I remember being trained never to catch my brass).

We were issued .38 SPL +P 125 gr. semi-jacketed HP rounds. Our practice / qualification ammo was factory reload 148 grain wadcutters.

The department did not issue guns, we had to buy our own and were not compensated or reimbursed. We could purchase any gun we wanted as long as it was a 4" barrel S&W or Colt revolver that would fire .38 special. Most carried S&W model 10s, 13s, 19s, or the stainless equivalents. I carried a model 66 most of the time, but at later times carried a model 10 and briefly a model 581 when the L frames first came out.

The reason for the wadcutters was to save money. It was a small department and the budget was always tight. The chief wasn't into guns and looked down on you as some sort of gung-ho cowboy if you showed any interest in them, so the culture in the department was rather low-key with respect to firearms.

Eventually we got to where at the end of our semi-annual requalification round of 50 wadcutters, they would have us shoot the 18 rounds of service ammo (38 +P) that we had been carrying the prior 6 months so we could get used to the feel of "full power" rounds, and would then give us 18 fresh rounds of ammo.

Later they began allowing us to carry 9mm autos (still had to buy our own) and they issued us Federal 9BP ammo. By that time they were giving us a whole box of 50 plus two extra rounds because you needed a full 52 rounds if you were going to load up three mags plus one in the pipe (Glock 17s were on the approved list, and most who switched to autos carried those). The practice ammo was regular 9mm FMJ, but the recoil was essentially the same as the service ammo.

Finally shortly before I retired they actually issued us guns that we didn't have to buy (S&W 5946 DAO 9mm autos). I haven't kept up with what they did after that.

I believe the reason (back then) is that the decision-makers were primarily the chiefs / sheriffs, and in most departments these guys had come up through the ranks 20 or more years earlier, so their opinions had been formed in the 50s. Shootouts and criminals with automatic weapons was something that for them was from childhood stories about the gangsters during prohibition, and that sort of thing didn't happen any more. It wasn't until the gang and drug related violence of the 80s and 90s came along that proved to them that an old six shooter just really didn't cut it any more, so they learned or retired and departments changed.

ClydeFrog
April 7, 2011, 12:07 AM
Another major US law enforcement shooting was the big 1997 North Hollywood or Bank of America shooting.
The 2 male, well armed subjects had level IV body armor & multiple weapons. There have been a few network & cable TV programs about the events in LA. The film; 44 Minutes www.IMDb.com documents what took place step by step too.
The North Hollywood LAPD shooting incident led to more on duty officers & detectives using .45acp & .40Smith and Wesson duty pistols. The LAPD brass also trotted out some 1970s era M-16a1 rifles for patrol use by I think that was more of a big PR stunt than a real mandate for duty rifles or M-4s.

I'd add that to my undestanding, the US Border Patrol & CBP now carry the HK P2000 LEM .40S&W pistol. I also heard that the issue weapon was the big Beretta 96D but the SIG Sauer P229 .40 was allowed as a option. To my knowledge many special agents & inspectors who "rode the river", bought the P-229s.

Clyde

kraigwy
April 7, 2011, 12:11 AM
When I first hired on the department (Anchorage Police Dept) was just starting to issue Model 28s, (or a couple years after I hired on). The issue ammo was 158 RN Lead 38s, cast and hand loaded by prisoner trustees.

Needless to say that wasn't my first choice in ammo.

They were liberal in allowing us to buy our own ammo so I went with 357s. I hand loaded my own, 150 SWCs pushed by 15 grns of 2400. We had belt loops as we weren't allowed to carry speed loaders. The patrol captain notices I was carrying reloads and asked me about it. I reminded him there was nothing in the policy about reloads. His face got red and he yelled, "you will get some factory ammo in the next 30 minutes, if I needed a policy written he would have it when I got back". Needless to say I was back in less then 30 minutes with a box of Winchester LSWC factory bullets.

The captain retired and I saw him at a gun show a few months later. He asked if I went back to reloads and I told him I did. He laughed and told me he carried his reloads the whole time he was on the department.

Anyway a few years later the Dept. went to Winchester 125 JHPs for 357s. I kept my reloads but qualified with both just for kicks. I did most of my shooting with 357s. Seldom did I shoot 38s in my service revolver. The Model 28 doesn't care what you shoot. (I still have the my issue Model 28).

Anchorage being Anchorage we had a lot of moose-vehicle encounters where the car was normally towed and the moose had to be put down. I found my 150 Grn LSWCs worked better on moose then the 125 JHPs.

I still have that mold, (Lyman 358477) and cast all my 38/357s from it. Its the same bullet I carry in my SD pocket revolver (Smith 642).

The book used as the bible for Police Administration back then (70s) was O.W. Wilson's "Police Administration". Quoted from Mr Wilson's book, "the service revolver should be heavy, so that it can be used as a club if need be".

The Model 28 certainly fits the bill though pistol whipping bandits wouldnt be PC in todays world.

I don't normally second guess officer involved shootings because I wasn't there. There is more then enough Monday Morning Quarterbacking without me chiming in. Most of what the officer uses is mandated by their department. I did what I did and what I could get by with when I did it. I don't think I would have done anything different.

kenno
April 7, 2011, 01:11 AM
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.

Powderman
April 7, 2011, 01:30 AM
To the best of my knowledge, there are three major incidents involving active shooters that have significantly changed policies and procedures in law enforcement, all across the board.

1. Newhall Massacre

The poor tactics used by the responding officers contributed greatly to the perps gunning them down.

This incident gave birth to the high-risk/felony stop used nationwide by every law enforcement agency.

2. FBI shootout, Miami
This incident resulted in Federal agents losing their lives, and forced an in-depth examination on the ammunition issued to law enforcement officers. This was not a failure of tactics, but of the ammunition used--both Platt and Matix suffered many incapacitating and fatal wounds--problem was that they weren't fatal FAST enough.

This incident gave birth to the re-examination of duty sidearms, with the result of much better performing ammunition in high-capacity platforms.

3. Hollywood shootout

An absolute nightmare for the responding officers! Here, you have resolute gunmen, armed with select fire weapons in military calibers wearing effective body armor. Absolutely no problems with tactics or training--again, there just wasn't enough firepower available to the officers on scene.

This shootout led to the adaption of the patrol carbine--a rifle-caliber short rifle capable of good accuracy and tremendous stopping power. It also led to command staff re-thinking the availability of even heavier firepower to responding officers in the case of barricaded or heavily armored subjects.

To answer the OP, no law enforcement agency that I know OK's the .38 Special RNL round (aka, "the Widowmaker", because it got cops killed) for issue anymore. For those few officers that still carry revolvers, it's usually a good .38+P round at the minimum.

I have, for instance, been issued the following duty ammunition:

230 grain Speer Gold Dot .45 ACP (duty sidearm)
180 grain Speer Gold Dot .40 S&W (backup weapon)
55 grain Federal Tactical Rifle Urban (TRU) .223 Remington (patrol rifle)
175 grain Federal Gold Medal Match .308 Winchester (precision rifle)

All of these have been tested by numerous law enforcement agencies, and yield superior performance.

hhb
April 7, 2011, 06:05 AM
Joseph Wambaugh, a retired LA detective wrote the "Onionfield" about the Newhall incident, if I remember correctly. Good read.

Rifleman 173
April 7, 2011, 08:11 AM
One aspect that I've often thought about, especially with the Miami Shootout was the FBI agents going up against a guy armed with a carbine and only using their pistols until one agent broke out the shotgun. Of the 2 bad guys, one of them did not exit their wrecked car and the one who did the most damage used a .223 carbine to great effect. It is known that the two bad guys practiced their shooting a lot in Florida swamps. I imagine that if both of the suspects had gotten out of their wrecked car that none of the FBI agents would have survived. My point is twofold:
1. We need to practice a lot more with our firearms. This also means that we need to understand that we need extremely good shot placement and to hit with rounds that have really good penetration. The idea of a bullet only going so far is silly. Sure, nobody wants to have a bullet injure or kill an innocent bystander but bullets that don't go all the way to the heart and stop short just shows how being politically correct can be a killer.
2. We need to put the bad guys at a tactical disadvantage by selecting firearms that have more range, more punch and better accuracy than they have available to them. In other words, if the bad guy uses a pistol we use a shotgun or a rifle with a tactical scope on it. If they use a rifle we need a rifle of better quality with a better sight system than they have. The two bad guys with the AK-47 rifles could easily have been dropped with one round each, in theory, if a good .308/7.62 NATO scoped rifle had been brought to bear. Trouble was none of the initial responding officers were not allowed to carry such firearms in their patrol vehicles because such firearms "look too aggressive." Again political correctness has no business in effective law enforcement and, in that case, slowed down the response capabilities of the officers trying to curb an armed robbery by violent men.

So, when limit factors, because of political correctness, are put on police officers, we can expect more officers to needlessly die or more civilians are placed in risk of harm or death too. Let's start thinking ahead of bad guys where armed combat is involved.

roaddog28
April 7, 2011, 08:56 AM
Great information guys. I did not know that at least one officer had empty brass in his pockets. It agree that training in tactics and practice might have helped in both Newhall and Miami. But what I can't understand is my agencies would practice and train with ammo the officers did not use for duty. The budget excuse to me does does make sense. Why send officers out to protect citizens and themselfs knowning the officers have not practice with the ammo they carry. I know in my case my SD ammo shoots a lot different than practice ammo. I practice with my SD ammo every third time to the range just so I am familiar with the recoil and accurately. A person can be good with wadcutters at the range but miss when their life is on the line because their SD ammo shoots different. I know there are alot politics involved in goverment affecting there law enforcement agencies but not to equipt and train there officers to do the best job they can just puzzles me. Loosing lifes is tragic and happens but to loose lifes because of tactics, training and weapons still puzzles me.

Powderman
April 7, 2011, 11:00 AM
Roaddog, you are right--if you train like you will fight, you WILL fight like you have trained. This has been known for a long time.

Some departments still have the resources to get their officers out for some good training. Most, though, are feeling the budget crunch.

Unfortunately, the average cop only shoots at qualification time, and not too much--60 or so rounds, and that's it for six months. Even that is a stretch with money problems.

I try to train as much as possible. I'm fortunate enough to have a Dillon 650 with almost all the trimmings; I load 6.5 of Power Pistol behind 230 grain ball to duplicate the performance of my duty load. I train as much as I can. I also load .223, and I've put a lot of rounds through this rifle as well.

41.5 grains of RL 15 under the 175 grain .308 MatchKing gives me good practice rounds for my long rifle; I have logged around 2500 rounds down this barrel--about 2200 of that being my ammo.

In summary, the officer MUST practice on their own to build proficiency and to maintain proficiency.

Sleuth
April 7, 2011, 11:28 AM
While teaching at our academy, I held a class on the 'Miami Shootout'. For background, I had the internal DOJ report, the three principal videos, and talked to the Metro-Dade Sgt. who conducted the crime scene investigation.

I always started by telling my class: "9 of us are going out to arrest two bad guys: we will have MP5's, shotguns, body armor, 9mm pistols, and 357 Magnums. Is there anyone here who will not go with me?"
They were all ready to go.

The FBI were NOT undergunned. They had shotguns, but all but one was carried in the trunk of their car. There were also 2 S/A with MP5's, but neither one was involved in the shooting (one was in the bathroom when the radio traffic was on-going, the other inside a bank - a long story in itself)
They had body armor - but only one supervisor put his on. The rest was in the trunks of the cars.

The lessons are many, and not suited for a public forum. But I see the principal problem as:
The agents left the office thinking: "This is just a surveillance; nothing's going to happen; it's not going to happen today; and if something does happen, it certainly will not happen to me!

Mindset was the principal thing that killed those Special Agents!

BTW, the video that was on TV, "authorized" by the FBI, left out lots of stuff that would be embarrassing to the Bureau.

Oh yes, the bad guys had a Ruger Mini-14 (the rifle that did all the killing), and a shotgun that was used for one shot that hit nothing. They also both had .357 revolvers.

FTG-05
April 7, 2011, 02:19 PM
[snip]

The FBI were NOT undergunned. They had shotguns, but all but one was carried in the trunk of their car. There were also 2 S/A with MP5's, but neither one was involved in the shooting (one was in the bathroom when the radio traffic was on-going, the other inside a bank - a long story in itself)
They had body armor - but only one supervisor put his on. The rest was in the trunks of the cars.

[snip]

So the rumor I heard that two of the agents were doing some waitress is only that, an ugly rumor?

Sleuth
April 7, 2011, 02:33 PM
Absolutely an ugly rumor. There is nothing to substantiate that, and all of the S/A's assigned can be accounted for.

This was an area surveillance, trying to cover all the banks in a given area. One agent decided to sit in the bank parking lot, and decided he better tell the manager, to avoid problems. The manager had never seen an FBI 'commission book' , and thought it was a phony. He delayed the agent in the bank (without a radio) until a local officer could come there to confirm his identity!

We never did surveillance from a bank parking lot, for just this reason.

But the 'area surveillance' fostered the idea that nothing would happen. They had no specific intelligence that any one bank would be hit.

And in my study of the event, there is no reason to disparage any of the agents. They were not properly trained (no training on high risk felony stops at that time, for example), and had a negative mindset, but they all reacted to the highest standards that could be expected.

ClydeFrog
April 7, 2011, 10:31 PM
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. ;)

Luggo
April 7, 2011, 11:17 PM
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.

Sleuth
April 8, 2011, 11:01 AM
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.

Single Six
April 8, 2011, 05:24 PM
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]?

ClydeFrog
April 8, 2011, 10:58 PM
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

BigBob3006
April 8, 2011, 11:38 PM
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.

blakdawg
April 9, 2011, 03:48 AM
Joseph Wambaugh, a retired LA detective wrote the "Onionfield" about the Newhall incident, if I remember correctly. Good read.

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

ScottieG59
April 9, 2011, 10:25 PM
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?

Nnobby45
April 9, 2011, 11:23 PM
The Newhall incident involved CHP officers; the Onion Field incident involved LAPD officers who were kidnapped, one was killed.

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.

HoraceHogsnort
April 10, 2011, 12:21 AM
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?

HoraceHogsnort
April 10, 2011, 12:24 AM
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:

Archie
April 12, 2011, 10:41 PM
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.

Sleuth
April 13, 2011, 11:19 AM
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.

ClydeFrog
April 13, 2011, 10:03 PM
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.

Nnobby45
April 13, 2011, 11:55 PM
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.



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:

JohnKSa
April 14, 2011, 01:35 AM
Grogan lost his glasses and couldn't see.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.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.

Nnobby45
April 14, 2011, 03:40 PM
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.


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:

JohnKSa
April 14, 2011, 10:44 PM
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.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.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.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.

ClydeFrog
April 14, 2011, 10:56 PM
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.

JohnKSa
April 14, 2011, 11:04 PM
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.

Catfishman
April 14, 2011, 11:07 PM
Perhaps the officer was crouching beside the car and didn't want bad guys to know he was reloading. So instead of dropping the casings on the pavement, and annoucing that his gun was empty, he dropped them in his pocket while he was reloading.

Capt Charlie
April 15, 2011, 11:50 AM
Perhaps the officer was crouching beside the car and didn't want bad guys to know he was reloading. So instead of dropping the casings on the pavement, and annoucing that his gun was empty, he dropped them in his pocket while he was reloading.

Nope. The CHP range officers didn't want brass cluttering up their nicely manicured lawns, so trainees were told to pocket their brass :rolleyes:.

This is just more confirmation that, when under stress, you'll do exactly what you were trained to do. Bad training = bad results.

Catfishman
April 15, 2011, 01:46 PM
Quote:
Perhaps the officer was crouching beside the car and didn't want bad guys to know he was reloading. So instead of dropping the casings on the pavement, and annoucing that his gun was empty, he dropped them in his pocket while he was reloading.
Nope. The CHP range officers didn't want brass cluttering up their nicely manicured lawns, so trainees were told to pocket their brass .

This is just more confirmation that, when under stress, you'll do exactly what you were trained to do. Bad training = bad results.

We don't really know why he did it. I just think it is wrong to assume he was making a silly mistake, when there is another plausible explanation.

Just my opinion but I think it is much much more likely that he was trying to quietly reload.

Sleuth
April 15, 2011, 04:18 PM
Sorry Catfish, that is like the old "The M1 is bad because the enemy can hear the 'ping' of the clip, and know where you are, and that you are empty" argument. In the case of the M1, you just fired 1 to 8 rounds of 30-06 at them, so they already know where you are. And a good man with an M1 (I have seen several) can have it reloaded before the clip hits the ground.
(For the M1 it is a 'clip', not a 'charger', per Uncle Sam!)

As for quietly reloading, the Newhall incident was not the only one where officers reverted to their training, and pocketed their brass. There were other CHP incidents, along with comments by shooters like Skeeter Skelton.

Nnobby45
April 15, 2011, 07:39 PM
We don't really know why he did it. I just think it is wrong to assume he was making a silly mistake, when there is another plausible explanation.

Just my opinion but I think it is much much more likely that he was trying to quietly reload.

Other LE across the country have put their brass in their pockets in the middle of a gunfight. Some died as a result. The cause was, without question, traced to their training were they TRAINED themselves to put their brass in their pockets rather than practice speed loading and police their brass afterwards. Instructors did nothing to correct the practice. As Charlie points out, pocketing their brass may have been a requirement with some agencies.

The placing of brass in the pocket is a rote function, done without thought, while the mind is concentrating on other things. I'm trained to jump in my car, start it up, release the emer. brake, put it in gear and head out. Don't think about any of it. I'm TRAINED to do it without thinking, like all of us.

I see citizens training themselves to get killed in gunfights all the time. Like ejecting their magazine into their hand and putting it in their pocket.

But not where LE is concerned, since they've long since updated their training and made speed loading a part of it.

Nnobby45
April 15, 2011, 07:53 PM
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.

I think body armor in the trunk is more a tactic. However, it would be tough to seperate mindset from tactics, so I won't try.

I'm just trying to point out that most officers go on the job with similar "mindsets"--attitude would be a better description.

When the Monte Carlo was spotted and the agents were notified, I suspect all of their mindsets changed in a hurry to "this is the day".

What didn't change for Mereles, is that his vest (that wouldn't have stopped .223 rds.) was still in the trunk of the car where he couldn't reach it and he couldn't do a dang thing about it at that point.

Poor tactic/mindset re: his vest? OK, but not so bad having his shotgun handy. The only long gun on the good guys side.:cool:

Catfishman
April 15, 2011, 09:12 PM
Obviously, I could be wrong - but so could you guys. I'm making my statement as an opinion and y'all seem to think that you have stated some provable facts.

Apparently, the "brass in the pocket" thing has been discussed before. That doesn't mean the conclusion that was arrived at was correct. It's impossible to know that an officer putting brass in his pocket was due to training and it's impossible to know that it got him killed. Dumping the brass on the pavement might get him killed? Way to many variables at an event that none of us witnessed.

It's an interesting theory, don't state it as fact.

Nnobby45
April 15, 2011, 11:33 PM
It's an interesting theory, don't state it as fact.


I guess I'll have to speculate that no officer who just ran his gun dry would give first priority to saving his brass and second priority to reloading his gun, and further speculate that it was a training issue as opposed to a conscious tactical decision.:cool:

Just my thoughts on the matter.;)

ClydeFrog
April 16, 2011, 12:00 AM
I'd add to this topic that weapons training or tactical skill training can help address some of these issues too in a real world event.
Many sworn LE officers, federal agents & other armed professionals(bodyguards, PSCs, security officers, etc) train to make tactical reloads or transition to other fully loaded weapons in critical incidents.
These factors also show why a 15/16/18 shot duty pistol is far better than a 5 or 6 shot DA revolver in 2011.
To say "6 for sure" or "wheel guns are real guns" may sound macho or cool but in the real world, there is honestly little or no practical reason not to use a semi auto pistol or pistols on duty. With little effort you get nearly 3 times the firepower. ;)

Tennessee Gentleman
April 16, 2011, 09:48 AM
Here is a training film made by the CHP that goes into great detail about the Newhall Incident. Even has a tape of Twinning telling a reporter that he will kill himself before he goes back to prison. http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/27581823

On the Miami Shootout. The agents had body armor but not sufficient to stop 5.56 bullets only handgun ammo. Wouldn't have helped them. Mireles didn't really kill Platt, he was already dead from the shot Dove had delivered earlier in the fight. He just didn't know it yet. Matix fired one shot and was out of the fight from the beginning. As Mireles said in a statement he made later. He had heard a lot of BGs say they would never be taken alive but 99.9% of them were full of it and gave up when confronted. This time they didn't. Maybe that was part of the mindset. Best book on Miami Shoout is by a Dr. Anderson French. I have read it and it is very detailed.

Capt Charlie
April 16, 2011, 11:50 AM
I just think it is wrong to assume he was making a silly mistake, when there is another plausible explanation.

That's an interesting statement, in that it echoes the beliefs of most LE instructors prior to Newhall. It was considered bad taste to criticize the actions of a fallen officer. Mistakes were never mentioned, which effectively eliminated a wealth of training material.

Newhall ushered in a new era and a wave of officer survival training swept the country. It gradually became OK to say, "Officer Smith was a great guy, but he screwed up, and it got him killed."

Apparently, the "brass in the pocket" thing has been discussed before. That doesn't mean the conclusion that was arrived at was correct. It's impossible to know that an officer putting brass in his pocket was due to training and it's impossible to know that it got him killed.

Technically, that's correct, as the only one that could confirm that is dead.

In the mid 70's, I participated in an intense 40 hr. officer survival course in Arizona. One of my instructors was one of the original Newhall investigators. I'm sorry that I can't provide a link, but the conclusion about brass being pocketed came from him, face to face. That was 35 years ago, and while I've forgotten a lot about Newhall, for some reason that was one of the things that stuck in my mind.

Nnobby45
April 16, 2011, 06:42 PM
On the Miami Shootout. The agents had body armor but not sufficient to stop 5.56 bullets only handgun ammo. Wouldn't have helped them. Mireles didn't really kill Platt, he was already dead from the shot Dove had delivered earlier in the fight. He just didn't know it yet. Matix fired one shot and was out of the fight from the beginning. As Mireles said in a statement he made later. He had heard a lot of BGs say they would never be taken alive but 99.9% of them were full of it and gave up when confronted. This time they didn't. Maybe that was part of the mindset. Best book on Miami Shoout is by a Dr. Anderson French. I have read it and it is very detailed.


Haven't read Dr. French's book. I might just get a copy. I did like Ayoobs' version of events, even though his critics picked him apart on certain points he may not of gotten perfect. Remember that the FBI's own accounts didn't get everything perfect, either.

LOL, Mattix had been shot be Dove and was dead---he just didn't know it yet? Well, he did after Mereles killed him again.:D

JohnKSa
April 16, 2011, 09:57 PM
Mattix had been shot be Dove and was dead---he just didn't know it yet? Well, he did after Mereles killed him again.Not Matix, Platt.

Yes, Platt's initial chest wound was unsurvivable. Medical experts have said that even had he immediately given up and received medical attention he was losing blood too quickly to have survived.

Platt was already in bad enough shape that he was having difficulty walking and when he walked over to Mireles, who was on the ground using a car for cover, and shot him at point blank range in the head with a revolver, he missed. And even though he missed he never realized it--he walked back to the car and got into it.

It's true that Mireles put an end to the fight by shooting Platt in the head while he sat in the car, but the eyewitness evidence suggests that when he did so, Platt was already unable to fight effectively and was just seconds from dying or losing consciousness.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 16, 2011, 11:00 PM
Haven't read Dr. French's book. I might just get a copy.

Paladin Press (of course). I think it is the most authoritative version I have seen. Mas did a good job and many ofthe things he missed didn't turn up until later but it was generally correct. Some of it will never be known.

John is right, it was Platt. It also was Platt who did all the damage. Matix was out very early on and it was Grogan or Hanlon who took him out wiht a shot thru the wrist and arm. Platt was a dead man walking but he walked long enough to kill two agents and wound several more. As Dr. Anderson said, the human body can do much if the will commands it to.

Nnobby45
April 16, 2011, 11:51 PM
It's true that Mireles put an end to the fight by shooting Platt in the head while he sat in the car, but the eyewitness evidence suggests that when he did so, Platt was already unable to fight effectively and was just seconds from dying or losing consciousness.


OK, I thought Maddux had been shot and incapacitated early on and that Mireles walked up to the car and put rds. in both of them. Thanks for the clarification.

There was also speculation that Maddux's ear drum was ruptured by Platt's Mini 14, but I understand that the autopsy showed otherwise.

JohnKSa
April 17, 2011, 12:01 AM
OK, I thought Maddux had been shot and incapacitated early on and that Mireles walked up to the car and put rds. in both of them. Thanks for the clarification. Mireles did walk up to the car and put rounds in both of them at the end of the fight, however, Matix was incapacitated early in the fight and was never a factor (he might have fired a single shot but it didn't hit anyone), and eyewitness evidence indicates that by the time Mireles shot Platt in the car, Platt was already having severe difficulty functioning due to massive blood loss.

Sleuth
April 17, 2011, 11:55 AM
RE: Brass in the pocket - after the change in CHP (and other agency) training about dropping brass on the ground, there were no further reports of officers found with brass in their pockets after a shooting. This was not immediate, as it took some time to change ingrained patterns from training. This tends to prove that the officer(s) were conditioned to putting their brass in their pockets on the range.

RE: Body Armor - most commentators here are making a common mistake, imputing to the FBI agents information that was only known later. Once they identified the car, not one agent stopped to get his shotgun out of the trunk, nor did any one other than the one supervisor get his body armor and put it on. No one knew before the first shots were fired that they would be facing a rifle. And even then, if you wear your armor, a round that has hit an intermediate barrier (car door, window glass) may be stopped by pistol rated armor.

And during my years as a Fed, I did stop on several occasions on the side of the road to don body armor and obtain my shotgun, before rejoining a moving surveillance.

Conn. Trooper
April 20, 2011, 04:07 PM
Keep in mind also, if they are "undercover" then there will be times when you can't wear a vest, or have it on the seat for quick access. You are hardly undercover wearing the body armor of that era with a shotgun bolted to the dash.

I don't recall if that was the case in Miami, I read several write up's of the shooting itself, but don't recall if they were all "undercover" or not.

Sleuth
April 20, 2011, 07:46 PM
There is a vast difference between working undercover (direct intentional contact with crooks) and plain clothes. On the assignment they had, the only reason for not wearing body armor is comfort, which reverts to mindset.

I was a plain clothes investigator at the time, I know.

Conn. Trooper
April 21, 2011, 08:21 PM
I grant that, I didn't know what their assignment was, I only read write ups of the shooting itself. If I was going out looking for armed bank robbers, I am wearing my vest and keeping a long gun handy. They assumed nothing would happen, and were not prepared for what did happen.

Sleuth
April 22, 2011, 03:00 PM
Conn Trooper, as a friend of mine is prone to say, "perzackly".
I have pulled over to the side of a CA freeway, donned my body armor, got my shotgun from the trunk and moved it to the front seat, and then jumped back into a surveillance of bad guys taking guns to Mexico. I was "that guy" who took the job seriously - every day.

Why didn't I have my armor on? Because I was coming from court, just heading back to my office, and drove right into the surveillance.

Archer 9505
April 22, 2011, 05:38 PM
http://listverse.com/2009/10/14/top-10-most-audacious-shootouts-in-us-history/

When looking up the Newhall Shootout I found this.

FYI

Sleuth
April 22, 2011, 06:47 PM
An interesting list, but many of the facts are wrong in the Blair House Shooting (a class by the US Secret Service and a non-fiction book by Steven Hunter), the Norco Bank robbery (I talked at length to an involved officer), and the Miami shooting (see my post above - I have the official investigation report as well as talked to the investigating Metro-Dade Sgt.).

Conn. Trooper
April 22, 2011, 08:40 PM
Me too, which is why I go shoot on my own time, paid out of my pocket to go to Blackwater and bought my own M-4. I would much rather the state pay for it, but if they don't, then I have to. Or go flip burgers, paint houses, sell cars, whatever.

ClydeFrog
April 22, 2011, 10:06 PM
I didn't read over all the last few posts but I do take issue with the remarks about LE not being able to prepare or use proper weapons/tactics in a "plainclothes" environment.
To my knowledge, LAPD standard policy for years was that "plainclothes" detectives(D-1 to D-3 & supervisors) have a "crusier ready"(fully loaded, empty chamber) 12ga shotgun upfront in LAPD motor vehicles.
Many sworn LE officers & federal/state agents also wear "soft clothes" or uniforms that are not full on duty uniforms but help clearly ID them.
Ballcaps, vests, 5.11 pants, polo shirts, etc
Highly trained or veteran agents/LE officers can use "undercover" type clothing or gear but they have strict SOPs and must be able to act under covert conditions. Like the LAPD's SIS(special investigations section) or the highly respected "Stake-Out" squad of the NYPD.
The LAPD SIS is made up of only senior detectives each with about 15 years or more of service(with excellent records/backgrounds). The SIS has 1 LT has a supervisor. The NYPD stake out squad under well known tactics expert Jim Cirello(who later became a federal instructor at FLETC, www.fletc.gov ) had many use of force incidents w/o any problems.
Use of special weapons or tactics can be done. It just takes skill & effort.

ClydeFrog

therewolf
April 22, 2011, 10:59 PM
Yanno, I keep seeing these exceptions to the rule being trotted out.

It's always "North Hollywood" this, and "Newhall" that.

By and large, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after

year, LEOs aquit themselves admirably using their time-tested SOP, and

equipment and firepower which is more than adequate to the job at hand.

At one point or another, some exceptional circumstance is going to arise

where .40 S&W, .44 Magnum, nor M-16s will prevail, then, YET AGAIN

EVERYBODY will be an instant expert, and want LE to change it's SOP

paradigm based on yet another highly irregular, exceptional, and singular

event.

Puh-leeze!

JohnKSa
April 22, 2011, 11:53 PM
By and large, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, LEOs aquit themselves admirably using their time-tested SOP, and equipment and firepower which is more than adequate to the job at hand.It stands to reason that the training and equipment is adequate for the ordinary. It often takes exceptional situations to shake people out of complacency and reveal the flaws (or efficacy) in their training and tactics.

Just because a situation is out of the norm doesn't mean that it should be ignored or that there are no lessons that can be learned from it. In fact, just the reverse is true. In the interest of making those situations even LESS the norm, it is imperative that people study the outliers and learn the lessons they teach.

ltc444
April 23, 2011, 12:11 AM
A comment about Vest. Vest and Body armor were not in general use at the time of the Miami Shootout. My own department and the Arkansas State Police did not recieve Vest until almost two years after the incident.

Private Money had been raised for the SP but was diverted to other uses. We finally ran a money making drive and purchased Vest and donated them to individual officers. We did the same for the Deputies.

Ammo. Our Sheriff contacted his Liability Insurance carrier to determin what type of ammo to carry. They responded with the following. No 45, 38 110 Silvertip, 357 125 silvertip and 9mm 115 Silvertip.

Fortunately, he suffered a career ending (under suspecious circumstances) injury and the policy was reversed.

Training, mind set, a will to live and pure old fashioned cussedness is the key to survival.

The old Navy maximun, "Iron Men in wooden ships will defeat wooden men in Iron ships" applys in all survival situations.

ClydeFrog
April 23, 2011, 01:45 AM
Amen ltc...

;)

In late 2004, I worked briefly with a retired LE officer from a small town PD.
He told our group of PSCs(contract security on a storm recovery detail) how the city's new manager set up the department's weapons/ammunition policy. :(

Sad but true.

therewolf
April 23, 2011, 08:05 AM
Another Navy practice is to train with what you'll have to use in battle.

The lowliest seaman recruit knows practicing with anything but what you'll

be using when the SHTF is a bad idea.

Sleuth
April 23, 2011, 07:13 PM
Clyde, we (as Feds) almost always controlled the circumstances of when & where we would arrest someone, or serve a warrant. Since we did not respond to robberies, man with a gun calls, and the like, we did not need to wear armor all the time - unlike local PD's. We did have it handy, along with long guns.
Our policy was, when possible, call the locals to make an unknown risk car stop, as your local officer will make more such stops in a year than most 'Feds" make in a career. The local had their armor on, long guns up front, cage cars, PA systems, and a plan.
They liked doing it, because they got a percentage of any monies recovered. Plus, we still had to write all the reports.

And Undercover means you are 'impersonating' someone the bad guys think is also a bad guy. They do not wear armor all the time, and to do so would 'blow your cover'.
Plain clothes means you are conducting all kinds of investigations - interviewing people who may have information (but no connection to the outlaws), checking records, etc. No one knows you are an LEO unless you tell them.

ClydeFrog
April 24, 2011, 12:41 AM
I understand Sleuth's remarks but in the real world things can sometimes go sideways very quickly. :(

I recall watching a ep of Spike TV's DEA series where a citizen in Detroit MI walked up to a DEA unmarked vehicle & started talking to the "undercover" special agents. Not good.
I also had a incident around 2000/2001 where a group of "undercover" US Secret Service & ICE/CBP agents did a raid on a apartment in the property where I was working security.
The federal agents were all in a GM Suburban SUV. They all wore polo shirts & had, I kid you not: "fanny packs". They all looked they were on a golf outing & got lost. ;)
One of the special agents showed me his US Secret Service badge & federal creds. The raid was uneventful but it showed me not all LE or narcotics actions have high speed tactical uniforms or special weapons.
There was also a local sheriff's office unit that had a buy/bust op going in a crowded tourist area. A subject pulled a firearm & the narcotics deputies fired on him. That to me was poor plans & intel.
ClydeFrog

Sleuth
April 24, 2011, 11:40 AM
Clyde,
Our cars were set up so you could sit in the car with me, and not know it was an LEO car. And of course you 'know' the person who walked up to the agents was not a cooperating witness, or even another officer.

And if the USSS and ICE were doing a raid, they certainly were NOT undercover.

Could things go wrong in our day to day business? Yup, with only a slighter greater chance than them going wrong for you in your day to day business.

I'll say it again - please try to understand it:
Plain Clothes does NOT equal undercover.

ClydeFrog
April 25, 2011, 02:58 AM
I hear you S, 5x5....

My point is as any kind of sworn LE officer uniform or plainclothes you need to ready for ANYTHING!

;)

edw794
April 25, 2011, 04:19 AM
i have researched the newhall shootings extensively since the early 1970's and just became aware of this posting.

the often passed belief about newhall's "brass in the pocket(s)" is just what it is, a myth. there has never been one shred of evidence uncovered by anyone this happened at newhall for the simple reason that it did not, but bill jordan, did mention such an occurence in another shooting in his book, "no second place winner."

with the information available at this time, i cannot determine if the newhall chp officers were carrying magnum loads in their revolvers. the chp issued weapons during that time were either a smith & wesson or colt .38 revolver, though personal .357 revolvers were permitted to be carried. i know for a fact at least one of the officers was carrying a magnum revolver.

if one is interested in locating the site of this incident, it is located near where magic mountain is today in valencia, california, right off of southbound interstate 5, in southern california. the shootings occurred at a standard gas station in the area where the marie callendar restaurant stands. for more info, refer to my following submission at: http://www.odmp.org/officer/10509-officer-james-e.-pence-jr