The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 1, 2001, 09:42 PM   #1
E505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2001
Posts: 276
And they say we are the ones who don't need hi-cap mags...

369 Bullets Fired In Lubbock SWAT Snafu

Geeeeesh....

The deadly SWAT attack against a Lubbock man in July unleashed an astounding 369 rounds, one of which killed an officer; and the man under siege never fired a shot, an FBI ballistics investigation has confirmed.

The F.B.I.'s Lori Bailey told the Lightning Tuesday that the tests had been concluded, and results had been returned to the Lubbock police. She would not comment on what those tests showed, but sources tell the Lightning that it pointed to a case of friendly fire.

Bailey did say the tests confirmed the investigation of local police, and she lauded LPD's thoroughness in the case.

The Lightning reported last week that sources named "one Lubbock SWAT member" as the shooter who killed Sgt. Kevin Cox, in a raid on the city home.

Though not officially released the final report faults a deadly crossfire set up by SWAT. The officer who killed Cox has not been publicly named.

In the wake of the shooting Lubbock City Manager Bob Cass put Police Chief Ken Walker on paid administrative leave, pending the outcome of the investigation.

Chief Walker has been restricted from wearing a department uniform and cannot enter the Lubbock Police Department while on leave.

"During this administrative leave, do not interfere in any way in the pending investigation into this matter," the city warned.

"You will immediately surrender your police badge, police identification, city issued firearm, and any other indicia of office to me."

Lubbock police were forced to release the man they jailed as the killer of the SWAT officer, because evidence showed he could not have fired the fatal shot.

Richard Robinson was released from jail on July 20th. Robinson, 47, had been charged with capital murder in the July 13 shooting death of Cox during a standoff between Robinson and the Lubbock Police Department. Robinson, an unemployed automobile mechanic, barricaded himself inside his home at 3229 87th St. after setting furniture and household goods on fire in his front yard.

In the confrontation with police, the details of which have been confused and contradictory, both the officer and homeowner were wounded. A second policeman received minor injuries.

Official statements early on downplayed the friendly fire possibility.

"That is so baseless and contrary to the evidence that it's an absolute insult to Kevin Cox's memory," police spokesman Bill Morgan told local reporters early this week.

"That's an absolute affront to the guys that have to live with the memory of having Kevin slain in front of them." Now, however, police have been forced to abandon that tactic, and disturbing questions have arisen about what really happened, and the police actions that followed.

Almost a week later Robinson's wife was arrested for "interfering with police," as she tried to enter the family home. An intense search of the premises for more than a week failed to find evidence which would incriminate the suspect.
E505 is offline  
Old August 1, 2001, 11:28 PM   #2
JimR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 909
Let me guess - another skirmish in the failed War on (some) Drugs?
JimR is offline  
Old August 1, 2001, 11:35 PM   #3
HK1
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2001
Posts: 160
since when is lighting your furniture on fire a crime....i dont see where this was a case for a swat unit......send out a few deputies skilled in domestic violence to end this situation..not that one can be skilled in DV...seems to me that when cops are given very expensive toys an attitude devolops of invincibility and a psychological attitude of wanting to try em out....this was not a case for a swat team///funny part is the cops blamed the homeowner as usual..im surprised they did not frame this guy by shooting a round into the wall and then tell us mind controlled zombies...see see...he did it...not us....maybe for once the media actually had a reporter who did his/her job
HK1 is offline  
Old August 1, 2001, 11:52 PM   #4
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
If I remember correctly, it wasn't his furniture. It was the clothes and other items that belonged to his wife. And nobody has the 'right' to burn his wife's stuff without her permission. And particularly not to torch his wife's clothing as a way of making a statement.

LawDog
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 12:09 AM   #5
HK1
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2001
Posts: 160
if thats even the case...torching your wife panties is not considered an act that would need the swat team to address the situation....i guess when my wife throws out my fur-fish-and game mags this could be considered an act that would compel the swat team to set up camp on my front line...botom line is a cop freaked and opened up.........now the police force is on damage control and passing the blame...usual tactic...
HK1 is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 07:54 AM   #6
Pepperbox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2001
Posts: 166
What's a HI-CAP mag? My Browning 9mm uses 13 rd. mag... it is the standard mag for that firearm... anything less is a LOW-CAP mag.

JMO
Pepperbox is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 08:31 AM   #7
Jeff Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 1998
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,753
Boy ... this sounds just terrible. I'll be interested in hearing how it is finally judged.

If the target of this military assault really didn't fire a shot, I would hope more of the LEO community would be disgusted with this action as well. [And, having said that, I am not saying that the target firing a shot would have made a full scale military assault completely logical.] As a matter of fact, I'll simply say that if more LEO's don't speak out against the overuse of SWAT, then I'd say we're getting into deeper trouble every day.

While no one has the "right" to destroy someone else's private property, this sounds simply absurd. 369 rounds? Fellow officer killed? Target had been burning his wife's property in the front yard? Target never fired a shot? LawDog, I would hope you would have more to say on this one ... you're a straight talker ... let down the blue veil for a moment, and critique this situation. Do you have concerns about such SWAT stories?

Sad that this occurred in Texas.

Regards from AZ
__________________
I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.
Jeff Thomas is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 08:41 AM   #8
Libertarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 1999
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
i dont see where this was a case for a swat unit
(To paraphrase) When you have a shiney, expensive hammer, nearly everything looks like a nail.
__________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." JFK


My other favorite forum is The Armed Citizen

My PGP key is 0x780B7C0A
Libertarian is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 09:08 AM   #9
DAVID NANCARROW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2000
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 1,469
I think any rational human being ought to be disgusted with this situation, if reported correctly by the press. SWAT teams may be necessary in this day, but with all the firepower they need and should possess, adequate and continuing training should be the norm. I can't see taking the weapons away from SWAT teams, because they are normally called when the beat cops are overwhemed, but this case seems like overkill unless there is more to the story than what is being told to us. Just because the man did not fire at the police does not mean he did not have a dangerous past, but if the full story is in front of us, it looks like a case of terrible over reaction, and should be addressed in a manner that will prevent it happening again while bringing those truly responsible, in addition to the shooter, an appropriate punishment.
DAVID NANCARROW is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 09:51 AM   #10
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
What Libertarian said. This is attrocious and hair-raising. 369 shots fired at a target who never fired, and the predicate crime was burning some articles in his lawn? Good heavens. I didn't realize this was a capital crime. What the hell mind-set would even deploy SWAT in this case? And how long will it be before Mr. Robinson receives an apology and fair compensation for his injuries and the damage inflicted, one presumes, upon his house? Hell no. Cover your ass and pass the lawyers [no, that's not a jab at attorneys, but at some of their clients].

This story, as shoddily reported as it has been (see the original thread), makes me sick.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat
Mr. James is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 10:04 AM   #11
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
Aw, come on, guys. This CF is nothing new. Who here hasn't seen one cop have an AD/ND and the whole firing line starts shooting.

The mall ninjas have equipment that they do not train with and thus are more prone to use it. It would be interesting to see how much this SQUAT team actually trained.

The brass buys them all the toys that everyone else has, but does not budget any money for training. Training is always the first line item cut and then the politicians wonder why the lawyers eat them alive when the mall ninjas screw up.

They would have been far better off with used 870s, their own pistols and several trips to Thunder Ranch than all the usual Dreaded Demon of Darkness crap (complete with laster-phaser and wall-climbing boots) that is in vogue nowadays.

369 rounds? What the heck were they shooting at?
KSFreeman is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 10:10 AM   #12
Southla1
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Location: Jeanerette, La. Near the
Posts: 1,999
369 Rounds? Geez they should have put the whole damn force on UNPAID permenant leave and hire some non JBT type officers.
Southla1 is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 03:33 PM   #13
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
Okay.

Ground rules: I wasn't there, and neither were you. The only information that I have has been gleaned from the press and from talking to people who may have been there or from talking to people who know people who may have been there.

I have no problem with the initial deployment of the SWAT team. It was a domestic violence call, the subject was apparently highly agitated, was engaged in destructive behavior, had access to weapons, had barricaded himself in his house and was refusing to talk to the officers on the scene. The barricading and refusing to talk to the officers on the scene renders the officers on the scene useless -- they can't resolve the situation, so they were forced to go to the next step to try to resolve the situation.

I have no problem with the break-and-rake that Officer Cox did. They broke out a window, moved the shutters out of the way and were attempting to talk to the subject from outside the residence via the window.

I have a bit of a problem with the simultaneous break-and-rake. That is to say, another officer broke a window at the same time that Officer Cox did. I would not have broken more than one window at a time for the purpose of tralking to a barricaded subject, but that's neither here nor there.

Now we get into the realm of speculation.

I have been told that the broken windows were on opposite sides of the same room.
If this is so, and I have no means of knowing if it is or isn't a fact, I would not have done that. It sets up a cross-fire situation.

Now, Lubbock SWAT may have set themselves up in this cross-fire scenario, again I am only postulating from what I have been told, with one group of officers on the --we'll call it the north -- side of the house, and another group on the -- we'll call it the south -- side of the house.

Then a bullet, we don't know from whom, comes through the house and kills Officer Cox while he is talking to, or at, the subject.

The officers who were with Officer Cox, finding themselves under fire that had killed one of their number, immediately return fire. I would have done the same thing, as would anyone else.

The return fire travels through the house and exits among the group on the other side, and that group -- finding themselves under fire -- promptly return the favor.

Each group winds up shooting at the other group, with each group thinking the fire directed at them is coming from inside the house.

IF this is how the scene went down , then whoever directed the deployment of the two groups of SWAT needs to take the hit for the whole mess.

That's a really big "IF", though.

LawDog
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 04:24 PM   #14
gRAVEdgN
Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2000
Location: Denham Springs, LA, USA
Posts: 73
Thank you LawDog for the sane/rational analysis.
Lets hope more facts come to light and the person/persons responsible get properly prosecuted.

For instance the suspect could of pointed his weapon at one of the officers with out firing it. Which could of triggered a leathal force response. Just a possibility.
That would make him partialy responsible along with the person in charge that put the two teams in a cross fire situation.

Big rule for long life: NEVER point a gun at a law officer.

Ric
__________________
"Very simply, gun control is people control. Those with the guns control the people unless the people also have guns to ensure their freedom" *Unknown*
gRAVEdgN is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 04:56 PM   #15
Southla1
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 19, 2000
Location: Jeanerette, La. Near the
Posts: 1,999
What LawDog said may well have been what happened, but did it take 369 rounds to discover this mistake?
Southla1 is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 04:58 PM   #16
HK1
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2001
Posts: 160
like I said..when the crap goes bad for cops they immediately blame anybody and everything except themselves....what type of guns did this guy have?....sounds like the cops are grasping for air as they did in the diallo case...now I am not anti cop...as an ACO officer i work closely with the cops...chief is my boss...but..you give these guys shiney new mp5s and they are going to wanna test em out..a DV is no reason for a swat team...an setting fire to your own damn furniture is not a crime...i agree..sounds like a training issue...the guy may have been a real jerk..whats next on the agenda..burning your trash in a burn barrel will bring out the stasi..geez
HK1 is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 05:10 PM   #17
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
when the crap goes bad for cops they immediately blame anybody and everything except themselves
Goodness, I was under the impression that the subject was freed immediately upon the cops discovering that he didn't have anything to do with Officer Cox's death.

Quote:
a DV is no reason for a swat team
You haven't been to a whole lot of Domestic Violence calls, I take it.

Any rate, the Domestic Vilence was not the reason for the SWAT call-out. Domestic Violence plus the barricade plus the destruction of proerty not belonging to the subject plus the subject refusing to deal with the responding officers plus the agitated state of the subject -- that is a reason for a SWAT team.

Quote:
an setting fire to your own damn furniture is not a crime
Considering that it wasn't his furniture, I really don't see where you're going with this one.

LawDog
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 05:24 PM   #18
HK1
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2001
Posts: 160
he was charged with murder...he was freed after they found out the bullet in the dead officer was one of their own..and not fired by this individual.......the furniture may have been his if he bought it...was this couple married or living together?...just depends who bought the furniture..again I will stress...DV is no reason for a swat team.....LD..I will repsect your opinion and I am not trying to be biased in this subject material....
HK1 is offline  
Old August 2, 2001, 06:44 PM   #19
papercut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Cobb County, Georgia, USA, near the Big Chicken
Posts: 922
Does anyone have a link for this story?
__________________
Sins can be forgiven, ills can be cured, but stupidity is forever.
papercut is offline  
Old August 3, 2001, 03:30 AM   #20
1 Patriot-of-many
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 13, 2001
Posts: 141
Leave it to a police officer to try and justify 369 rounds into a residence for destruction of clothing and refusal to talk to the cops.
What's next on your defense list? Bringing SWAT in on the rooftops to snipe jaywalkers???
How about mounting some 20mm cannons on the surveliance helicopters to stop that pesky speeding problem???
Or maybe SWAT could get a hold of some claymores for people who drive in exit entrances to parking lots?

JBT types make me sick...Is it any wonder lots of the populace are becoming increasingly hostile to the average cop on the beat,when you guys defend this kind of crap???:barf:

As long as you guys defend this outrageous conduct and tactics,You know the MILITARY operation mindset,you will continue to alienate your previous supporters.
1 Patriot-of-many is offline  
Old August 3, 2001, 04:11 AM   #21
twoblink
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 1999
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Posts: 2,025
Of course my question is, when did they discover this snarfu? Like the 160th round? Maybe 220th round? What about when it hit the big 300? No? 300 rounds, not good enough?

Of course the reverse question is, after 369 shots, you didn't kill the man you were trying to kill, only wounded him??? Right, the 771st shot would have done him in, if only you had the chance to fire more. Right...

Albert
twoblink is offline  
Old August 3, 2001, 09:23 AM   #22
Jeff Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 1998
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,753
Source stories on the incident:

http://sanantoniolightning.com/lubb1.html

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/keye/20...tandoff_1.html

LawDog, I hear you, but let me offer a few observations that I think you'll be forced to agree with:

1. "Domestic violence" - and, I'll note, what I've read on this incident so far indicates it was more like a "domestic disturbance". I've not seen anything regarding the husband using violence on the wife.

These days, this can simply mean the police are called if the neighbors hear / see a loud argument between the parties. Especially if it moves out of the house and into plain view. Bingo ... the police are called. The system grinds into gear ...

2. "Barricading" - great term, for inflaming a situation and justifying all kinds of mayhem. As far as I can tell, I "barricade" myself if I simply walk into my home, close the door, lock it, and refuse to answer the door if anyone rings the bell or knocks. I'm sure all of us have "barricaded" ourselves in our homes quite often. So, if you have a loud argument on the front lawn, the police are called, and one party has gone into the house to cool off, and refuses to answer the door ... now we have a "barricaded suspect". [Rather like the radical leftist system of using inflammatory language to destroy civil rights ...]

3. "Refusing to talk to the police" - frankly, I've joined the camp that believes that some LEO's see "contempt of cop" as being a felony. Some LEO's. In the story under discussion, the guy was clearly quite irritated. So now we have the authorities show up at his home and insist on engaging him in conversation. He doesn't want to talk. And, the neighbors indicate ... he has guns!. Gee ... now we have an opportunity for a major military assault. On one man.

One man who had a major blowup with his wife, and decided to tell her to FO by burning her / their private property in the front yard. And it ends with 369 rounds fired through his home, the death of a police officer, and initial claims the man fired "at least 30" rounds and killed the officer. But in fact, the LEO's killed their own man.

And we have some discussion that one of the real problems here was tactics ... the SWAT team foolishly set up a crossfire that endangered their own.

The real problem does indeed appear to look like the overuse of SWAT. At least in this case, that overuse didn't result in the death of the targeted civilian.

I can't help but think that in earlier years of law enforcement, a wise beat cop would have determined there was no serious crime, would have hung around a little while to confirm the situation was calming, might have tried to contact the guy (who he probably knew by first name) to make sure he was OK, and then would have come back later when the situation was calmer. While we don't live in earlier times, I find it hard to believe that SWAT in a situation like this is really necessary or optimal. There have to be better solutions.

I know this probably seems inconceivable to an LEO, but I think we need to get to the point where an LEO can accept a "civilian's" refusal to talk without deciding that is a crime.


Now, I do recognize and agree that none of us were there, and there is a lot we don't know. There are times we need SWAT. And, it is not reasonable to expect LEO's to be perfect.

But, I will also agree that we're reaching a point where many LEO's seem comfortable in expanding the use of SWAT to the point where it is certainly damaging relations with their communities. That cannot be a good development for anyone.

Regards from AZ
__________________
I refuse to live in a state which fails to recognize my family's fundamental right of self defense. I refuse to give that state my labor, my taxes, or any other support for such an uncivilized and barbaric policy. In other words ... Texas, Yes ... California, No.
Jeff Thomas is offline  
Old August 3, 2001, 10:08 AM   #23
WYO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2001
Posts: 365
1. Regarding the number of rounds fired. I wasn't there and all I know about this incident is what people have written here. Put yourself in this situation. You and your 5-10 best buddies, carrying all of your favorite "stuff," believe that you are holding the perimeter on a barricaded subject who has exhibited some bizarre behavior. You then observe one of your buddies get shot from inside the location, and you believe that it came from the barricaded subject inside. Would you and your other buddies defend your wounded buddy, try to get him to safety/medical attention, and prevent the bad guy from skipping more rounds down the street at you and others? How many rounds do you think will go into the location? I submit it will be a lot, and it won't take but seconds. I am not suggesting that people agree with this, but take a minute to understand the dynamics. Also note that I am not addressing the tactics that created the crossfire.

2. Disturbance calls, of which domestic violence is a subset, take up a substantial amount of police resources. I was in one place where those calls took about 50% of street cop's time. It takes about 40 minutes to set up a true SWAT callout. No department has the resources to treat each disturbance, or even each domestic violence call, as a SWAT callout. The overwhelming majority of calls are handled in one of the ways that Jeff Thomas suggested as the preferred alternatives. It takes some form of triggering event that cause officers to call out SWAT, and I submit that it is usually more than just a barricaded subject or someone who refuses to talk to police. In domestic violence situations, police have two problems, the immediate incident, and the harm that will come to the victim if activity is allowed to continue unheeded. I think the police would be somewhat remiss if they just said, "oh, it's no big deal, the guy is just burning his wife's property on the front lawn." What happens if they come back an hour later and it's the wife on top of the fire? (Also note that while burning one's property is generally OK if no one is in danger, if someone's life is in danger or a neighbor's property is in danger is becomes a felony in a lot of places.) There also are issues about the possible necessity of an involuntary commitment for psychiatric issues. Again, I wasn't there, so I don't know what triggered the callout, but I would bet it was something that caused a street cop to believe, in good faith, that this was more than an ordinary domestic.

3. SWAT callouts take time and money. They cause diversion of resources that result in backlogs on calls for service. They call for overtime at the SWAT and patrol levels. They eat into budgets. As a result, administrators prefer them as a resource to be used sparingly, when established criteria are met.

Last edited by WYO; August 3, 2001 at 11:22 AM.
WYO is offline  
Old August 3, 2001, 01:13 PM   #24
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
1 Patriot-of-many, are you done? I want to make sure you are finished slamming me before I respond.

Jeff,
Quote:
1. "Domestic violence" - and, I'll note, what I've read on this incident so far indicates it was more like a "domestic disturbance". I've not seen anything regarding the husband using violence on the wife.
I agree, with the death of the officer any violence that may have been visited upon the wife has been ignored. it doesn't mean that the wife was assaulted, and it doesn't mean that she wasn't -- we simply don't know.

Quote:
3. "Refusing to talk to the police" - frankly, I've joined the camp that believes that some LEO's see "contempt of cop" as being a felony. Some LEO's. In the story under discussion, the guy was clearly quite irritated. So now we have the authorities show up at his home and insist on engaging him in conversation. He doesn't want to talk. And, the neighbors indicate ... he has guns!. Gee ... now we have an opportunity for a major military assault. On one man.
Okay, now look at it from the cops point-of-view: I have the wife telling me her side of the story -- a side that I guarantee does not nominate the husband for sainthood. Now, I want to hear the husbands side of the story and give him a chance to refute the wife's allegations to my satisfaction.

And, because I don't want to have to spend the next hour-and-a-half booking the poor schmuck into jail, I am going to insist (as you put it) that he talk to me. If he still refuses to talk to me, then I am probably going to have no choice but to arrest him, based on his wife's testimony.

Yes, in earlier times, a wise beat cop would have handled it in the manner that you mention. In earlier times when the wise old beat cop told someone to come out and talk, that person did so.

Prior to the 'Enlightenment' of the 1970's, if you'd have slammed a door in the face of the wise old beat cop and ignored him, more than likely it would have resulted in said wise old beat cop dragging you out of your house and adjusting your attitude on your front porch.

Quote:
I know this probably seems inconceivable to an LEO, but I think we need to get to the point where an LEO can accept a "civilian's" refusal to talk without deciding that is a crime.
Again, as I pointed out above, refuse to talk all you want, but if your wife/friend/drinking buddy has accused you of the entire Penal Code worth of crimes and you refuse to talk to me so that I can try to sort the mess out, then you're probably going to jail and once the 'cuffs are on it's too late to tell me your side of the story.

LawDog
__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old August 3, 2001, 02:16 PM   #25
ChrisR246
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2000
Location: Schnecksville, PA
Posts: 188
WYO, you said

Quote:
Put yourself in this situation. You and your 5-10 best buddies, carrying all of your favorite "stuff," believe that you are holding the perimeter on a barricaded subject who has exhibited some bizarre behavior. You then observe one of your buddies get shot from inside the location, and you believe that it came from the barricaded subject inside. Would you and your other buddies defend your wounded buddy, try to get him to safety/medical attention, and prevent the bad guy from skipping more rounds down the street at you and others? How many rounds do you think will go into the location? I submit it will be a lot, and it won't take but seconds. I am not suggesting that people agree with this, but take a minute to understand the dynamics. Also note that I am not addressing the tactics that created the crossfire.
I will respectfully submit that one of the SWAT memebers was not in this situation. Since we now know the suspect never fired, one of the cops started firing, either accidentally(finger on trigger perhaps) or because of bad judgement (mistook one of his best buds for the suspect). But certainly that one cop did NOT start firing because he saw one of his team members go down. The rest of the team must have simply fired blind on the house when the first shots were fired. It sound slike a "mad minute" and I am not convinced that is an appopriate tactic for law enforcement.
ChrisR246 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14243 seconds with 7 queries