Did anyone see the video of those policemen railing that SUV with bullets yesterday?

[FrankDrebin]

I don't care that they are cops. Anytime 10 guys shoot up the area, they better have a MUCH better reason than I have yet heard about in this case.

There are people on this forum who have defended the idea of shooting someone that is walking toward you when they don't stop after being told (which is basically exactly the kind of on-duty shooting for which a Michigan State Police trooper was just arrested and charged with second degree murder which carries up to life in prison upon conviction). This is without any evidence of a weapon being used by the bad guy. The officers in this case had a hell of a lot more cause to shoot than the standard many people here reserve for themselves, and as was already mentioned, the number of shots and number of officers mean nothing in this case, but for the second-guessing administrators who will say too many rounds were fired. So their tactics could have been better. Big deal. They don't get paid for pretty rolling-on-the-ground-to-cover-like-we-do-at-the-IPSC-club tactics. They get paid to take the bad guy into custody with minimal damage and that's what they did.

The guy in the car was unarmed--what made the cops believe they needed to open fire on him?

At what point did you know he was unarmed? Before the cops started shooting or after? I keep hearing from other people here that you don't have to wait to see a gun before you shoot someone. When you get a run on shots fired and the vehicle you try to stop subsequently flees, you don't think it would be reasonable to believe the driver had someting to do with firing shots.....in Compton?????

[Bullrock]

I find it amazing that any of you can call a suspect driving a 3-4000lb vehicle as "unarmed".

I didn't see anyone being dragged to death! Where I live is not all that hi-tech, but at least the police have spike mats.

I'm a former LEO. I have no personal cross to bear with any law enforcement agency, but I do have eyes, and I did look at the tape. What I saw was a blantant case of bad decision making, overkill, and disregard for the safety of the people these guys are being paid to protect.

[seed]

I just love all the negative feelings towards cops.

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, it is a feeling of resentment at the fact that there is a huge double-standard when it comes to accountability and entrusted responsibility in terms of firearms handling and even prowess and ability. The laws for non-cops are such that we second-class citizens are not allowed the benefit of the doubt to even have certain types of firearms with certain types of accessories and configurations locked up in our own homes. Meanwhile the privileged few, including politicians, celebrities, connected elites, and cops are exempted from such hard-core and very punitive laws. The implication is that they are more deserving, more in need, more important, and allegedly more qualified to carry and use firearms.

Obviously, it is true that cops need to have firearms on their person, but should the others categorized above have any more rights than the rest of us? NO. But they do. And in the case of cops, shouldn't they who have this huge privilege and responsibility to carry and use firearms be highly trained and proficient in both skill (hitting what they intend to hit) and in the quick thinking necessary to avoid making critical and potentially deadly mistakes and avoiding collateral damage (i.e. hitting innocent bystanders or even their fellow officers)? YES. That said, mistakes will still happen, but nothing like what happened in that video. That was absolutely ridiculous.

In the end however, what do you think will happen to these cops? My guess is that they will get at most a slap on the wrist and continue on their jobs without any additional training. Meanwhile they will continue to enjoy more access to newer and more advanced un-neutered designs of weaponry at which the second-class Californians will only be able to drool. More and more restrictive gun laws towards second-class citizens will be endorsed by police departments and passed by state legislature to further the divide. And finally, more and more such incidents will occur, most of which will be barely noticed, if at all.

One more thing. If a non-cop carrying a firearm in the state of California was involved in a justifiable shooting (i.e. self defense) which was totally clean and highly skilled, that person would be absolutely raked over the coals in comparison to what will happen to these cops. That person most certainly would face jail time and would have to lose a lot of money in the legal system (lawyers, etc).

So I hope I somewhat adequately summed up why there are some negative feelings towards cops in this incident.

[ATW525]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they were going after the guy because they believed he was involved in a shooting. The fact that he was unarmed wasn't something they could reasonably know at the time. Perhaps next time they should consult the Psychic Friend's Network so they can know whether the guy really has a gun or not?

Assuming you believe your life is danger and need to defend yourself... how many shots is too many shots? The fact is that deadly force is deadly force whether you fire one shot or one hundred shots. I've never seen any deadly force law that says deadly force is justifiable only if you fire less than X many shots.

So, the only question I see here is whether the officers reasonably believed there was grounds for employing deadly force at the time. If the investigation finds that's the case, then it's a good shoot, otherwise it's not.

[faraway]

And by endangering the entire neighborhood...these highly trained gentry have ensured that any sympathetic citizen who could report an incident, assist them in some way, or even speak up for the PD...probably won't....
The person in the car, no saint. But it seems this event was a very good example of poor training or outright panic.
As for the car being a 3,000 pound weapon, maybe so. But so is a patrol car, and it too can be used as a block or impediment. Still...100 some rounds discharged into the vehicle, immediate surroundings and area...isn't exactly safe either.
Jeesh, as bad as Compton might be, it isn't ww-2, and mayhaps bringing back 'walking fire' or fire suppression, is a bit misplaced.

[Stiletto]

Any flat crossfire making or exceeding 180º fails "good shoot" by default. And come on, they hit EACH OTHER (once).

Even if they were justified (note that a dozen casings were found where the chase started) in opening fire, the actual shooting was terrible.

[ATW525]

The quality of thier tactics, or lack there of as the case may be, has little to do with whether the deputies' use of deadly force was justified. I don't doubt that the tactical failure that caused one of the deputies to be hit in the crossfire will be addressed, regardless of the result of any investigation into the use of force.

[wayneinFL]

"Bullets smashed through windows and hit the walls of at least five homes on the residential street in Compton, California. A full investigation into the police shooting has been ordered.

A police shootout in Compton, California, has residents questioning why so many shots were fired, Joel Connable reports.

Wild Police Shooting Caught On Tape
California Police Shooting Investigated

* 120 Rounds Were Fired At Suspect’s Vehicle
* Wounded Suspect Apparently Unarmed"

Just the kind of inflammatory headlines I'd expect to see in NYC media. Sounds a lot like the ones we had recently in Palm Beach County earlier this year.

They were chasing a suspect in a shooting. The guy ran. What would youi be thinking? I'd think he was near the shooting. Running means he did SOMETHING wrong if not actually involved in shooting.

He wasn't armed with a gun? How do we know he didn't chuck it out the window somewhere?

He wasn't armed at all? Sure, he didn't have any of those little bitty 230 gr 45 jhp's I carry- he had a 28,000,000 gr. SUV.

Even the anti-cop article stated this guy was trying to run over police officers. He was a threat and had to be neutralized.

Number of rounds fired- the guy was inside an automobile. He was a moving target behind cover- auto glass and steel.


Bad tactics- I can't argue with that. Crossfire was probably due to tunnel vision. Everybody was focused on the threat, which is pretty much a natural response.

Frank Drebin:

"So their tactics could have been better. Big deal. They don't get paid for pretty rolling-on-the-ground-to-cover-like-we-do-at-the-IPSC-club tactics."

I resent that remark. IDPA guys do that rolling on the ground behind cover stuff. C class IPSC guys like me utilize the stand-out-in-the-open-and-shoot-fast-and-miss-a-lot tactics, because we know (or hope) we aren't getting shot at in a match.

I say "hope" 'cause sometimes people do focus on the target under pressure, and forget where their muzzle is in relation to the other shooters. Supports the "tunnel vision" thing I mentioned earlier. Seriously, if score makes a competitor focus on their target rather than their gun, what happens when somebody's shooting at you or running you over with a car?

[TwoGuns]

I didn't see anyone being dragged to death! Where I live is not all that hi-tech, but at least the police have spike mats.

I'm a former LEO. I have no personal cross to bear with any law enforcement agency, but I do have eyes, and I did look at the tape. What I saw was a blantant case of bad decision making, overkill, and disregard for the safety of the people these guys are being paid to protect.

Oh, so you start shooting AFTER an officer is being dragged to death. I see.

[faraway]

Of other concern is what will happen in Compton in the next few days as a result of this incident.
As already noted, the driver in this incident was an idiot.
However, presenting the general concept that someone leaving (or running) an area automatically equates to guilt, seems a bit shaky.
Independent of this case (obviously) there are areas of this country where involvement with court officials is avoided, even when people are entirely innocent. Something which was learnt by experience....
Also interesting insofar as much talk of potential reasons to shoot appears on this forum...what would some of the posters here do if their house was subject to being fired upon, maybe without knowing the reason for the fulisade. Granted, in the barrio (only place which I can speak of from experience) the occasional round hitting a house happens...but it's not that common.
Would it be OK, if we knew it was the PD doing it?....

[Topthis]

Absolutely insane!!! Very fortunate that no one in the neighborhood was hit, VERY fortunate! I wonder what caliber of weapons were being used by the officers? He was hit 4 times. Hmmmm...if we do a mass, velocity, expansion, and velocity equation here.....???

[BatmanX]

Wow.

That was a lot of rounds.
That was a horrid "road block" or whatever you want to call it.

It would be nice to see the aerial view of the incident to see how it was handled, rather than an amateur video of 10 seconds.

I have no problem with what they did.
The whole situation would have been avoided had the driver stopped when the lights and sirens came on - as you never know what may happen. ie: The shooting "lack of firepower" article that has been going stong for some time now.

[ATW525]

To the best of my knowledge, standard issue for Deputy Sheriffs in that area is the Beretta 92FS 9mm, and that appears to be what was used in the video. You can't really tell anything about the effectiveness of the rounds because there's no information on where the suspect was hit and what part of the vehicle the rounds that hit him had to penetrate before doing so.

[FrankDrebin]

"So their tactics could have been better. Big deal. They don't get paid for pretty rolling-on-the-ground-to-cover-like-we-do-at-the-IPSC-club tactics."

I resent that remark. IDPA guys do that rolling on the ground behind cover stuff. C class IPSC guys like me utilize the stand-out-in-the-open-and-shoot-fast-and-miss-a-lot tactics, because we know (or hope) we aren't getting shot at in a match.

Ah, I apologize then..

However, presenting the general concept that someone leaving (or running) an area automatically equates to guilt, seems a bit shaky.

I couldn't care less about guilt. I care about reasonable suspicion and probable cause. As far as all of the rounds flying around the neighborhood, how many do you figure missed the truck or at least weren't stopped by the truck? A 9mm hollowpoint is not likely to go through and through an SUV unless through the glass. What were the chances of any of those missed rounds hitting anyone considering the number of stray rounds fired in the ghetto every year that actually hit someone accidentally? You're in a high density urban area. Guess what your backstop is likely to be? A HOUSE!! That's just the price you pay for living in the city. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot because I had a house instead of an earthen berm behind my target.

As far as resenting the cops because you can't play with the kinds of guns that SOME of them carry, I bet you REALLY hate Norm Abrams when he builds an exact reproduction of a Chippendale buffet in 40 minutes....

And incidentally, all you have to do to carry the same toys as the cops is to do the same thing they did to qualify to carry them. Namely, stay out of trouble to the extent that you can pass the background check, be able to take a psychological test that doesn't make you look like a gun crazy nut case, and go through the police academy. Age is barely even a factor anymore.

[Wraith]

"That's just the price you pay for living in the city."

Wow.

Come on. This shooting was a poor display. Very poor. :barf:

[faraway]

"Thats the price you pay for living in a big city"....

Not everyone has the means or circumstances to live where they want. No doubt many in Compton would leave if it were possible.
Does that price include potentially having your house fired into as a convenient 'berm'. And are we to assume that ones child, wife or simple visitor to that house is also included in the price?
The RO's in this mess, acted irresponsibly. If this same event were transposed to being some 'civilian' who opened up under a mistaken perception of SD, and emptied an AK or Beretta or etc, then a hue and cry would be raised to have the him hung...Or worse. But seemingly, for some,a uniform excuses conduct beyond a proper response.
Very disturbing, both the initial event and some of the responses to it.
Fortunately, much of what we say here is just conjecture, or anonymous chest beating, so mayhaps it's less important than it initially appears.
Or more so, insofar as this is a public forum.

[Doug.38PR]

Wow, I sure set off a chain reaction of discussions with this thread.

A few thoughts came to mind listening to these various responses.

1) Police are the ones (not all but there is a a strong attitude out there among police, polititans and citizens) that think they are the only ones who are "qualified" and "safe" to own guns that if any one of us (citizens) own so much as a pocket knife we are seen as some vicious dangerous criminal. I carry a gun and went through the CHL class and all but if my coat (or yours) gets blown the wrong way in the wind and someone sees the gun, the police can seize my gun and even file charges if they so desire...and depending on how the political judge "feels" at the moment or how emotionally hyped the jury is put selected from a basically gun scared culture (not based on objective law but on feeling) I could get into trouble. But, as one other poster put it, these cops can spray a neighborhood with 120 rounds and get a slap on the wrist. Frankly, now that I have a CHL, I don't even like being treated by the law as some kind of special privliged person that has a responsibility over everyone else. (I'm told that is it is possible for someone to charge me in a law suit if I don't use my gun when they think I should have in a situation) It all creates an elitist mentality over something that is a basic human right. The right of self defense. It is a responsibilty and a right to carry a weapon, not something the state gives you or takes away from you. Personally, I think everyone old enough ought to be permitted to carry a gun without a license and carry open if they think it prudent. Some in here may think that extreme but to me it's just the basic right of self defense. Personally, it is our responsibility first and foremost to defend ourselves and neighbors not the police (especially not if they are like these guys in the video ) I'm not anti-cop or anything but they (police and polititans) shouldn't be anti-people. This video shows that police are even LESS qualified to carry a gun than any citizen they may complain of in their current state of arrogant thinking.

2) This incident makes a good case for police to switch back to revolvers. They might be a little more conservative with how many shots they fire. Or at least trained how to make ONE shot count.

[ATW525]

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot because I had a house instead of an earthen berm behind my target.

I think that sums it up perfectly. When it's my life on the line the last thing I'm going to worry about is what accidental targets my stray rounds might hit, unless there's innocent bystanders clearly visable along the line of fire. The chance of hitting somebody if my bullet goes through a house isn't high enough to be worth risking my life over. As long as my shooting was justified, state law has this to say, "Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct."

No, I'm not an LEO. It's not about the priviledges of officers over the average joe... it's the right of anyone to defend themselves when they feel thier life is in immediate danger, whether they wear a uniform or not. There's few differences in the law in my state between justifiable use of force by a police officer and justifiable use of force by a civillian.

Also, taken individually, these officers fired 12 rounds each on average. How many people here carry that amount of more ammunition for thier CCW? Why do you carry so much ammo if using it is reckless and criminal?

[FrankDrebin]

This video shows that police are even LESS qualified to carry a gun than any citizen they may complain of in their current state of arrogant thinking.

Which citizens did "they" complain of, and who is "they"?

If this same event were transposed to being some 'civilian' who opened up under a mistaken perception of SD, and emptied an AK or Beretta or etc, then a hue and cry would be raised to have the him hung...Or worse.

Post 10 cases in the past 5 years where citizens were hung "or worse" because they fired too many rounds in a justified shooting. As I stated before, there people on this forum who think it's OK to shoot someone who doesn't stop walking toward them in a parking lot after they're told to stop. I posed info. on a Michigan State trooper charged with second degree murder for shooting an unarmed crazy guy. How does that fit with your alleged "double standard" theory? And what does their perception of South Dakota have to do with anything?? What is "SD"?? Super Danger? Sleazy Dude?? Sick Dog??

1) Police are the ones (not all but there is a a strong attitude out there among police, polititans and citizens) that think they are the only ones who are "qualified" and "safe" to own guns that if any one of us (citizens) own so much as a pocket knife we are seen as some vicious dangerous criminal.

And you have objective data to back that up, or you're just basing it on a couple of anecdotes?

[ATW525]

An example of a death resulting from a stray civie bullet without any charges being filed against the shooter...

March, 1995... in Franklin Township, NJ (yep, I said NJ of all places), Brenda Wolf was fatally shot by a stray bullet from her husband's gun when he attempted to stop a robbery at Jeffrey Scott Fine Jewelry. Since the shooting was justifiable, her husband wasn't charged with a crime... and in fact the ones who robbed the place were charged with felony murder for Brenda Wolf's death.

[FlyinGN]

the guy was not unarmed. Betcha he tossed the gun out. They found casings from his truck in the begining of the gun fight. He was also high on coke driving around the neighborhood for hours and would not stop. I say he got what he deserved.. I wish one of the cops was a better shot tho..

[haskell]

Did you see the video of all the monday morning quarterback-non LEO-I go to the range with many guns-hundreds of rounds to fire to impress the other paper safe boys. Its really amusing. Don't miss it.

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, so the suspect did not have a gun (hence was not actually shooting at the cops)? That means the cop that was shot was shot by friendly fire, right? If somebody has an update on the story, I would appreciate the link.

I had a chance to shoot with an LA Sheriff's Deputy recently. I was fairly impressed with his marksmanship at distance (better than mine) and his safe gun handling. The guy I shot was was 180 different from the LA deputy seen in the video that was pointing his gun at the camera crew.

Some LEOs most definitely do get proper training, some don't. Of those that do, some retain what they learned and many don't.

[TheeBadOne]

It never fails to amaze me that Keyboard Commandos can instantly grasp an entire situation from 15 seconds of shakey night time video...

The lack of information never stops those determined to judge from judging. They even willing jump in the fray without consulting the limited information that is available. For instance, in the shots vs hits category. How many of the judgmental ones missed the obvious fact that Officers were shooting at the tires?
How many missed the reason the first shot was fired? (SUV tried to run over an Officer, if you have sound you can hear it's engine rev and tires squeal, shot follows immediately).
The biggest problem to overcome in a situation like this most likely will never be overcome. The simple fact that unless you've been there/done that, you can't understand a situation like this, period. You can play paint-ball, shoot paper targets on a designed course with backstops and a Range Officer, but nothing substitutes for cold, hard, grimy reality.

Some folks are hung up on "he pointed/gestured at a cameraman".

Think about this for a moment. You're in a gun fight. Gun shots are ringing out. Some are from your fellow Officers, some may be from someone else. That someone may be a vehicle occupant, or may be from someone else in the area who's taking advantage of an opportunity to take a shot at the Police. You see movement coming up on your side, where no movement should be. It's a person (hard to tell much else as it's dark), and they are pointing something at you...


This does not mean others can not comment, it just means they can not fully understand a fluid/dynamic situation and all that goes with it.

Were there mistakes made in this particular incident? Yes, you bet.


I don't think any of the Cops are saying there weren't mistakes made. But there's a world of difference between saying "I think that could have gone better" (which most LEO's are saying) and saying "LOL OMG what an idiot the cops are all fvck ups LOL OMG!!!!!" (which is what a lot of other people are saying).

All the best

TBO

[ATW525]

The guy I shot was was 180 different from the LA deputy seen in the video that was pointing his gun at the camera crew.

Hopefully you're referring to the deputy you shot with and not a deputy you shot...