FX "44 Minutes" -- LAPD FullAuto Shootout


PDA

lapidator
February 4, 2003, 10:32 PM
Anyone see the trailer for the special show, "44 Minutes" on FX.

http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/news/jan03/44.html

This should do us well for the AWB. :rolleyes:

:banghead:

lapidator

If you enjoyed reading about "FX "44 Minutes" -- LAPD FullAuto Shootout" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kahr carrier
February 4, 2003, 10:38 PM
OH great.:scrutiny:

Blackhawk
February 4, 2003, 10:40 PM
Shouldn't be a problem. It's history. Criminals v. Cops. The cops weren't prepared. That should have been different.

However, if there's an underlying anti bias, that will be a corruption of history....

lapidator
February 4, 2003, 10:45 PM
If there is an anti-gun bias?

This is going to fry us -- say bye-bye to the sunset.

lapidator

Blackhawk
February 4, 2003, 10:49 PM
An anti gun bias is completely irrelevant to the story.

DeltaElite
February 4, 2003, 10:54 PM
I still don't have a rifle available to me.
I have to hope that one of the "Golden Children" are on duty and can come by with a rifle. :rolleyes:

Of course, I have heard that some guys carry slug for their shotguns, in violation of dept policy. ;)
Of course the slug won't penetrate the armor that the bad guys had on, but if you step on a tube of toothpaste, stuff comes squirting out of the ends. :evil:

I dunno if it is anti gun or not, guess I will have to watch it.

Thumper
February 4, 2003, 11:56 PM
If they're honest, and show that the cops ended up borrowing "civilian" ARs from the local gunstore it shouldn't be too bad.

Remember, those boys were on full rock 'n roll. Ban sunset would have nothing to do with them.

Justin
February 5, 2003, 02:56 AM
Speaking of which, where did the bank robbers get their weapons from?

Matt G
February 5, 2003, 05:36 AM
Funny thing is, a coupla cops with M94 thutty-thuttys could have ended that mess, and no one goes into hysterics about such things. I had to laugh afterword when the police chief said that they were going to arm their officers with carbines and .45s to meet this new threat. I wondered what Matt Dillon would have thought of this "new threat", with his lever carbine and .45 at his side.

;)

Peetmoss
February 5, 2003, 07:23 AM
If it wasn't for the that gun shop having evil looking guns it would have been even worse for the LAPD. Also if there honest it will also show no matter how illegal it is the criminals don't care one bit. And that if you want something you can get it no matter how long it has been illegal.

TexasVet
February 6, 2003, 12:50 AM
IIRC, they were illegally converted to full auto and sold in Mexico.
I guess that makes the guns illegal immigrants on top of everything else.

QKRTHNU
February 7, 2003, 01:06 PM
Didn't the local gun shop save the day?

106rr
February 7, 2003, 01:32 PM
There was a two hour piece on Discovery Channel that mixed file footage with "re enactment" It was appalling, a great distortion of history. It did say that SWAT was there and set up a command post in firniture store some blocks away but refused to attack until all information was available.
There is no info given on the BGs. Where did they come from, what kind of criminal history etc. While we a plethora of background on Platt and Mattix we have nothing on the LA duo.
We do know that they were perhaps the worst marksmen in history. they must have missed clean hundreds of times in succession.

Hkmp5sd
February 7, 2003, 01:37 PM
If they do it correctly, this movie could help us with the AW ban. The guns the BG's used were not "Assault Weapons" as defined by federal law but unregistered machineguns which are illegal.

The cops, due to political correctness, did not have the firepower actually in their hands to end the incident. The average patrolman did not have access to a carbine that would defeat the BG's body armor.

The cops then went to a civilian gun store and borrowed rifles that could defeat the body armor. Ironically, the rifles they borrowed are banned by California's more restrictive assault weapon ban and thus are not legal for California residents to own or possess. What would have happened if the cops ran into the gun store only to find a rack of .22LR bolt guns?

And a followup at the end of the movie could show that the gun store where the cops borrowed AR-15's is now out of business because of California's restrictive gun laws which prevented them from doing business in a manner and with products that would have allowed them to make a profit.

M1911
February 7, 2003, 01:49 PM
the police chief said that they were going to arm their officers with carbines and .45s IIRC, one LAPD officer was quoted as saying they were going to get 45mm handguns. Now that would be a one-shot stop;) But they'd have to put trailer hitches on the cruisers to haul them. On the other hand, no need for a retention holster -- too big to steal

TheOtherOne
February 7, 2003, 02:57 PM
There was a two hour piece on Discovery Channel that mixed file footage with "re enactment" It was appalling, a great distortion of history. It did say that SWAT was there and set up a command post in firniture store some blocks away but refused to attack until all information was available.
I thought the same thing! It was really pissing me off. I don't know why I kept watching it. I kept switching back and forth between that and the "D.C. Snipers" on another Discovery channel.

They should of just stuck to the actual footage instead of their re-enactment crap. In their re-enactments it seemed like the guys had a different kind of AK in every scene!

Med 10
February 7, 2003, 03:03 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how little cops know about firearms.

Peetmoss
February 7, 2003, 05:27 PM
45mm thats a freaking canon. Hey look at how entertaining the high speed chases would be :rolleyes:

Dave Williams
February 7, 2003, 06:02 PM
"Of course, I have heard that some guys carry slug for their shotguns, in violation of dept policy."

I had a chance on Wed to shoot a level2 kevlar panel with a 1oz WW slug from a 18" 870. WOW!

The LAPD cops on scene would have been able to end that fight had they had slugs on board their shotguns. The internal injuries from the impact would have put them down IMO.

Dave

waterdog
February 7, 2003, 10:47 PM
I think slugs would have ended the fight pretty damn quick.

I have put sabot slugs through abandoned vehicles, they will go through both doors with the windows rolled down.

From what I have read, some departments are going to .40 and 9mm carbines as a long arm. What a mistake, they should have nothing less than a shotgun with slugs, a .223, or 7.62x39 rifle.

waterdog

tyme
February 7, 2003, 11:01 PM
We do know that they were perhaps the worst marksmen in history. they must have missed clean hundreds of times in succession.If a man is shooting at me, I would much prefer that he were on full auto than carefully holding and squeezing. -- Col. Cooper

Double Naught Spy
February 8, 2003, 08:22 AM
Sorry Dave and waterdog, but short of head shots, 12 ga. slugs from shotguns would not have put these guys down. They would not have died from internal injuries/bleeding from getting hit with 12 ga. slugs. Why? Several reasons. First, most of the officers were combatting the bad guys from quite some distance, usually in excess of 75 yards. So, there would have been a good deal of velocity loss for a 12 ga. slug at that distance. Next, they were wearing soft body armor in layers. A slug would not penetrate the soft armor and the layers would greatly cushion the impact by dispersing the slug's energy over a wider area. Next, they had on hard armor as well over the soft armor. The hard armor plates would definitely stop the slug and disperse the energy over the full area of the plate that would then be transferred to the soft body armor below that would further disperse the energy.

Slugs are great for unarmored targets, but not for armored targets. The cross-sectional size, weight, and velocity will make it difficult/unlikely for a slug to penetrate layered soft body armor and they sure as heck won't go through hard armor.

As for the LA boys being the worst marksmen in history, the point isn't relative. The bad guys really had no need for being great marksmen. If you watch the real footage of the events, they often are just laying down suppression fire in whatever direction they see movement. Sure they missed a lot. Now compare that with the number of shots fired by LAPD. Supposedly more than 100 officers actually took shots at the bad guys. Many shot their full complement of ammo on hand. One motorcycle cop who responded to the scene fired all 68 rounds he had with him.

Matt G
February 8, 2003, 10:22 AM
Double Naught makes a good point with the issue of slugs being ineffective against heavy body armor. Those guys had the heavier military armor and flak vest on, and were solidly built. As a Level II vest will stop a 12 ga. slug, you can't depend on backface trauma to stop them. However, it would have been worth seeing someone try headshots with slugs from a peep-sighted shotgun.

I completely agree with Waterdog that pistol cal carbines are a mistake as a patrol rifle, generally. While shots from such a carbine would have improved the odds of making a hit with headshots, they would not have penetrated any body armor.

Between that incident, Miami, and Columbine, there's a pretty significant Patrol Rifle movement in LE agencies around this country.

Such scenes patrolman w/ pistol taking on BG w/ rifle are why it's worth putting extra practice on occasion (not ALL the time, but occasionally) into making the Long Shot from cover with your service arm.

Question: in the special, did they go into the reactions of the initial responding officers, who had time to take cover and ambush the BG's as they came out the bank? I've seen some of it in another interview, and was rather unimpressed w/them.

106rr
February 8, 2003, 04:26 PM
It's also worth noting that a couple of cops were disciplined for claiming to be at the scene when they were elswhere. They said that they were traumatized by the gunfire and took paid leave. Turned out that thay weren't even close by, they just wanted a vacation.
Double Naught Spy
It appears that the marksmanship was appalling on both sides. With all the rounds fired by LAPD there was no damage to the BGs. Yes, I know about the upper body armor. Their legs and heads were not armored. The BGs had weapons similar to those used by the NVA and VC. Many of us on this board have faced these weapons. It was not LAPDs finest hour.
Slugs might have helped in a properly sighted rifle. You would have had crippled/headless BGs. It would be helpful to know if the SWAT guys who borrowed the rifles and fought back acted under the direction of SWAT command or despite that "leadership"

Hkmp5sd
February 8, 2003, 05:14 PM
It wasn't SWAT officers that borrowed the rifles from the gun store. It was patrol officers. They borrowed them about the same time SWAT arrived and the SWAT commander would not let his men engage until they had more information, including the exact location of the BG and all wounded LEO's.

Nightcrawler
February 8, 2003, 05:46 PM
I have to agree with 106rr. While I, myself, have never seen combat, I don't go around claiming to serve and protect the populace, either.

Two guys. Two guys! Two goons with Kalashnikovs kept dozens of LAPD's finest at bay for the better part of an hour. SWAT wouldn't go in for whatever reason.

Tell a group of infantry vets from World War Two, Korea, or Vietnam about how your entire unit is being pinned down by two guys with AK-47s, even though you outnumber them 20-1. Go on, tell them.

One level-headed cop with a Garand and some experience could've solved this problem.

VaughnT
February 8, 2003, 07:19 PM
I watched that 2hr special on TDC and loved it. I agree that the whole thing was ludicrous and said a great deal about LAPD and their general ineptitude.

I also got a kick out of the cowardice shown by the swat team. It took them over twenty minutes to get on scene and then they refused to act without a complete breakdown of the scene, including the location of all injured cops!!! Talk about cowards and incompetants! Can't ya think your way through a running game? :rolleyes:

The best part of the show was seeing one of my company's trucks being used for what it's designed for....armored transport. That was really neat.:D

And I hated that they never mentioned that the gun store was shut down by cali politicians.

HS/LD
February 8, 2003, 08:21 PM
Hitting somone wearing body armour with a 12gauge slug will not be like stepping on a tube of tooth paste.

Engery received can only equal energy transferred.

We all know that bullets don't "knock people across the room" other wise it would knock the shooter across the room too.

I have witnessed a man shot square in the chest while wearing body armour with a .308 as a demonstartion. He was able to remain standing and balancing on ONE LEG.

Head shots were needed in the case.

HS/LD

55645
February 8, 2003, 08:48 PM
They show this tape so often I'm suprised they haven't worn the oxide off it. They must have a hundred copies. As mentioned earlier the BG's guns were not "assault weapons". You can bet that this fact will never be mentioned on television. The antis and their media stooges want people to think that fully automatic assault rifles are freely available.

Hkmp5sd
February 8, 2003, 09:03 PM
Here (http://www.snowcrest.net/marnells/officer.htm) is a time-compressed recording of the North Hollywood radio frequency that morning...quiet air time has been eliminated.

Jrob24
February 8, 2003, 09:29 PM
I just listened to the mp3 one. Not very good quality audio. The dispatcher sounds like Shodan in System shock 2

Zundfolge
February 8, 2003, 11:21 PM
Two guys. Two guys! Two goons with Kalashnikovs kept dozens of LAPD's finest at bay for the better part of an hour.

On a side note, this story is something I bring up when discussing the 2nd amendment with people who think the idea of civilians being able to hold their own against the military is impossible and thus not a valid defense of the 2nd amendment.

I happened to catch the thing on the discovery channel today too and my thought was if those guys where two Marines instead of two "goons" there would be a LOT of dead cops ... not just injured ones.

Spray and pray, not lining up their targets, not using cover (body armor notwithstanding) ... these two where untrained idiots and they held off an "army" of cops for quite a while, so you can't tell me that a rag-tag bunch of armed civilians couldn't put up a good fight in an insurrection of some sort.

Covey Rise
February 9, 2003, 03:15 AM
Those AK's going full auto in the city would be so loud, it scared the cops so bad including the SWAT team they couldn't do ****. The stupid police even grabbed the wrong gun from the gun shop. They should have grabbed a .300 win mag, or some other moose gun. One shot, one kill.

TheOtherOne
February 9, 2003, 09:58 AM
With all the rounds fired by LAPD there was no damage to the BGs. Yes, I know about the upper body armor. Their legs and heads were not armored. From what I understand (and my source is The Discovery Channel, so take it for what it's worth), one of the two guys did have leg armor and they said one had been shot like 29 times. Maybe that just meant 29 times in his armor though? On the show they made it sound like they were shooting for his legs though.

If you enjoyed reading about "FX "44 Minutes" -- LAPD FullAuto Shootout" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!