How would THR member fare in North Hollywood shooting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are people here I think are a LOT more well trained than the regular LAPD. But I guess from your point of view, if you are not in uniform, you are inferior in shooting skills?
Absolutely not.
Thumper.. LAPD and LAPD SWAT are different animals.. Let's at least agree on that...
If you'll re-read my posts, you'll see that I specified SWAT in each instance.

The point I'm trying to make is that some believe their skills to be more than they are. Not you specifically, twoblink.

As Jim March said, your "tactical" mindset definitely makes you more survivable on the street than the average sheeple. Don't make the mistake, however, of second guessing a group who put it on the line in very difficult circumstances and prevailed.

And don't get me wrong...I'm no cop apologist. I also know many cops who can't shoot for beans. I know plenty of others, however, that I would put up against pretty much anyone.

Here's the crux of the whole deal: What training have you had that puts you in contention as the better man for the fight?

Of the original group you mentioned, I have a hard time imagining any of them questioning their possible superiority over the guys and gals actually involved.
 
I would activate my cell phone and call Diane Feinstein with the suggestion we need more gun laws. Crime still happening we don't have enough yet.
 
THR members wouldnt do any better than the LAPD. We'd be too busy arguing over Barrett vs Browning vs WindRunner vs Serbu for the .50 to actually engage the perps.

Kharn
 
It doesn't really matter how well you'd do - in a situation like that, where you have a handgun and the BG''s have two full-auto assault weapons, the only sensible thing to do is hunt cover and keep your head down! There's no way I would take them on unless they were specifically after me - and even then, given the disparity of force, I'd hunt for good, solid cover with limited approach routes, and then cover the approach routes, so that they would have to move into my field of fire to get to me. It's not my job to play hero - that sort of thing gets you killed.

(Of course, if you happened to be unobserved by them, and could get in a killing shot from the rear, or something like that, then by all means go for it - but being in LA, you would probably be charged with murder if you did so! :fire: )
 
I'd hop in my bulletproof suburban and call Tamara on the cell phone to see where they were having beer.:D

Oh, by the way, Wondernine, Tamara is a she, not a he.
 
They: have body armor, lots of ammo, full-auto rifles, and know how to use them.

I: have semi-auto handgun, know how to use it.

Thats the scenario, right?

Lemme be blunt: it is probably gonna end badly for me. Same with anyone else here, assuming that the BGs have even the slightest clue what they're doing. We like to chant "its the archer not the arrow," and many times its true. There are times, however, then the disparity in equipment becomes kinda hard to overcome. This would be one of those times.

Mike
 
I forgot what I was going to say because Tamara's answer made so much good sense. Still, the situation was nothing a couple of well placed hand grenades or head shots couldn't have cured.
 
I thought SWAT personnel invariably had long arms? That the cops in LA had to borrow rifles from a gun shop implies that SWAT wasn't on the scene.

As for the skill level of LAPD's finest . . . I'd wager it's not particularly high. Police skill levels seem to fit an inverted bell curve - there are a small percentage that are very, very good, virtually none that are average, and there are a whole lot of terrible shots - guys that are lucky to draw without shooting themselves in the foot.

To put it another way, if a large randomly selected bunch of cops - not SWAT, but just ordinary street cops - showed up to shoot IDPA, you might have a Master or two, but on balance, they'd mostly end up in the Novice ranks, with a few Marksmen.

Has anyone ever tallied how many shots LAPD fired at the bad guys in that event, how many hits they got, and how many of their bullets were recovered from nearby buildings, mailboxes, parked cars, etc.?

Anyway, to get back to the question at hand . . . I'm pretty decent with my carry gun, but there is NO WAY I would have tried to take on a couple of bad guys with machine guns and body armor if there was any way out of the situation. (If I was stuck, I'd try for head shots . . . but that would still be a low percentage option.)
 
"Shoot them in the face, legs and arms. I guess that concept was too complicated for the L.A. pd."

You're more than welcome to attempt to get close enough to two guys with automatic weapons to shoot them in the face, arms, and legs.

The amount of lead that those two were slinging made that sort of marksmanship rather impossible.
 
I don't know about the rest of the heros present, but I'd make use of cover to get away from the scene. The only reason I'd be in California in the first place would be to scout out the routes for the liberating forces, and my mission requirements wouldn't allow me to blow my cover.

Really, I'd rather stay well away from LAPD or the bank robbers...any of them could accidentally hit a bystander like me.
 
Armed with only a handgun against those guys? I'd be trying to get the hell outta there. Being a hero is well and good but if you can't do any damage there is no point in dying.
 
Ya know, there's one thing that I'm curious about.

You'll recall that the cops already knew--KNEW--that these guys were wearing body armor.

So why did they go and get AR15's from that gun shop, when they were standing in the middle of much higher powered rifles?
 
If I were a duly-sworn LEO, I'd be in the squad car heading for the nearest Krispy Kreme. LAPD Air units can track the bad guys down much easier than I can.

If I were a civilian caught in the crossfire, and I'm inside a car, I'd stay put, and be as small as I can be.

If I were in a vehicle that was in gear, and I'm pointed at the bad guys, STEP ON THE GAS! Haven't seen anyone wearing body armor who's bones and organs can't be crushed by a 3500lb Suburban against a building or pavement.
 
So why did they go and get AR15's from that gun shop, when they were standing in the middle of much higher powered rifles?
Possibly because they chose a weapon with which they were familiar. A lot of cops have military experience.

Also...they knew they were wearing armor...but did they know what kind? If they thought it was Level II stuff...

I dunno. Guesses.

If I were a duly-sworn LEO, I'd be in the squad car heading for the nearest Krispy Kreme. LAPD Air units can track the bad guys down much easier than I can.
You wouldn't remain sworn for long. :rolleyes:

Mike
 
Since we are theorizing, I am wondering what would be the effect if not one or two, but 20 or 30 armed civilians pulled their CCWs and let loose with well aimed shots. This, of course, would be before the cops show up and the BG's threat awareness is way down. What a surprise that would be for them.
 
If I were in California at the time, chances are I would not be armed and consequently I would run, run away just like Brave Sir Robin

If it happened here, I would not hesitate to use my truck gun IF I was far enough away to get cover and choose a shot. 100 yard blocks means estimating distance is pretty easy. A 220 grain 8mm solid should cut right through kevlar and break a lot of bones along the way.

If all I had was a pistole, there is NO WAY I'd try anything unless I absolutely had to. Not against body armor and fully automatic rifles!
 
There IS another facet to this dislcussion - -

- -Most of the statements to the effect of, "Hell no, I wouldn't engage armored goblins who have machine guns" make a lot of sense. Likewise, the ones about seeking out EFFECTIVE cover, and leaving the area, stipulalting you're a private person with no obligation to take action.

I watched every bit of video broadcast about that incident. Additionally, in various cop schools, I say some of it that was never put on the air. I was struck by the number of of individuals who were behind cover AND just concealment, within 20 feet of the robbers, when the robbers were facing the other way. Not all of 'em were passersby--Some of them were uniformed police. At least, some of the officers were WILLING to shoot.

At the time, and often since, I thought that the battle might have ended promptly if just one or two of the police personel had bided their time and shot the bad guys from the back. I can certainly see the logic of NOT retreating if to do so would only draw automatic fire . . . . Some of the cover-takers were behind vehicles, while a BG was just the other side. It has been proven a couple of times within memory that a pistol bullet fired from beneath a car into a bad guy's ankle or foot will impair his mobility effectively. And once there is another target available . . . .

One item I've never seen addressed, in the news OR in any training seminar, is how many shots were actually fired by LAPD during the battle. Even more interesting, the body armor was recovered by the police. How many bullet strikes were made on the bad guys? On the armor or elsewhere? In that no one died (Praise be!), there has never been any accounting of whether or not any of the casualties were caused by police gunfire, but one womders . . . . Given all the criticism of police marksmanship in this thread, I'm a little surprised that this aspect hasn't really been raised.

Interesting string - - - -:rolleyes:
 
44 minutes is a long time. A lot of what happened was protracted, and is almost excrutiatingly slow. I've watched some of the footage, and questioned if it was in slow-motion. That gives time to get some emotions under control.

If you're not a cop, and you've no duty to the public, well then, you have to consider what your duties actually are. My neighbor across the street, a great guy, is a CHL carrier. He carries a Star P.D., if I recall, and usually no spare mag. That's 6+1 on his person, out of a lightweight pistol with short sight radius. He has a wife, 3 beautiful children, a car payment, and a mortgage. Should he engage such a duo of bad guys?

Not no, but HELL, NO! I don't care what kind of Tactical Ted he may be. (I've never seen him shoot, though I know him to be very responsible in his carry.) His first responsibility is to his family. If he takes cover and they come around AT him, well, obviously, he would have to do whatever would protect himself. But Take them on? I think not.

Then, there's guys like me. Off-duty, I often slip a M-37 Airweight Chief into my pocket, with no reload, when I run to the store or out for a quick errand. Would a reload really make a difference? Un-freaking-likely. :) Would I, a sworn officer, attempt to intercept such a pair of bad guys in such a a circumstance? Um, NO. That just makes no sense. I'd be likely turning two armed robbers into two cop-killers, which would then cause other officers to take undue risks to apprehend them. Best thing for me to do would be to observe, try to get others the word or get others to safety, and convey effective info to those who could use it. ("Say, 911? Do y'all have anyone with a rifle, here'bouts?") Now, if I had good cover and found myself in that occasional circumstance where I actually was carrying my full-sized Kimber 1911 with 8+1 and a reload in my pocket, (happens only in winter) well, then... I'd have to evaluate my cover, distance, and see how things went. Probably the answer would be the same.

Then there's a more interesting twist. My favorite shooting buddy is my father, another sworn L.E.O. That man hasn't left the house without at least one firearm on his person since I was born (I'm 31). Were we to find ourselves at such a situation, things might go differently, especially if we were within running distance to his car, where long guns can be had. It's amazing what a dependable partner that you train with can do to a situation. Then again, if we were armed with minimal off-duty concealment pieces, we would likely decide that discretion is in fact the better part of valor. :)

Funny thing about gunfights: We don't know how we'll react until we're shot at. If your initial reaction is to take good cover and stay there and hold your fire, well then, that's probably the thing to do. Taking wild shots when you're not steady is most assuredly NOT a way to make such a situation safer. :what:
 
I say some of it that was never put on the air. I was struck by the number of of individuals who were behind cover AND just concealment, within 20 feet of the robbers, when the robbers were facing the other way. Not all of 'em were passersby--Some of them were uniformed police. At least, some of the officers were WILLING to shoot.
Having never been under gunfire, but having been in other high stress situations, I'm gonna say the obvious answer is that you have to VERY confident in that shot you take, because it is most likely the only one you will get and if you miss, you're a dead man (or woman). Given that, it takes someone who KNOWS they are good enough to place their shot accurately while containing and focusing all that ardenaline that is screaming at you to "RUN! RUN! RUN!". The latter is what separates those who can handle the stress and those who cannot. Skill alone is not enough. I have seen too many professional golfers who can play the game infinitely better than me crumble on the last hole of a four-day tournament when they realize that millions of dollars and lifetime fame are within minutes of their grasp. And that's just a game. Imagine when your life is on the line. OTOH, those brave men in blue are paid to take those chances and IMO if they can't do it (or are unable because of complete lack of skill) they need to hang up their uniform and find something else to do.
 
And my Zen like shooting probably will miss 100% of the time, that much I'll freely admit to..

Okay then, if you know you'll miss your target, I guess that means "we" aren't more prepared for a similar gunfight! Sheez.

John
 
Tamara, Art, Lawdog, Oleg, Runt, myself, Skunk, Kaylee, etc..

*snort*

If it happens in my county, in Texas, I'm heading for the 7mm Mag in the car and a high spot. I'm sort of obliged to do something about this kind of thing when it happens in my county.

If it happens in Texas, but ouside my county, I'm getting low and concentrating on being a good -- live -- witness. No need for me to get in the way of the local cops, and no need for the local cops to see me flashing a gun and maybe thinking that I'm an accomplice. Bad Things happen in those cases.

If it happens outside of Texas, you'll find me heading for somewhere that is cool, quiet and serves a nice cup of tea.

If it's the LAPD, and Tam, Art, Oleg, Betty, Kaylee and the others are about -- if someone will show me to a safe local watering hole, I'll stand the first beer. No gun out, no heroics, just an eight-block drive or so.

LawDog
 
well, case law has held that the police have no obligation to defend and protect you. Why should i return the favor ? plus this being prk, you'd be charged with all the crimes of carrying illegally. discharging in city limits etc.. you'd be sued by the perps family, as the cops were.
this is a prime example of the perps getting by with lousy CCW laws, they knew there was little chance of a non LEO shooting at them, if this was in a good CCW state, who knows? ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top