Montana Traffic Stop

Status
Not open for further replies.
texagun

texagun

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
553
Location
North Texas
A routine traffic stop in Montana turns ugly. Turn up your computer
volume. Listen for the first "click" as the driver pulls out
and points the gun at the Trooper....a 41 Magnum Revolver. The
"click" is the hammer dropping on an already fired round in the
cylinder. The second round was live. A lucky Trooper indeed!
The suspect was shot in the back while driving away and died on
scene after crashing into a building.



Observe the speed at which the Trooper draws
his weapon and fires. Accurately. Practice makes
perfect.


Click here: Hamilton Police shooting video
http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...mix_cdf93fba-47ca-11df-9f5c-001cc4c002e0.html
 
I'm not sure how this is relevant for the members here or what lessons there are to share.

The trooper fires at the rear tinted window of the vehicle and can't be assumed to see his attacker since it's dark. Not something that a civilian is advised to do since the target isn't actually in the sights of the weapon and we have no duty to apprehend.

He continues to fire at the vehicle as it leaves the scene. We're not advised to do this either since once the threat to us has ended we're obligated to stop using lethal force. In spite of non-shooters not understanding the speed at which a fight can unfold, the first half dozen rounds can be considered a continuation of the fight. Once the vehicle is accelerating away we'd be done. The trooper is allowed to continue shooting because he has a duty to apprehend that we don't.

The trooper fires at least 15 rounds and the vehicle driver doesn't appear to loose control of the vehicle while the video plays. Since we don't know how many rounds hit the BG and we don't know how many rounds hit the vehicle we're not certain of the accuracy of the trooper.

We can learn from the reflexive reaction of the trooper to bat the weapon aside and of his quick movement off the "X" to avoid getting shot. If he'd stayed rooted to the spot he would have probably been shot.

We can learn from the smooth manner of the draw and proper stance used by the trooper. As you point out, training and practice on his part lead to him being able to draw on those engrained skills.
 
Aside from how lucky the officer was, God must have been smiling on him!
One thing I noticed from the video, was where he fled too. Behind the attacker. Out of where he would have been easy pickings.

Basically his order of response was get to safety, then return fire.
 
In the same way one may do well to move into ( or inside the otherwise line of arrival of ) a punch...

The moment the Revolver was produced by the assailant, was also a moment in which rather than recoiling 'back', out of instinct, one could lean 'in' and twist the Revolver to point away or or to point back at the assailant, and then remove it from his grasp breaking or tearing off his finger.

Not always easy to think fast enough...but, that is something I have mentally rehersed quite a few times.

If I am close enough, and on the ball, I could do that faster than I could draw and fire...so...I consider it to be an option well worth bearing in mind.


Indeed, as civillians, we are prohibited under statute to fire or to continue to fire once an assailant is fleeing or starting to flee...even if there may be some tolerance shown in greyish areas of the condition.


My Heart does go out to LEO who have to face these unknowns, especially like this Officer who was being entirely reasonable and matter of fact in his inquiring into the driver's sobriety and so on.

Quite a surprise there!

Yipes..!
 
LEGAL DISTINCTIONS are clear as to what a CIVILIAN cannot do. but which is within the law for a police officer. Once the threat is over and/or the assilant is fleeing a civilian is GENERALLY PROHIBITED from continuing to fire his weapon. There are exceptions and they vary from one state to another. It is usually best to cease firing and let law enforcement take up the chase and the apprehension. Why? So as to not end up on the wrong side of the law, plus getting sued by the suspect turned victim due to circumstances.
 
when i heard him answer "plenty" to the question about how much he drank i knew it was gonna get stupid fast. what was the fools background? was it just stupid drunk or did he have a history
 
That trooper was one cool cucumber. I doubt I would have been able to remain so calm.

I respect the Trooper's professionalism. He seems like a good guy and very reasonable.

However, I thought questioning is supposed to happen from behind the center post/column of the vehicle to avoid getting shot...
 
Hmm that's not a trooper. He works for the city of hamilton, the hamilton police department. I was one of his firearms instructors when he went through the academy. The only thing he can be knitpicked about is his flashlights in his strongside hand.
 
the obit for the guy he shot was a hoot. "after returning from being away" equals after doing time for assaulting another cop. after this case would the local cops be more inclined to call for backup in a situation like this? or did he no know who he had pulled over and that the guy had been involved in an incident earlier and was intoxicated then. how big is the town?
 
Since the car gains hardly any speed at all from when it first started rolling, the driver could very well have been hit by one of the first few shots.
This LEO does well at maintaining composure, but I bet shortly after the clip ends, those knees got real rubbery! I've never had to fire my weapon in the line of duty (except to dispatch a feral hog running loose in town), but I've come real close in a few situations that only ended with either the sudden cooperation of the suspect, or the sudden (and near sideways!) arrival of backup units.
You "automate" until the threat/situation, then the knees go weak.
 
I'm not sure how this is relevant for the members here or what lessons there are to share.
Click to expand...

The points you make following that are all correct, but I must say that ANY truthful footage of violent confrontations between humans in a nonmilitary environment is relevant and of interest to the S&T, simply as a portrayal of how attacks occur in reality. They are a documentation of how fast violent encounters unfold. Barring such footage and without first hand personal encounters we are left to be influenced by Hollywood choreography and verbal tales by the gun counter.

BTW he seemed to pause for a fraction of a second after stepping back from the X. He didn't head directly to cover behind the vehicle, but appeared to have stopped there for just a fleeting moment trying to asses the situation. As in "***? Was that really a gun? Why didn't it go bang?" and that allowed a window of opportunity for the driver to get off his live shot, after which he did draw and head behind the vehicle. One lesson I can find is once you get off the X, don't stop until you are behind cover.
 
Last edited:
as civilians, we are prohibited under statute to fire or to continue to fire once an assailant is fleeing or starting to flee...
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting and contentious point imo.

How is it possible to accurately predict intent? How is one supposed to know that a threat that turns his back and moves rapidly away from the initial engagement point is not simply maneuvering for another firing position? One could say that a threat should be covered until it is gone, but what if you are covering with a hand gun and the threat stops and reengages with a rifle? Is it wise to give up an advantage to a threat?

In many states the law says so. I don't agree with that.

My Heart does go out to LEO who have to face these unknowns, especially like this Officer who was being entirely reasonable and matter of fact in his inquiring into the driver's sobriety and so on.
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of our LEO's know what they are getting into, and for that, they have my respect. I couldn't do that job as I don't have the patience to put up with the scum of our society as our LEO's do.

This officer has probably reviewed the tape and now has valuable AAR lessons to live by, and to pass on to fellow officers. Hopefully he sees the things he did well, and areas he would like to improve to be better prepared in the future.
 
How is it possible to accurately predict intent? How is one supposed to know that a threat that turns his back and moves rapidly away from the initial engagement point is not simply maneuvering for another firing position? One could say that a threat should be covered until it is gone, but what if you are covering with a hand gun and the threat stops and reengages with a rifle? Is it wise to give up an advantage to a threat?
Click to expand...


In the situation shown in the Video, the assailant was firing backwards as he was fleeing, which, to my mind, would be just cause for returning fire if instead of a Peace Officer, it were a Civillian he were firing upon.

For Civillians, this ( firing upon a fleeing assailant ) is an area open to some circumstantial interpretation and or leeway by a DA or others...and or would be mitigated by the exact testimony of the survivor(s) as to what was happenning at that point.

I think in just about any State, LEO can fire upon a fleeing Felon, even if the fleeing Felon is not armed.
 
Good guys: 1 Bad guys: 0

I'm glad that this one turned out well, and that we didn't add another name to the granite wall. The officer did a good job of moving to a position of advantage when things went south, and quickly returning fire on the suspect who was trying to kill him. He also got on the radio and explained the situation in a relatively calm voice (things often don't come out that way following a near-miss like this).

Merely as a discussion point, one thing that ought to be mentioned here, at least for any LEO's on this board, is that the officer violated a simple tactical lesson when contacting this driver. Just as he makes contact, around 8 seconds into the video, it appears that he switches his flashlight over to his gun hand. At the very least it is obvious that the flashlight is in the officer's gun hand when he points to the rear approximately 12 seconds into the video. It appears that this costs him some (relatively significant) time when he went to draw his weapon, as you can see him switching hands with the flashlight at about 34 seconds into the video.

We were always trained to keep our gun hand free, especially during contacts, and not doing so was an invitation for a lot of push-ups in our police academy. This seemingly small error didn't change the outcome for this officer, but it still cost him a few fractions of a second during a situation where fractions of a second often feel like hours.

Just some food for thought. All's well that ends well.
 
As for firing on a felon it is unlawful in the state of Arkansas unless he is posing a immediate threat to life of limb here. The law read if a person is imminate danger of loss of life or the threat of serios physical injury then deadly force is justified. I am a Retired Police Officer and Concealed Carry Instructor.
 
Well, the perp running away after shooting at the officer doesn't make him less dangerous. As long as he was armed and not in custody, I reckon he was a threat.
 
Wow! What are the odds he'd run into the one guy in Montana dumb enough to chamber his revolver with an unloaded round ready to roll under the hammer?

Then the cop ducks, moves to cover and shoots and we have one bad guy dead...

No errors allowed in a gun fight!
 
The unfired round wasn't under the hammer. It had to be next to it and rotated in. How the BG left it in there is speculation. Maybe when he reloaded, he picked up some spent brass?

Who is to know.
 
The unfired round wasn't under the hammer. It had to be next to it and rotated in.
Click to expand...

What are the odds he'd run into the one guy in Montana dumb enough to chamber his revolver with an unloaded round ready to roll under the hammer?
 
It might've been that he'd been 'joyriding' before that and maybe popped off a couple rounds.
Notice when the cop asks how much he's had to drink the perp just answers, 'plenty'.
Not really the sort of response if you're looking to stay out of trouble.

All I can say about the actual shooting is that all things considered, things couldn't have gone better for the guy. I mean, the best outcome would've been a peaceful one but in the end the scoreboard still reads:
GG-1 BG-0
 
That was close, RWBR 85 Bet he won't hold his flashilight in his strongside hand ever again!
 
.41 Magnum is not a usual Caliber either...other than some S&Ws and a few Rugers, not many Companys offered it.

I hope the Revolver was later auctioned off and not destroyed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
"Routine" traffic stop...
Replies
13
Views
882
Oatka
O
Old Hobo
  • Locked
Traffic Stops; know your rights under the law
Replies
2
Views
488
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
S
  • Locked
Non-incendiary house fire?
Replies
9
Views
708
Geronimo45
G
T
  • Locked
Highway Patrol officer shot in traffic stop
Replies
3
Views
828
Dan Morris
D
D
  • Locked
(TX) Deputy shot in gun battle with motorist, who died in traffic stop
Replies
2
Views
1K
TheOtherOne
T
Back
Top