North Hollywood Bank Robbery Shootout

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I still don't know why they didn't roll up on the guys and flatten them with the rig, or at least use the gun ports."

Amen. The whole time I was watching the news reports I kept seeing the armored car that they eventually used to get the wounded. I kept thinking to myself, jump in, throw her in granny low and roadkill those SOB's.

As to the fact that the cops were not making head shots.......hell I'd be lucky to even be able to return fire, much less hit any body part........much much much less be able to make a head shot. This ain't Nintendo. This is one of the few situations that I really think called for an armored car with firing ports. Even if the patrol officers had a few .223 rifles making a head shot would still be next to impossible while facing a hail of gunfire.

As far as I am concerned anybody who had the balls to stick it out and fire back is a hero or at the least has balls as big as churchbells to take on a couple of heavily armed and armored opponents with a 9mm pop gun.

Chris
 
As a former law enforcement officer I was appalled when I saw the shootout, while the officers didn't have rifles, they did have their pistols and shotguns, the perps didn't have body armor on their legs, all they had was heavy body armor on the upper part of their body. We were taught to shoot for the head if the first shots didn't connect, although you do need to keep in mind that most police officers are lousy shots on the range, and that doesn't even begin to have the stress these guys were under, shoot for the legs, shoot for the head, the officers with pistols would be hard pressed to hit the target, but there's no excuse for the guys shooting riot guns with buckshot not putting those guys on the ground, while those guys were a little hopped up on drugs, when you break their legs they can't stand, no matter how many drugs they might have in their system.
 
I do not think many LEO's are trained to go up against a full auto AK.... at distance or short range... multi body hits toes to nose did the job... and brought on the wise choice....of rifles for rifle fights into play. You know, from your work...being there, and being in front of the TV....is quite different. amazing it did not turn out worse. Arc-Lite
 
All hail to all the "expert" shooters and tacticians on these boards

Many on this board are far more proficient than the average LEO.

Maybe if LEOS would quit adopting the holier than thou attitude, and pay the hell attention to the events that befall them, they'd gain experience, rather than cockiness.

Check your attitude at the door, steve.


James
 
Chairborne Rangers

thefitzvh, When you have actually faced down someone with an AK 47 who is trying to kill you, then you're opinion might actually hold some validity.

Until then, give it a rest.

12-34hom.
 
okay,

So every street cop in America who hasn't faced an actual full-auto AK should shut up too? Or do they get a pass? How bout those who spent years doing military force-on-force training but never actually "saw the elephant"? They not qualified to comment on tactical decisions good or bad?

Arguing that you can't comment intelligently on a situation until you've faced an identical situation is a logical fallacy of the first order. Not to mention aggressively insulting to some very competent people here and elsewhere.
 
The reality is that many cops aren't into guns. I am and I'm also a firearms instructor for my department, one of five. I also get jokes about being a gun crank and the number of firearms I own. Oh well.

In this department we can carry an AR-15 if we want to buy one of our own. The department will provide the ammo and a four day training session. If not officers get a Remington 870 loaded with 00 buck and slugs.

I also believe this department provides some pretty good training, but whenever I am instructing our new hires I stress to them that they need to practice on their own. I also stress that practice can involve more then just live fire. Practice drawing your weapon out of it's holster, practice room clearing techniques, dry firing, and so on. Yes I've seen some pretty scary stuff on the firingline, but I've also seen some very competent officers.

I have yet to see anyone draw their firearm and throw it down range though.

Those officers in LA and those FBI agents in Miami held the line. That's what it's all about.There's an old axiom that I leanred in the Army. It states that no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

And incidentally I thought that the second perp to go down was shot in the leg or feet.

Okay just my observations and humble opinion.
 
thefitzvh, When you have actually faced down someone with an AK 47 who is trying to kill you, then you're opinion might actually hold some validity.

You're right, because it's inconcievable that an infantryman would see more danger than the almighty cop, right? :rolleyes:

Not that it matters, because this isn't a pissing contest. Someone asks about shortcomings in LEO tactics and training, and the usual suspects jump on board to try and throw the comments of non LEOs into question. Do you think for a second that it's concievable that many LEOs are not as well trained as they should be? And I'm not talking about lack of money, I'm talking about the easy stuff, like putting some rounds through your weapon more often than is required, and buying your own ammo if needed.

The holier than thou stuff is getting REAL old, REAL quick. Never once have I insulted you.

EDITED TO REMOVE A REFERENCE TO A COMMENT THAT I THOUGHT WAS MADE BY 12-34hom, but in actuality was made by another poster...
 
Don't like my attitude?? Too bad, life sucks don't it.

Maybe all the range commandoes we have running around here should loose their "I could do it better" attitude, when all they've ever done is punch a few holes in paper, but somehow they consider themselves experts at handling situations were they are being shot at!!

Next the playstation/xbox experts will be telling us how they would win the war in Iraq by themselves.
 
Read for context Steve.

The point is, just because someone isn't a "police officer who's been under fire", doesn't mean they aren't qualified or competent to comment on shoot-outs in general.

And commenting on what turned out to be mistakes doesn't mean "I" could do it better (or would have done better than the guys there at the time), just that "it" could have been done better in the abstract. See, when you do after-action reviews you figure out what went wrong, so you don't make the same mistakes in the future.

We call it "learning".

Your attitude is aggressively defensive, not conducive to learning and is insulting to a lot people who are at least as qualified as you are to review this incident. I am truly sorry that you are not the sole supreme authority you apparently want to be.

So you suck it up.
 
For crying out loud will everybody just take a freaking chill pill? Christ it's like dealing with a bunch of drunk family members on Thanksgiving night. Everyone go to their corners and I hope after a little while most of us will realize that we're all on the same side.
 
twoblink, you are just now learning about the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout? The made for TV movie isn't completely correct, but sure enough, no rifles. LAPD did not issue rifles to regular officers. On top of that, distances being shot were mostly beyond 75 yards. The distances were greater than for what most cops trained with their pistols.

Furious Styles, you are right but naive. It would have been nice to shoot for the legs or pelvis, but the bad guys packed on a lot of body armor. Vulnerable spots were mostly the hands, feet, and head. The reasoning is pretty good, but what makes you think officers could hit the legs or pelvis if they could not hit the head? And just what was supposed to happen when they hit the pelvis? Were you expecting that it would break and the bad guys fall down? Not likely with a pistol round and really unlikely with a pistol round at 75 yards.

The bad guys had soft armor over much of their selves, hard armor over more critical areas. The cops only had soft armor. Until the end, the cops were shooting guns that would be stopped by soft body armor. The bad guys were shooting guns that would readily penetrate the cops' soft armor. The cops claim they were out gunned. Not really. They were out protected. The bad guys dressed as walking tanks. Of course, they lost a lot of speed and mobility with their attire, but they were better prepared for the battle than the cops. Of course, they were wearing specialty clothing/armor that was to be worn just a short period of time. So they could suit up heavily.

The officers who first showed with shotguns had bird or buck loads, not slugs. Slugs would have been really nice for making a more precise shot with lots of power, such as a head shot, but it didn't happen.

What surprised me the most was simply that with all the rounds being fired at the bad guys that by random chance the bad guys were not struck in the heads, but they were not, not while by the bank.

This shootout, and others where cops come up against practiced or prepared bad guys (Miami-FBI shootout, for example), the normal cops often end up on the losing end of the situation. Between being prepared and or having some skills, the bad guys don't have to play by the rules, taken into account bystanders or hostages, and basically can free fire with whatever weapons they brought along. On the other hands, the cops are usually armed with fairly typical weaponry, light enough to be worn all the time or carried about with their cars.

Quite often when normal people and normal cops come up against the prepared bad guys, the normal folks and cops tend to lose out. In N. Hollywood and Miami, two guys in each location were able to effectively battle superior forces. In the end, they did lose, but law enforcement suffered greatly.
 
I'm just amused by the people like our buddy Steve that automatically discount the comments of ALL posters, assuming them ALL to be "keyboard commandos." Kind of like the guy that ran Pat Rogers off the board because he didn't know who he was.

Steve, your condescending attitude is speaking volumes about you. If you are a LEO, I can assume that you are a prime illustration as to why so many people have a problem with law enforcement in this country: the "holier-than-thou" attitude and the "I know better because I'm a cop" mentality.

If you were there, then you can tell someone that they don't know how it was. If you weren't there, how do you know that wasn't how it was? :scrutiny:
 
Steve in PA - I hope my earlier comments did not come over as ''armchair commando'' ... and I am sorry to see your stance being quite so aggressive... even is some posts are seeming a bit ''keyboard courage''!

I referred to two cops at my club who openly admitted they felt more training/practice necessary - this surely could well apply to many other guys also. This has nothing directly to do with the incident related to in this thread ... it is a general observation.
 
The sad thing is, a few $100 91/30's and a little training would have put an end to this shootout post haste. From the incidents I've seen, the law enforcement command structure seems fixated on sidearms and SWAT. But there's no reason a standard full-power rifle should be a "special weapon." Rural LEO's seem to know this a lot better than their urban counterparts. The smart ones with good departmental leadership will always have a long gun, and will have it ready whenever going into a potentially hostile situation. Handguns are fine, but they're inherently DEFENSIVE firearms for use in short-range emergency situations and to herd prisoners.

In Miami the Feds had to use standard revolvers and 9mm's against a Mini-14. In North Hollywood they had 9mm's against AK47's. In a more recent shootout one officer tried to outgun an Enfield-armed suspect with his 1911 at 100 yards. The FBI's response to Miami wasn't to buy rifles or $300 Ruger carbines for their field agents, but rather to spend enormous sums developing more potent handgun ammunition.

Weird.
 
Don't like my attitude?? Too bad, life sucks don't it.

Maybe all the range commandoes we have running around here should loose their "I could do it better" attitude, when all they've ever done is punch a few holes in paper, but somehow they consider themselves experts at handling situations were they are being shot at!!

Next the playstation/xbox experts will be telling us how they would win the war in Iraq by themselves.

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but as a fellow LEO your conduct is embarrasing me. There is no need to snap at people for simply talking about a way to conduct a situation better. That is what just about every dept. I know does after a critical incident....talk it over and see how it can be handled better in the future. Unless you used to be Steve in LA I doubt that you were there either, so I really don't understand the hostility you have here.

I'll be the first to stick up for someone when a someone is spouting off unrealistic scenarios over a computer, but I have not seen that here. The facts are simple. The officers did NOT have rifles, which could have quickly ended the situation.....as they did once they were employed. Also I don't think anyone was trying to imply that it is an easy shot to hit someone shooting at you with an AK47 in the head....but as it was that was the only option at the time.

As I said before the are a great deal of officers that I know while they are good guys, they're NOT tactically minded or "gun guys". If this is not the case on your dept. then you are very lucky and have a great dept.
 
Don't like my attitude?? Too bad, life sucks don't it.


Your post proved my point beautifully... nonconfrontational posts replied to with the relative maturity of a kid screaming "He's breathing on me!!!"

Never mind steve. Never mind 12-34hom


ATTENTION THR: NO MISTAKES HAVE BEEN, ARE BEING, OR WILL EVER BE MADE BY ANY AGENT OF THE GUMMINT. EVERYTHING IS FINE, NOTHING IS BROKEN.


My apologies. I'll never dissent again.

James
 
First..

Since I'm the thread starter, and I don't want my thread to get locked..

Everybody, assume a few Yoga positions and BREATHE...

Good..

I have friends who are LEO's in Pasadena. I have LEO friends in Irvine. I have LEO friends all over, and so if someone is thinking that I'm a LEO basher, trust me, I'm not.

#2) Ill prepared. BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, the officers said they were ill prepared to handle the situation, be it training or weapons or both. That's not a "twoblink says" that's a "department said" / "Video Showed".

#3) I know a lot of LEO who draw their guns only during qualifying. At no other time do they even practice.

#4) A thorough understanding of guns. Regardless how good of a shot I am, (or not) 9mm Beretta + 50 yards = very little chance.. I would have started calling for rifles right away.. This comment I want to shove up the brasses "you know where". A mini 14 or AR or even a freakin Mauser in the trunk of ANY of the popo's cars would have ended this. Shove a 8mm down their throat...

#5) "Use to force Luke, and if you don't have the force, use the Armored Car!!"
:banghead:

#6) Of course, I wonder if any officers have enough rifle training to be able to hit a target under fire at 50 yards.. :banghead: :(
 
All I know about this is that if I had nothing but a pistol and the bad guy had a rifle I'm not getting close enough to make a head shot with my wee little 9mm. Now with a halfway decent rifle i would think that parking a fair distance away and firing from a supported possition would settle the problem right quick. Give the LAPD rifles in that situation and I think the problem goes away all by itself.
 
Does any one else see some irony in this situation? The city administration restricted accces to more powerful weapons because (99% of the time a pistol is enough, a rifle increases liability, a diferent weapon would drive up training costs, you pick the excuse). The police were left without appropriate means to protect themselves nor the community. Their only salvation was to "call a cop" or the SWAT team in this case. The police found this rather disconcerting, and rightfully so. They were in a situation similar to many citizens, hunker down and pray for the calvery to hurry up before someone gets hurt. I understand that their situation has been remedied with the addition of rifles to patrol car trunks. When is the situation going to change for us mere citizens? When can I go get that H&K MP5 for a home defense gun and be more self reliant for my own defence?
 
Don't like my attitude?? Too bad, life sucks don't it.

Maybe all the range commandoes we have running around here should loose their "I could do it better" attitude, when all they've ever done is punch a few holes in paper, but somehow they consider themselves experts at handling situations were they are being shot at!!

Next the playstation/xbox experts will be telling us how they would win the war in Iraq by themselves.
Come back when you have something other than an ad hominem attack.

Now bringing a pistol to a rifle fight would have me scrambling for cover and not a whole lot more. It appeared they were separated by 40 yards or so. Making a hit, with a pistol, on a moving head or leg would be a minor miracle.

A full power rifle, weilded by a decent shooter, might have ended that situation in short order. But, there wasn't and it didn't.

IIRC, afterwards, the LAPD wanted to issue a rifle to all patrol cars. That was later pared down to a rifle for every supervisor, locked in his trunk. I also heard something about them wanting to go with a pistol-caliber carbine. Back to square one, no lessons learned.
 
The FBI's response to Miami wasn't to buy rifles or $300 Ruger carbines for their field agents, but rather to spend enormous sums developing more potent handgun ammunition.
Excellent point, Cosmo. Typical management, looking for a technological solution instead of the common sense one.

I'm not a LEO, but is an officer *prevented* from carrying a rifle in his trunk if he wants? If I were a LEO I'd keep a M1A from my personal collection, just because you never know what you'll be facing. Look what these two druggie bank robbers did in Hollywood with a little preparation. Then consider what 10-20 motivated terrorists could do with LOTS of preparation. 19 of them did 9/11, around 30 did the Beslan school bloodbath.

RDbrowning, good point also about cops having to "call the cops" and wait like civilians in Cali do.
 
Caliburn-

In many police departments officers are restricted in what they can carry. If I was to engage (on duty) in a gunfight with a weapon that I'm not qualified on not only would I face disciplinary action, but if I should get sued the department and city would be under no obligation to pick up my legal bills.There would also be the possibility of criminal charges. So you see officers are really restricted on what they can carry.

It's been awhile,but I seem to remember a similar situation in the Army. I recall a troop in Germany getting an Article 15 when he took his privately owned weapon with him when his unti deployed to Bosnia in December of 95.

Sorry about my little temper explosion. Sometimes I get real tired of all the flaming.
 
I have a SWAT question, I have seen the "armored vehicle in Drive, SWAT walking behind it" tactics, and it has worked well.. Nobody thought of that??

Also, what was the SWAT response time?

I think the bad guys ALWAYS have an advantage, they have prep time, and don't have to play by the rules. The cops were at a drastic disadvantage.
 
Now bringing a pistol to a rifle fight would have me scrambling for cover and not a whole lot more. It appeared they were separated by 40 yards or so. Making a hit, with a pistol, on a moving head or leg would be a minor miracle.

Exactly. There are certainly many legitimiate criticisms with regard to police firearms training, but the failure to make head shots at 40+ yards on moving targets while under fire is not one of them. Very few, if any, of us could have done better.

Also, what was the SWAT response time?

My understanding is that SWAT was delayed due to a traffic problem caused by the shoot-out itself. I believe their response time was in the neighborhood of 40 minutes.

There seems to be more than a few misconceptions about the shootout. Here is an analysis by Ron McCarthy, of LAPD SWAT fame.

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top