My kind of America

[Nick_W]

Quite a lot of audacity to Monday morning quarterback their tactics and techniques, especially when two officers had already been killed and a third, wounded. If it took them 102 shots to be certain that the perpetrator had been neutralized, then that's what it took. I fail to see how a SWAT team acting in the line of duty, qualifies as "vigilante justice." Some people apparently live in a very interesting alternate reality....

If it takes a SWAT team 102 rounds to make sure one guy is neutralized, then I know of one SWAT team who's members need to find a new line of work.

To be honest, if their account of the event is accurate, I have no problems with the fact that they killed the suspect. I do have a problem with the hack job they made of it and the total lack of discipline they displayed.

 

[Nick_W]

IMHO here is where i think you are both wrong :no

First ) not all humans are created equal if they were he would not have shot a cop and his dog and people would not be rapists murderers and thief's

Again, this isn't a matter of what they did, but how they did it. Killing the guy appears to be justified. The methods they employed to get the job done make them look like a bunch of hacks.

Second) If more perps got shot at the point of the crime less expense to us the general public and maybe a deterrent to further criminals

Now that is a frightening statement. Personally, I'm a big fan of not appointing the cops to be judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[adurso]

Those who feel that the number of rounds fired was excessive should study the typical police involved shooting. They should also look at the FBI study of the Miami shootout in 1988.

Unlike television bad guys do not stop shooting at you because they are hit. In the Miami shootout the first round the main bad guy took was a non survivable wound. In the next few minutes he wreaked havoc upon a group of FBI agents, both he and his partner fought on with multiple gunshot wounds.

If you want to mimic the experience of a gunfight go and run a mile as fast as you can, run up to a life size target and stop 7 yards away from that target and draw and fire trying to keep all rounds fired in center mass. This will give you some small idea of what the experience is like as related to accuracy....

 

[Kingpatzer]

Again, this isn't a matter of what they did, but how they did it. Killing the guy appears to be justified. The methods they employed to get the job done make them look like a bunch of hacks.

Spot on! The lack of fire discipline is the problem. I'm using the term vigilante justice as it appears that this was an emotional rather than professional shooting, do to both the large number of rounds in the air, and the rather egregious failure to actually hit the target.

Now that is a frightening statement. Personally, I'm a big fan of not appointing the cops to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Agreed again. I have no problems with responding with appropriate proportional force. But the cops have a duty to be professional. Given the account presented here, I doubt these guys were even aware of their field of fire.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Those who feel that the number of rounds fired was excessive should study the typical police involved shooting.

That the average cop is poorly trained and probably shouldn't be carrying a gun is pretty much a given. However, we're talking about a SWAT team here.

Unlike television bad guys do not stop shooting at you because they are hit. . . .

This will give you some small idea of what the experience is like as related to accuracy....

If you read Nick's posts, it sounds like he is perfectly aware of what a fire fight is like in real life. I won't belabor the point, but I'm not precisely ignorant of the experience either.

 

[Nick_W]

Those who feel that the number of rounds fired was excessive should study the typical police involved shooting. They should also look at the FBI study of the Miami shootout in 1988.

Unlike television bad guys do not stop shooting at you because they are hit. In the Miami shootout the first round the main bad guy took was a non survivable wound. In the next few minutes he wreaked havoc upon a group of FBI agents, both he and his partner fought on with multiple gunshot wounds.

Yes, this is true, people don't always stop shooting once they are shot. But there is still no need to put 68 rounds into a person. I also saw no mention in this particular incident of the suspect even firing at the SWAT team. It just says he raised his weapon. I have to wonder if they even stopped shooting to see if he was still alive and firing or if they just pulled the trigger until it went click.

If you want to mimic the experience of a gunfight go and run a mile as fast as you can, run up to a life size target and stop 7 yards away from that target and draw and fire trying to keep all rounds fired in center mass. This will give you some small idea of what the experience is like as related to accuracy....

Honest question. Have you ever actually been in a firefight? Because I have, and it was really nothing at all like running a mile and then shooting at a target. And it also did not, in any way cause me to totally disregard all the training I had ever received and toss the concept of trigger discipline out the window.

 

[Captain Walt]

Only missed 42 times. Fired 110 rounds... "I am" a shooter And in order to maneuver on your target you need to suppress your target to keep his head down so he can't shoot back. I think that 110 round is pretty disciplined. 68 hits can take a good SWAT team second to achieve.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

Bingo. Cap'n Walt gets it!

 

[adurso]

Yes, this is true, people don't always stop shooting once they are shot. But there is still no need to put 68 rounds into a person. I also saw no mention in this particular incident of the suspect even firing at the SWAT team. It just says he raised his weapon. I have to wonder if they even stopped shooting to see if he was still alive and firing or if they just pulled the trigger until it went click.



Honest question. Have you ever actually been in a firefight? Because I have, and it was really nothing at all like running a mile and then shooting at a target. And it also did not, in any way cause me to totally disregard all the training I had ever received and toss the concept of trigger discipline out the window.

Read what was written. AS related to accuracy is the key part here.

To answer your question; yes, and each experience was different. Ranging from military to LE. I am also one of the people that investigated and debriefed such things.

Although YOUR individual experience may be that YOU as an individual are disciplined enough to respond as trained not everyone is.

Unless your individual experiences are universal they have no place in training or debriefing except as atypical anecdotal parables.

As to the need to put 68 rounds into a person I again would suggest the FBI study of the Miami shootout, they will make it available to local departments if asked. I would also refer you to the multiple studies conducted by BCJS as related to police shootings.

By the way, your "honest question" is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority" in which one attempts to establish the supremacy of one's position via establishing oneself as an authority in a subject thus denigrating another's position....

 

[adurso]

Only missed 42 times. Fired 110 rounds... "I am" a shooter And in order to maneuver on your target you need to suppress your target to keep his head down so he can't shoot back. I think that 110 round is pretty disciplined. 68 hits can take a good SWAT team second to achieve.

No offense intended but suppressive fire actually has no place in law enforcement...The greatest asset law enforcement has in a critical situation is time; one's position of cover or concealment may always be held (in safety) and additional assets mobilized or alternatives employed