Las Vegas chase and shootout

diesel1959 · Jul 17, 2018

Byrd666 said:
Okay, that was known and understood. Now let me re-state my question. A question to all the LEO types out there. Since when has it become SOP to shoot at a bad guy through the windshield? This video is the fourth or fifth one where I've seen a cop do that.

It's not that it's "SOP". It's more that it's NOT violative of "SOP", if that makes any sense. Every situation calls for its own unique response, and so-called Use of Force policies are left somewhat open-ended for a reason. The SOP involved in this instance was whether or not it is justified to shoot from a moving vehicle and NOT necessarily whether it is justified to shoot through the windshield in so-doing.

There are departments that fairly strictly do NOT permit an officer to fire a weapon from inside their vehicle; however, there are many, many more that do permit it in some exceedingly extreme circumstances. Let me give you a clue--TxDPS DEFINITELY permits such use of deadly force. A university PD that I worked for absolutely forbade it. Both municipal PDs I've worked for permitted it. And the county I've worked for permitted it as well.

Byrd666 · Jul 17, 2018

That's a bit more of a defined answer. Thank you for answering before I re-edited my statement/question/post.

sharkey · Jul 17, 2018

oldag said:
Umm, if he had killed an innocent person with a stray bullet the reprimand would be the least of his worries. He would have to live the rest of life knowing he had killed an innocent.

Kinda like Scot Peterson who did nothing at Parkland? I guess he didn't want to take that chance huh? He probably sleeps ok at night now.

oldag · Jul 17, 2018

diesel1959 said:
No; however, a stray bullet hitting/killing a bystander would be an added charge placed upon the offender and NOT the officer, so long as the officer's legal status in making the shot (defense of self, defense of others) was in line with Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. Which it was. I don't know the law in Nevada, but in Texas, that would have been justifiable use of force and any injuries that flowed from the unlawful acts of the violator(s) and the righteous response by the officer(s) would be laid at the feet of the violator(s).

And do you think that makes it okay for an innocent bystander to be killed?

Sorry, but shooting on crowded city streets from a moving vehicle at another moving vehicle is not wise.

oldag · Jul 17, 2018

sharkey said:
Kinda like Scot Peterson who did nothing at Parkland? I guess he didn't want to take that chance huh? He probably sleeps ok at night now.

Not even remotely the same situation.

AustinN4 · Jul 17, 2018

sharkey said:
Kinda like Scot Peterson who did nothing at Parkland? I guess he didn't want to take that chance huh? He probably sleeps ok at night now.

Not at all like him, he who hid, while this cop pursued them aggressively. You are way off base with what you said. Gotta find my spreadsheet.

dmancornell · Jul 17, 2018

diesel1959 said:
No; however, a stray bullet hitting/killing a bystander would be an added charge placed upon the offender and NOT the officer, so long as the officer's legal status in making the shot (defense of self, defense of others) was in line with Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. Which it was. I don't know the law in Nevada, but in Texas, that would have been justifiable use of force and any injuries that flowed from the unlawful acts of the violator(s) and the righteous response by the officer(s) would be laid at the feet of the violator(s).

I am sure those additional charges will make bystanders' loved ones feel much, much better.

toddnjoyce · Jul 17, 2018

Seeing as how hypotheticals are being argued, I’ll just say if the cop had a LAW or a TOW, this would’ve had a happier ending.

dmancornell · Jul 17, 2018

toddnjoyce said:
Seeing as how hypotheticals are being argued, I’ll just say if the cop had a LAW or a TOW, this would’ve had a happier ending.

Cop blows up house with LAW, slap weapon of mass destruction charge on suspect.

Watch it happen.

AustinN4 · Jul 17, 2018

From now on, I think cruisers should have fender mounted twin 50's on them, with the thumb-operated fire controls on the steering wheel. Seems like that is where we are headed.

Renegade · Jul 17, 2018

He made a lot of bad decisions, he got lucky on all of them. I imagine getting out of car to engage the stopped car and seeing your gun is at slide-lock and you try to stuff your next mag in HK style, is a pretty good pucker moment.

sharkey · Jul 17, 2018

oldag said:
Not even remotely the same situation.

Exactly. I guess my point was missed by you and Austin. Here we have a bona fide bad a** who took care of business and a couple here keep talking about what "could of" happened but it didn't happen. Some seem very concerned about policy violations.
He is the exact opposite of Peterson who was a coward and did nothing and got innocent kids murdered. I was being a bit sarcastic about Peterson sleeping well at night.

It would be nice to see a lot more attaboy comments or "kudos to you" to the Metro Officer that took care of business.

V-Tach · Jul 17, 2018

AustinN4 said:
From now on, I think cruisers should have fender mounted twin 50's on them, with the thumb-operated fire controls on the steering wheel. Seems like that is where we are headed.

Cruisers? I've wanted them on my vehicles for years.....

diesel1959 · Jul 17, 2018

oldag said:
And do you think that makes it okay for an innocent bystander to be killed?

Sorry, but shooting on crowded city streets from a moving vehicle at another moving vehicle is not wise.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but the officer didn't even draw his pistol until they were OFF the crowded, busy streets. Once the violators had finally turned off onto a quieter side street, the officer took the appropriate action required.

It's not a matter of thinking it's "okay", it's a matter of stopping dangerous felons that have already killed, are spraying shots at marked police cruisers and into public, and . . . . Society EXPECTS that its police will shut folks like that down and pronto. Had the officer dropped back and the guys continued their felonious actions, the police would have been rightly-pilloried for allowing it to occur. It's not like the officer was chasing a traffic violator. Keep in mind just what the hell the guys were being pursued for before you sound off. Please.

dmancornell · Jul 17, 2018

^

Houses to the left, houses to the right, sidewalks on both sides. How many dry walls can 9mm zip through?

Don't attribute your own sheepdoggery onto "society". What "society" thinks has absolutely no impact on police procedure, nor does societal expectations lead to legal culpability (pro-tip: police have zero legal liability if they fail to protect the public). This cop did what he did because he knew "exigent circumstances" is a pliant legal term and functionally a blank check for any sort reckless action he undertakes, and anything that goes wrong can be pinned on the suspects.

Police have helicopters, they have an army, the chance this pair can escape to do more harm is essentially nil. Forcing a violent confrontation in a suburban street is foolish.

diesel1959 · Jul 18, 2018

dmancornell said:
^

Houses to the left, houses to the right, sidewalks on both sides. How many dry walls can 9mm zip through?

Don't attribute your own sheepdoggery onto "society". What "society" thinks has absolutely no impact on police procedure, nor does societal expectations lead to legal culpability (pro-tip: police have zero legal liability if they fail to protect the public). This cop did what he did because he knew "exigent circumstances" is a pliant legal term and functionally a blank check for any sort reckless action he undertakes, and anything that goes wrong can be pinned on the suspects.

Police have helicopters, they have an army, the chance this pair can escape to do more harm is essentially nil. Forcing a violent confrontation in a suburban street is foolish.

You need to do some ride-alongs, Son. Seriously. There are things going on in the ugly part of society with which you are woefully unfamiliar.

pronstar · Jul 18, 2018

I’d much rather have this cops like this patrolling the mean streets, versus the Coward from Broward County Sheriff’s Office.

“To protect and serve” means you run toward danger to stop threats to the public IMHO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

toddnjoyce · Jul 18, 2018

dmancornell said:
^

....Forcing a violent confrontation in a suburban street is foolish.

So it’s okay for criminals to recklessly discharge a firearm one or multiple times while being pursued by law enforcement?

The criminals forced this situation by committing the crime to begin with, by failing to stop and comply with LE.

Or is your position that had LE not become involved, then the two outstanding men in the vehicle being chased would have never committed a crime to begin with?

Or is your position that if engaged, LE should be required to disengage and retreat from a suspects shooting at them in order to create a more safe situation for the general public?

I’ll be totally honest: I don’t understand your thought process.

If you were in this officer’s shoes, what would you have done differently that would have prevented the criminals from starting to shoot to begin with?

Wildcat Diva · Jul 18, 2018

Not to derail current topic turn on this subject, but I have a question about his grip.

Please educate me as to if thumbs crossed grip is taught as something that if works for you then fine, or if this is considered bad form. His crossed thumb WAS down pretty far, so maybe it’s kosher for him?

I thought maybe it was taught as a ‘shooting from seated inside the car, whilst driving’ strategy...but he also does it when standing outside the car and engaging suspects with gunfire.

I’m really wanting to know, not talking shit without knowing first.

AustinN4 · Jul 18, 2018

sharkey said:
Exactly. I guess my point was missed by you and Austin. Here we have a bona fide bad a** who took care of business and a couple here keep talking about what "could of" happened but it didn't happen.

A least get it correct, sharkey. My beef was not with the officer but with with Frank59, who said in part:

Frank59 said:
I don't care if he was shooting through the glass window of a crowded restraunt. These scumbags needed to be stopped at all costs.

My problem was with the "at all costs" comment. I was trying to find Frank59's threshold for "at all costs" as his comment seemed pretty extreme to me so I threw out a hypothetical number (5 civies) but he never responded.

Las Vegas chase and shootout

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

por vida

Flyin' 'round in circles........somewhere

Well-Known

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Active Member

TGT Addict

Active Member

TGT Addict

SuperOwner

Well-Known

Watching While the Sheep Graze

por vida

Active Member

por vida

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

TGT Addict

Forum statistics