With all due respect, you are out of your freaking mind. Sorry, but there it is.
.png)
Las Vegas chase and shootout
- Thread starter oldag
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Now that is how to post a logic-free, emotionalist rant. Good job.
Look, if you really think public safety should play second fiddle to Rambo-wannabe vengeance, just say so. Then we can dispense with the myth that police "protect and serve" anybody but themselves. You can't have both.
Wow, this thread moves fast. Sorry to call so far back for this post but I'm going to do it, anyway.
With an auto, crossed thumbs are bad in every situation I can envision. (I'm not capable of envisioning everything, of course, so I'd love to hear if anyone feels that a particular situation exists for which crossed thumbs should be used when gripping an autoloader.)
Crossed thumbs are arguable when shooting revolvers so there was a time when it was more accepted. The practice bled over into the universal adoption of semi-autos which caused confusion and injuries. It took years to work its way out of the system; by now it's pretty much moribund. I think that's too bad because there are revolver shooters for whom the technique has some reasonable application. However, I never teach it because I've never had a student who has told me "I'll never shoot anything but a revolver."
On the other end of the spectrum, Jerry Miculek occasionally uses crossed thumbs because he can keep track of when he's shooting a revolver and when he's shooting a semi-auto. Guys in that rarefied air can do whatever they want and make it right.
You already have answers but I'll throw in one more data point: There is one LAPD officer who is on a full medical disability because the slide sliced so deeply into his crossed thumb that it severed a nerve, rendering that digit completely useless.
With an auto, crossed thumbs are bad in every situation I can envision. (I'm not capable of envisioning everything, of course, so I'd love to hear if anyone feels that a particular situation exists for which crossed thumbs should be used when gripping an autoloader.)
Crossed thumbs are arguable when shooting revolvers so there was a time when it was more accepted. The practice bled over into the universal adoption of semi-autos which caused confusion and injuries. It took years to work its way out of the system; by now it's pretty much moribund. I think that's too bad because there are revolver shooters for whom the technique has some reasonable application. However, I never teach it because I've never had a student who has told me "I'll never shoot anything but a revolver."
On the other end of the spectrum, Jerry Miculek occasionally uses crossed thumbs because he can keep track of when he's shooting a revolver and when he's shooting a semi-auto. Guys in that rarefied air can do whatever they want and make it right.
Good night gentleman! It's soothing to be able to share ideas and opinions and at the end of the day we are all still friends! At least I hope so! I'll continue to read posts in this thread but will refrain from any more comments! Hope I didn't ruffle anyone's feathers! Definitely was not my intention! Be safe all!
Goodnight. I'm not too far behind you. It's been a good day. Hopefully we get another.
Some folks seem to be saying the ends justifies any means (sounds like the liberals in our country). Any risk to the public was acceptable, because the officer got lucky this time and no innocents were hurt. Bad guys stopped, nothing else in the world matters.
When discussing procedures (police or otherwise), examining the "hypotheticals" (e.g., possible outcomes of a given action) is absolutely appropriate and fully necessary. Anyone who thinks that a discussion of procedures can be based solely on one incident/outcome is sorely lacking in their thought processes.
Some people seem to be confusing discussing the procedures with discussing the individual officer's bravery.
No one (certainly not me) is saying the officer was not brave. Absolutely the man was extremely brave. But that does not mean he did not take a great risk to innocents. So he got lucky this time. He may not be that lucky next time.
Emptying his magazine at a moving vehicle while trying to simultaneously drive/evade/radio was not his only option.
And with that
When discussing procedures (police or otherwise), examining the "hypotheticals" (e.g., possible outcomes of a given action) is absolutely appropriate and fully necessary. Anyone who thinks that a discussion of procedures can be based solely on one incident/outcome is sorely lacking in their thought processes.
Some people seem to be confusing discussing the procedures with discussing the individual officer's bravery.
No one (certainly not me) is saying the officer was not brave. Absolutely the man was extremely brave. But that does not mean he did not take a great risk to innocents. So he got lucky this time. He may not be that lucky next time.
Emptying his magazine at a moving vehicle while trying to simultaneously drive/evade/radio was not his only option.
And with that
Whatever happened to “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”?
The problem with adding hypothetical arguments after the fact to an actual event is that usually there’s an agenda driving it and, more importantly, it assumes facts that aren’t in evidence, turning a factual event into an emotional event.
As I see it, the basic argument is the officer’s actions recklessly endangered public safety. While that may be true in the eyes of some, it’s not true in the eyes of all, especially with very limited information available on the actual event.
And I’m okay with having a difference of opinion; not everyone is and that’s a foundational challenge in America today. You see it play out across all forms of media, pitting one opinion against another in a binary celebrity death match battle that I don’t find particularly helpful in continuing the discourse.
It would be interesting to see some of our national discussions played out today in at the same pace of, and in the same format as, the Federalist papers. The delay between writing, publication, distribution, and response allows more thorough percolation of one’s argument.
The facts, as they are known now, is that other than the criminals involved, public safety did not devolve to the point of innocent bystanders being injured.
The problem with adding hypothetical arguments after the fact to an actual event is that usually there’s an agenda driving it and, more importantly, it assumes facts that aren’t in evidence, turning a factual event into an emotional event.
As I see it, the basic argument is the officer’s actions recklessly endangered public safety. While that may be true in the eyes of some, it’s not true in the eyes of all, especially with very limited information available on the actual event.
And I’m okay with having a difference of opinion; not everyone is and that’s a foundational challenge in America today. You see it play out across all forms of media, pitting one opinion against another in a binary celebrity death match battle that I don’t find particularly helpful in continuing the discourse.
It would be interesting to see some of our national discussions played out today in at the same pace of, and in the same format as, the Federalist papers. The delay between writing, publication, distribution, and response allows more thorough percolation of one’s argument.
The facts, as they are known now, is that other than the criminals involved, public safety did not devolve to the point of innocent bystanders being injured.
Last edited:
Oh Lordy, some here are gonna have a fit over this. This dude is aggressive and out of control. Shots fired at a moving van 25yrds away in a neighborhood, a PIT, then chases the guy and shoots him in the back and he is unarmed in front of shoppers at a supermarket. Oh the humanity......
Oh my gosh. So many armchair quarterbacks.
Sent from my VS996 using Tapatalk
Sent from my VS996 using Tapatalk
Right?
I think I was in school the last time I heard the Pledge of Allegiance, but I get what you mean, the National Anthem.
Wildcat Diva
TGT Addict
- Aug 26, 2016
- 3,040
- 96
I hear/say/stand for the Pledge all the time, but we are a Scouting family. 
Damn it! I'm waaay late into this thread! Some of the danger to "innocent" bystanders could be reduced considerably if law enforcement could just utilize some fender mounted rail type guns guided by the officers voice.
(I'm giving my vote to the cop on this shoot out.)
(I'm giving my vote to the cop on this shoot out.)
And I gave you a pass in my sentence.
Green Eye Tactical
Active Member
Popcorn worthy thread so far.
Often, events like this can draw emotions from both sides of the fence. LE may not like actions being called into question, but there is value in building awareness by analyzing events. This is an important part of the process of learning from other’s experience. One of the best ways to avoid stepping over the line is to not attempt to declare whether an action was “right” or “wrong”. There are numerous factors that we are most likely not aware of surrounding the actions and what lead up to them.
While I don’t post too much on the forum but have sponsored it for some time- I’ll toss a few things into the ring here that I’ve seen discussed so far.
1- “Where is his taught?”
a. Both fortunately AND unfortunately shooting through glass is widely taught and seems to be the industry flavor of the day in many vehicle tactics courses. I, myself teach it. I have had to do this numerous times in combat and as a result, have a bit more of a pragmatic approach to it. There isn’t much rocket science to shooting through glass, however- it is a last resort. There are too many variables for the shooter to calculate on the fly. The bullet tends to deflect towards the perpendicular from the face of the glass. Front windshield glass is not flat in its angle, though. It curves on both the vertical and horizontal plane. So, while a round fired from inside will generally deflect up, it also deflects left or right depending on what side the horizontal curvature is. Sounds easy right? Well, that is for undisrupted glass. That is glass that hasn’t been shot yet. Once a round has penetrated through the windshield, you now have a clear path. However, the chance of you placing all your rounds through the one hole in a moving vehicle, with the target moving, and with you moving is not realistic. This changes how the bullet deflects completely. If the round passes generally through the hole but clips the top edge, it will deflect down. If it clips right, it pushes left, etc. The DEGREE to which it deflects will depend on numerous factors (bullet weight, velocity, the degree of curvature, etc). Most pistol rounds WILL deflect SIGNIFICANTLY. To the extent, that when I teach it, the glass (or vehicle) is very close to the berm. If it is even moderately back from the berm, even a high berm, the round can easily deflect enough to not be captured by the backstop. You also might get jacket separation, which can deflect even more. The best way to teach this, in my experience and opinion, is a “lab” environment. Show students the effect, how much it varies from caliber, velocity, bullet type, etc. and give them the information. This information is then used by the shooter to determine the acceptability of the shot. Often this is a bit of calculus, as in real life, you will have to instantly weigh all the factors, risks and probabilities to determine whether a shot is acceptable. This is something that you can evaluate on your own- however, ensure that you take extreme safety measures when doing so: distance to the berm, proper eye/ear protection, long-sleeved shirt, gloves, and dust/breathing mask. The mask is something you should consider, especially when attempting in a confined space because the inner layer of the laminate window essentially atomizes glass particles when shot- not the best thing to inhale.
2- “Why didn’t he PIT the car?”
a. Keep in mind that vehicles should not be considered ballistic protection. There are sections of a vehicle that do, or may stop a bullet, however, it is often very unreliable. Conducting a good Pit will put you in very close proximity to the target vehicle, will require the use of both of your hands to control the maneuver, and will most likely end with you at close proximity to the target vehicle. Not going to say it is wrong or right to do so, when the target vehicle is armed and has fired at you- however, this should be clearly understood before categorically stating that the officer should have done this or this is what you would have done. Often our comfort in closing the distance is different when watching from the outside, rather than when rounds start heading your way.
3- There has been talking about the shooting proficiency of Law Enforcement officers.
a. Rather than agree or dispute this point, I would pose the question of Whose fault is this? Keeping in mind that you can delegate authority, but not responsibility, where does the buck stop? I would pose that it is the fault of the citizen/constituent. If your officers aren’t trained, equipped or manned to your satisfaction, then how many town/city councils have you attended and spoke at, demanding that your elected officials properly fund/man/equip/train their officers? I definitely feel that training needs to be better, however, I also understand that this can be difficult for officers. Sure, I have seen plenty of single officers roll through courses that don’t think twice about dropping personal funds on training (this can often exceed an expenditure of $1,000-$2,000 when you factor in the course fee, travel, meals, ammo, lodging, etc). Before you dispute that amount- we are talking about vehicle tactics here. You’ll want that training from someone who is an SME on the subject with extensive experience- that changes the course costs quite a bit.
Not casting any stones here, just thought it would be productive to toss in some discussion points.
Often, events like this can draw emotions from both sides of the fence. LE may not like actions being called into question, but there is value in building awareness by analyzing events. This is an important part of the process of learning from other’s experience. One of the best ways to avoid stepping over the line is to not attempt to declare whether an action was “right” or “wrong”. There are numerous factors that we are most likely not aware of surrounding the actions and what lead up to them.
While I don’t post too much on the forum but have sponsored it for some time- I’ll toss a few things into the ring here that I’ve seen discussed so far.
1- “Where is his taught?”
a. Both fortunately AND unfortunately shooting through glass is widely taught and seems to be the industry flavor of the day in many vehicle tactics courses. I, myself teach it. I have had to do this numerous times in combat and as a result, have a bit more of a pragmatic approach to it. There isn’t much rocket science to shooting through glass, however- it is a last resort. There are too many variables for the shooter to calculate on the fly. The bullet tends to deflect towards the perpendicular from the face of the glass. Front windshield glass is not flat in its angle, though. It curves on both the vertical and horizontal plane. So, while a round fired from inside will generally deflect up, it also deflects left or right depending on what side the horizontal curvature is. Sounds easy right? Well, that is for undisrupted glass. That is glass that hasn’t been shot yet. Once a round has penetrated through the windshield, you now have a clear path. However, the chance of you placing all your rounds through the one hole in a moving vehicle, with the target moving, and with you moving is not realistic. This changes how the bullet deflects completely. If the round passes generally through the hole but clips the top edge, it will deflect down. If it clips right, it pushes left, etc. The DEGREE to which it deflects will depend on numerous factors (bullet weight, velocity, the degree of curvature, etc). Most pistol rounds WILL deflect SIGNIFICANTLY. To the extent, that when I teach it, the glass (or vehicle) is very close to the berm. If it is even moderately back from the berm, even a high berm, the round can easily deflect enough to not be captured by the backstop. You also might get jacket separation, which can deflect even more. The best way to teach this, in my experience and opinion, is a “lab” environment. Show students the effect, how much it varies from caliber, velocity, bullet type, etc. and give them the information. This information is then used by the shooter to determine the acceptability of the shot. Often this is a bit of calculus, as in real life, you will have to instantly weigh all the factors, risks and probabilities to determine whether a shot is acceptable. This is something that you can evaluate on your own- however, ensure that you take extreme safety measures when doing so: distance to the berm, proper eye/ear protection, long-sleeved shirt, gloves, and dust/breathing mask. The mask is something you should consider, especially when attempting in a confined space because the inner layer of the laminate window essentially atomizes glass particles when shot- not the best thing to inhale.
2- “Why didn’t he PIT the car?”
a. Keep in mind that vehicles should not be considered ballistic protection. There are sections of a vehicle that do, or may stop a bullet, however, it is often very unreliable. Conducting a good Pit will put you in very close proximity to the target vehicle, will require the use of both of your hands to control the maneuver, and will most likely end with you at close proximity to the target vehicle. Not going to say it is wrong or right to do so, when the target vehicle is armed and has fired at you- however, this should be clearly understood before categorically stating that the officer should have done this or this is what you would have done. Often our comfort in closing the distance is different when watching from the outside, rather than when rounds start heading your way.
3- There has been talking about the shooting proficiency of Law Enforcement officers.
a. Rather than agree or dispute this point, I would pose the question of Whose fault is this? Keeping in mind that you can delegate authority, but not responsibility, where does the buck stop? I would pose that it is the fault of the citizen/constituent. If your officers aren’t trained, equipped or manned to your satisfaction, then how many town/city councils have you attended and spoke at, demanding that your elected officials properly fund/man/equip/train their officers? I definitely feel that training needs to be better, however, I also understand that this can be difficult for officers. Sure, I have seen plenty of single officers roll through courses that don’t think twice about dropping personal funds on training (this can often exceed an expenditure of $1,000-$2,000 when you factor in the course fee, travel, meals, ammo, lodging, etc). Before you dispute that amount- we are talking about vehicle tactics here. You’ll want that training from someone who is an SME on the subject with extensive experience- that changes the course costs quite a bit.
Not casting any stones here, just thought it would be productive to toss in some discussion points.
