Reckless Anaheim Police Chase/Shooting
- Thread starter Double Naught Spy
- 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:
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
Literally a second before they started firing, they called out that he had a 417 out of the window, which means he was holding a gun out of the window. If he made any movement to make them think he was going to shoot at them (which their reaction shortly after reporting the 417 lead me to believe, along with the fact that they later reported that the suspect was "pointing the gun backwards at us"), then they are justified in using lethal force.
Furthermore, the suspects own brother reported to police that his brother was hallucinating on drugs and was armed with a knife and gun.
The gun ended up being a CO2 air pistol. They thought it was a real gun and they had every right to think that based on what they were told. The idiot pointed it at them, and therefore they saw him as a significant threat and acted accordingly.
You can armchair quarterback all you want, but you were not there, you don't know what they were thinking, what all they saw, and you don't know all the facts. Those cameras showed very little of what was actually happening.
I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
Good day to you.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Guess how I can tell you have never shot through windshield glass
Right, because only government employees can take self-defense pistol classes.
And now you will now explain that cops are so well trained they can adjust their aim according when shooting through shattered, un-even and angled laminated glass.
Right, because only government employees can take self-defense pistol classes.
And now you will now explain that cops are so well trained they can adjust their aim according when shooting through shattered, un-even and angled laminated glass.
Not true.
No I think it is pretty reckless. There are plenty of ways to stop a fleeing vehicle without shooting at it. The driver had a partner in the car with him so why was he firing through the windshield in the first place.
Double Naught Spy
Well-Known
I have, but only from the outside to the inside to measure bullet deflection. Other students got do do the inside to outside shooting. However, here is a nifty video that shows something similar to what we experienced. In this case, the shot deflects some 4" in as little distance as from the driver's seat to the front bumper of the car where the target is situated - call it 4" per 8 feet to be generous. So bumper to tailgate, call it 8" and add 8" per car length. See 3:40 in video.
We found bullet deflection was not always uniformly vertical particularly as the angle of incidence changed (such as passenger shooting out driver's side of window).
Now if you manage to shoot through a hole, obviously there should be little or no change from the POA as the bullet does not impact (as much) glass. Every first bullet through the glass, deviated, however.
Pederson made a lot of shots that did not simply pass through other holes.
Sorry I should enable sarcasm tags.
Besides the obvious issues with accuracy both with one handed shooting while driving and windshield in the way, there is also the problem of background awareness while doing all of this. But hey, cops can never be a threat to civilian safety no matter what they do, so it's all good. Civilians don't want to go home safely at night.
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
What do you suppose would happen if they did back off, but the guy high off his ass had a real gun and went on to kill some innocent bystander. Hell, he wouldn't even need a gun for that. He could just hit them with his truck.
Then there would be people online bitching that they didn't stop him sooner. The police cannot win.
Also, what do you think would happen when backup did show up? That he would magically give up? He was waving a gun out of his window and pointing it at police. They are not going to PIT in that situation and they are not going to let him keep doing that. He would be seen as a significant threat to everyone around him, and they would have to treat him as such.
It easy to armchair quarterback and say they should have done this, or that, especially when you have time to think and have the power of hindsight, but it's something else entirely to be in that position at that moment and to have to make those split second decisions. I'm not going to say everything they did was right, but I'm not going to completely condemn them either. They were told that a guy had a gun and was hallucinating, he pointed a "gun" at them when they showed up, and they acted accordingly.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Funny how you criticize others for commenting with hindsight (incorrect use of that term, I might add) then toss out hypothetical scenarios. Saying that shooting through a windshield in a crowded neighborhood is bad idea is not hindsight because it is not a conditional statement.
Also amusing is your claim of a "split second decision" when the cop fired 76 shots and reloaded multiple times. How many seconds did that take?
By the way the cops always win, it is called qualified immunity.
Funny how you second guess the actions of this officer from the comfort of your chair.
And if you think the police aren't liable for every round they fire, you're even more delusional.
Just so we all know, please share how much law enforcement experience you have, especially in tactics...
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
hind·sight: Recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence.
I was asking oldag what he thought would happen, nothing more.
It was a split second decision to shoot in the first place. Why they continued shooting is up for debate. I don't have those answers and neither do you. Though if you do, I'm sure the Anaheim DA would like to speak to you about it.
That's a load of bullshit.
Last edited:
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We have moved from criticizing what actually happened to what might have happened. I am sure the Chief did not like the officers actions.........from his desk in the ivory tower where no one is shooting at him.
What was needed was an assist unit coming from a side street to T Bone the a..hole. now THAT is a fight stopper.
Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
What was needed was an assist unit coming from a side street to T Bone the a..hole. now THAT is a fight stopper.
Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
And how is the statement in question conditional based on this particular event? It isn't, therefore your use of the term is absolutely wrong.
Typical cop-out and pun intended. People are free to comment on what information is available. It is not our fault cops and the government in general hide behind a wall of secrecy of their making.
Sure it is. Next you will say that cops operate under the same legal constraints as everyone else.
Ah yes, the "walk a mile in their shoes" logical fallacy. The implication being one must lose his objectiveness and have a pro-police bias in order to discuss police malfeasance. Sorry, not playing that game.
Oh they are absolutely liable. But they enjoy qualified immunity so that liability is quite different from what a pleb would face.
See above shoes logical fallacy. Also this is more of a legal matter and we know how well versed cops are in that arena.
The dead guy didn't shoot at cops, but don't let facts get in the way.
