Nightcrawler
Member
Anybody see commercials for this movie? You see people that are either cops or are playing cops, apparently in an interview, saying things like:
"Unless you were there, you can't understand what it was like."
"They had AK-47s."
"It was like a war zone."
Now, normally I have a policy of never criticizing anyone else's performance in a firefight. I've never been shot at, and never having done that, I'm certainly not going to judge anyone who has, as I have no way of knowing if I'd do any better myself (those who live in glass houses, blah blah blah; last thing I need is to act like mister big shot here, then pee myself the first time a round comes my way, right?).
HOWEVER...
Find a couple Vietnam vets, or now, Iraq War vets, and tell them about how scary two untrained goons with AK-47s are. Explain to them how half the Los Angeles Police Department was pinned down by two guys with rifles, who weren't even aiming or using any sensible tactics, for the better part of an hour.
Yes, yes, I know, the LAPD didn't have rifles. But guys weren't wearing armor on their legs or faces. It took them about a half hour to figure out to shoot the badguys in the legs, I noticed.
I know the patrol officers didn't have rifles. Is there any reason SWAT wasn't sent in? Is there any reason they couldn't deploy a sniper?
The problem here seems to be a lack of training issue. There's no reason the literally dozens of cops on the scene shouldn't have been able to take down the two guys, Kalashnikovs or no.
Seems to me way to prepare for situations like this is two fold. For one, make rifles available to the patrol officers. Not necessarily the latested tricked out AR-15s, either. Hell, one level-headed cop with a Garand would've been able to end that situation in about a minute.
For two, rifle/shotgun/handgun training should be increased, too.
Problem is, can all of this be done on the typical budget of a police department? That's the problem when you don't have officers who are also shooters, I guess; they don't like to practice on their own time.
So, what do you think? Am I being too hard on the LAPD? I'm not saying I could've done any better myself, but logically one would assume that the side with the vast numerical advantage would've won easily, not 44 minutes later after they raided a gunshop to get some rifles. (Ironically, that gun shop is now closed, I believe, due to the increasingly anti-gun climate in urban California.)
"Unless you were there, you can't understand what it was like."
"They had AK-47s."
"It was like a war zone."
Now, normally I have a policy of never criticizing anyone else's performance in a firefight. I've never been shot at, and never having done that, I'm certainly not going to judge anyone who has, as I have no way of knowing if I'd do any better myself (those who live in glass houses, blah blah blah; last thing I need is to act like mister big shot here, then pee myself the first time a round comes my way, right?).
HOWEVER...
Find a couple Vietnam vets, or now, Iraq War vets, and tell them about how scary two untrained goons with AK-47s are. Explain to them how half the Los Angeles Police Department was pinned down by two guys with rifles, who weren't even aiming or using any sensible tactics, for the better part of an hour.
Yes, yes, I know, the LAPD didn't have rifles. But guys weren't wearing armor on their legs or faces. It took them about a half hour to figure out to shoot the badguys in the legs, I noticed.
I know the patrol officers didn't have rifles. Is there any reason SWAT wasn't sent in? Is there any reason they couldn't deploy a sniper?
The problem here seems to be a lack of training issue. There's no reason the literally dozens of cops on the scene shouldn't have been able to take down the two guys, Kalashnikovs or no.
Seems to me way to prepare for situations like this is two fold. For one, make rifles available to the patrol officers. Not necessarily the latested tricked out AR-15s, either. Hell, one level-headed cop with a Garand would've been able to end that situation in about a minute.
For two, rifle/shotgun/handgun training should be increased, too.
Problem is, can all of this be done on the typical budget of a police department? That's the problem when you don't have officers who are also shooters, I guess; they don't like to practice on their own time.
So, what do you think? Am I being too hard on the LAPD? I'm not saying I could've done any better myself, but logically one would assume that the side with the vast numerical advantage would've won easily, not 44 minutes later after they raided a gunshop to get some rifles. (Ironically, that gun shop is now closed, I believe, due to the increasingly anti-gun climate in urban California.)