North Hollywood shootouts rewind
- Thread starter willbrink
- Start date
- Status
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
lol
I'll go so far as to say Most 90% of THR members could have made the shot. I've seen your targets many can put their rounds in the size of a dime @ 100 yards, a quarter @ 200 yards and some like Zak can do it @ 1,000 yards.
were any of those targets shooting back?
I'll go so far as to say Most 90% of THR members could have made the shot. I've seen your targets many can put their rounds in the size of a dime @ 100 yards, a quarter @ 200 yards and some like Zak can do it @ 1,000 yards.
were any of those targets shooting back?
Shadow1198
Member
I didn't see anyone mention this but, it should also be noted that these two guys had taken barbiturates just prior to the robbery so that's another factor to consider. What physical pain may have been caused by rounds hitting their armor, it was that much less effective because of the drugs. A CNS shot is the only thing that would have stopped those 2 individuals instantly in that situation.
Standard procedure around here is to stage EMS and hold them until the area is secure. I don't know why that protocol would be any different anywhere else. These days many tactical units have paramedics who deploy with them and the injured suspect would have been treated immediately. LAPD D Platoon may have had a TEMS program back then, but you have to remember they didn't deploy as they normally would. It was a sort of pick up team of SWAT offers who happened to be at the academy when the call came out. In fact at least one of them was still in the shorts and t shirt he had been working out in.
Jeff
Feud
Member
If I remember correctly the Police got a hold of an armored car, and volunteers went in to get their wounded.
Jeff White said:
"The fact is, there were plenty of COM hits on the gunmen. All ineffective because of the body armor they were wearing. Without a rifle or a round that had enough kinetic energy to knock the gunmen off their feet (which would also knock the shooter off his feet BTW) they weren't going to stop them, covered in kevlar with padding under it as the gunmen were."
Jeff, I agree with most of your statement, but with all due respect, some rifle rounds do carry enough kinetic energy to knock people off their feet - without knocking down the shooter.
A hunter who is leaning into a 30.06 does not get dumped onto his butt. But the deer and elk sometimes fall a$$ over tea kettle - even if it does get back up! I have seen it happen with my own eyes - especially if the target is caught in mid-stride when their balance is precarious.
Now some may say that getting knocked down in those instances has something to do with the bullet actually going through the vitals and that kind of shock makes it tough for the target to keep its feet. That may be a factor, but please see the attached video for a case in point of what can happen even if the armor is not penetrated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_kv4p65q3s
"The fact is, there were plenty of COM hits on the gunmen. All ineffective because of the body armor they were wearing. Without a rifle or a round that had enough kinetic energy to knock the gunmen off their feet (which would also knock the shooter off his feet BTW) they weren't going to stop them, covered in kevlar with padding under it as the gunmen were."
Jeff, I agree with most of your statement, but with all due respect, some rifle rounds do carry enough kinetic energy to knock people off their feet - without knocking down the shooter.
A hunter who is leaning into a 30.06 does not get dumped onto his butt. But the deer and elk sometimes fall a$$ over tea kettle - even if it does get back up! I have seen it happen with my own eyes - especially if the target is caught in mid-stride when their balance is precarious.
Now some may say that getting knocked down in those instances has something to do with the bullet actually going through the vitals and that kind of shock makes it tough for the target to keep its feet. That may be a factor, but please see the attached video for a case in point of what can happen even if the armor is not penetrated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_kv4p65q3s
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I spent a good amount of time looking at the available information, aerial images of the fight in progress, watching and reading interviews, etc. I plotted distances from the robbers alongside the bank and their car in the parking lot to cops at the street, behind the key kiosk, etc.
Except for initially in the fight and after the robbers took flight, the gun fight was at 75 yards and greater. The squads in the intersection where the cops and non cops were bleeding out was right at 75 yards from the bad guys. The next major clustering of cops was at about 125 yards. The distances to the kiosk area range between about 35 yards and 50+ yards, but one or more of the cops there got wounded and they all bugged out pretty quick.
I don't know what exactly the LAPD training was at the time, but officers interviewed around that time only had to qualify out to 25 yards with COM shots. So while street officers may have had some training with head shots, chances are that it was limited, on stationary targets, and inside of 25 yards. In other words, during the longest part of the engagement when officers needed to make the best precision shots they could, they were trying to do it on small moving targets at distances 3-5 times their maximum qualification range for COM shots.
I don't know about the front sights their guns, but on my pistols, a human head is about the same size as the front sight or smaller at 75 yards and is much smaller at 125 yards. At 75, most normal folks would have a tough time landing a head shot on a stationary target and virtually no chance on one at 125 yards. Add to that the motion of the targets, the threat posed by them, the less than ideal shooting positions, and it really is no wonder head shots were not landed, except via random chance and they didn't get lucky with random chance.
Personally, I don't buy into the notion that the cops were outgunned. There were LOTS of cops on scene who engaged the bad guys from multiple directions. Somewhere above, it was noted something like 125 on scene and I read numbers in a couple of places saying the number of cops having fired was somewhere between 50 and 70 (different sources). In all, something like 400+ cops responded to the event. That is a LOT of firepower. They simply were NOT able to use it effectively or in a coordinated manner.
The real key isn't that they were outgunned, which they weren't, but that they were out armored. Many of the cop injuries weren't by direct gunshot, but by shrapnel to unarmored areas. Tje bad guys simply made better use of armor than the cops. As noted above, the cops came to the fight with the skills and tool set that would be fine for 99.9999% of what they need to do. The bad guys came to the fight fully ready to be that 0.0001%.
Except for initially in the fight and after the robbers took flight, the gun fight was at 75 yards and greater. The squads in the intersection where the cops and non cops were bleeding out was right at 75 yards from the bad guys. The next major clustering of cops was at about 125 yards. The distances to the kiosk area range between about 35 yards and 50+ yards, but one or more of the cops there got wounded and they all bugged out pretty quick.
I don't know what exactly the LAPD training was at the time, but officers interviewed around that time only had to qualify out to 25 yards with COM shots. So while street officers may have had some training with head shots, chances are that it was limited, on stationary targets, and inside of 25 yards. In other words, during the longest part of the engagement when officers needed to make the best precision shots they could, they were trying to do it on small moving targets at distances 3-5 times their maximum qualification range for COM shots.
I don't know about the front sights their guns, but on my pistols, a human head is about the same size as the front sight or smaller at 75 yards and is much smaller at 125 yards. At 75, most normal folks would have a tough time landing a head shot on a stationary target and virtually no chance on one at 125 yards. Add to that the motion of the targets, the threat posed by them, the less than ideal shooting positions, and it really is no wonder head shots were not landed, except via random chance and they didn't get lucky with random chance.
Personally, I don't buy into the notion that the cops were outgunned. There were LOTS of cops on scene who engaged the bad guys from multiple directions. Somewhere above, it was noted something like 125 on scene and I read numbers in a couple of places saying the number of cops having fired was somewhere between 50 and 70 (different sources). In all, something like 400+ cops responded to the event. That is a LOT of firepower. They simply were NOT able to use it effectively or in a coordinated manner.
The real key isn't that they were outgunned, which they weren't, but that they were out armored. Many of the cop injuries weren't by direct gunshot, but by shrapnel to unarmored areas. Tje bad guys simply made better use of armor than the cops. As noted above, the cops came to the fight with the skills and tool set that would be fine for 99.9999% of what they need to do. The bad guys came to the fight fully ready to be that 0.0001%.
At 100 yds, I can hit a stationary 8" (head size) target easily, regularly, and under pressure with an EBR. I think most people here can.
However, If I am reading this right, there are claims that a 100 yd shot on the same target with a pistol is similarly easy. I cannot hit an 8" target at 100 yds with a pistol. I have trouble hitting a full size wooden pallet at that distance. Perhaps I am uniquely unskilled, or have been poorly trained. However, based on my own experiences I doubt the veracity of this claim.
However, If I am reading this right, there are claims that a 100 yd shot on the same target with a pistol is similarly easy. I cannot hit an 8" target at 100 yds with a pistol. I have trouble hitting a full size wooden pallet at that distance. Perhaps I am uniquely unskilled, or have been poorly trained. However, based on my own experiences I doubt the veracity of this claim.
rainbowbob
Member
I assume that LAPD has a SWAT team with sharp-shooters that can make those precise long shots. If it was possible to set that up they undoubtedly would have...wouldn't they? My impression is that the circumstances did not allow for that. Does anyone know why they were not able to do that? If they couldn't set it up - who among us could?
docfubar
Member
I just got done with a training class this week and we discussed that case. I am not going to into ny weapons stuff but for the uninformed inital reports that came in was 4 to 6 gunmen. That is one reason the suspect did not get medical attention right away. I don't know any medics that would run to a scene without it being declared safe.
Rule number 1 for any medic responding to a scene is "MAKE SURE THE SCENE IS SAFE"
Rule number 1 for any medic responding to a scene is "MAKE SURE THE SCENE IS SAFE"
Those guys knew they were going down hard, they were prepared to take as many with them as possible. Their thought process is diferent than most people can understand. They were drugged up and didn't care about getting killed. The cops on the other hand wanted to survive the shootout, and to stand in the open and take that kind of shot with auto fire coming at you is only in the movies. Most people seek immediate cover when being shot at. It's interesting how a day or so ago there was an exchange about the average "JOE", needing more practice to get a carry permit, This is why I said it will never happen. If trained LEO's couldn't handle the situation, how could the average guy who just got his pistol be expected to be trained to a meaningfull level, of course there are those that say they would have done this or that, but they weren't there, so how could they or any of us know. I have watched it many times, and I don't know what I would have done, other than to try to survive it, until a SWAT team or someone got a lucky shot in. It's different when the other guy wants and expects to die, he loses all fear. Like the suicide bombers, they just don't care, hard to grab on to that mentality for sane folks.
Steve in PA
Member
I think "lonegunman" should go back to playing Rainbow6 on his computer.
The LEO's that responded were out-gunned due to idiots high up in the chain of command refusing to properly arm their officers.
Also, please tell us what infantry squad is armed soley with handguns.
When your NRA targets start shooting back at you with full-auto weapon fire, let us know.
The LEO's that responded were out-gunned due to idiots high up in the chain of command refusing to properly arm their officers.
Also, please tell us what infantry squad is armed soley with handguns.
When your NRA targets start shooting back at you with full-auto weapon fire, let us know.
Harley Quinn
Member
The second gunman to die was killed by the first SWAT officer on the scene. He had his semi auto rifle with him 223.
It was one of those days when things just were not going right. The SWAT officer responded and so did others but the traffic was really bad and other problems. He was pinned down and shot the guy in the foot from under the car, and then when he fell he shot him some more.
Like I said, some bad policy and fear and bad luck for the bad guys, they died. A few officers were wounded and a lot of police cars were shot up. The AK 47s that the bad guys had were really spewing out rounds and many shot back, no good kill hits though.
Regards
X_m1tanker
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
....
Last edited:
X_m1tanker
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
I coulda taken them bank robbers out with headshots at 100 yards using a scoped ruger 10/22... forget about the stupid body armor. The way they were bee-poppin down the street thinking they were all bad-ars and stuff, lmao... Keep it simple.... 20/20 hindsight but I guess the cops did the best they could under the restrictions of rules of engagement and the stress of combat.
CNYCacher
Member
We wasn't knocked off his feet, he fell straight down, probably out of surprise/shock/training.
Mythbusters did a great episode on the hollywood myth of people getting blown back or knocked down when shot. They hung buster the dummy by a hook at the end of a horizontal bar, so that if he was pushed back am inch he would fall off the bar.
They then shot him point blank with varying calibers up to a .50BMG. all he ever did was fall straight down
There was (IIRC) a Brinkman armored car on-scene which was used to evacuate some of the initially injured officers and civilians shortly after the event started. I'm not sure if those cars/trucks can withstand AK fire, but It'd make a lot of sense to provide (at least) firewall and door protection to the driver sufficient to protect against light rifle.
It could've been done,I think.
Deanimator
Member
Unprovoked personal attacks become "high road" these days? Well, nothing new there...
If 5.56mm had equal penetration to 7.62mm (nevermind .30-06) the Army wouldn't waste money on M60s and M240s.
.30 bolt guns with and without iron sights are ubiquitous. But they HAD to have AR15s. I wonder how many Remington 700s there were within a 1/2 mile radius of the shootout...
If I am grabbing a rifle where I have sight down the barrel, I want semi-auto. No way am I going to grab a 300 winmag bolt gun if I can't sight it in. I'll leave that to you I guess.
Now I might have preferred to get an M1A or something like that, but an AR would be good also. There are any number of reasons they might have picked AR's. If their SWAT team uses them, that might have made them look at AR's right there. Those particular guys might have had some familiarity with them. There was probably a good supply of magazines at the store as well. I don't see too many gun stores stocking M1A or FAL mags.
Now I might have preferred to get an M1A or something like that, but an AR would be good also. There are any number of reasons they might have picked AR's. If their SWAT team uses them, that might have made them look at AR's right there. Those particular guys might have had some familiarity with them. There was probably a good supply of magazines at the store as well. I don't see too many gun stores stocking M1A or FAL mags.
doc2rn
Member
Combat is different for everyone. I have seen some cry, some lose bodily function, some curl up in fetal position, and some fight back. You need strong leaders to command the force, that is what was lacking that day. Alot of officers where acting independently, and alot got in trouble because they used up all of their ammo.
Granted they where probably not prepared for a full on fight.
You dont get to pick your battles. A single rifle with a competant marksman would have made a world of difference. However a head shot with a service pistol at 50 yds, absolutely. 100 yds is not very realistic for head shots. Pretty sure I could not do it with my favorite sidearm in .357 Sig.
Training is expensive with the cost of ammo these days, you have to be willing to make the sacrifice. However I never make the mistake of not bringing enough gun to the fight.
I grieve for the loss of life that day, and may all of the officers wounds be healed. Thank you for stepping up to stand on the wall with the rest of us.
Granted they where probably not prepared for a full on fight.
You dont get to pick your battles. A single rifle with a competant marksman would have made a world of difference. However a head shot with a service pistol at 50 yds, absolutely. 100 yds is not very realistic for head shots. Pretty sure I could not do it with my favorite sidearm in .357 Sig.
Training is expensive with the cost of ammo these days, you have to be willing to make the sacrifice. However I never make the mistake of not bringing enough gun to the fight.
I grieve for the loss of life that day, and may all of the officers wounds be healed. Thank you for stepping up to stand on the wall with the rest of us.
FlyinBryan
Member
Lonestar49
Member
Taking head shots.. hmmm
...
Sure, maybe that was the call-out, but I'd hope that the real reason none did, nor most try, was that "a moving head-shot" with a pistol is a very tiny COM hit, and I would hope the LEO's were thinking IF, and where, any missed shots would go, and do to what, who, etc..
I have to agree, it is far too "easy a task" sitting back in a chair, with "no pressure" or "fear of armor piecing ammo" coming your way, while, semi, chasing moving BG's and saying they should have nailed them both within 15mins..
The running them over with a car idea has merit, except again, going at them, with glass and semi thin metal as protection against armor piercing full auto fire, is not such an easy choice, given, most want "to live" as much as the next guy, including those that have the Monday Night Quarterback approaches or the Armchair Generals
Ls
...
Sure, maybe that was the call-out, but I'd hope that the real reason none did, nor most try, was that "a moving head-shot" with a pistol is a very tiny COM hit, and I would hope the LEO's were thinking IF, and where, any missed shots would go, and do to what, who, etc..
I have to agree, it is far too "easy a task" sitting back in a chair, with "no pressure" or "fear of armor piecing ammo" coming your way, while, semi, chasing moving BG's and saying they should have nailed them both within 15mins..
The running them over with a car idea has merit, except again, going at them, with glass and semi thin metal as protection against armor piercing full auto fire, is not such an easy choice, given, most want "to live" as much as the next guy, including those that have the Monday Night Quarterback approaches or the Armchair Generals
Ls
lonegunman
Member
Calculated number of criminals shot and wounded or killed by civilians by Gary Kleck:
"A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey. "
"The rarest, but most serious form of self-defense with a gun is a defensive killing. The FBI does not publish statistics on self-defense killings per se, but it did start publishing counts of civilian justifiable homicides gathered through their Supplementary Homicides Reports program in their 1991 issue. For a variety of reasons, the FBI counts of civilian justifiable homicides represent only a minority of all civilian legal defensive homicides. FBI-counted civilian justifiable homicides were used to estimate total civilian legal defensive homicides. FBI counts of police justifiable homicides are also reported here. Regardless of which counts of homicides by police are used, the results indicate that civilians legally kill far more felons than police officers do. The figures imply that, of 24,614 civilian (not by police) homicide deaths in the United States in 1990, about 1400 to 3200, or 5.6% to 13.0% were legal civilian defensive homicides."
There are varying opinions of what the number of justifiable shootings by civilians compared to LEO's is nationwide. I happen to think Kleck has a lot of support for his position.
I never said, shooting at stationary targets at a friendly firing range was equal to shooting in combat or under stress. It seems some people here discount all training because it is not done under combat conditions. I happen to believe that if the only time you use a gun is when you are under fire, you are at a serious disadvantage, even if you are a police officer.
Most firearms training, even in police departments takes place on a firing range where the targets do not fire back. If the training is not relevant to the type of threat encountered you have problems. I doubt that before 1997 people expected to encounter two heavily armed, drugged up killers with full auto weapons anywhere outside of a movie screen. Before 2001, planes flying into tall buildings was simply a movie nightmare, now it is a possible threat to the entire country.
Trying to pull the trigger with your heart pounding and stuff whizzing by is tough on everybody. This is where all the muscle memory and practiced habits with a weapon come in handy. Knowing where your weapon shoots for every practical distance comes in handy as well. My observation has been over the years that a great number of cops do not shoot other than periodic qualification. Knowing I could be sitting in a desert with a crappy M9 and little else against a guy with an AK, I made sure I could shoot it at farther than normal distances. Little did I realize that recurring trips to crappy deserts would be the story of the next twenty years.
Monday morning quarterbacking is what changed habits, it got better carry weapons and the use of carbines reviewed, it got training improved. It would have been foolish for the LAPD to announce they performed perfectly because they are cops and above reproach. This is why I find it silly when the LEO apologists here get upset at opinions from others. It was the opinion of others that changed and got them improved weapons and training. Before 1997, they had little support for more powerful weapons from local civilians. As much as LEO's hate to admit it, they work for the public and are subject to scrutiny from the public.
Personally, I could care less if they let Matasareanu die. I just don't doubt for a second they took their sweet time making sure the area was secure. This guy just spent 40 minutes trying to kill them.
That pesky Army squad I mentioned does not dissolve into nothing simply because they have only handguns, the tactics and training are still exist when they have M9's instead of rifles.
All ability do win a gunfight does not dissolve or disappear simply because you have a pistol and not a rifle. A pistol round through the legs and feet or hands and face is still painful. This is especially true if you can shoot the pistol accurately.
And as always, this is just my opinion. (and quotes from Gary Kleck as noted, bold is for added emphasis on some parts)
"A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey. "
"The rarest, but most serious form of self-defense with a gun is a defensive killing. The FBI does not publish statistics on self-defense killings per se, but it did start publishing counts of civilian justifiable homicides gathered through their Supplementary Homicides Reports program in their 1991 issue. For a variety of reasons, the FBI counts of civilian justifiable homicides represent only a minority of all civilian legal defensive homicides. FBI-counted civilian justifiable homicides were used to estimate total civilian legal defensive homicides. FBI counts of police justifiable homicides are also reported here. Regardless of which counts of homicides by police are used, the results indicate that civilians legally kill far more felons than police officers do. The figures imply that, of 24,614 civilian (not by police) homicide deaths in the United States in 1990, about 1400 to 3200, or 5.6% to 13.0% were legal civilian defensive homicides."
There are varying opinions of what the number of justifiable shootings by civilians compared to LEO's is nationwide. I happen to think Kleck has a lot of support for his position.
I never said, shooting at stationary targets at a friendly firing range was equal to shooting in combat or under stress. It seems some people here discount all training because it is not done under combat conditions. I happen to believe that if the only time you use a gun is when you are under fire, you are at a serious disadvantage, even if you are a police officer.
Most firearms training, even in police departments takes place on a firing range where the targets do not fire back. If the training is not relevant to the type of threat encountered you have problems. I doubt that before 1997 people expected to encounter two heavily armed, drugged up killers with full auto weapons anywhere outside of a movie screen. Before 2001, planes flying into tall buildings was simply a movie nightmare, now it is a possible threat to the entire country.
Trying to pull the trigger with your heart pounding and stuff whizzing by is tough on everybody. This is where all the muscle memory and practiced habits with a weapon come in handy. Knowing where your weapon shoots for every practical distance comes in handy as well. My observation has been over the years that a great number of cops do not shoot other than periodic qualification. Knowing I could be sitting in a desert with a crappy M9 and little else against a guy with an AK, I made sure I could shoot it at farther than normal distances. Little did I realize that recurring trips to crappy deserts would be the story of the next twenty years.
Monday morning quarterbacking is what changed habits, it got better carry weapons and the use of carbines reviewed, it got training improved. It would have been foolish for the LAPD to announce they performed perfectly because they are cops and above reproach. This is why I find it silly when the LEO apologists here get upset at opinions from others. It was the opinion of others that changed and got them improved weapons and training. Before 1997, they had little support for more powerful weapons from local civilians. As much as LEO's hate to admit it, they work for the public and are subject to scrutiny from the public.
Personally, I could care less if they let Matasareanu die. I just don't doubt for a second they took their sweet time making sure the area was secure. This guy just spent 40 minutes trying to kill them.
That pesky Army squad I mentioned does not dissolve into nothing simply because they have only handguns, the tactics and training are still exist when they have M9's instead of rifles.
All ability do win a gunfight does not dissolve or disappear simply because you have a pistol and not a rifle. A pistol round through the legs and feet or hands and face is still painful. This is especially true if you can shoot the pistol accurately.
And as always, this is just my opinion. (and quotes from Gary Kleck as noted, bold is for added emphasis on some parts)
scrat
Member
I work out in the san fernando valley and have passed that location many times. As soon as i get a chance i think i will stop by and take some pictures. We can have some pics of how it looks today. Might be able to still find bullet holes. I wouldnt doubt it.
Blackbeard
Member
Let's remember that there were reports of a 3rd gunman, possibly holding hostages inside the bank. In hindsight we know there was not, but in the confusion of an event like this it's not crystal clear that there were only two. You're not going to bring paramedics in where there may be another gunman spraying bullets. They didn't know the area was secure for a good 45 minutes after Matasereanu was arrested.
I don't know why everyone thinks the police were inadequately armed. Suppose 99% of the time a cop doesn't need his weapon. When he does need a weapon, his sidearm is adequate 99% of the time. So do you equip every cruiser in LA with a weapon that is unnecessary 9,999 out of 10,000 calls? No, that's what SWAT is for. And that's what happened here. They called in SWAT, and the result is the only two dead were the suspects. I can't realistically imagine a better outcome.
I don't know why everyone thinks the police were inadequately armed. Suppose 99% of the time a cop doesn't need his weapon. When he does need a weapon, his sidearm is adequate 99% of the time. So do you equip every cruiser in LA with a weapon that is unnecessary 9,999 out of 10,000 calls? No, that's what SWAT is for. And that's what happened here. They called in SWAT, and the result is the only two dead were the suspects. I can't realistically imagine a better outcome.
- Status
