perhaps mag dump isn't always the best tactic

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know where you went but I went to two different academies in NJ, in 1980 and 1983, and both of them trained us in this exact scenario, as well as many others.
1982 at Niagara County Law Enforcement Academy.

Then taught after completing firearms instructor in the late 90's.Camp Smith under F.B.I. school

This scenario was NEVER covered.

AND if it was addressed at all,it was NEVER done with actual force on force [ the ONLY way to really train for this crap].
 
Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in this thread.

You weren't there. You didn't have the tango in your sights. Get over yourselves. It was an unfortunate tragedy but at least the threat was neutralized and the hostage taker won't be taking any more hostages anytime soon. Now the hostage? It's called collateral and it happens. Good shoot IMHO.
 
Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in this thread.

You weren't there. You didn't have the tango in your sights. Get over yourselves. It was an unfortunate tragedy but at least the threat was neutralized and the hostage taker won't be taking any more hostages anytime soon. Now the hostage? It's called collateral and it happens. Good shoot IMHO.

there's a big difference in addressing various tactics and addressing outcomes.

if you want to say, as a non-LEO, that i wasn't there, wasn't subject to the stress, etc and am not sufficiently educated about police matters to offer an opinion on proper technique and procedures, then fine.

however, every citizen has at least the right, and perhaps the duty, to demand police not shoot innocent bystanders. Calling an elderly crippled homeless woman "collateral" and minimizing her death is not just extremely callous and low-road, but it excludes you from the vast majority of the population that would rightly find that offensive. Hopefully comments like that don't tarnish the image of supporters of the RKBA which is the mission of this forum.

the cops may or may not be prosecuted and may or may not be found guilty, because it's a highly political process, but when an innocent bystander dies, it's not a "good shoot".


that said, i don't need to be there to show it was fantastically poor judgement. there's a high probability of killing an innocent person if the police take the shot. the potential consequence of not taking the shot is that the bad guy might have killed the same innocent person. it's not like he was about to blow up a school, or take more hostages and he was no threat to any of the police. just looking at it logically for 10 seconds from a risk management pov, evaluating risk and impact, the obvious answer is do not shoot. The police do not have a duty to protect an individual. They clearly do not have the capability. imho, they should be subject to the same liability as medical professionals who perform procedures above their level of license or certification.
 
I am an experienced LEO and LEO trainer retired after over 30 years. I still do firearms and tactics training.

LAPD SWAT marksmanship was the best in the 70s. Their snipers were superb. General philosophy with SWAT on the East Coast was negotiation headed by Det Harvey Schlossberg. General philosophy on the the West Coast was shoot them up led by LAPD SWAT. Both methods worked well.

Based on the videos the first mistake was SWAT arrived with no one in charge. There must be a protocol for that somewhere. The second mistake is the guy with the knife should never have been allowed to get near the woman. He starts out some distance from her providing ample time and target to take out his feet and legs. This could have been done at a stage before he grabbed the woman with much more a degree of safety. My judgement on this would be based on his lack of responsiveness to commands and increasing danger to woman.

Amputation of his lower limbs with gunfire would have been preferable to anyone dying at little danger to the woman. Stopping someone with a firearm doesnt always mean dead doesn't always mean one shot.

I don't know how they could call these questions SWAT. They wouldn't make it through 2 weeks in an A house in the South Bronx.
 
that said, i don't need to be there to show it was fantastically poor judgement. there's a high probability of killing an innocent person if the police take the shot. the potential consequence of not taking the shot is that the bad guy might have killed the same innocent person

IMO, the probabilities are the opposite of your wording.

The BG held her from behind and cut her throat.

I look at it as he was in the process of trying to kill her and that she she might be hurt or killed if they take the shot.

IMO, I'd rather die while trying to be saved by a good guy than be left to die by hands of a bad guy.


Based on the videos the first mistake was SWAT arrived with no one in charge.

What makes you think that was SWAT?

I haven't heard any reports that it was SWAT, I don't see any indication in the video that it was and in fact I see indications that it wasn't SWAT.


The second mistake is the guy with the knife should never have been allowed to get near the woman. He starts out some distance from her providing ample time and target to take out his feet and legs. This could have been done at a stage before he grabbed the woman with much more a degree of safety. My judgement on this would be based on his lack of responsiveness to commands and increasing danger to woman.

They tried bean bags before he got to her but it didn't work.

Are you advocating shooting the guy before he's threatening or even near the woman because the bean bags didn't work or instead of the bean bags in the 1st place?

And your justification to shoot him before he's an eminate threat is because of his lack of response to your commands?!?!

Goodness gracious... that seems FAR worse than anything I saw in the video.
 
when the perp was no threat to them...

Lets point out, again, that threat of death of grievous bodily harm to another is a deadly force justification.
The competence of the officers in the situation is always a question in their accuracy of delivering rounds on the correct target, but lack of coordination and "herd" response of other officers firing when one fires is also an issue.
 
[QUOTE="danez71, post: 10892011
Are you advocating shooting the guy before he's threatening or even near the woman because the bean bags didn't work or instead of the bean bags in the 1st place?

And your justification to shoot him before he's an eminate threat is because of his lack of response to your commands?!?!

Goodness gracious... that seems FAR worse than anything I saw in the video.[/QUOTE]

He has to offer a threat to the woman which he did (and subsequently proved). That would have been justification where I worked. Lack of response to commands and heading toward potential hostage not lack of response to commands alone. Maybe blood had to to tricklimg down her chest where you worked. I don't know.
 
I hope not in Va! Well here in sw, va LEA have good training and it hasn't happened here at this point !

You’d be surprised.
I remember in the 1980s the Vienna police unloaded bulletes into a McDonalds, a gas station, and other businesses in a shoot out. Vienna’s department was typical for the towns in Northern Va.

Having recently moved from SW Va and know several deputies and officers I can assure you training varies greatly. The Deputies I knew with the Montgomery Sheriffs department and all of the officers I met with the Christiansburg department really impressed me in positive ways. Blacksburg was another matter. I wouldn’t trust them or the Va Tech departments with directing traffic let alone a firearm.

The reality is that each department sets its budget. They set the training schedules and requirements and determine what resources are provided, some are good, some are bad, some are excellent and some are horrible, changes in leadership can also change things quickly as some above have mentioned.

I’m a big supporter of law and order. I say it often, I support the honest men and women who risk their lives for us. I think they deserve respect and support for doing a hard job that most wouldn’t do. That said, I’m also for prosecuting bad cops to the fullest extent of the law. The problem as I see it is the far left, BLM and others see all cops as bad. They want to strip them of their privileges and ability to do their job. This I find offensive and wrong. In other words officers deserve the benefit of the doubt. But when it’s clear they’re wrong then they should be punished hard as the have a responsibility to use their position wisely.

In the case of poor training things get ugly fast. Someone can’t do their job at a high level if they’re poorly trained. We can’t expect them to use good judgement if they haven’t had to deal with situations.

Someone mentioned that these officers couldn’t have been able to train for this. I disagree. With simulators, role playing, and other modern techniques it’s possible. The issue is the cost and the time officers are off the street and in training.

Personally I’d love to see real civil discussions on how to improve training and how to improve the relationship between police and the public. Christiansburg Va has done a good job of community involvement. They train officers to respect the public, they get out in the community, talk to people and don’t act like power hungry jerks. I can’t say the same for the next town over, in fact I’d say the opposite is true.

Anyway, I think anytime someone is killed there’s a rightful reaction of pain and anger. Unfortunately we don’t usually get past this to get to real solutions because of groups like BLM who have agendas that aren’t about the needs of the public.
 
[QUOTE="danez71, post: 10892011
Are you advocating shooting the guy before he's threatening or even near the woman because the bean bags didn't work or instead of the bean bags in the 1st place?

And your justification to shoot him before he's an eminate threat is because of his lack of response to your commands?!?!

Goodness gracious... that seems FAR worse than anything I saw in the video.

He has to offer a threat to the woman which he did (and subsequently proved). That would have been justification where I worked. Lack of response to commands and heading toward potential hostage not lack of response to commands alone. Maybe blood had to to tricklimg down her chest where you worked. I don't know.[/QUOTE]
And no doubt blood was trickling down her chest after she was killed by the officer's willful barrage.
She was in danger, but she wasn't the danger. The officer's weren't in immediate danger. They could have maced them both, They could have targeted the lower extremities to wound or incapacitate the perp giving the hostage at least the chance of surviving the outcome. They could have closed in and possibly disarmed the attacker.
 
He has to offer a threat to the woman which he did (and subsequently proved). That would have been justification where I worked. Lack of response to commands and heading toward potential hostage not lack of response to commands alone.

Im sorry... I must of missed in your reply why you're assigning mistake # 1 on SWAT when they weren't there?

There were 6-8 people in relatively close proximity and in retreating from the officers was heading towards 2-3 people.

He wasn't making threatening/agressive moves towards any one in particular.

He was within about 5-6 ft from the woman to her side and still not showing signs of making her a victim and he was still focused on the officers.

Then in about 1.5 seconds lunged and grabbed the woman.


So tell us, when do you advocate shooting the guy.

Is it when he's moving in the general direction of people while showing no signs of attacking any of them?

Is it when he's standing about 5-6 ft away from the women showing no signs of attacking her?

Is it during the split second he is rapidly moving toward the women when she is also now close enough to be collateral damage?

Maybe it's none of those points?



Since we have the benefit of time stamped video footage....

Do us all a favor and tell us the exact second you would have started shooting at the BG.

Anyone else can volunteer when the exact second in the video they would start shooting too. John Joseph, care to brake out your POST book?

We can move this to Strategy and Tactics section as a training tool.
 
Last edited:
He has to offer a threat to the woman which he did (and subsequently proved). That would have been justification where I worked. Lack of response to commands and heading toward potential hostage not lack of response to commands alone. Maybe blood had to to tricklimg down her chest where you worked. I don't know.
And no doubt blood was trickling down her chest after she was killed by the officer's willful barrage.
She was in danger, but she wasn't the danger. The officer's weren't in immediate danger. They could have maced them both, They could have targeted the lower extremities to wound or incapacitate the perp giving the hostage at least the chance of surviving the outcome. They could have closed in and possibly disarmed the attacker.[/QUOTE]

Those were not my words. They came out that way in the quote.

My justification is the same as yours.
 
Im sorry... I must of missed in your reply why you're assigning mistake # 1 on SWAT when they weren't there?

There were 6-8 people in relatively close proximity and in retreating from the officers was heading towards 2-3 people.

He wasn't making threatening/agressive moves towards any one in particular.

He was within about 5-6 ft from the woman to her side and still not showing signs of making her a victim and he was still focused on the officers.

Then in about 1.5 seconds lunged and grabbed the woman.


So tell us, when do you advocate shooting the guy.

Is it when he's moving in the general direction of people while showing no signs of attacking any of them?

Is it when he's standing about 5-6 ft away from the women showing no signs of attacking her?

Is it during the split second he is rapidly moving toward the women when she is also now close enough to be collateral damage?

Maybe it's none of those points?



Since we have the benefit of time stamped video footage....

Do us all a favor and tell us the exact second you would have started shooting at the BG.

Anyone else can volunteer when the exact second in the video they would start shooting too. John Joseph, care to brake out your POST book?

We can move this to Strategy and Tactics section as a training tool.

My mistake it wasn't SWAT. This is the type of call that happens everyday. Several times a day in most big city precincts.

The fact it wasn't SWAT doesn't change anything.

The guy would have been shot after the first drop the knife. Well before he got to the woman.
 
Actually.....they started shooting the guy WAY early in the confrontation, but they were using those stupid bean bags which did nothing good for this situation at all. In fact it looks to me like getting hit with multiple bean bags pushed the guy to take a defensive stand with the woman. I really hope something positive and constructive comes out of this situation and training modified to the good. Have bean bags been effective in other situations? Or are they a PC action forced on the Police because they don't have many other 'non-lethal' options? Wasn't Agent Terry armed with a bean bag shotgun against AK armed Mexican drug guys? Never thought they were such a great idea....
 
This is the type of call that happens everyday. Several times a day in most big city precincts.


A man with a knife call? Maybe. Maybe even Probably.

And if true, you surely don't hear about incompetence/bad training leading to innocent death by LA LEO do you? In fact it's been reported that it hasn't happened in 13 yr (innocent bystander / hostage death)

But, THAT situation does not occur several times a day in the LA area.


The guy would have been shot after the first drop the knife. Well before he got to the woman.

You'd shoot after the first command to drop the knife wasn't followed in that video?!?!

That would be a bad shoot that leads to protests in the street and likely termination for the officer.

A LOT of scrutiny on Cops shooting too soon.

I can't imagine any written protocol supporting that shoot applying it to that video.
 
A man with a knife call? Maybe. Maybe even Probably.

And if true, you surely don't hear about incompetence/bad training leading to innocent death by LA LEO do you? In fact it's been reported that it hasn't happened in 13 yr (innocent bystander / hostage death)

But, THAT situation does not occur several times a day in the LA area.




You'd shoot after the first command to drop the knife wasn't followed in that video?!?!

That would be a bad shoot that leads to protests in the street and likely termination for the officer.

A LOT of scrutiny on Cops shooting too soon.

I can't imagine any written protocol supporting that shoot applying it to that video.

There are dozens of man with a knife calls in NYC, DC, Philly, and LA everyday. Most do not wind up with a shooting.

Failing to obey my first command was justification with my agency''s policy and still would be. Not a bad shoot as far as they would be concerned.
 
imho, they should be subject to the same liability as medical professionals who perform procedures above their level of license or certification.

FACT = more than a "few" thousand die yearly from bad,illegal,stupid medical judgement.

FACT = the ability of ANY LEO to hit with even a 50/50 probability is a NO GO.

I might not have taken that shot ,with a pistol.

We had,and still have M-4's in most all cars on the road.

That would be a chip shot for anyone qualed with a M-4.

FACT = 99% of agencys in this country will NOT back any LEO who shoots a "knife wielding" perp.

Even though any REASONABLE person knows that to not take the shot is deadly to the LEO's and ANY others in the AO.

All you need do is check out ANY recent police shooting [ in the past 30 years ] and see for yourself the average of hits,v/s misses or innocents hit is VERY high.

BUT until you are under fire yourself,its very easy to tell those in the LINE OF FIRE what they "should" have done.
 
Not LEO or anything here, but this is the way I broke it down.

-Officers give the guy 100 verbal warnings to drop his knife: good

-start getting more aggressive when he absolutely refuses to follow their commands: fair. If he's refusing to give up his weapon, then bad stuff's probably about to happen.

-shoot him with the beanbag: fair enough. Some people might call this too aggressive early on in the encounter, but if he's got a knife and he's walking towards you, I think non lethal force is justified at this point. What else are you going to do - run up and tackle the guy? Wish him good afternoon and drive off? A beanbag shotgun seems about as good of an answer as any.

-perp grabs the woman hostage: this is where the S starts rolling downhill, I don't think anyone expected that move.

-guys start dumping away: I think this was a straight-up panic move. A perp wanted for a violent crime, who's refused to follow any of your orders for God knows what reason, now he's got a knife to the throat of an old lady and he's shown he's willing to use it. All of this has happened in about 15 seconds.

At this point, the cops are likely just running on adrenaline. As I watch the video, it looks like the cop in the center-left of the 4 officer spread doesn't seem to notice his buddy circling to the far left, and he shoots as soon as he has a good view of the suspect's head. Once there is one shot, then they all just start firing. After the shooting, the way that they start yelling "drop the knife!" at an unmoving guy on the ground who's just been shot a dozen times lets me know that they are just reacting rather than thinking.

The cops' actions throughout the whole encounter are understandable, but I think the moment where they screwed up is when the cop in the center (the guy with the bodycam who had the beanbag shotgun earlier) took a shot at the bad guy that he didn't really have. He was probably going adrenaline tunnel vision mode and looking to take the first semi-open shot he had, but it was no sure thing. He should not have been pulling the trigger there.

My opinion on this will change if the suspect had cut the woman's throat, as some are saying. The video is nowhere near clear enough to tell. If he did, then I could see how the cops would just go "screw it" and start shooting.
 
Thanks to tipoc Post #29 for the longer video that includes the recording of the 911 call.
Bodycam Footage Of Shooting That Left Suspect And Hostage Dead Published on Jul 31, 2018 LAPD at Van Nuys last month

Curious I also found:

Josh Cain, "Graphic video of LAPD shooting in Van Nuys that left suspect, victim dead in June is released", Los Angeles Daily News, 31 Jul 2018.
https://www.dailynews.com/2018/07/3...left-suspect-victim-dead-in-june-is-released/

A lot more background than contained in the video.
 
To protect and serve... At least they waited to draw firearms until he secured a hostage. Likely should have just waited longer at that point. At least from my armchair.
 
Referring to the OP as a personal self-defense scenario:
" perhaps mag dump isn't always the best tactic What not to do if someone has a knife at your loved one's throat ",
I would say yes. Locally, acceptable self-defense seems to be minimum force necessary.
I think the local prosecutor, grand jury, trial, jury, judge would look at a mag dump as reckless and maybe evidence of "depraved mind" or malice.
 
This report also has more video and information. The additional video is from before the police arrive. The TV station refers to this as "witness video" meaning it's from a cell phone and not from the LAPD body cams.Note the knife/chair fella is speaking rather calmly to another man, blue hat blue shirt, before the officer's arrive.

https://ktla.com/2018/06/16/police-shoot-suspect-in-van-nuys-3-people-hospitalized/

On forums most of the discussion tends to focus on things from the point of view of the police. It begins when the violence begins and says "what could they have done? The suspect refused to obey the direct order!"

I said this is from the point of view of the police, but more accurately it's from the point of view of defending the police.

The police chief has already called for more and better training. Stating publicly that the shooting was mishandled.
 
Failing to obey my first command was justification with my agency''s policy and still would be.

I don't believe that. There's too many justifiable variables why a first command may not be followed. Hard of hearing or deaf for example. Less than lethal is always promoted over lethal when possible. It was obviously possible in the video.
 
The Officer on the far left should have taken the shot....the guys on the right had the hostage between them and the bad guy. Seriously...if you can't head shoot someone at 10ft you have NO business carrying a firearm. A single shot to the head would have ended the confrontation....but panic and mag dumps seem to be the norm now a days. Sad....:(
How many times have you pointed a loaded gun at someone's head?
 
I don't believe that. There's too many justifiable variables why a first command may not be followed. Hard of hearing or deaf for example. Less than lethal is always promoted over lethal when possible. It was obviously possible in the video.
Okay don't believe it if you want but it's true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top