the rifle in my car is full auto capable. Out of the ten rifles our department has, three are currently configured that way from the factory. The other seven are capable. My chief ordered me to make the rest of them full auto. I bought all the parts a few years ago. Never got around to installing them since he forgot about it.

I finally got to watch the video in a quiet room with my earbuds in so I could concentrate on the sounds.

I can't believe that with the state of modern electronics there isn't a better way for an officer to communicate than with a hand keyed microphone.

I'm also surprised that OSHA hasn't gotten involved with mandating electronic ear pro. Those 2 options integrated together seem to make a lot of sense.

It angers me to see an officer get out of a vehicle in a dynamic situation without a patrol rifle. There's just no excuse for every car not to have one that can be immediately deployed. It is much safer for the officer and any bystanders.

How do you know he didn't have a rifle in the vehicle? He was hands on, in the sh!t with his handgun. Even if the rifle is carried in a gun rack in the front, it takes time to deactivate the lock, grab the rifle and charge it as the rifle is more than likely in cruiser safe; chamber empty, mag inserted, rifle on safe.

Every one of our vehicles (yes, I'm a 19+ year LEO) have rifles, but if I were in his situation, I would have been using my handgun too. I would not have time to grab my rifle or shotgun.

And as far as the ear pro, are we supposed to drive around with a set on our head, or is that something else we are supposed to access when we are in middle of a gun fight?

The radios work on two frequencies; talk and receive. Some mics have a switch that will hold the talk frequency open....allowing the officer to talk without having to physically keying the mic, but then no one else can talk. No one can ask were he is, his status, etc.

I guess the answer on the ear protection is kind of that what are the chances or statistics that one is going to actually need it.

the real option if an LEO was going to wear this is actually hearing aid type protection... custom formed ear buds that could actually be used to enhance sounds but cut down high decibels. Cops with super hearing in other words...

Good morning Steve, having a nice day today?

Before you put any more words in my mouth please re-read my post. Notice I didn't say he didn't have a rifle in his car. I said he left the car without a rifle.

If the rifle isn't immediately available when exiting the car it might as well be in the trunk next to the tire iron. Around here, most of the patrol cars have carbines locked in the trunk. Better than nothing but not very useful when things go wonky in a hurry. I've seen vertical racks that mount in the front where they can be quickly reached.

Which would you prefer, having a carbine ready to go right now or sit in the doorway of your patrol car fumbling with a magazine trying to get back in the fight? Before you twist those words I am in no way being critical of the officer. He was processing a gazillion things in the middle of a fight and did an admirable job of recognizing the issue and fixing it.

But, in the little window of time (based on the officers comments because it wasn't on the video) where the officer was stuck in his doorway it sounded like the passenger bailed and was trying to run away. What if instead of running he'd been advancing on the officer?

The main reason I've heard for not having a long gun (preferably a SBR) available is because "we don't want to scare the public" or some equally crap statement. When I hear that I hear: it is going to cost money that we don't want to spend. That is a crappy reason to get an officer killed.

As far as the ear pro, I'm fully aware that I'm advocating wearing a headset with an integrated mike while in the car. I know you guys already deal with a metric shit ton of gear but I think this one is really important. If you disagree, go back and watch the video and see how many times the officer had to work his way through traffic and intersections while barely having a hand on the steering wheel. Again, not his fault, he was doing the best he could with the tools available. I'm saying there are better tools. And of course, we will hear how scary and militarized the headsets look. Once again, I don't care. It is easy to get out of a car in a non-emergency situation and take the headset off to deal with the public. But, if it is on full time then when something pops up out of the blue you are already prepared, not reaching for something.

I'm old enough to have friends that have now retired from their departments that refused to wear body armor. When it first came out it was a pain in the ass. It still is but I don't see uniformed officers without it any more. It is just part of their uniform now. Integrated ear pro/ communications gear can be the same way.

Anyway, once again I'm happy this officer was not injured and was able to resolve the issue. I'm of the opinion that every incident provides teachable moments if we are open minded about looking for them and pursuing reasonable, real world solutions. And if there isn't a readily available solution then someone should recognize an opportunity and go invent one. It's how we move forward as a society.

Again, have a great day, Mark

quote:

I've seen vertical racks that mount in the front where they can be quickly reached.

Ok, you've seen those vertical racks but have you tried using them with a full size rifle? Most departments don't have SBRs, especially for patrol officers. Trust me, with the radio console, computer, etc, getting a rifle out quickly as you're bailing out of the car to chase a suspect is almost impossible. The set up also requires you to take your eyes off the suspect for a moment, a moment where you could lose sight of them as they flee or a moment you don't see them getting ready to rush you or ambush you. It is a hell of a lot easier getting a rifle or shotgun out with an SUV.

Most departments now mandate body armor be worn if not there still would be officers who wouldn't wear it (no I am not kidding either).

Every single active shooter after action report I have read have had these two requests or areas identified to improve: 1. Communications and the ability to hear. 2. Shorter long guns. Traditional length shotguns and m4 style rifles were too long and cumbersome to maneuver in an office or retail store type environment. For the most part nothing has changed.

I have ear pros in my bail out bag, along with ballistic helmet and plate carrier.

old spray and pray McGillicuddy, thats what we call him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z5Or5d_258

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0sI6eFarFE

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:
Good morning Steve, having a nice day today?

Before you put any more words in my mouth please re-read my post. Notice I didn't say he didn't have a rifle in his car. I said he left the car without a rifle.

If the rifle isn't immediately available when exiting the car it might as well be in the trunk next to the tire iron. Around here, most of the patrol cars have carbines locked in the trunk. Better than nothing but not very useful when things go wonky in a hurry. I've seen vertical racks that mount in the front where they can be quickly reached.

Which would you prefer, having a carbine ready to go right now or sit in the doorway of your patrol car fumbling with a magazine trying to get back in the fight? Before you twist those words I am in no way being critical of the officer. He was processing a gazillion things in the middle of a fight and did an admirable job of recognizing the issue and fixing it.

But, in the little window of time (based on the officers comments because it wasn't on the video) where the officer was stuck in his doorway it sounded like the passenger bailed and was trying to run away. What if instead of running he'd been advancing on the officer?

The main reason I've heard for not having a long gun (preferably a SBR) available is because "we don't want to scare the public" or some equally crap statement. When I hear that I hear: it is going to cost money that we don't want to spend. That is a crappy reason to get an officer killed.

As far as the ear pro, I'm fully aware that I'm advocating wearing a headset with an integrated mike while in the car. I know you guys already deal with a metric shit ton of gear but I think this one is really important. If you disagree, go back and watch the video and see how many times the officer had to work his way through traffic and intersections while barely having a hand on the steering wheel. Again, not his fault, he was doing the best he could with the tools available. I'm saying there are better tools. And of course, we will hear how scary and militarized the headsets look. Once again, I don't care. It is easy to get out of a car in a non-emergency situation and take the headset off to deal with the public. But, if it is on full time then when something pops up out of the blue you are already prepared, not reaching for something.

I'm old enough to have friends that have now retired from their departments that refused to wear body armor. When it first came out it was a pain in the ass. It still is but I don't see uniformed officers without it any more. It is just part of their uniform now. Integrated ear pro/ communications gear can be the same way.

Anyway, once again I'm happy this officer was not injured and was able to resolve the issue. I'm of the opinion that every incident provides teachable moments if we are open minded about looking for them and pursuing reasonable, real world solutions. And if there isn't a readily available solution then someone should recognize an opportunity and go invent one. It's how we move forward as a society.

Again, have a great day, Mark

Unless the officer had the rifle laying on the front seat of his vehicle, in no way, shape or form would it be "immediately available" to him in this situation.

He has to hit the unlock button, which unlocks the locking mechanism of the rifle rack for a designated time. So that means either dropping or holstering his handgun. Doing the reload was much quicker than attempting to access a rifle.

As for his fumbling, I believe he was probably trying to shove his vehicle into park which tied up his right hand for an instant. This threw off his reload. He none the less, worked through it and got it reloaded.

As for your scenario about the passenger approaching him, trying to access the rifle would have been deadly for the officer. Reloading his handgun was the prudent thing to do. Could it have been done better and faster? Yes, but he got it done.

Sorry, no officer is going to wear a headset/ear-pro while driving around, working a shift. Now, you have limited his hearing to what he hears in the headset. The military style headsets are VOX (voice activated) so every time he opens his mouth, it's broadcast. Yeah, that will go over big.

Bluetooth microphone in the cruiser, with a PTT button on the steering wheel, working concurrently with the handset. If the officer steps away from the cruiser, either the steering wheel mic or the handset PTT will activate both mics (to keep from having handoff issues with the Bluetooth as the officer walks to and from his cruiser during a traffic stop).

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

We can play "what if" and "shoulda, woulda, coulda" all day, trying to come up with reasons he shouldn't have shot at them.
You can just come right out and say you don't approve of it, and we can just disagree.

Most all agree with the outcome however it does not diminish the fact it was reckless and had a huge potential for bad results.
It doesn't mean it was the right (or wrong) decision.
It's just good that the results were positive.
I don't think we need to whack his pee-pee and we don't need to give him a pat on the back either.

I agree, personally I don’t think it’s worth the risk to engage in a firefight, in a moving vehicle, during a chase, shooting one handed through a windshield (or the drivers window) in a populated area. But I’m glad about the outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

We can play "what if" and "shoulda, woulda, coulda" all day, trying to come up with reasons he shouldn't have shot at them.
You can just come right out and say you don't approve of it, and we can just disagree.

Most all agree with the outcome however it does not diminish the fact it was reckless and had a huge potential for bad results.
It doesn't mean it was the right (or wrong) decision.
It's just good that the results were positive.
I don't think we need to whack his pee-pee and we don't need to give him a pat on the back either.

I agree, personally I don’t think it’s worth the risk to engage in a firefight, in a moving vehicle, during a chase, shooting one handed through a windshield (or the drivers window) in a populated area. But I’m glad about the outcome.

From the files of "Damn, these circumstances seem really familiar".

I wonder if the family of the dead employee "thinks" that the cops not taking out the shooting suspect earlier in the vehicle pursuit was a smart move because apparently some think "it's not worth the risk" to take them out. I wonder how this is going to be explained away by the experts?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22...-standoff/index.html

A Trader Joe's employee is dead and a wounded suspect is in custody after a standoff in Los Angeles stretched over several tense hours Saturday before the gunman's surrender.

About 40 people were inside the grocery store on Hyperion Avenue in the Silver Lake neighborhood when an armed man ran in, according to police. He had crashed a car he was driving nearby after firing multiple rounds at officers pursuing him, police said.
The man was fleeing police after a shooting in which an elderly woman and a young woman were victims, Los Angeles police Officer Mike Lopez told CNN. Their conditions were not given.
Police said the older woman was the suspect's grandmother, and he was driving her car when he wrecked it near the Trader Joe's.

Customers ran out of the store when the armed man burst in and police surrounded the building. During the three-hour standoff, several people walked out of the store with their hands up. Some employees climbed out a back window on a chain ladder.
At a news conference afterward, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said a woman inside Trader Joe's had been killed. He did not identify her or say how she died. The suspect was wounded in his left arm after exchanging shots with police, Garcetti told reporters once the standoff had ended.
After talking with hostage negotiators, the man, 28, eventually handcuffed himself and surrendered, police said.
The woman killed was Melyda Eldorado, according to her brother, Albert Corado. He said she had worked at Trader Joe's for four to five years.
"She was the person I loved the most in the world. She was never anyone but herself for better or worse, she was herself," Corado said.
Melyda Eldorado was a store manager, CNN affiliate KABC reported.

Public safety agencies had responded to the standoff, with an armored police vehicle parked outside the store and ambulances and dozens of law enforcement vehicles arriving on the scene.
Six people ranging in age from 12 to 81 were taken to the hospital afterward, the Los Angeles Fire Department said. All were in fair condition, with no life-threatening injuries, spokeswoman Margaret Stewart said.
Among the injured was a 20-year-old woman, who was removed from a vehicle, Stewart said. It was not immediately known whether that woman was part of the original shooting.
Police Chief Michael Moore earlier said the man shot his grandmother seven times and she had undergone a series of surgeries at a local hospital.

'Boom, boom, boom, boom'
Don Kohles, 91, told CNN he saw the car crash into a fire hydrant or a utility pole in front of the Trader Joe's.
"Then this guy comes out of the car and starts running toward TJs," Kohles said, referring to the grocery store. "I look behind me and there were two police guys coming with heavy guns, then boom, boom, boom, boom, so I go into TJ's and I see this guy and he comes in.
"And I see the two front-glass doors shot out. I look around and I see a TJ's employee laying on the ground, then all the help was laying on the ground," he said. The employee did not appear to be hurt, Kohles said.

"We all laid there for about a half an hour until LAPD came and got us out. They helped carry me across the parking lot, and they sort of tossed me over a wall," Kohles said.
Witness Devin Field said it appeared traffic prevented the suspect from escaping police when he crashed in front of the store.
The suspect had a pistol in his hand and "just started opening fire on the police behind him," Field said. When police returned fire, Field and others got down on the ground, he said.

Gee, imagine that? He was already shooting at the police, and then when the chase ended, he was still shooting at them? There were also people around where the chase ended? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

I posted this back on page 2:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
What if the air unit didn't get there in time, and instead, they managed to get to some place where they could take hostages?

See, the problem is the police don't get to pick where the chase ends, unless they end it by force. If the guy trying to run away gets to choose, it might not end way out in some secluded area. It could end at a your Trader Joe's while you're picking up stuff to make dinner for the family.

quote:

See, the problem is the police don't get to pick where the chase ends, unless they end it by force.

Or they stop doing the chasing. I don't necessarily have a problem with chasing or not, so long as if they engage in a chase they end it by force as quickly as possible.

It doesn't make any sense to me to put the public in danger by playing follow the leader with lights and sirens all over town.