Very tragic. I can’t believe LAPD can’t upgrade to more modern weapons, optics and presumably ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by Tirod:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
That rifle is twisted 1:12 so it's all but certain the ammunition being used was 55 grains, and >>>>>>>>>>most likely<<<<<<<<<< fmj.

FMJ is an assumption, not a fact.

No shit. Try reading my posts entirely before commenting.

quote:

There are also 55gn hollow points on the market...

Is that a fact?

You have much to learn here.

I think the only thing I might have done differently than the cop in that scenario would have been to close the distance before I shot. Would that have saved the girl? Who knows? And the situation escalated quite a bit when it was reported that a gun was being used by the perp.

quote:

Originally posted by Tirod:
I find it interesting this story came out with the PD liable - how much delay did that take for a forensic recovery of the bullet, analysis, recreation of the scene with every attributable shot accounted for? Seems hasty.

Strictly speaking, the PD is liable, with contributory liability on the part of the original perp. A PD officer launched a PD round through a PD weapon. It doesn't get more clear cut than that. What presumably is lacking is intent, willfulness, negligence or recklessness which may try to be argued by the decedents' family.

Similar instances have occurred in the past, and there was a slew of litigation when we started using the PIT maneuver, before understanding that it should only be applied when we can be reasonably certain that no other vehicles or pedestrians might be struck by the vehicle we spun out. The key term in both instances is "reasonably certain:" the police can rarely if ever be absolutely certain of anything.

If the resolution was quick in this case, it was probably because the power that be decided to acknowledge the obvious and accept responsibility for what is a tragic accident that was essentially unforeseeable and thus unpreventable.

Sad, tragic but don't forget for a second that the whole event was caused by one person trying to beat another one to death. I personally don't think it is fair to second guess police at this point, or question whether the Police Officer had a good shoot or mishandled his weapon. All of that is up to the investigators. None of us were there. The only blatant fact is no one would be hurt, dead, or in the position they are w/o the chain swinging A-hole.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
<<snip>>
"Suddenly under sttack" is not a reason to toss the fundamentals out the window. If you do, then it means one isn't prepared for the moment and additional training is required. That's not on the bad guy. That's on you.

Please show me where I said anything about tossing fundamentals out the window. If you got that from my post, then maybe you need to reread it!

quote:

Originally posted by ruger357:
Very tragic. I can’t believe LAPD can’t upgrade to more modern weapons, optics and presumably ammo.

LAPD is a massive department and as we've seen the last 18-months, training, equipment and tactics are under intense criticism by parties who know-nothing of the topic. After the North Hollywood shootout in 1997, M-16/CAR-15s were issued to a wider range of officers as LAPD was woefully under-gunned. Seeing this guy was using an older-style M-16 with less-than-optimal optic...I have to question the equipment and the training.
Did the 911 call say active shooter or, simply an in-progress assault?
Better funding could've provided this officer with better training on how to employ the rifle/shotgun.
Better funding could've provided this officer with a more appropriate firearm to deal with realistic situations. The M-16 is still a lethal platform however, is it appropriate for a metro patrol?

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Did the 911 call say active shooter or, simply an in-progress assault?

It came in as a man with a gun attacking customers, with a report of at least one shot fired. (That turned out to be wrong, as can frequently be the case with initial reports from witnesses, but there was no way for the responding officers to know that at the time.)


When responding to a hot call involving a firearm, you generally bring a rifle, when possible.

Handguns are more for times when you don't know ahead of time that you're going to need a gun. It's a lot easier to have a handgun on you at all times than it is to have a rifle on you at all times, but they're less accurate and effective than rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:

Please show me where I said anything about tossing fundamentals out the window. If you got that from my post, then maybe you need to reread it!

Ok. I already did, but let's do it again.

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:


"Consider All Possibilities When Firing A Weapon" does not exist when you are suddenly under attack, the adrenaline starts to flow, and you must respond NOW to stay alive! My decision and response time was well under a second, and while having the luxury of the time to run all possible scenarios through my brain would have been awesome, and likely saved me TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars in attorney and court fees, it simply doesn't work that way!!!

Bullshit.

It's been said but I'll say it again:

.223 is one of the preferred home defense rounds because it loses more kinetic energy and tumbles when hitting barriers vs virtually any larger round in diameter. An errant shot is much less likely to hit a loved one or neighbor vs say a 9mm. It was unfortunate that the round kept enough energy to kill the girl on the other side of the dressing room door. Clearly the officer wasn't aiming at her (from the video I couldn't even see where she was) and it's tough to account for EVERY variable in milliseconds so I don't fault the officer for that *if* lethal force was justified.

That leads me to this: was lethal force justified? I'm not a cop nor do I play one on TV but I look at that situation and ask myself as a regular Joe... "Do I take that shot?" My answer is no. Not because I couldn't hit him but because it's a tough shot with him moving out of sight and if I were under the same circumstances, numbers are on my side and we'll get the guy. However, I'm not faulting the officer for taking the shot. I'll leave that to more qualified people than me.


ETA: If this is true it just makes it even more unfortunate. The bullet that killed the 14 year old girl was a ricochet off the floor before it penetrated the wall and hit the girl in the chest while being held by her mother. Everything lined up wrong for this to happen.

https://www.nydailynews.com/ne...iode4gjwa-story.html

"One of the bullets ricocheted off the floor, pierced the dressing room wall and struck Valentina in the chest, police said."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Hildur,

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:

Please show me where I said anything about tossing fundamentals out the window. If you got that from my post, then maybe you need to reread it!

Ok. I already did, but let's do it again.

<<snip>>

If you think what you quoted by me is saying ANYTHING about tossing fundamentals out the window, then you have severe reading comprehension skills!

Don't bother replying because I can see I'm arguing with a brick wall, and I'm out of this conversation!

So what was the dressing room constructed of ? Half inch MDF or something similar ? A .22 LR might have been lethal in that situation .

https://www.theboxotruth.com/t...-12-insulated-walls/

AR15 round penetrates less sheets of sheetrock than
9mm or 40SW