TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/12/24 ... g-van.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imagine the penalties if a CHL had done this.

I would love to watch the dashcam video

Sounds like a certain recent LV incident, where the officers were already completely prepared to handle the expected shooter.

But how could they shoot out their own windows????!!!!

OKay, they were called based on a "shot's fired" call and apparently assumed the worst.

MechAg94 wrote:OKay, they were called based on a "shot's fired" call and apparently assumed the worst.

Assuming the worst is one thing, opening fire on an unseen target is entirely different. What if there had been a child in the van? Even if they never considered the possibility of a backfire, (or someone playing with fireworks) did they not consider the possibility that an unseen and unidentified shooter might have a hostage with him?

I am just really confused on how they shot their own windows out while exiting the car?

Must have had the booger hooks on the bang switch too early...bad gun handling. Obviously these two either did not have proper firearm training or were too eager to shoot.

It seems that more and more cops are opening fire on innocent people due to lack of analyzing or investigating the situation. I do not get that either.

OldSchool wrote:Sounds like a certain recent LV incident, where the officers were already completely prepared to handle the expected shooter.

But how could they shoot out their own windows????!!!!

Easy! "Ready, Fire, Aim!"

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I am just really confused on how they shot their own windows out while exiting the car?

Actually, it is easy to understand. While the article is written to make the cops look like idiots, they reacted exactly how they were trained. They get a call for shots being fired from a white van. They arrive in the area and see the white van. They hear what sounds like shot sbeing fired at them. They immediately draw and start returning fire.

I think it has been posted on this board before, but one of the best ways to survive a gunfight is to shoot while you are moving to cover. So, the door pops open as the gun is coming up from the holster. The first shot goes right through the windshield. The door stays open and the next shots go right through the window as the officer is bailing out and moving for cover. And if there are two officers in the car, they split and move in two different directions to split the attention of the attacker.

Why not shoot through the window? It allows you to see what you are shooting at and does not do much to stop the bullet, especially not the second or third round. And it is much cheaper to repair than holes in my body are.

Strategically, I would like to have seen them wait until they had a better location on the shooter, but I understand why they did not. The first rounds the police fired were more along the lines of suppressive fire to get them to cover. Many departments are teaching this as the police militarize more. I am torn on the tactics used, as I deplore the militarization of the police but I fully understand their wanting to suppress the enemy as they move to safety. Self-preservation is a strong motivator and Patton's attitudes (they don't pay me to die for my country, but to make the other guy die for his) are also coming into police work with the militarization.

srothstein wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I am just really confused on how they shot their own windows out while exiting the car?

Actually, it is easy to understand. While the article is written to make the cops look like idiots, they reacted exactly how they were trained. They get a call for shots being fired from a white van. They arrive in the area and see the white van. They hear what sounds like shot sbeing fired at them. They immediately draw and start returning fire.

I think it has been posted on this board before, but one of the best ways to survive a gunfight is to shoot while you are moving to cover. So, the door pops open as the gun is coming up from the holster. The first shot goes right through the windshield. The door stays open and the next shots go right through the window as the officer is bailing out and moving for cover. And if there are two officers in the car, they split and move in two different directions to split the attention of the attacker.

Why not shoot through the window? It allows you to see what you are shooting at and does not do much to stop the bullet, especially not the second or third round. And it is much cheaper to repair than holes in my body are.

Strategically, I would like to have seen them wait until they had a better location on the shooter, but I understand why they did not. The first rounds the police fired were more along the lines of suppressive fire to get them to cover. Many departments are teaching this as the police militarize more. I am torn on the tactics used, as I deplore the militarization of the police but I fully understand their wanting to suppress the enemy as they move to safety. Self-preservation is a strong motivator and Patton's attitudes (they don't pay me to die for my country, but to make the other guy die for his) are also coming into police work with the militarization.

The angle at the windshield will change the trajectory of the bullet so now they don't know where the bullet is going. You are saying that their first shots fired where suppressive fire so that they could get to cover? So, they did not look at what they where engaging and just fired? This also leads to not knowing where your bullets are going. Both of those actions are not good ones for anyone that is not in a war zone. Police are still accountable for that bullet from the time it leaves the barrel to the time it stops. To fire sporadically IVO a target is not good tactics by police in my book.

Not enough information here to make any determinations other than... the newspaper's obvious attempt to defame the efforts of the police.

I can think of several scenarios where it would be the "right thing" to do.....to shoot from behind (or through a windshield or window glass).

The article does not say "Windshield" but "Windows" so I will assume it was the tempered safety glass in the door(s). The glass there will shatter into many small pieces and does not significantly deflect heavy large caliber bullets. Windshields OTOH...are laminated and specifically designed NOT to come apart. They can/do affect bullet path depending upon several factors.

It would be completely appropriate (and advisable) to return fire through the window glass in order to clear it IF return fire were immediately necessary or if circumstance were such that the officer was pinned behind the door (which is concealment, not cover).

I would not judge their actions based on so little information.


Flint.

srothstein wrote:Why not shoot through the window? It allows you to see what you are shooting at and does not do much to stop the bullet,

But it will significantly deflect handgun rounds: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"While the article is written to make the cops look like idiots . . . "

" . . . the newspaper's obvious attempt to defame the efforts of the police. "

It's not the newspaper trying to make the cops look like idiots - it's the cops own actions that make them look that way.

Get this straight - they weren't returning fire. They were initiating fire on an unarmed motorist who made no attempt to fire on them.

Can you say "Trigger Happy?"

(Wonder how these officers behave on the 4th of July, or at a Chinese New Year celebration - a hail of random gunfire if they hear a firecracker go off?)

Also note - they didn't hit anyone. So not only did they show poor judgement and reckless disregard for the safety of the public they're supposed to serve and protect, they exhibited poor marksmanship as well.

And if you're still defending Officers Fife & Fife, consider the comment in the OP: "Imagine the penalties if a CHL had done this."

MechAg94 wrote:OKay, they were called based on a "shot's fired" call and apparently assumed the worst.

I'm sorry, no.
This is not Falujah. Or Kabul.
This is America.
Not a war zone.

Being sure of your target should also mean being sure your target is a threat.
Too often in this country the Police get a free pass for endangering the public. The excuses are usually about how tough their job is, etc.
If it wasn't a tough job, anyone would do it.
Making decisions that don't endanger the public should be expected.

The van's owner was real lucky. The cops were really in "active shooter" mode. http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/12/24 ... ni_popular" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So lucky! In addition, he reacted correctly, not like what the officers did. However, if he was standing outside, how the van was backfiring? It was just noted that VAN broke down. So, it broke down, he restarted, backfired, he stepped out, police on the scene, backfired again, shots rang, he threw his hands up and was yelling "I am not shooting"

Very Very lucky!

PD should:
1) Formally apologize
2) fix his VAN
3) Buy him a vacation.
4) retrain their officers