View Full Version : Body cam video - LAPD shooting
This is from the tragic shooting that ended in the deaths of a 14 year old girl and also the suspect.
The video appears to show what looks like an M16A1 rifle (or maybe SP-1?) with a carry handle-mounted optic of some sort. Since we're well into the era of flattop carbines with any of a plethora of optic choices, I'm somewhat surprised to see this setup still in service. Or is LAPD that strapped for cash? Admittedly, this could be a freebee transfer from the Federal Government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Jd924y_r8
**** that’s tough. If it was the last clip at the end, looked like the bad guy may have been standing right in front of the changing room where she was. If so, it may have not even been a miss but potentially just penetration.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 911 caller indicated "a guy with a gun", so that's what LE was probably expecting (I'm guessing).
Teardrop charging handle [emoji15]. After the North Hollywood shootout, the LAPD got a bunch of m16a1's from the military. They also allow personally owned rifles, I've been inside the Metro division armory they do have an eclectic collection of firearms to include MP7's.... That they bought for pennies.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
Can anyone ID the optic?
TA01 ACOG.
If so, it may have not even been a miss but potentially just penetration.
Yeah. Wonder what their rifle ammo selection is. A dressing room wall isn't much to punch through either.
El Vaquero
12-28-21, 11:41
Read earlier the round skipped off the ground then went into the changing room. I’m also curious what ammo they’re using.
Suspect was using an object capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. The shooting of the suspect should be justified.
Not sure how the errant round(s) part will play out. It wasn’t like he blindly shot into a crowd of people. His backdrop looked clear initially.
We always preach and teach how one is responsible for every round you shoot. Will be curious how this plays out.
El Vaquero
12-28-21, 11:45
A few years back we had an officer in a neighboring agency get killed from a round that skipped off the ground and hit him in the neck. Sad deal.
Me thinks DA Gascon will be all over this
Not sure how the errant round(s) part will play out. It wasn’t like he blindly shot into a crowd of people. His backdrop looked clear initially.
For sure. Absolutely reasonable to assume the shot was clear. Terrible tragedy though.
For sure. Absolutely reasonable to assume the shot was clear. Terrible tragedy though.
You can get it right 99% of the time, but that 1% margin of error is something that inherently comes with a situation like this. I do feel sorry for the family of the girl, but I also feel sorry for the officer, he's probably playing the situation over and over in his head trying to think of how he could have done it differently
joedirt199
12-28-21, 13:48
Love witness reports to dispatch. We have had people blatantly lie to dispatch to get us there faster. Sounds like the people who called this in have some blame in the heightened response from officers. Get hit in the head with a U shaped bike lock can ruin your day but damn if it doesn't look like a gun. Stupid uneducated public. Poor officer and family of victim.
Sounds like the people who called this in have some blame in the heightened response from officers.
True.. and those retards will just go home and update social media and make tik tok videos... (probably anti police themed) after aggravating the situation.
Read earlier the round skipped off the ground then went into the changing room. I’m also curious what ammo they’re using.
Suspect was using an object capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. The shooting of the suspect should be justified.
Not sure how the errant round(s) part will play out. It wasn’t like he blindly shot into a crowd of people. His backdrop looked clear initially.
We always preach and teach how one is responsible for every round you shoot. Will be curious how this plays out.
Does "Transferred Intent" apply in the California Criminal Code?
El Vaquero
12-28-21, 14:41
Not sure about transferred intent. But I know Cali law and Texas law are very similar. In Texas law they would have to show the officer “recklessly” caused her death or was somehow “negligent” in her death. I really don’t see either of that in this case. Just seems like a tragic accident. But I don’t have all the facts and Cali is going to be different than Texas law.
There have been folks prosecuted for making false 9-1-1 reports. Years back there was a case in Cali where someone reported a man with a weapon. Cops arrive and ended up shooting the guy who was unarmed. The 9-1-1 caller was charged.
The video appears to show what looks like an M16A1 rifle (or maybe SP-1?) with a carry handle-mounted optic of some sort. Since we're well into the era of flattop carbines with any of a plethora of optic choices, I'm somewhat surprised to see this setup still in service. Or is LAPD that strapped for cash? Admittedly, this could be a freebee transfer from the Federal Government.
Likely LESO/1033 gun. Also possible outright purchase, many do that. Unmodified early M16 LESO guns are more prolific than most think.
vicious_cb
12-28-21, 16:12
**** that’s tough. If it was the last clip at the end, looked like the bad guy may have been standing right in front of the changing room where she was. If so, it may have not even been a miss but potentially just penetration.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have to wait for the ME and ballistics report. If it was a over-penetration what ammo was the department using? Was it a ricochet or is the dept. covering it own ass? Was this a violation of the escalation of force if was a just a bike lock? More information is needed.
If it was a miss then sorry, it was that officers fault for missing and should be held 100% liable. See: "You are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun" and Rule #4:" Don’t shoot unless you know exactly what your shot is going to strike. Be sure that your bullet will not injure anyone or anything beyond your target."
Is this the very reason we do dot torture and no fail shot drills? This is an example of why misses are unacceptable.
Apply this logic to yourself: If you had to shoot some inside your home in a defensive situation and a bullet exited your house and killed a neighbor across the street, would't you also be held liable?
Let this be a lesson for everyone instead of chalking this up to an "unavoidable tragedy", thats bullshit pure copium.
This is why we train, missing your target matters, bullet selection matters.
Likely LESO/1033 gun. Also possible outright purchase, many do that. Unmodified early M16 LESO guns are more prolific than most think.
Yeah, it just looks a little unusual in a world full of tricked-out carbines.
Have to wait for the ME and ballistics report. If it was a over-penetration what ammo was the department using? Was it a ricochet or is the dept. covering it own ass? Was this a violation of the escalation of force if was a just a bike lock? More information is needed.
If it was a miss then sorry, it was that officers fault for missing and should be held 100% liable. See: "You are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun" and Rule #4:" Don’t shoot unless you know exactly what your shot is going to strike. Be sure that your bullet will not injure anyone or anything beyond your target."
Is this the very reason we do dot torture and no fail shot drills? This is an example of why misses are unacceptable.
Apply this logic to yourself: If you had to shoot some inside your home in a defensive situation and a bullet exited your house and killed a neighbor across the street, would't you also be held liable?
Let this be a lesson for everyone instead of chalking this up to an "unavoidable tragedy", thats bullshit pure copium.
This is why we train, missing your target matters, bullet selection matters.
I don't disagree at all, but there is very likely a difference in thought process when you can see civilians in the background vs walls and expect that you'd be staring down a gun. I've thought about it a lot as the top of my stairs is in between my bedroom door and where my daughter's crib is in her room and while that possibility of everything lining up and having to take a shot is narrow, it carries such a heavy potential consequence that I think about the pros and cons of rushing someone that's pointing a gun at me and likely eating a round while pushing them backwards down the stairs rather than risking making that shot.
It sucks all around.
vicious_cb
12-28-21, 17:17
I don't disagree at all, but there is very likely a difference in thought process when you can see civilians in the background vs walls and expect that you'd be staring down a gun. I've thought about it a lot as the top of my stairs is in between my bedroom door and where my daughter's crib is in her room and while that possibility of everything lining up and having to take a shot is narrow, it carries such a heavy potential consequence that I think about the pros and cons of rushing someone that's pointing a gun at me and likely eating a round while pushing them backwards down the stairs rather than risking making that shot.
It sucks all around.
I have the same floor plan problem as well, which is why my chosen strong point is at the top of the stairs looking down so all my rounds will be going into the ground on the first floor. The same sort of thinking should have been applied when that officer entered a MULTISTORY DEPT STORE. Complete failure to asses that there could be innocents all around as well as above and below you.
I have the same floor plan problem as well, which is why my chosen strong point is at the top of the stairs looking down so all my rounds will be going into the ground on the first floor. The same sort of thinking should have been applied when that officer entered a MULTISTORY DEPT STORE. Complete failure to asses that there could be innocents all around as well as above and below you.
Sure, but in an HD scenario, a strong point makes sense if the family is all upstairs. If you're entering into an active shooter situation in a multistory department store, posting up in an ideal spot to engage will probably get more people killed then closing on the shooter as fast as possible. Also in such stores, there are very, very few places that wouldn't potentially have civilians in the background, behind weak barriers or not. The only shot that would very likely be safe would have to be into an exterior wall.
Have to wait for the ME and ballistics report. If it was a over-penetration what ammo was the department using? Was it a ricochet or is the dept. covering it own ass? Was this a violation of the escalation of force if was a just a bike lock? More information is needed.
If it was a miss then sorry, it was that officers fault for missing and should be held 100% liable. See: "You are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun" and Rule #4:" Don’t shoot unless you know exactly what your shot is going to strike. Be sure that your bullet will not injure anyone or anything beyond your target."
Is this the very reason we do dot torture and no fail shot drills? This is an example of why misses are unacceptable.
Apply this logic to yourself: If you had to shoot some inside your home in a defensive situation and a bullet exited your house and killed a neighbor across the street, would't you also be held liable?
Let this be a lesson for everyone instead of chalking this up to an "unavoidable tragedy", thats bullshit pure copium.
This is why we train, missing your target matters, bullet selection matters.
You've never missed when shooting at someone?
vicious_cb
12-28-21, 21:07
You've never missed when shooting at someone?
Have you? Are we really going to play this game?
All right let's talk about the elephant in the room. At the end of the day the miscreant has a cable or chain bike lock and padlock, very visible, multiple officers and well lit area. Obviously the lock assembly can be considered deadly, but is there any reason with multiple officers they couldn't deploy less lethal options. Plenty of distance, plenty of officers with the ability to cover. We're always so afraid to monday morning QB that we miss the point of learning from each and every critical incident. We have to. While on the SWAT team and while in theater we debriefed after every op/mission to ensure the same mistakes we're not made again.
All right let's talk about the elephant in the room. At the end of the day the miscreant has a cable or chain bike lock and padlock, very visible, multiple officers and well lit area. Obviously the lock assembly can be considered deadly, but is there any reason with multiple officers they couldn't deploy less lethal options. Plenty of distance, plenty of officers with the ability to cover. We're always so afraid to monday morning QB that we miss the point of learning from each and every critical incident. We have to. While on the SWAT team and while in theater we debriefed after every op/mission to ensure the same mistakes we're not made again.
agree
El Vaquero
12-29-21, 00:09
The general standard for the use of deadly force is: Did you have to do it now? As in, would waiting increase the risk of harm to yourself or others? This is the question the courts typically ask in these type of situations. It’s easy to answer on Monday morning when we typically have more facts available and we’re not forced to make a split second decision.
Is it likely given the information the officers had at the time he believed if he did not use deadly force right away more innocent people would be harmed? Most likely, Yes. Obviously there were still shoppers in the store. It was not a surround and contain situation. You have to judge by what the officers knew at the time. And if the belief was he was armed with a firearm, and then you visually confirm him attacking a woman with a weapon I think it does escalate it up to having to stop him right now. Now would they have been wrong for attempting less lethal options? No. But only if they were effective.
What would folks have thought if they tried less lethal options which we know know work 100% of the time, which suddenly proved ineffective, allowing him to flee and now attack another shopper in the store or take them hostage. Now we’re criticizing the police for not using deadly force when they knew he was attacking people with a potentially deadly weapon.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I would love it if every officer shot the dot torture drill once a week and knew the blueprints for the businesses in their district like they know the ins and outs of their own homes. That way they would never miss a shot and know exactly where all the changing rooms are. That would be awesome.
All right let's talk about the elephant in the room. At the end of the day the miscreant has a cable or chain bike lock and padlock, very visible, multiple officers and well lit area. Obviously the lock assembly can be considered deadly, but is there any reason with multiple officers they couldn't deploy less lethal options. Plenty of distance, plenty of officers with the ability to cover......
A valid point, but here's my additional opinion - half of this is the fault of the original 911 caller, who either didn't see what they thought, or saw what they wanted to see, OR outright lied to get a faster response. I mean, if you call in and say there's a "man with gun at shopping mall, and people are running away" {para}, exactly what does that sound like a description of??
At minimum, if not an active shooter, then, given the demographics on display, they could assume it maybe a couple of "el machos" having beef in the mall.
So, given the information at play, I don't fault the officers for turning up in "high-noon" mode, instead of "conflict resolution" mode. Hence, Officer A pulling the long gun out of the trunk, and Officer B in the video with the shotty, and so forth.
IF the caller had actually given a better/truer description of "crazy dude hanging out by the escalator trying to attack people with a bike lock", I think perhaps it's possible to assume they might have tried another tactic first...??
Seriously, the lawyer at the end is a f***ing dumbass for trying to say this was a "systemic" problem or "someone who shouldn't be on the job". Uh, no, they responded to the location in exactly the correct configuration they were summoned for.
Now.... that aside, what this does seem to be is yet another instance of the coppers getting super trigger happy anytime someone mentions the word "gun" within earshot....
Hence why every good CCWer knows to never have your gun out when they show up, or you're definitely going to catch a few from your own team. I mean, this same "man with gun" call could have been a paranoid do-good gun hater calling anyone here in, so they could feel good about themselves.
Granted, a mall is a confusing maze, lots of places for a perp to pop in and out, even just among the aisles and clothing racks, and get a shot off at you or grab a hostage or whatever. So obviously you want to find the guy and take them out before they can do anything worse. BUT....at the same time here, for this situation, I'd like to think the lack of gunfire or dead people when the coppers entered the store would be kind of a clue... ?? The sort of clue which may have stopped them from making a questionable shot they'd have a hard time justifying in any other context...
So basically, IMO, just an outbreak of dumbness all around with a side dish of unfortunate random.
[epilogue - Vaquero beat me to it]
I think having a 911 call about a “man with a gun”, then rolling into a scene wit a victim on the ground covered in blood would have cemented the idea in the officer’s mind that whatever that dude had in his hand was a gun.
I know LAPD were gifted a bunch of surplus rifles after the North Hollywood shootout.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately this country is awash in high levels of violence of every kind, everywhere. Phoenix is just as bad as Los Angeles, Chicago is well known to all, and so on. When I lived in Mexico City in the late 1990s it was just like this, and now I see it here in the States.
The USA is a Third World country now, with Third World levels of violence, mayhem, and mental illness.
It’s going to get much, much worse.
With my statements I wasn't being critical or saying that shooting wasn't justified. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Our world is changing, has changed, and will continue to. Domestic law enforcement will morph into a more European model vs what we've had for decades. I'm glad I'm close to being retired. But for every law enforcement officer on this site, and many service members that have been in harms way I ask you this.
How many times have you responded to a call that wasn't how it was called in? How many times have you had your weapon out scanning and found a target that you realized wasn't the threat the initial call led you to believe? How many times did you relax your grip or lower your Acog? We've all done it dozens or even hundreds of times. Semper Gumby, always flexible. Stay safe out there.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.