TexasCHLforum.com

Regarding the Hollywood BoA shootout, I thought the first BG to go down was because his AK had either malfunctioned or ran out of ammo and the only thing he had left was his handgun, which he shot himself with. I guess that was the plan if no chance of getting away.

The second guy got cornered behind a vehicle and got hit in the leg, femoral artery, and bled out on the spot.

What I didn't get about this whole encounter was that if the center mass hits weren't doing any good why didn't they start taking head or leg shots earlier. I know they didn't have very many or any rifles early on, but as much as those bad guys were just standing still spraying lead around I thought for sure someone would have been able to get a head or leg shot from another angle.

C-dub wrote:Regarding the Hollywood BoA shootout, I thought the first BG to go down was because his AK had either malfunctioned or ran out of ammo and the only thing he had left was his handgun, which he shot himself with. I guess that was the plan if no chance of getting away.

The second guy got cornered behind a vehicle and got hit in the leg, femoral artery, and bled out on the spot.

What I didn't get about this whole encounter was that if the center mass hits weren't doing any good why didn't they start taking head or leg shots earlier. I know they didn't have very many or any rifles early on, but as much as those bad guys were just standing still spraying lead around I thought for sure someone would have been able to get a head or leg shot from another angle.

The first guy was reduced to a pistol and had been hit in the hand. There is speculation as to whether he was trying to rack it one handed or he just plain shot himself. It has always looked to me to be the latter. If you watch closely though after he falls to ground from his self inflicted shot his head cocks back. One of the police finally scored a head shot but he was already down.

The second guy was hit repeatedly in the legs and hip areas. In an interview one of the SWAT memebers stated that while they were crouching behind their respective cars he could see the shooters unprotected legs under the cars. The SWAT member then began to skip rounds off the pavement up into the unprotected areas of the shooter. He surrendered shortly after taking a few shots and bled out shortly thereafter.

There were apparently no rifles whatsoever on scene. There were numerous reports from local gun stores of officers coming in and demanding any AR's and ammo from the store. After the initial contact I don't think anyone went within 100 yards of the bank. So imagine trying to score a head shot with a .38 or 9mm at that range while receiveing fire from an AK. The SWAT firefight occured at about 10 yards and it looks like the SWAT guys are using MP5's. They were also in a big hurry since they are dressed in shorts, tshirts and sneakers with a vest thrown over it.

With multiple officers down I don't think anyone was inclined to stick their head up, waste ammo and try to play sniper with a handgun.

...that's what I thought, and still do...SOMEONE should have been good enough to shoot 'em in the face with a handgun...while he was spraying his full-auto rounds somewhere left or right of them...but they didn't...even a 12 ga slug gun with a bead sight shoulda made it possible...we'll never know...I've not found anything yet telling how far the nearest officers were to them...

olafpfj wrote: With multiple officers down I don't think anyone was inclined to stick their head up, waste ammo and try to play sniper with a handgun.

I do remember all that other stuff you said and I also give a lot of credit to this last sentence. As brave as they all were that day and given how long it took to end it, I still wasn't there. So, while it might sound like I'm criticizing I certainly don't intend to. I'm just playing Monday morning quarterback and wondering just like the LAPD did about their rifle policy.

Speedsix, was there a tiny bit of sarcasm in there? I'm not sure, but thought there might have been a hint. I also don't remember hearing anything about distances, but I can't imagine there not being someone within 50 yards early on. However, I'm still going with Olafpfj's last observation as an overpowering factor early on in the engagement.

... Sarcasm? nope...I just said what I think...plain out...that's what gets me in a lotta trouble...I'm gonna research awhile and see if I can see a picture or map...I don't know HOW far away they were...but they were taking more fire than most cops ever have...or, hopefully, ever will...that's for sure...

C-dub wrote:

olafpfj wrote: With multiple officers down I don't think anyone was inclined to stick their head up, waste ammo and try to play sniper with a handgun.

I do remember all that other stuff you said and I also give a lot of credit to this last sentence. As brave as they all were that day and given how long it took to end it, I still wasn't there. So, while it might sound like I'm criticizing I certainly don't intend to. I'm just playing Monday morning quarterback and wondering just like the LAPD did about their rifle policy.

For me the big question is why did those two guys take over an hour to figure out they could go and do whatever they pleased. Within the first 10 minutes they had the LAPD pinned down in self preservation defence mode and completely owned the battlefield. What gets me is that they walked off site and still went about their business over an hour after things went down initially. Imagine if they had figured that out in the first 5 minutes. My guess is that they really hadn't actually thought about what would happen tactically if things actually went south.

I have studied, pondered, thought about, viewed every video I can find, etc...regarding this incident since I first re routed my commute around it when it happened. They had every adavantage and completely locked up and blew it. I'm actually shocked that this hasn't occured since 1994. You would think with the easy availablity of full auto assault rifles and the gun show loop hole that this would happen every day since we can demonstrably (sp?) overpower the PD in a bank robbery. Wait?...What?...Empirical evidence says that while it could happen it doesn't? Well thats no reason not ban those evil things...

Follow up to stay on topic...

I think that the N. Hollywood shooters body armor played a far superior role in the incident than their automatic rifles. They simply squandered their adavantage and myopically (sp?) focused on firepower which ultimately was effective but massive overkill. They realized they were untouchable and instead of fleeing chose to bunker in place which, without support or reinforcement, was unsustainable. Honestly I look at this incident as a how a civil unrest scenario might begin. You would, however, need to move or rely on reinforcements to relive you ASAP. These guys did neither.

RoyGBiv wrote: And the logical follow on question.....

Should head shots be preferred over COM to overcome the possibility body armor?

Range and your skills permitting... I say YES.

The British SAS always take headshots in CQB.

Been shot while wearing armor.. Granted these were the military grade w/ SAPI plates. 7.62 round either richochet or was shot from a great distance, hit me center mass. It broke 3 ribs and fragmented the SAPI plate... Hurt like you wouldn't believe. Out of the fight for 3 mins because I couldn't breathe... Did not knock me down, only doubled over.

I wouldn't worry about the vests...

I've heard of a single .45 ACP hitting a perp in a vest and changing the perp's mind about continuing the fight.... but Richard Davis has done demos that show a determined person could continue after taking a handgun round in the vest: video