Page 1 of 2
Police shot 3 lunch patrons in store robbery
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:27 pm
by Lucky45
Chief: Officers saved lives in an impossible situation
By Manny Gonzales, Kirk Mitchell
and Kieran Nicholson
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/16/2007 07:46:21 AM MST
The two undercover police officers who got into a shootout with a shotgun-toting robber at a Vietnamese restaurant during lunch Wednesday also shot the three patrons injured in the melee, Denver Police Chief Gerry Whitman said Thursday evening. Whitman lauded the officers' quick thinking and credited them for saving lives, saying they were in an "impossible situation" between deciding to fire at the gunman or have him take a hostage. "It wasn't a situation where they could say, 'Stop! Police!' ... These people that were hit, it was serious but fortunately not fatal," Whitman said. The chief said each officer fired six times. The injured patrons were seated behind the gunman.
The gunman, Phuong Van Dang, 26, was a halfway-house inmate who had served a portion of a prison sentence for assault with a deadly weapon, court documents revealed. Dang was convicted of the felony charge in Jefferson County in 1998 and sentenced to 18 years, according to Colorado court records. But he was released from prison and placed in a community corrections program.
Wednesday, Dang, carrying a shotgun and wearing a bandanna over his face, entered the Vietnamese restaurant on South Federal Boulevard through a back door and got into a shootout with Denver police officers, according to court documents. Dang was also carrying a duffel bag and was pointing the shotgun at restaurant patrons and two plainclothes officers in an attempt to rob them, according to an arrest warrant.
The officers, identified in the warrant as Sgt. John Pinder and Detective Jesse Avendano, exchanged gunfire with Dang. Police wouldn't confirm the identities of the officers Thursday night, but Whitman said they each fired their semiautomatic pistols six times in the direction of Dang, who was standing 12 to 15 feet from them with no one else in between.
Dang was struck five times. He remains in serious condition at Denver Health Medical Center, police said.
"This guy is a dangerous career criminal, and he had the potential here to do some pretty nasty things," Whitman said.
The patrons, described as a married couple in their 50s and their adult son, were directly behind Dang when the shooting started. The father and the son each suffered wounds to their legs - one suffered a graze wound; the other was struck in the ankle. They were treated and released Wednesday from Denver Health. The mother was struck in the side and remained in the hospital Thursday night. Her condition was not released.
Whitman said he met with the father and son and said that "they're very supportive of the officers' actions."
Dang fired once at the officers and then his shotgun jammed with four shots remaining, police said. His single blast, however, shattered a window and a mirror directly behind the officers, striking within 2 feet of one of them and immediately affecting that officer's vision, Whitman said. That officer was treated for having shards of glass in his eye. "That officer was shooting and was being shot at, almost simultaneously," Whitman said.
Kirk Mitchell: 303-954-1206 or
kmitchell@denverpost.com
Practice, Practice, Practice. This story also made me think about the whole cover deal and staying away from glass. You might be taken out of the fight if you can't see what you are shooting at.
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:32 pm
by dukalmighty
Great shooting,i'll bet everybody that was hit by the officers errant gunfire sues,hard to second guess that situation i guess you had to be there,but i would suspect a CHL holder in same situation would be in custody,for shooting innocent bystanders/victims
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:54 pm
by GrillKing
In Texas, it wouldn't be justified if it was reckless. I wouldn't 2nd guess this situation. I think you would have to have been there to really know what happened. I hope the officers took the only avenue they could (should) have taken.
§ 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even
though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also
recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the
justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a
prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent
third person.
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:52 pm
by 40FIVER
This is another one of those tough ones for us CHLers. You would definitely have to be in that situation to know what would be the right thing to do at that particular time.
From the info posted by Lucky45, I hope the cops are not roasted over this. They may have shot the GGs, but that may have also saved their lives by engaging the BG.
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:39 pm
by Lucky45
It is not about being tough, remember this is just a discussion and no one should be trying to dictate your response in this situation. So what would you do?? Do you change your type of bullets to minimize penetration? Do you practice more for accuracy? Do you make sure your there is nobody behind your target and change angles before you engage??
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:41 pm
by lrb111
Whitman said they each fired their semiautomatic pistols six times in the direction of Dang, who was standing 12 to 15 feet from them with no one else in between.
Dang was struck five times.
Dang fired once at the officers and then his shotgun jammed with four shots remaining,
Doing the math here could be disturbing. Less than 50% hits at under 5 yards. There must have been a lot of activity when Dang was trying to grab a hostage.
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:57 pm
by Photoman
Wonder what kind of shotgun was used...
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:59 pm
by frankie_the_yankee
All I know is that if a BG was pointing a gun at me I do not think I could keep myself from drawing and shooting (trying to anyway) no matter who or what was behind him, with the possible exception of my wife or kids.
It's all well and good to talk about having or not having a good angle, etc. But there's a point where the natural urge of self preservation will kick in.
I can't see how such a shooting could ever be termed "reckless", no matter how things turned out.
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:14 am
by Wildscar
lrb111 wrote:Doing the math here could be disturbing. Less than 50% hits at under 5 yards. There must have been a lot of activity when Dang was trying to grab a hostage.
How many times do you practice with moving targets? In any shoot out there are going to be moving targets at some point.
Photoman wrote:Wonder what kind of shotgun was used...
My guess would be...not a very good one.
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:50 am
by Dragonfighter
In high stress situations you will respond according to your training. If you practice rapid target acquisition with moving targets regularly, then when trouble breaks loose, you will be able to size up and acquire your target surely and safely.
At the risk of suffering the consequences of assumption, I assume these guys qualified semi-annually and if typical, that was all the shooting they did. In that case, they did well.
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:51 am
by KD5NRH
lrb111 wrote:Whitman said they each fired their semiautomatic pistols six times in the direction of Dang, who was standing 12 to 15 feet from them with no one else in between.
Dang was struck five times.
Dang fired once at the officers and then his shotgun jammed with four shots remaining,
Doing the math here could be disturbing. Less than 50% hits at under 5 yards. There must have been a lot of activity when Dang was trying to grab a hostage.
Don't forget that 25% of the rounds fired hit innocents, too. Pretty bad numbers overall, but unfortunately typical these days.
It's interesting that back in the days when police carried revolvers, the average gunfight didn't see them needing to reload. Now that they have gotten used to high capacity, you never hear about an officer only firing 2-3 shots in an encounter. In fact, I wonder what pistols they were carrying, since each fired only six rounds.
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:45 am
by lrb111
Wildscar wrote:lrb111 wrote:Doing the math here could be disturbing. Less than 50% hits at under 5 yards. There must have been a lot of activity when Dang was trying to grab a hostage.
How many times do you practice with moving targets? In any shoot out there are going to be moving targets at some point.
I wasn't involved, but I do shoot at moving targets fairly regularly.
As an instructor I feel its helpful.
I was sticking up for the officers, by saying.
There must have been a lot of activity when Dang was trying to grab a hostage
Now, as a concerned citizen, knowing that my local LEOs have a first rate facility with all the moving stuff, I have enough faith in them to put most of their rounds into someone inside of 15 feet.
Now, to the moving target. When we qualify at the 3 yd line is 9 feet. One big step back is 12. I would feel safe that most of the posters on this board could keep well over half their shots in a man sized target, moving at man speeds.
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:00 am
by Lucky45
I know that we don't have the benefits of police reports or crime scene photos, but I think it is fair to consider that the patrons could have been hit by bullets that penetrated the suspect. If there are a bunch of rounds in the walls, then we would have to assume that the percentage of hits by the LEOs were not that high. Maybe 1 LEO hit and the other missed??
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:00 pm
by Wildscar
lrb111 wrote:Wildscar wrote:lrb111 wrote:Doing the math here could be disturbing. Less than 50% hits at under 5 yards. There must have been a lot of activity when Dang was trying to grab a hostage.
How many times do you practice with moving targets? In any shoot out there are going to be moving targets at some point.
I wasn't involved, but I do shoot at moving targets fairly regularly.
As an instructor I feel its helpful.
I was sticking up for the officers, by saying.
Then we both agree on the same outcome just got there by different routes.
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:22 pm
by Paladin
officer was treated for having shards of glass in his eye
Ouch! I could see that affecting his aim. I'd have to give the officers the benefit of the doubt on this one. Hopefully the mother makes a full recovery.