Hacker News Reader

Comment by notch656a | Hacker News Reader

Remember when they were looking for Dorner and they just started shooting up pickup trucks that vaguely looked like Dorner's?

"At about 5:30 am (PST), at least seven[98] LAPD officers on a protection detail of an unnamed LAPD official's residence in the 19500 block of Redbeam Street[99] in the Los Angeles County city of Torrance opened fire on the back of a light blue Toyota Tacoma and shot its two occupants, Emma Hernandez, 71, and her daughter, Margie Carranza, 47,[98][100] delivering newspapers for the Los Angeles Times.[10][101] The vehicle, according to officers, was spotted exiting a freeway and heading to the area of the residence that officers were protecting, was thought by police to match the description of Dorner's 2005 gray Nissan Titan and was moving without its headlights on.[97][102] Hernandez was shot in the back and Carranza received wounds to her hand. Their attorney claimed police "had no idea who was in that vehicle" when they opened fire, and that nothing about his clients or their vehicle matched the descriptions given of the suspect or his truck.[103] The two women stated that they were given no warning prior to being fired upon.[104]" -- wiki

LAPD will happily attempt to kill anyone vaguely matching the description of someone they have beef with.

View on HN

They fired 107 shots, some of which made it into my old teachers’ house. Completely wild that none were charged as those actions were actually worse than a gang related drive by.

> They fired 107 shots

I don't know anything about this incident, and will not comment on such.

I just wanted to point out the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest, and is not an argument point that should be used to convince anyone of anything.

Too often uninformed folks throw around the number of shots fired as-if it means incompetence/maleficence/or worse. It rarely if ever does.

EDIT:

Allow me to add an edit here since no one seems capable of understanding the nuance in my original post above.

DO NOT Use round count as an indicator of anything, or as a cornerstone for an argument. You will be trying to imply something that is just flatly wrong, and it will reduce your argument to being an uninformed person.

DO Focus on the facts of the events and ensure outrage is placed where it should be. Round count is not it.

With that said - allow me to further clarify my original disclaimer. Should the events of that day taken place? From my uninformed opinion (having only read the above quote) - no, they should not have.

In summary, don't quote round counts like it means something. It doesn't, and it only serves to make you look uninformed.

> the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest

what's the normal number of shots one should expect to be fired at a completely uninvolved party for no reason by 7+ police officers? I've got a number in my head.

I should have been prepared for the pushback I suppose.

No, 107 shots is not unusual. The events under-which these shots were fired was unusual, but 107 shots being fired from 7+ individuals is not unusual.

Averaging about 15 rounds per individual (if only 7 were present, the quote says at least 7), this "firefight" (I realize there was no return fire, just using generally accepted terms) was over in seconds.

Anyone with any iota of firearms training can attest to this.

If I had to guess, one individual initiated fire (jumpy, poor training, thought they saw something, who knows), and then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well. That is exactly how it is supposed to work, and not just for LE.

In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat. This isn't the movies, you don't "just shoot them in the leg" or whatever uninformed slogan is popular these days.

As I previously made a disclosure that I was not commenting on the events themselves, only the specific comment that sought to use the round count as some sort of outrage data point.

> I realize there was no return fire

> the rest fell back into their training and opened fire

> That is exactly how it is supposed to work

> you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat

This is very unusual! I don't give a single shit that they were trained to do it! If the training is to just start shooting and let God sort it out- THAT'S BAD!

I find it very unusual that you can just randomly be annihilated by a death squad while driving to work!

So we agree the events were unusual?

Good because that's been my disclaimer all along.

What is not unusual, is given that there was a shooting, 107 rounds from 7+ individual is completely normal.

Do not use round count as a data point to attack events like this. It only diminishes your actual argument, which I assume is this event never should have happened in the first place.

Here's what you sound like- "Yes obviously they were trained to shoot random bystanders as many times as possible, how else could they be sure that they killed the random bystanders? If they only shot THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS 14 times each instead of 15, there's a dangerous possibility that THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS will not be killed as completely as possible!"

If this is how they're trained then it's bad training! Please kindly fuck all the way off!

I'm unsure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're just trying to sensationalize what I've said. Neither are good... and this is quickly devolving from a discussion about being well-informed to a flame war. Let's not flame war please.

Nothing I've said says anything about shooting bystanders.

What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided. Given the events of that day already occurred, it is very unsurprising 107 rounds were fired. That does not make it right that any rounds were fired at all. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this nuance.

> What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided.

You have said that over and over again. You aren't supporting that point in any way though, you're just saying it over and over.

You seem to think that "police training" or "firearms training 101" or whatever is a fundamental, unchangable law of the universe. "Of course they shot at a random bystander 107 times, gravity is 9.8m/s^2, what do you expect?"

In reality this "training" was developed by psychopaths who want to ensure that cops are held to a different set of standards than the rest of us unwashed masses. It's not a natural rule of the universe! It can be questioned and changed!

Imagine if after the single "jumpy" cop took one shot the other cops said "hey knock that off, there's no threat here." That seems to be wholly against this precious training you're willing to go to the mat for, but I'm expected to believe it would be a worse outcome than shooting innocent bystanders 107 times? Get the boot out of your mouth.

The training is this way because if the gun comes out, it is being used. And guns don't give hugs and kisses...

A gun is a tool, used to remove a threat. The best way to accomplish that is to use it until there is no more threat.

There is no other possible training for this - so yes it's a lot like your gravity analogy, although much colder and unforgiving.

This is not the movies. I can't say that enough. The movies have really warped people's perception of reality when it comes to firearms.

Before you respond - consider this: Why are we focused on the round count and the possible implied lack of training that led to 107 rounds being fired instead of focusing on the clear lack of training that led to the situation in the first place? The round count couldn't literally matter any less...

But the only gun that came out was from the cops! The only threat was from the cops! Why are you lying about this? You seem to understand that there was no other threat but you keep acting like there was!

Maybe the other cops should have shot the first cop 92 times, that would be OK I guess.

EDIT:

> The round count couldn't literally matter any less...

Are you actually just stupid? Would you like to get shot at 1 time or 107 times?

> The only threat was from the cops!

We know that now, don't we. Which means your focus should be on how this threat was perceived so incorrectly - not how the threat was ended.

A threat is a term used to describe anything that you perceive (correctly or incorrectly) as an immediate danger to yourself or those around you.

> Are you actually just stupid? Would you like to get shot at 1 time or 107 times?

Clearly you are not interested in learning here... but I'll try again.

The fact that these officers (likely a single officer actually) incorrectly identified this vehicle as a threat is where your energies should be placed. The round count is irrelevant, unless you assume the events of that day could not be avoided?

Given the events happened, 107 rounds is not surprising. Do not use round count like it's some sort of indicator of anything other than the wielder's own uninformed opinions. Just don't do it... focus on what matters instead.

Ah so this is all just typical boring HN pendantry.

> then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well

So what exactly are they trained to do? When you hear gunshots, start shooting at something?

> In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat.

In any competent firearms training you are trained to actually assess the threat first, and are absolutely not trained to magdump at the first vaguely-scary-looking thing and then have no ammunition left for subsequent threats.

> In any competent firearms training you are trained to actually assess the threat first

Yes, this is true. I think it can be very easily assumed once a single officer opens fire at a moving vehicle the rest will assume a threat was assessed. The focus of this thread should clearly be on why the first officer perceived a threat this wrongly - not how many rounds were fired.

> and are absolutely not trained to magdump at the first vaguely-scary-looking thing

That's not what happened here.

> and then have no ammunition left for subsequent threats.

For anyone that has little or no firearms training - people almost never carry only a single magazine, particularly in a tactical environment (meaning you carry a gun for a living). These officers probably had 2 or 3 spare magazines on their person.

> I think it can be very easily assumed once a single officer opens fire at a moving vehicle the rest will assume a threat was assessed.

The flipside of that is that individual officers have greater opportunity to be more strategic and deliberate with their shots.

> The focus of this thread should clearly be on why the first officer perceived a threat this wrongly - not how many rounds were fired.

The number of rounds fired is itself a problem, on top of them being fired without anything vaguely resembling good cause. It suggests blind fear on the shooters' part rather than actually assessing and verifying a threat.

> That's not what happened here.

That's exactly what happened here. Cops got scared of a cop-killing rogue cop, said cops saw something that vaguely resembled said cop-killer's vehicle, said cops immediately panicked and emptied their magazines at it.

> These officers probably had 2 or 3 spare magazines on their person.

Which one would then have to reload. Reload time might not seem like that big of a deal, but it still adds precious seconds that would mean the difference between life and death - you know, assuming this was an actual threat.

> The flipside of that is that individual officers have greater opportunity to be more strategic and deliberate with their shots.

> It suggests blind fear on the shooters' part

> rather than actually assessing and verifying a threat.

I sound like a broken record by now - but this isn't a movie.

Nobody said this is a movie. If cops expect to have special powers and privileges over the general public, then it's only reasonable to expect them to have better training than the general public. Likewise, if cops expect to be paid money to use firearms, then it's only reasonable to expect them to be competent at using firearms.

Like, this is basic shit that even your average moron shooting Jim Beam bottles off fenceposts could tell you. That you seem to think that basic firearm competency is the stuff of Hollywood is yet another thing that is in and of itself deeply concerning.

I do wager to say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then you would do poorly at the casinos here in Reno :)

"Unusual" is a normative claim, and thus means precisely nothing in this analysis.

If a shot is fired, you can basically assume a magdump.

If a shot was fired, and the mag wasn't dumped, something is very suspicious.

I read it as 7 x 15 round magazine emptied, with two officers carrying 15 + 1 in the chamber. Complete conjecture on my part.

107 shots randomly fired is complete negligence. Cops should be held to a higher standard than street thugs even though the results for bystanders may be the same.

I'm sorry but the American police and their training to "mag-dump" is something even an uninformed bystander could probably call excessive. A car with no weapons, hence no returning fire and 7 separate officers all but empty their clips until the smoke clears is a quintessential example of the criticisms of American police training.

I spoke recently with a swiss police officer that complained they aren't even allowed to taze someone with a knife explicitly threatening life and instead must attempt to talk them down before even being allowed to put hands on the obvious perpetrator. One is training as an officer of the peace, the other is training for a soldier in a warlords personal hit squad. Even actual American soldiers are court-martialed if they even raise their weapon at an incoming hostile without several verbal warnings going unheeded and even then must fire a warning shot before they can engage.

> even then must fire a warning shot before they can engage

Calling BS on this story, sorry. No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop.

A "warning shot" - where do you fire it? Into the road so it can ricochet and kill an innocent onlooker? Into the air so it can do the same? Into a building with an unknown backstop? This is beyond absurd.

> Even actual American soldiers are court-martialed if they even raise their weapon at an incoming hostile without several verbal warnings going unheeded

You have some fundamental facts wrong here.

The regulations on the use of deadly force in the military are much more stringent and the escalation has to occur in a specific way to justify the use of deadly force, even when a person is being hostile. In an active war zone, the situation is different but it is a war zone (which is the exception, not the norm)- in most situations for most people trained in the military, the standard way to respond is much more reserved in terms of violence than how a lot of police behave domestically (maybe because of the context of preventing an international incident) and there are very strict rules and serious consequences to using a firearm- at least in most places/situations when servicemembers are issued a firearm.

I think you might be stretching this a lot... try to drive past the front gate at your local military base and we can see just how reserved their use of force is.

It is true, however, that the military has strict rules for when lethal force are permitted. I'm not sure how that counters anything said here, since LE also has very strict rules.

In hindsight, we can all examine the facts and agree the force used in that situation was unwarranted. But that's the benefit of hindsight.

Regardless, we should not focus on how many rounds were fired. We should instead focus on how the wrong decision was made in the first place.

That is the point of this entire thread. Do not use round count to indicate anything. It just doesn't indicate anything...

I live in a residential area outside of a military base. Civilians accidentally drive into the base's properties and roads all the time. The most that happens is that someone in camo tells you that you're trespassing and to not do it again. Speaking from experience.

The active threat of someone intentionally driving through a security checkpoint at a military base is an entirely different context. At the point they're crossing the threshold they've already disregarded very obvious markings, signs, obstacles, and undobtedly commands from the sentries on post. There are a number of scenarios for which there are pre planned responses- deviating from those leaves you facing the UCMJ and you're expected to have a very solid justification for using deadly force.

Shooting at a vehicle not actively causing harm due to a perceived threat because it looks like the vehicle of someone you reasonably expect to be a threat is... well, that's a stretch.

Anecdotally I can say from personal experience there is a lot more restraint being used when guarding people/places relating to national security in place where you can reasonably expect to encounter threats and terrorism than the amount of restraint police here use at civilians domestically.

> since LE also has very strict rules.

Those strict rules boil down to 'whenever you feel threatened.'

If it ever goes to court, the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger. Which is, of course, next-to-impossible.

> the prosecution simply has to prove that the officer in question was thinking the wrong thoughts when he pulled the trigger.

Close, but not quite. It's not about what the person was thinking, it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.

For what it's worth, this is how it works for civilians too.

The only burden is to convince a jury a reasonable person would also believe there was a threat given the same situation. Reasonable meaning having the same information as the people involved, ie. without the benefit of hindsight or later discovered facts.

> it's about what a "reasonable person" would think given the same situation.

Then why are the seven LAPD officers that shot at the pickup truck during their manhunt for Dorner not serving ten-to-twenty?

Because if me and six of my closest friends shot up a random, non-threatening truck with two women in it, there's not a jury in the world who wouldn't convict us, and there's not a prosecutor in the world who would decline to press charges.

They are only held to the same standards as the rest of us in theory. In practice, the bar is so low, it's practically nonexistant.

I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.

They did not just get together and shoot up a non-threatening truck with two women in it, as you say. That's what we would say in hindsight, given the facts as-discovered after the incident.

The question you should be asking, but didn't, is why the first officer that opened fire is not in trouble for an obvious (in hindsight) wrong call. I would hazard to guess qualified immunity played into that officer's case. Perhaps that is where you should focus.... not on the number of rounds used.

> I think you answered your own question. Because a "reasonable person", given all the same facts the officers had at the moment the shooting occurred, felt the use of force was justified.

In no universe were they justified in their manhunt for a 250lb man to open fire at a pickup truck of the wrong model and color, driven by two women.

The first rule of using firearms, regardless of whether you shoot one round, or one hundred and five, is that you need to know what the hell you're shooting at before you do it. Are you saying that they opened fire without having any idea who they were shooting at? What kind of reasonable person would do so? One that is blind? One that has zero regard for human life?

That's not a lapse in judgement, that's not a 'whoopsie daisies', that's not grounds for a civil suit, that's a felony if done by anyone without a badge. A hanging offense if someone were killed over it.

What I'm saying is clearly a jury (if this went to court, I don't know and will not research further since it's irrelevant) had facts and knowledge that you do not. Specifically, the knowledge possessed by the officers at the moment this happened.

We have the benefit of knowing all the facts now, after the event occurred. We are privy to information the officers did not have at that moment - specifically that it was an unarmed vehicle without the suspect inside.

Very often the outrage from these events centers around post-event facts that were not known at the time the event happened. This is why it often appears like LEO's get "off" without punishment when the reality is they acted reasonably given the information they had at the moment.

Perhaps it should be discussed if the call was actually reasonable or not. That's fine. What's not fine is pretending 107 rounds fired means anything at all... it doesn't.

So no, despite what TV wants you to think, there are not gangs with badges driving around shooting up random trucks for funsies. That's just not reality.

> The first rule of using firearms

To be pedantic, this is not the first rule of firearms.

So, let me get this straight.

If the police are looking for a dangerous suspect in my town, I, as a civilian, can feel free to start shooting up any vehicle that is of the same type as that of the suspect?

And I should be in the clear, as long as I can reasonably argue that I don't know who I was shooting at?

Is this the society you think we live in? One where the prosecutor will not charge me, because, aw shucks, he can't prove that I knew what I was doing when I started blasting?

No, that is not even remotely close to what was said. Perhaps you should read it before responding further.

> No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot".

I'm not sure if you are correct. See this Wikipedia article and search for "warning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country

It looks like several European countries have an established policy of firing warning shots. Denmark at least legally makes them required.

Perhaps there is some police force that does this, but I'd really like to see how a "warning shot" is defined, because it's incredibly reckless and dangerous to fire a shot at anything, let alone a randomly chosen surface with people around.

The bullet doesn't just stop... and firing at someone that also has a gun is a surefire way to get them to shoot back.

The UN lists warning shots as rules of engagement for some of their activities[1], same thing goes for the DHS[2] so there are obviously people in this world for whom warning shots are standard fare.

Regarding rules of engagement, verbal warnings are sometimes first issued before use of deadly force, for example, by the US in Iraq[3].

[1] https://www.unodc.org/documents/Maritime_crime/UNODC_GMCP_Ru...

[2] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/la...

[3] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB140/a93.pdf

Did you read the sources you linked to?

The first is for Martime incidents, which means you can safely fire into the water (this cannot be done on land).

The second source makes it completely clear "warning shots" are prohibited except for when at sea (martime law again), and under very specific cases while in the air.

The third source explicitly states in all caps, "NO WARNING SHOTS" and says you're to "SHOOT: to remove the threat of death/serious bodily injury...".

Further, all 3 documents provided are for military scenarios, not law enforcement.

I do not understand where any one of these sources supports your argument.

You said:

> No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop.

That is clearly not true, as evidenced by the two sources I supplied.

As for the third source, that has nothing to do with warning shots, but the fact that the military does prioritize things like verbal warnings before engagement.

They clearly write on page 4 "when possible, use the following degrees of force against hostile actors: 1) Shout 2) Shove 3) Show" with "4) Shoot" followed by several caveats.

How about No Law Enforcement Entity then...?

I'd still argue "no one" applies here because the listed acceptable cases is extremely small and specific to martime or aviation (both cases where other means of verbal communication can be difficult or impossible - as pointed out in both linked sources).

So it is still true, no one land-based is training to fire warning shots. It's just not a thing people do because it, in itself, is extremely dangerous and negligent.

That "warning shot" has to go somewhere... how can you be sure it won't injure or kill someone? How can you make sure the "bad guy" knows it's just a warning shot and not intended to be lethal? A warning shot does nothing but convince the "bad guy" they should return fire...

Lastly, how do we know these LEO's didn't shout warnings at the vehicle? Anecdotally, every police encounter I've seen where force was applied started off with a massive array of verbal warnings. It's part of their training...

No he doesnt, you are wrong, just more confident.

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

A few seconds of googling clearly demonstrates MANY circumstances in which the NATO is encouraged or required to fire warning shots.

Seeing as you struggled to discover any information before declaring the other commenter incorrect, let me fetch some for you.

[Above source, page 159, Bosnia 2001] "Further, warning shots were permitted, even encouraged, and the use of deadly force against assailants fleeing an attack was not even covered. "

[Above source, page 161, footnote 24] See infra notes 108-16 and accompanying text for a discussion of how current ROE require U.S. troops to use both verbal warning and warning shots, while the DOJ policy on the use of deadly force does not require the agency's officers to employ either of these actions.

So, while the DOJ has policy which excludes warning shots for US military, they were also ordered that they must use both verbal and warning shots as a part of their rules of engagement.

>Calling BS on this story, sorry. No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop

I'm sure if I looked harder I can find many, many more examples. Please do at least the faintest whiff of research before declaring someone else incorrect - full stop.

For reference, the LAPD standard issue pistol seems to be a FN 509 MRD-LE, with a magazine capacity of 17. Because police seem to be trained to empty their entire magazine any time they fire, that would be about in line with this number.

> Because police seem to be trained to empty their entire magazine any time they fire

That is not just police - that is firearms training 101. Even civilian training courses hammer this into you.

You do not stop firing until it is absolutely clear there is no more threat.

I realize a significant portion of HNers are not familiar with firearms and have had zero firearms training. You'll have to take my word, and that of any other brave voices that this is how it's suppose to work.

The amount of rounds fired is quite literally the least concerning thing about the event. My original point was do not use round count as some sort of hammer to make a point - you only come off as uninformed and it diminishes your overall argument.

Emptying everything is a foolish action because it leaves you without any bullets where unregistered threats can emerge.

Nobody carries only a single magazine...

Taking time and attention to reload means you are a sitting target. Whoever is teaching this assumes one threat and one exchange model which is foolish and fatal in real life. Anyone can take your money and call it a class but it is not what they teach you in the army or special ops. It might go over well with the soccer moms but it is not even a good strategy for paintball.

> Taking time and attention to reload means you are a sitting target

> but it is not what they teach you in the army or special ops

What are you even talking about? I hazard to guess you have zero firearms training.

Of course people train to reload their firearms. Of course they train to reload their firearms during combat. It's not a musket for crying out loud.

This might all be fun and games for most of the people here, but for the folks that train and carry guns for a living - it's pretty darn serious. The things the uninformed masses expect, based on Hollywood movies and B-rated TV shows is dumbfounding and downright dangerous.

Ackshully soldiers of old had extensive training for reloading their muskets in battle. They didn't just shoot once then bayonet charge. At least, the good ones didn't.

Trying to gatekeep doesn't help you . Unloading all your bullets in a mad rage is poor firearm training aimed at the getting the scared person over the hump to shoot. Trying that in real life will is a foolish newbie thing to do that could get you killed.

For what it's worth, I was agreeing with you by posting their standard service pistol. However, I am also quite familiar with firearms, and strongly disagree with your belief that this is "the proper technique," it's just what police are currently (improperly, in my very strong opinion) trained to do.

I'm not sure what training you've had, and don't care to get into some sort of measurement contest, but I can assure you anything beyond "Introductory" classes/training hammer this into you ad nauseum.

The gun only comes out for one reason - that is to kill something that you perceive to pose an immediate danger to you or someone around you. The gun does not come out for funsies - if it's out, someone is getting shot until they're not a threat anymore (which can mean different things depending on the situation).

It's not a "mag dump" as some have indicated, it's "fire until there's no more threat, reload and keep firing if there is still a threat".

The gun is a tool for killing. It is that simple. The gun comes out, someone is dying. It's that cold.

This isn't the movies. People don't get hit once and leave the fight... this is real life.

As others have responded to you, and like you even said - "fire until there is no further threat" doesn't mean mag dump. However, that is what police do. This is a sign of very poor situational awareness, not "sticking to training." You wonder why others are arguing with you and downvoting you, you're speaking with authority on something, but you're at odds with yourself. You are correct that number of rounds fired is not a good indicator of the "intensity" of a firefight, you are incorrect that this is "normal" or "reasonable" behavior on the part of the police. Continuing to reply to everyone with "it's not a movie, I have training, the rest of you don't" etc doesn't aid your claims, it just makes you sound smug while.. still being wrong.

I have not seen any officers training to literally "mag dump". We don't know what pistol (if it was even a pistol) was used nor it's magazine capacity, nor if this department allowed accessories like extensions, nor do we know if everyone fired the same amount. So no, nobody "mag dumped" here, and nobody is trained to "mag dump". That's quite a straw man...

You are, however, trained to fire until there is no more threat (as repeated over and over). That's exactly what happened here. Turns out in hindsight they got the initial assessment very wrong... that should be the focus of the discussion, not rounds fired.

> you're speaking with authority on something

No, I just happen to be the only person here with firearms training that is brave enough to burn a bunch of points trying to help uninformed folks focus on what matters (hint, it's not round count).

> No, I just happen to be the only person here with firearms training that is brave enough

Very brave of you. I have some (mild, think seriousmode CCW class) training in the area too, and FWIW it doesn't exactly match your description.

> trying to help uninformed folks focus on what matters

But you're the one who's constantly muddying the waters and turning this into a flame war instead of conversation. Reread the article, then reread this thread. If you come to the conclusion that you're doing something constructive or helpful, rather than that you have ulterior motives or need to seriously improve your communication skills, there's probably no reconciling your POV with anyone else's.

If you have some training as you claim you do, then you too would realize 107 rounds fired is not unusual or unexpected, given the events of that evening. (FYI not from the article, this is a sidebar conversation about some other event that you may have waded into unknowingly).

The only point I raised was 107 rounds fired from 7 or more individuals is not unusual. Folks like to run around with some number of rounds fired as-if it indicates malfeasance - but it really doesn't. That was the only point I was making... everything else is "what-if" noise...

Zero judgement was passed on the events themselves, but it seems people want to force you to state an opinion none-the-less.

You raised that point in a context though, talking about a specific event, under a greater conversation about a specific article, and without qualification. If you're talking about how your dad got stabbed 30 times by muggers and somebody blithely comments about how that seems like a pretty reasonable number of stabbings based on standard mugging procedure, you'd take it as -- at best -- off-topic and cruelly dismissive of the core issue and at worst an attempt to distract from or even justify it.

If you'd said, "we should focus more on how the shooting started in the first place and the sheer incompetence and us-vs-them mentality that allows cops to cross the violence threshold so constantly & without consequences, rather than the specific number of bullets lodged in various things" you might have had a better and more constructive conversation. As it stands, you've doubled and tripled down on that not mattering, and I think it gives an impression to readers.

Very, very off topic, but I do think it's kind of weird to magdump in a public space. We're taught to be extremely cautious of what's behind our targets at all times, and the corollary to 'once the tool comes out, you use it' is 'try not to bring the tool out at all costs', which you conveniently leave out as well. Finally, I don't know how good you are in terms of time to reacquire but squeezing more than 3 or 4 in a row definitely throws my aim off (even with a relatively heavy CZ75 SP01 or my million pound 1911 - I imagine the cops use a more polymer-intensive and therefore lighter weapon) (also assuming still that these are handguns and not long guns of some sort), so just indiscriminately dumping 17+1 or whatever doesn't strike me as a viable approach to hitting your target.

Cops do a very poor job of all of this, and people rightly want their poor performance to be held to account.

> you'd take it as -- at best -- off-topic and cruelly dismissive of the core issue

Add to that... if they said "you just don't understand -- this isn't the movies, you don't just stab a person once and they die, you have to keep stabbing until they stop moving. I don't think any of you understand, you don't have the training I do to see that clearly this is a reasonable course of action for anyone who is intending to stab someone"

This whole thread is an absolute absurdity, to keep falling back on "you just don't get it, it's not the movies" and "we're focusing on the wrong thing, the number of bullets" when .. no one here is focusing on the numbers of bullets except the person arguing with, in most cases, himself.

> Because police seem to be trained to empty their entire magazine any time they fire

> You do not stop firing until it is absolutely clear there is no more threat.

One does not mean or imply the other. "until there is no more threat" doesn't say anything about a magazine.

The only relationship between the two is the presumption that while reloading you will have time to realize your target is already dead, while you might not have realized it a moment before in the haze of gunfire. But nobody is obliged to empty their entire magazine before evaluating the effect they had. Police are trained to stop shooting when the threat is gone and there are ample body camera videos showing police who stop shooting before their magazine is empty. This demonstrates that one is not necessarily synonymous with the other.

Maybe it is in the US that it's completely normal that 7 or so individuals fire 10+ shots each, without any shots being fired back. I can tell you it's completely not normal in pretty much any other country in the world. If they teach people in gun classes to empty their clip "just in case" then maybe you should take a hard look at the gun classes (and the people we are talking about here are professionals supposedly).

To put this in perspective in 2021 the German police fired 139 shots in total against people or things (this excludes shots fired against dangerous, sick or injured animals which is much higher), of which 60 were warning shots. [1]

[1] https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/182399-falle-von-polizeili...

This isn't a movie. 107 shots didn't take 30 minutes... this "firefight" was over in seconds.

The fact that no shots were fired back is the only reason the round count is as low as it is.

> If they teach people in gun classes to empty their clip "just in case" then maybe you should take a hard look at the gun classes

This isn't a movie folks. If the gun comes out of it's holster, there is a non-trivial chance someone is about to die. We can all agree the events in the above story should not have taken place.

I want to be really clear here, uninformed folks passing judgement by number of rounds fired is about as absurd as it can be. It literally has no impact on the story, and it literally does not mean any of the things you might want it to mean.

I don't understand your point. The comment you answered points out that in other countries, the police firing 107 shots is in fact, very not normal. Your comment doesn't attempt to explain why there is a difference between it being normal in the US and abnormal everywhere else, besides dismissing it as "uninformed folks passing judgement". I'd like to know your opinion on why you think the entire German police can get away with firing 137 shots in an entire year while the LA police fires 107 in a single incident.

Thank you, for putting it more eloquently than me. I was completely baffled by that reply.

> the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest

That in and of itself is a problem.

Just to put this in context, 107 rounds is on the order of what police in all of Germany are firing at people IN A YEAR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#...

Doesn’t LAPD have gang infiltration? I think I heard that a few times.

Not so much gang infiltration, which implies existing gangs getting access to LAPD, but the harboring of deputy gangs, which are gangs created by police officers in the LAPD.

More info: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-...

That story is about the LA Sheriffs, not the LAPD. They're different organizations.

It did NOT vaguely look like Dorner's truck, it was a completely different make and color! Literally the only similarities were having a pickup bed!

>Their attorney claimed police "had no idea who was in that vehicle" when they opened fire

No, but they knew that the truck contained a dangerous amount of paper with an informationally poisonous substance pressed into it. Who knows what kind of ideological damage could have happened if that stuff was released into the environment. The narrative could crumble!

They literally have gangs within named Executioners, Grim Reapers, and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs

Wrong police department.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com