Officers fire 600 rounds into car with hostage inside...

[Ronin13]

I'll say this, and I'm no defending or condemning anyone or taking any side...
1- Suspect fires 100 rounds. Decision must be made, do we defend ourselves, or continue to get shot at, in hopes of not getting shot ourselves, and preserve the life of the hostage.
2- Under extreme stress (like in a shootout) fine motor skills deteriorate significantly, making accuracy very poor in most cases. 600 might be what it took to stop the bad guy from shooting back...?
3- The media has, more so lately, been extremely anti-LE, thus the story will exclude some pretty important facts. Just be aware- I wasn't there, you weren't there, and most certainly, the members of the media weren't there. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were just following survival instinct, or maybe they were abiding by department policy. Who knows? Personally, I think if 33 officers can't stop a suspect before 600 rounds are fired into a vehicle, perhaps Stockton PD might need to schedule a little bit more range time...

[mcantar18c]

2- Under extreme stress (like in a shootout) fine motor skills deteriorate significantly, making accuracy very poor in most cases. 600 might be what it took to stop the bad guy from shooting back...?

Bullshit. Maybe for Joe Public with zero training, but not for people who train regularly for such situations. Not once have I ever experienced a loss of motor skills so significant as to allow that much of a deterioration in accuracy or trigger control.

[Ronin13]

Bullshit. Maybe for Joe Public with zero training, but not for people who train regularly for such situations. Not once have I ever experienced a loss of motor skills so significant as to allow that much of a deterioration in accuracy or trigger control.

Have you been shooting at a target that was shooting back? That's where the difference comes in. And also no where in the article (or in anything I could find in 20 secs of googling the same situation via different outlets) have I seen any mention of distance. That also can play a role. Again, not defending the PD's actions, just offering some insight into possible reasons and explanations as to why so many rounds were fired and why so few hit their target.

[mcantar18c]

Have you been shooting at a target that was shooting back? That's where the difference comes in

Yes I have. The difference is their main goal was to actually kill us and if they died in the process then so be it, not to get away so they can enjoy the bounty they just went through the effort of stealing. Also they had an entire lifetime of training from growing up in that environment, not just one or two successful previous runs.
Still no significant degradation in accuracy or trigger control. You just fall back on your training.

And also no where in the article (or in anything I could find in 20 secs of googling the same situation via different outlets) have I seen any mention of distance. That also can play a role. Again, not defending the PD's actions, just offering some insight into possible reasons and explanations as to why so many rounds were fired and why so few hit their target.

If they were close enough to engage safely given the considerations (hostage in vehicle, civilian backdrop, etc.), there's no excuse for missing; if they were too far to safely engage given the considerations, there's no excuse for opening fire.
It's pretty black and white.
And don't try to say they had to keep their heads down and keep them pinned... you don't use suppressive fire on a target where collateral damage is a concern.

[jhood001]

I'll say this, and I'm no defending or condemning anyone or taking any side...
1- Suspect fires 100 rounds. Decision must be made, do we defend ourselves, or continue to get shot at, in hopes of not getting shot ourselves, and preserve the life of the hostage.

Who is this 'we' you speak of?

[sniper7]

Not cool at all. Shouldn't take 33 cops, 600 rounds, hostage shouldn't be hit 10 times, her family will receive a massive payout. Cops will be out on leave, I wonder how many will lose their jobs.

[th3w01f]

Not cool at all. Shouldn't take 33 cops, 600 rounds, hostage shouldn't be hit 10 times, her family will receive a massive payout. Cops will be out on leave, I wonder how many will lose their jobs.

You're kidding right??? I have several family members and a few friends who are LE and while this has never been an issue with any of them I've seen enough to know that this was "justified". Not bashing but it really seems to me that there is little oversight in these types of situations.

[sniper7]

You're kidding right??? I have several family members and a few friends who are LE and while this has never been an issue with any of them I've seen enough to know that this was "justified". Not bashing but it really seems to me that there is little oversight in these types of situations.

Oversight? Each cop shot nearly 20 rounds each at 3 targets. With a variance of at least one horrible shot that hit a hostage 10 times, all the way up to 10 cops shooting a hostage. Please justify that many rounds from that many cops at 3 suspects. I'd love to hear it.

[cstone]

Two other hostages managed to get out of the car while it was moving. They survived. I'm not sure what that says about jumping out of a car moving at a high rate of speed, but the results in this specific incident seem to indicate that broken legs and lacerations were the better option.

There has been lots of second guessing on "high speed pursuit" policies around the country. Officers involved never favor having officials not involved in the chase ordering a pursuit being discontinued over the radio. I don't know whether there were air assets available, however, this case may be a good example for dropping back and taking the chance that the suspects get away.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not second guessing. Those involved made their choices and they alone will be called to justify their actions. I hope that this incident, as well as all others similar, can be used to learn and instruct others in how to do things better in the future.

Be safe.

[Irving]

I don't know that this is always anti-police, so much as it is being very harsh on what is perceived to be poor decision making in hindsight. Personally, I think the attitude is less "cops are bad" and more of a reaction to years and years of policy makers and the media saying, "YOU can't have guns because mistakes will be made, and we can't afford those kind of mistakes." To me, these threads are more of a way to continuously call into question that misplaced government and media mentality. Again, I'm sure for some people it may be an anti-cop thing, but to me, and I think many others, it isn't.

Anyway, the thing that I always wonder about is the number of police officers actively involved in these situations. Imagine what 33 people surrounding one vehicle even looks like. At what point do officers take a step back and say, "Looks like they've got enough guys on this one." Not to mention the 15 other guys pointing guns more or less at them, with only a vehicle in between. I've personally been in a situation where someone else was handling a situation, and I jumped in to "help" when I was clearly not needed, so I get it. In my case, there was one guy handling a guy. There weren't 32 other guys handling 3 guys. *This was when I was a bouncer by the way, not like jumping in on fist fights.