Or the Leo shooting was taking an offhand shot and chose to make the safest shot possible. Since we don't know where the sniper(s) were set up, if they had them on scene at all, and are only seeing this from the news cameramans angle, we are not seeing the situation from the angles presented to the LEO's.
- Thread starter Mike_Honcho
- Start date
Or the Leo shooting was taking an offhand shot and chose to make the safest shot possible. Since we don't know where the sniper(s) were set up, if they had them on scene at all, and are only seeing this from the news cameramans angle, we are not seeing the situation from the angles presented to the LEO's.
Yeah... I'm aware.
I haven't seen an update yet, anyone know if this guy actually lived? A .308 through the chest cavity is pretty devastating.
First shooting I was involved in bad guy was shot through the right shoulder, round went through the chest cavity disecting the aorta and into the opposite arm. Took a few minutes but he didn't survive it. *edit* 40 cal gold dot.
On my team, our snipers train for head shots when available. I second the thought that a chest shot may have been the only option.
First shooting I was involved in bad guy was shot through the right shoulder, round went through the chest cavity disecting the aorta and into the opposite arm. Took a few minutes but he didn't survive it. *edit* 40 cal gold dot.
On my team, our snipers train for head shots when available. I second the thought that a chest shot may have been the only option.
I think this is more accurate than anything else. Knowing the political culture and ramifications likely here...I'd say the shooter was not approved to take a head shot. Someone up the chain probably gave clearance to engage, but emphasized a lethal shot was off the table.
Mega, I hope you are wrong.
My guess would be that he is in University hospital and the students are all checking it out. A living cadaver.
If the asshole didn't die I hope Med students are working out on him. Costs the taxpayers plenty.
It was a good shot, he hit the ground like a squirt out of a City Park goose's ass. Regards, FM
My guess would be that he is in University hospital and the students are all checking it out. A living cadaver.
If the asshole didn't die I hope Med students are working out on him. Costs the taxpayers plenty.
It was a good shot, he hit the ground like a squirt out of a City Park goose's ass. Regards, FM
Uh, I am speculating...duh. As is everyone else on the thread, save for the sparse facts available...that's all we can do. I don't think my "theory" it is as far-fetched as you do, apparently. If you don't like it, pound sand.
Its not far fetched, its ridiculous, that's why I was curious where you heard such a thing. You don't need permission to take a shot at somebody threatening the life of another. Nobody shoots to wound, if it was a shot aimed at center mass, and it wasn't, it would be because the person pulling the trigger had more confidence with that shot, not because somebody said "yeah go ahead and shoot him but not the face... Not the face!"
Cops don't make life altering decisions based on the presence of the media and their cameras. The media gets all kinds of disgusting stuff on camera all the time, they just don't air it.
If it was a quick engagement, I'd agree with you. Fact is it drug on for over an hour. Every decision these days is weigh through a PR lens...and if you don't think the brass weighed in on the decision to engage, and left the choice 100% up to the shooter...then you're naive.
If you think in those situations with any untold number of cops from patrol to traffic to swat all stand around waiting for an "okay" then you are naive. The difference here is informed versus uninformed speculation. You are guessing, I've talked to folks that know exactly what happened.
Take your cue from some of the other guys here, dangerous and rapidly evolving situation, hostage is okay... Situation resolved, good guys 1 and bad guys 0. Stop trying to dissect every element of it from the couch. Be happy it turned out well. The end.
Blah, blah, blah...You win Mister Internet policeman. I am sure all your buddies have made sure you are quite "informed" on all things tactical. Who am I to to compete intellectually with that type of logic?
I was just curious as to where you heard such a silly notion. You wanted to start with the name calling and labeling people naive. Seems we know where you get your info now, you pull it out of your ass. Then you get defensive when called on it, rather humorous I think.
Your posts have done nothing to validate or discredit anything I have or anyone else has "speculated" on. The only facts I am sure of, thanks to your contributions, are two things:
1. You need to read the definition of "Speculation"
2. You clearly deserve my label of "Naive"
I think you should accept the notion that there may be those that know more about this, or any other subject for that matter, than you do. Lord knows plenty of people know more about all kinds of topics than I do. I accept the fact that I'm not always owed an explanation, or permitted to be privy to the information. Wait a few weeks and read the city attorney's letter on the shooting and you will see how off base you are.
You carry on with your speculation though, if you keep blindly guessing what happened you may eventually get close.
Care to answer that one for us? I think it's safe to say that guys like you actually believe in the proverbial "green light". Please don't take my post as insulting or belittling in any way. It's not really your fault.
Lol...yeah. An incident that has escalated to a hostage situation and drug on for an hour plus with cameras and onlookers surrounding the scene involves no communication to off-site personnel. No one is dumb enough to believe the chief is on comms with the shooter, as you have erroneously exaggerated my statements to imply. But, there is a chain of command, each level subject to orders from above. I am simply skeptical that 100% of the decisions were made on-site with no outside influence or input...as I "speculated" earlier. But, since you are all SWAT commanders...I'll just assume we can take your word on this. Thanks.
Denver 7-11 Hostage (taker) Shot - why the torso?
There were numerous officer-involved shootings when Chief White was in Louisville, and at least publicly none were ever questioned that I can remember.
That said, I'm not sure any involved ERT snipers.
There were numerous officer-involved shootings when Chief White was in Louisville, and at least publicly none were ever questioned that I can remember.
That said, I'm not sure any involved ERT snipers.
1.Ha, if you don't think that higher ups can play a role in you pulling the trigger or not, you have never sat behind a long gun that wasn't on a range. I've been told straight up we can't take shots before. Shooting when your life is in danger is not what is being discussed.
2. Also, Officer tactics always change when a camera is present, hell they change if it's near the end of your watch.
3. No one on this thread has stated any facts, because non of us were there. So right now it is just some guys bullshitting about something that happened on the news, this isn't a grand jury.
PTRLCOP, there is a mechanism, it's called a radio. Are you telling me that your snipers deploy without a radio? Is your chief going to get on the radio and tell a single person not to take a shot, no of course not. Updates are passed up and down the chain, and "guidance" is always in those messages. Your policy might protect your agency, and if that is true, who ever wrote it was a smart individual, but not everyone has a policy like yours to save them from those who would meddle and micromanage.
2. Also, Officer tactics always change when a camera is present, hell they change if it's near the end of your watch.
3. No one on this thread has stated any facts, because non of us were there. So right now it is just some guys bullshitting about something that happened on the news, this isn't a grand jury.
PTRLCOP, there is a mechanism, it's called a radio. Are you telling me that your snipers deploy without a radio? Is your chief going to get on the radio and tell a single person not to take a shot, no of course not. Updates are passed up and down the chain, and "guidance" is always in those messages. Your policy might protect your agency, and if that is true, who ever wrote it was a smart individual, but not everyone has a policy like yours to save them from those who would meddle and micromanage.
Victory, great post. I am enormously pleased someone has actually injected some rational thinking back into the chain of "speculation" we have all composed. The amount of assumption and "I've been 'there'...so you're an idiot to have any different opinion or thoughts from me..." is getting tiresome. There is no more basis for their spewed "facts" than there is for my own suppositions. Yet, they wield their "opinions" as though they are the word of god. Any deviation from or questioning of their viewpoint is seen as pure idiocy. Since I don't believe any of them were part of the execution or chain of command involved in the incident, I do not know from what authority they derive their conviction? How much more arrogant can you get? LOL
Here is what I can offer on the subject, it's the extent of what I know of at the moment so if you don't see it below, it's because I don't know. Thats not to say it is all the information by any means, just that its the extent of what I know to be fact, not speculation.
Like all shootings, this one is being investigated and looked at internally and also explains why a lot of info has not been released or given to the press for obvious reasons.
Lets start by addressing the communication. The assault team and the sniper team(s) were all in communication with one another. As mentioned above, guys have radios and SOPs they follow. There was a substantial force around the location and plenty of time had passed before the incident. It was agreed beforehand that if the suspect exited the store that they would not allow him to go back into it. The determination on which element took the shot was based on their SOPs. The suspect attempted to take the woman back into the store and the woman said out loud that she did not want to go back into the store, the assault team heard this and some/most of it can be heard on video as well. When this happened and the suspect was attempting to move back into the store is when the shot was taken.
The shot was taken by a SWAT member using a 308 caliber round from a mobile platform from approximately 100 feet or closer from the suspect. The camera angle most have seen is just about in line with the shooter, I don't know if the shooter was higher or lower than the camera angle but given the platforms used by SWAT, I am assuming it is slightly above the camera's FOV, this is an assumption on my part.
The round entered the suspect from his left side at the juncture of his left arm and his pectoral muscle at the juncture of the armpit and passed through and out the other side of the chest cavity roughly at the same location. The round continued on and went through the front door glass and into the store itself. It is not known at this time if this shot placement was intentional or if the shooter was going for a head shot, this is something that is being looked at as is the background environment/other 2 hostages that were known to be in the store at the time had been positively located and out of the shooters line of fire when the shot was taken.One hostage,the store manager, left out the back door once the suspect exited the store and the 2nd female hostage was hiding in the beverage cooler it was later determined.
Again, there are some questions and facts that are being addressed at this time but what I covered above are some of the facts behind this incident. Thats all I know about it right now. Hope that clears up some of the questions and speculation posted here.
Like all shootings, this one is being investigated and looked at internally and also explains why a lot of info has not been released or given to the press for obvious reasons.
Lets start by addressing the communication. The assault team and the sniper team(s) were all in communication with one another. As mentioned above, guys have radios and SOPs they follow. There was a substantial force around the location and plenty of time had passed before the incident. It was agreed beforehand that if the suspect exited the store that they would not allow him to go back into it. The determination on which element took the shot was based on their SOPs. The suspect attempted to take the woman back into the store and the woman said out loud that she did not want to go back into the store, the assault team heard this and some/most of it can be heard on video as well. When this happened and the suspect was attempting to move back into the store is when the shot was taken.
The shot was taken by a SWAT member using a 308 caliber round from a mobile platform from approximately 100 feet or closer from the suspect. The camera angle most have seen is just about in line with the shooter, I don't know if the shooter was higher or lower than the camera angle but given the platforms used by SWAT, I am assuming it is slightly above the camera's FOV, this is an assumption on my part.
The round entered the suspect from his left side at the juncture of his left arm and his pectoral muscle at the juncture of the armpit and passed through and out the other side of the chest cavity roughly at the same location. The round continued on and went through the front door glass and into the store itself. It is not known at this time if this shot placement was intentional or if the shooter was going for a head shot, this is something that is being looked at as is the background environment/other 2 hostages that were known to be in the store at the time had been positively located and out of the shooters line of fire when the shot was taken.One hostage,the store manager, left out the back door once the suspect exited the store and the 2nd female hostage was hiding in the beverage cooler it was later determined.
Again, there are some questions and facts that are being addressed at this time but what I covered above are some of the facts behind this incident. Thats all I know about it right now. Hope that clears up some of the questions and speculation posted here.
My .02 worth, is we dont know all of the statements/ actions made by the suspect. It is also unknown what the surrounding area was like for the SWAT "Sniper" to have cover / concealment to not be seen by the suspect,John Q Public with a cell phone or the media and still be able to position him/herself to be able to take a shot and have a decent backstop. The shooter has to follow SOP and he/she still needs to be able to articulate why they shot the suspect, Brass or P.C. has nothing to with shot placement or the case being presented to a grand jury. I know in my area no matter how justifiable the use of deadly force is on a suspect, it still goes through that agencies intenal, then the County or the State looks into it to ensure non bias and transparency then it goes to the County Posecutors Office and is evaluated from there. The agency involved won't make any statements or release any info until they have went over events that led to the deadly use of force, and until the evidence /facts are in and the investigation has taken it's course. Reguardless of brain case or center mass its an officer involved shooting and since John Q Public has a right to know they won't say until they have the facts. Especially since the media didn't care about the woman / hostage who's life will be forever changed, just the poor misunderstood repeat offender with free will and piss poor decision making skills.When I watched the news clip the Boilerup posted is that the media victimized the suspect. The repoerter's choice of words and that," robery" being a crime against property which is a crime against a person and her closing of the last phone call he would ever make. Not one word one 7-11 employees ect. again my .02.
Last edited:
My 2cents worth is, The Cops did great this time.
Maybe that hostage and those other people don't want to talk to the media???!!
I wouldn't.. They still live there and have to get along. It's the Hood asshole, Shut up, what don't you understand would be things I would expect to hear at that location.
There are a few DPD shooting that I will always criticize, but this is not one of them.
They need to own up and man up when it is bad shooting too.
I am still tracking the court dates for the 2 Boulder PD elk shooters. One plea dealt and came up with one felony that is to be expunged when he is off of probation. I hope it follows him. Don't understand that.
The other keeps getting continuances til sometime in May. I will be watching, Regards, FM
Maybe that hostage and those other people don't want to talk to the media???!!
I wouldn't.. They still live there and have to get along. It's the Hood asshole, Shut up, what don't you understand would be things I would expect to hear at that location.
There are a few DPD shooting that I will always criticize, but this is not one of them.
They need to own up and man up when it is bad shooting too.
I am still tracking the court dates for the 2 Boulder PD elk shooters. One plea dealt and came up with one felony that is to be expunged when he is off of probation. I hope it follows him. Don't understand that.
The other keeps getting continuances til sometime in May. I will be watching, Regards, FM
Similar threads
