That was some fine police work and a damn good kill on the part of the Santa Ana police. Some people just need killing, and thankfully this human dumpster gave the cops a legal excuse to do it. Excellent outcome!

Now we just have to hope and pray that the two LB cops recover fully, which is a long-shot. As for what they did wrong on the initial stop, I guess they could have anticipated the possibility that he would do what he did, but hindsight is 20/20 and all. There is a more aggressive way to make a felony stop, which minimizes the exposure of the first unit on the scene, (with more on the way coming fast), is that accurate, David? If someone is bold, or crazy enough and doesn't mind risking almost certain death, you can shoot just about anyone.

This guy was a poster child for a certain breed of cop-killers that we have here, they are illegal immigrants who are hard-core criminals from Mexico or CA who have nothing to lose and can scurry back across the border like rats w/ not much risk of facing trial in the U.S. He will serve a propaganda purpose for tougher borders, w/o a doubt.

Denis, you rode with me and saw my style. We had a good time, except for the weather. If it was a pretext stop, which conflicting stories may now indicate, then a felony stop was in order. Again, like many other cop stories, the facts will come slow as the investigation proceeds. It will be a learning process for all of us.

As many have stated, the best outcome took place. May the bad guy rest in hell, David

David, I'm sorry, but it is just too painfully obvious what you are trying to do here. Does one "good" SWAT story offset one "bad" SWAT story? Hardly. While this particular violent criminal certainly warranted the deployment of SWAT personel, Peyton Strickland just as certainly did not. Do you honestly not see the difference, or are you just fishing?

OK, but guy who gets pulled over for running a Red light shoots a few police officers, and you wonder why SWAP gets sent in when they have reason to believe the suspect is armed, and they already know that he has used violence??

Jeff, what does this story have to do with the Strickland story? One has to do with 2 officers shot and the other has to do with a horrible entry. You do see the difference right?

Why link the two? Or are you playing around?

David

Re: SWAT Operation
 

Maybe I'm guilty of making too many assumptions here, David. With all the talk on this BBS about the unwarranted entry in Strickland's home, and this comment, it appears to me you are the one trying to link the two. The clear inference (to me, anyway) is that we can look forward to more public place shoot-'em-ups like the one you describe if home entries are more restricted.

There was no home entry attempted in this story; you appear to present this scenario as an unpleasant and dangerous alternative. Apparently trying to imply it would have been safer to the public to have apprehended this particular violent criminal at home, where errant rounds would not pose a threat to the public. I agree it probably would have been, if they had been able to catch him wherever he calls home.

Many of us decried the reckless home invasion that cost Peyton Strickland his life. "For those of you who are completely against entries into a home..." appears directed at those of us that believe the use of these tactics need to be more carefully measured, that there has to be a great deal more oversight. And ultimately, responsibility.

It simply astounds me that these two men were apparently treated the same by the respective arresting officers. One, a violent criminal that had been actually shooting at cops (leaving two near death), and deported several times. The other, a young man that had voluntarily turned himself in (at the behest of his lawyer) every other time he had been in trouble in the past. One clearly armed, posing a threat to all around him, still shooting at cops. The other shot blindly through a closed door (by a cop now lying about "mistaking" a battering ram for gunshots).

Maybe I am hanging too much on that one statement. Maybe that was not your intention at all, to link these two cases. I think it is important we do, however. We have two decidedly different cases, with two decidedly different levels of threat. I think it is very telling (and quite disturbing) to realize that modern law enforcement has apparently decided to treat them the same way, by sending a SWAT team.

Is this what our future, as American citizens, holds for us? Black masked pseudo-military raids when there is any perceived (or in Strickland's case, purely fabricated) threat? And trying to gloss over the occasional "mistake" by touting the successes? Even if the "mistake" costs a citizen his life? Maybe some folks truly are comfortable with police employing military tactics against citizens and are willing to trade the occasional "mistake" for the perceived added security in their lives. After all, they only get the bad guys, right? Oh, and the occasional Peyton Strickland. But what the hell; he was a punk anyway. Right?

When I was little kid in about 1974, the Houston SWAT team came and talked to us in school. The officer said the Houston SWAT teams had only fired two shots in the existance of their teams. Of course both shots were fatal.

What happened to the time when these guys were used only for these situations and where was the sniper in the above story posted by David that would have prevented this gunbattle?

just shows the danger aspect of being a cop...I agree with SWAT and find that the "use of force" policy is working as designed. MANY incidents are resolved with less than deadly force...and when the UOF guidance calls for deadly force then use it.

You are building a false construct.

Traffic stops are known to be potentially extremely dangerous- most cops that are killed are killed during traffic stops. HOWEVER, David is not arguing that SWAT be used in traffic stops, and neither is anyone else, and what happens on traffic stops is irrelevant to arresting someone at their home.

People shooting cops during traffic stops do NOT justify home raids using SWAT teams- the two are unrelated.


Hitting them at home is the most dangerous IMO, cause if they have heavy firepower, that's most likely where it will be. What's more, if you get them at home there are liable to be ready-built hostages on hand for the criminal to exploit.

The best place to hit this guy would've probably been as he approached his car in the middle of the parking lot.

They didn't wait for a full team to arrive(Which may or may not have been a mistake), and obviously a sniper is going to be a no-go inside a mall. Once they got the man outside all manner of things like LOS restrictions and the presence of other civvies can cause a 'no shoot' situation to develop even under circumstances where a military sniper would shoot. Most police forces use 7mm Rem Mag or .300 Win Mag for their sniper rifles, which are VERY powerful rounds. Therefore one must be ENTIRELY sure of their target and the backstop before engaging a target. Also, many(if not most) Police snipers do not practice engagements much beyond a couple hundred meters, whereas military snipers train for direct fire engagements out beyond 1000 meters plus.