Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Cop firing through his windshield???

No problem........... sorry bought the mini-rant!

Generally, I think that if the perps are shooting at you, shouldn't you shoot back? Plus, when you're chasing another vehicle at a high rate of speed, the tires and engine block probably aren't an option. Checking to see if there's a kid in the truck??? Maybe the cop should have politely asked them to pull over, I'm sure they would have complied.

Those are tough questions. But shooting at a tire or into the engine compartment in order to stop the car is forbidden in many departments because of liability issues. Lawyers have sued cities for damages cause by car wrecks stating that the officers destroyed the ability of the crooks to control the car, and are therefore liable for the damage caused by wrecks.

I believe that lawsuits have boiled down the act of shooting - using deadly force- as justified to "end the threat". The cop has to consider, often in a split second, whether shooting the crook, and the danger it entails, is worth the risk versus letting the crook escape, and therefore continue to commit violent crimes where victims may be subject to death or great bodily injury.

Consider the backlash at recent shootings where the cop held his fire, or did not engage. Some people get overwhelmed at what to have for dinner, or what present to buy for someone. Others make great decisions under stress. With all these cameras, there is a lot of opinions after the fact, but some opinions are better based on knowledge and experience, and not mere emotion. That being said, having these videos can be a tremendous asset for "hot washes" or after actions reviews. These provide records of actual events which can be learned from, and real viable training can grow out of.

Are you being for real? You don’t know me, but I do not work behind a desk. Yesterday morning my coworkers and I actually did use the video for learning purposes. The first thing that was said by anyone was- “well... we’d be put on probation for gun-handling that bad”, and it went down hill from there.

Your belief of “performance” is completely incorrect. Your thoughts are shared by the large portion of the gun carrying “professionals”, yet when actually measured at their tasks the absolute best teams on earth are about as good at their “sport”, as a decent regional junior high basketball team is at theirs.








And that’s why people continue to die. Remove the emotion and evaluate honestly. A LOT of police and military personel (a very good case can be made for most) get killed and wounded, or shoot the wrong people because they are under trained, under skilled, and do not learn from the past. I guarantee you I have never done a single mission of any type without us and others absolutely destroying our performance- no matter how good the outcome. Then we immediately change, correct, and practice the solution to the failures under conditions vastly harder than they were initially noted, so that they never happen again. Doing otherwise is like repeatedly going into the ring of a UFC fight, getting your butt destroyed every time, but never learning from the fights.

Winning fighters and coaches evaluate everything done critically and are hyper focused on removing weaknesses. Losers high five each other “because they played”.









See, this is my problem with both LE and the military. The general idea that the most important thing is to go home at night. “Surviving” isn’t the most important thing. If it was then why did you sign up to carry a gun in the first place? Winning is the most important thing, and it’s pretty hard to win if you kill the very thing you are supposed to be protecting.

Got a technical question.

There's several versions of this video on the internet but the one in the OP show the first shots fired through the windshield while the perp's vehicle is traveling beside a moving U-Haul truck going in the same direction. It's not parked. It's rolling right next to the perp's vehicle while the officer is shooting. Look at the parked vehicles on the left of the screen to see how its traveling.

Right at the beginning of this clip and then again at about 27 seconds. Five rounds. Then the U-Haul driver stands on the brakes.

I'm guessing that none of those five rounds went winging off to the right and penetrated the U-Haul or the driver otherwise we'd have heard about it.

But you guys who practice shooting through windshields - do your duty rounds reliably go pretty straight that way?

Generally yes. There is deviation due to angle of the glass, but not by feet at closer ranges with well designed projectiles.

I reckon when you start a gunfight with the police, it falls on the suspect if anyone in the vehicle is endangered.

Very well stated and correct.

No, that's incorrect. Every time I've started a gunfight with police, they've always asked (politely I might add) if there were others in the car, before returning fire.

Actually, when properly trained and vetted the shooter is expected to know the final resting place of each round fired, to include pass throughs. This level actually exists as a standard but is rarely enforced or supported by "management". It takes talent, time and effort to achieve this level and few agencies recognize or can afford it.


mike r

Rockape.... you be the simpleton who came to CF desperately seeking advice on how to handle your neighbors dog...

then gave tactical entry advice on school shootings that you said you got from watching hollywoods Saving Private Ryan.

not even funny , just sad.




Yet a police chief has said , that if the officer in question had harmed or killed any innocents, that he very much expected
the city would be paying up BIG for his recklessness.

why don't you just stick to entertaining the CF with your hick brain conspiracy theories like you do?

The officer is responsible for every round going out the windshield. Reckless at best. Would have been deafening in the squad car. And then, empty magazine into stopped vehicle. The officer needs some serious training.[/quote]

LMAO who the fugg is this guy?

Ex police officer, who now puts people back together in surgery. Just my opinion. Who are you?

Yep, we were kind of spooning, when we had a three way with your mama. Troll on, it takes the heat off others.

He had a solid target in his sights yes, and could say was aiming centre mass....but if you know anything about
the angle/degree of upward projectile deflection when firing through angled windshields...(and taking into account the distance of the target)
id say all his rounds went right over the top by a healthy margin.

Its highly evident from the video showing angle of gun and distance to target, that the officer is not skilled or
trained to effectively shoot through squad car windshields.

And from what I understand they don't train their guys to do such.

In your experience, when you’ve shot at targets through a windshield, how far off target were you?

When you factor in duty ammunition for .40 vs .45 vs 9mm vs .357 Sig, what difference did you see?

I’m just curious if my experiences will mirror yours.

George

.45 will deflect less than .40 ..and .40 less than 9mm,

then one has to factor in variables like not all vehicles have the same angle windshield.

put simply, smaller cal and more acute angle of glass means more compensation required.

I seriously doubt the officers aim through the glass put any rounds on that perps vehicle.

How can he be sure that there is a child in there? When the shooting starts all bets are off anything that happens to a child is on the people who started the gunfight.

Is that your experience or are you hypothesizing?

If you think the officer in question is skilled in shooting through glass and was able to hit the perps vehicle [through learned skills
and not just half assed pot luck], just say so....your experience means you should be able to give an answer now.

give an answer instead of just firing off more and more questions like pigs do.

I trust that when more details are revealed as to what he actually hit with 31 rounds, they will support what I have put forward.