What do you think?

Tubbs · 09-13-2005, 23:11

I just finished watching a History Channel program that gave a "play by play" breakdown of the North Hollywood bank robbery that took place in the early 90's.
Now, in my opinion they aggrandized a lot of what took place on the side of the bad guys, i.e weapons, tactics used, etc. but it got me thinking about it again. I'm not discounting the tremendous danger faced by LE that day and the courage of their actions, but I think that the media gave those two crooks way more credit than they deserved.
They seem to me to be two assholes that got ahold of some guns, watched too many action movies and thought that they were in a John Woo movie.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

jbour13 · 09-13-2005, 23:52

Shootout date was 28 Feb '97. Not gonna split hairs.

They (researchers and the Police) believed that the movie HEAT played a big role in their actions that day. They were also suspected of two other robberies in the area. One took his own life with a Beretta 92 when s**t got too deep, the other was dropped by a high-powered rifle.

The media was left ad-libbing it as it happened but of course began Monday morning quarterbacking it.

The only thing I would say that the crooks earned was suprise.....after it got picked up on by LAPD they showed they were prepared for a hot withdrawl from the bank. But....they didn't have much in the way of contingency planning beyond the banks sidewalk and that's where the bullshitting began by the media.

Facts are facts, boys in blue did one hell of a job reacting and adaptive thinking to sustain life and eventually overcome greater odds, crooks... well they had it coming.

El Cid · 09-14-2005, 07:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbour13

One took his own life with a Beretta 92 when s**t got too deep, the other was dropped by a high-powered rifle.

High-powered rifle?? I thought the second guy (the one trying to swap from car to truck) was taken out by SWAT with an MP5? The SWAT cops rolled up and shot under the car to take out his ankles. When they moved on him they had to shoot him again at close range to ensure he was not a threat. That part was all on camera and I'm pretty sure that was what I read.

CoLawman · 09-14-2005, 07:40

Their original successes in this incident were more a result of their superior fire power and the use of body armor. Police arrived with handguns and faced fully automatic weapons. I do not believe the element of surprise had anything to do with it.

The Newhall incident resulted in police departments switching from revolvers to semi-automatics.

This incident resulted in police departments issuing AR15s in stead of the shotgun to their patrol officers.

Just some observations!

longrange1947 · 09-14-2005, 09:15

Just my observation, but if the BGs were so shit hot, why didn't they get away when they had the initial element of surprise and chaos due to their body armor and auto weapons. They were out of their league and was depending on their armor and auto weapons to win when tactics and planning is required to win.

No they were morons and the press again has created their own story just as thye always do when they want to blow shit out of proportion.

My two cents.

Tubbs · 09-14-2005, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Just my observation, but if the BGs were so shit hot, why didn't they get away when they had the initial element of surprise and chaos due to their body armor and auto weapons. They were out of their league and was depending on their armor and auto weapons to win when tactics and planning is required to win.

No they were morons and the press again has created their own story just as thye always do when they want to blow shit out of proportion.

My two cents.

That is exactly what I got out of that. They tried ot make the two individuals seem like they were highly skilled para-military types just because they had some decent firepower.
I get really sick of the media. They also tried to downplay the fact that these were too sick and desparate individuals who chose their actions. They tried to lay most of the blame on the fact that they were able to get ahold of the firearms. Like if they wouldn't have got the guns then they would've been contributing memebers of society.
Last I checked I have a decent sized collection and none of my guns have told me to go rob a bank and try to kill some cops. They heven't put eachother to my head and told me to commmit crimes.

P.S. jbour13, you got to it before I could edit, so thanks for the catch.

09-15-2005, 18:06

Not to sound inconsiderate or uncarrying but what is the big deal with the North Hollywood Robbery? On May 9, 1980, a Militia backed group of guys did a heck of allot more damage and even fired more rounds than those two idiots. The Norco Bank Robbery was many times worse and lasted almost 10 hours from the time they left the bank till the time they (what was left of them) were caught in the mountains outside of Riverside. One LEO was killed, a few wounded, and a Police helicopter was shot down. Years later, we still haven't learned that rifles are better than shotguns, at least on the East Coast anyways.

CoLawman · 09-15-2005, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAB32

Not to sound inconsiderate or uncarrying but what is the big deal with the North Hollywood Robbery? On May 9, 1980, a Militia backed group of guys did a heck of allot more damage and even fired more rounds than those two idiots. The Norco Bank Robbery was many times worse and lasted almost 10 hours from the time they left the bank till the time they (what was left of them) were caught in the mountains outside of Riverside. One LEO was killed, a few wounded, and a Police helicopter was shot down. Years later, we still haven't learned that rifles are better than shotguns, at least on the East Coast anyways.

I concur the Norco Robbery was much worse. But we are into reality TV and the Norco Robbery lacked what the North Hollywood Robbery had, an entire video account of the incident. It brought it into the living room.

This should have been the incident that started the change over to rifles in LE, but it didn't. Maybe it was a money issue. Remember the Newhall incident was fresh and departments were expending large amounts of money for body armor and semi-auto pistols. It was take a couple more decades before the next incident (north Hollywood) revolutionized police work.

**Ambush Master** · 09-15-2005, 22:03

This one goes back a bit further, make your own conclusions:

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

CoLawman · 09-16-2005, 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

This one goes back a bit further, make your own conclusions:

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

Special Agent Mireles, what a warrior!

Thanks AM.

Tubbs · 09-16-2005, 10:28

It seems to me that a critical part in all of these incidents was a failure by LE to anticipate and promptly react to the desparation and ferocity of the criminals that they encountered.

**The Reaper** · 09-16-2005, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubbs

It seems to me that a critical part in all of these incidents was a failure by LE to anticipate and promptly react to the desparation and ferocity of the criminals that they encountered.

LE does not normally operate with a set of RoE that let them employ speed, surprise, and violence of action. They almost certainly have to yield surprise, except for certain warrant service.

Frankly, I am shocked at the compromises made to officer safety for political reasons, budgetary reasons, lack of interest in proper training, denial of proper gear due to sensitivity issues, and just plain PC (as we have seen recently).

I worked for a PD before coming into the Army, it is stunning to me how much the world, the threat, and the military have changed, in comparison to the minor changes in LE, even given 9/11 as the impetus for sweeping changes.

Officers should not be on duty today if they are not physically or mentally ready to face the challenge of active, suicidal shooters.

Departments should not be allowed to send officers out without the tools for the job, to include Level 4 body armor, patrol rifles, weapons lights, computer database access, smoke, gas, etc., and the training to use them.

Administrators who put officers on the street who are criminals themselves, physically unable to meet the possible requirements of the job, mentally unstable or incompetent, unwilling or untrained to perform their duties to the highest degree, underpaid to the point that they are unable to attract at least average quality personnel, meeting a quota not based on competence, etc. should be indicted and removed fom office.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

CoLawman · 09-16-2005, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubbs

It seems to me that a critical part in all of these incidents was a failure by LE to anticipate and promptly react to the desparation and ferocity of the criminals that they encountered.

TR is right on in his assessment here. I will take the liberty to add/expound a little on the points he made. In each of the listed incidents the officers were confronted with fully automatic weapons, while armed with revolvers and shotguns. These are issued weapons. The officers carry what they are issued. They confront the badguys with what is available regardless of the bad guys abilities. I would say that rather than failure, it is courageous!

During the Newhall and Norco incidents, Ballistic Vests were not even issued. If you wanted one you bought it. That was rare as LEO were earning poverty wages back then. We had to work part time jobs just to meet financial obligations.

Tubbs · 09-17-2005, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoLawman

They confront the badguys with what is available regardless of the bad guys abilities. I would say that rather than failure, it is courageous!

I agree that the actions of the LEO's in those situations were courageous.
Put in the perspective that both yourself nad TR have put this in, the fact that they lack propor training and equiptment to confront situations like the two discussed in this thread is rather frightening to me.
As someone who is actively pursunig a career in LE, what advice would you have to try and combat the lack of preparedness on the part of most departments to face issues like these?

longtab · 09-18-2005, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubbs

As someone who is actively pursunig a career in LE, what advice would you have to try and combat the lack of preparedness on the part of most departments to face issues like these?

I know a handful of Alaska State Troopers who go the extra mile. They carry Smith Enterprise M-14's in the trunk just in case the BG's have farther reaching guns (which in Alaska is very likely) than the issued 40S&W and shotguns. They also goto the range daily, train in combative techniques NOT taught in the LE academy, and conduct weight and cardio training as well. Heck you would think they wanted to do whatever it takes to go home to their families at the end of the day!