8 ms·

They fired 107 shots, some of which made it into my old teachers’ house. Completely wild that none were charged as those actions were actually worse than a gang

They fired 107 shots, some of which made it into my old teachers’ house. Completely wild that none were charged as those actions were actually worse than a gang related drive by.

Alupis 4y ago
> They fired 107 shots I don't know anything about this incident, and will not comment on such. I just wanted to point out the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest, and is not an argument point that should be used to convince anyone of anything. Too often uninformed folks throw around the number of shots fired as-if it means incompetence/maleficence/or worse. It rarely if ever does. EDIT: Allow me to add an edit here since no one seems capable of understanding the nuance in my original post above. DO NOT Use round count as an indicator of anything, or as a cornerstone for an argument. You will be trying to imply something that is just flatly wrong, and it will reduce your argument to being an uninformed person. DO Focus on the facts of the events and ensure outrage is placed where it should be. Round count is not it. With that said - allow me to further clarify my original disclaimer. Should the events of that day taken place? From my uninformed opinion (having only read the above quote) - no, they should not have. In summary, don't quote round counts like it means something. It doesn't, and it only serves to make you look uninformed.
- evan_ 4y ago
  > the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest what's the normal number of shots one should expect to be fired at a completely uninvolved party for no reason by 7+ police officers? I've got a number in my head.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I should have been prepared for the pushback I suppose. No, 107 shots is not unusual. The events under-which these shots were fired was unusual, but 107 shots being fired from 7+ individuals is not unusual. Averaging about 15 rounds per individual (if only 7 were present, the quote says at least 7), this "firefight" (I realize there was no return fire, just using generally accepted terms) was over in seconds. Anyone with any iota of firearms training can attest to this. If I had to guess, one individual initiated fire (jumpy, poor training, thought they saw something, who knows), and then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well. That is exactly how it is supposed to work, and not just for LE. In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat. This isn't the movies, you don't "just shoot them in the leg" or whatever uninformed slogan is popular these days. As I previously made a disclosure that I was not commenting on the events themselves, only the specific comment that sought to use the round count as some sort of outrage data point.
    - evan_ 4y ago
      > I realize there was no return fire > the rest fell back into their training and opened fire > That is exactly how it is supposed to work > you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat This is very unusual! I don't give a single shit that they were trained to do it! If the training is to just start shooting and let God sort it out- THAT'S BAD! I find it very unusual that you can just randomly be annihilated by a death squad while driving to work!
      - Alupis 4y ago
        So we agree the events were unusual? Good because that's been my disclaimer all along. What is not unusual, is given that there was a shooting, 107 rounds from 7+ individual is completely normal. Do not use round count as a data point to attack events like this. It only diminishes your actual argument, which I assume is this event never should have happened in the first place.
        evan_ 4y ago
        Here's what you sound like- "Yes obviously they were trained to shoot random bystanders as many times as possible, how else could they be sure that they killed the random bystanders? If they only shot THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS 14 times each instead of 15, there's a dangerous possibility that THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS will not be killed as completely as possible!" If this is how they're trained then it's bad training! Please kindly fuck all the way off!
        Alupis 4y ago
        I'm unsure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're just trying to sensationalize what I've said. Neither are good... and this is quickly devolving from a discussion about being well-informed to a flame war. Let's not flame war please. Nothing I've said says anything about shooting bystanders. What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided. Given the events of that day already occurred, it is very unsurprising 107 rounds were fired. That does not make it right that any rounds were fired at all. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this nuance.
- uoaei 4y ago
  "Unusual" is a normative claim, and thus means precisely nothing in this analysis.
- bombcar 4y ago
  If a shot is fired, you can basically assume a magdump. If a shot was fired, and the mag wasn't dumped, something is very suspicious.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I read it as 7 x 15 round magazine emptied, with two officers carrying 15 + 1 in the chamber. Complete conjecture on my part.
- r00fus 4y ago
  107 shots randomly fired is complete negligence. Cops should be held to a higher standard than street thugs even though the results for bystanders may be the same.
- fudgefactorfive 4y ago
  I'm sorry but the American police and their training to "mag-dump" is something even an uninformed bystander could probably call excessive. A car with no weapons, hence no returning fire and 7 separate officers all but empty their clips until the smoke clears is a quintessential example of the criticisms of American police training. I spoke recently with a swiss police officer that complained they aren't even allowed to taze someone with a knife explicitly threatening life and instead must attempt to talk them down before even being allowed to put hands on the obvious perpetrator. One is training as an officer of the peace, the other is training for a soldier in a warlords personal hit squad. Even actual American soldiers are court-martialed if they even raise their weapon at an incoming hostile without several verbal warnings going unheeded and even then must fire a warning shot before they can engage.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > even then must fire a warning shot before they can engage Calling BS on this story, sorry. No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop. A "warning shot" - where do you fire it? Into the road so it can ricochet and kill an innocent onlooker? Into the air so it can do the same? Into a building with an unknown backstop? This is beyond absurd. > Even actual American soldiers are court-martialed if they even raise their weapon at an incoming hostile without several verbal warnings going unheeded You have some fundamental facts wrong here.
    - fritztastic 4y ago
      The regulations on the use of deadly force in the military are much more stringent and the escalation has to occur in a specific way to justify the use of deadly force, even when a person is being hostile. In an active war zone, the situation is different but it is a war zone (which is the exception, not the norm)- in most situations for most people trained in the military, the standard way to respond is much more reserved in terms of violence than how a lot of police behave domestically (maybe because of the context of preventing an international incident) and there are very strict rules and serious consequences to using a firearm- at least in most places/situations when servicemembers are issued a firearm.
- shortstuffsushi 4y ago
  For reference, the LAPD standard issue pistol seems to be a FN 509 MRD-LE, with a magazine capacity of 17. Because police seem to be trained to empty their entire magazine any time they fire, that would be about in line with this number.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > Because police seem to be trained to empty their entire magazine any time they fire That is not just police - that is firearms training 101. Even civilian training courses hammer this into you. You do not stop firing until it is absolutely clear there is no more threat. I realize a significant portion of HNers are not familiar with firearms and have had zero firearms training. You'll have to take my word, and that of any other brave voices that this is how it's suppose to work. The amount of rounds fired is quite literally the least concerning thing about the event. My original point was do not use round count as some sort of hammer to make a point - you only come off as uninformed and it diminishes your overall argument.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Emptying everything is a foolish action because it leaves you without any bullets where unregistered threats can emerge.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        Nobody carries only a single magazine...
        ipaddr 4y ago
        Taking time and attention to reload means you are a sitting target. Whoever is teaching this assumes one threat and one exchange model which is foolish and fatal in real life. Anyone can take your money and call it a class but it is not what they teach you in the army or special ops. It might go over well with the soccer moms but it is not even a good strategy for paintball.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Maybe it is in the US that it's completely normal that 7 or so individuals fire 10+ shots each, without any shots being fired back. I can tell you it's completely not normal in pretty much any other country in the world. If they teach people in gun classes to empty their clip "just in case" then maybe you should take a hard look at the gun classes (and the people we are talking about here are professionals supposedly). To put this in perspective in 2021 the German police fired 139 shots in total against people or things (this excludes shots fired against dangerous, sick or injured animals which is much higher), of which 60 were warning shots. [1] [1] https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/182399-falle-von-polizeilichem-schusswaffengebrauch-2021/ https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/182399-falle-von-polizeili...
  - Alupis 4y ago
    This isn't a movie. 107 shots didn't take 30 minutes... this "firefight" was over in seconds. The fact that no shots were fired back is the only reason the round count is as low as it is. > If they teach people in gun classes to empty their clip "just in case" then maybe you should take a hard look at the gun classes This isn't a movie folks. If the gun comes out of it's holster, there is a non-trivial chance someone is about to die. We can all agree the events in the above story should not have taken place. I want to be really clear here, uninformed folks passing judgement by number of rounds fired is about as absurd as it can be. It literally has no impact on the story, and it literally does not mean any of the things you might want it to mean.
    - TremendousJudge 4y ago
      I don't understand your point. The comment you answered points out that in other countries, the police firing 107 shots is in fact, very not normal. Your comment doesn't attempt to explain why there is a difference between it being normal in the US and abnormal everywhere else, besides dismissing it as "uninformed folks passing judgement". I'd like to know your opinion on why you think the entire German police can get away with firing 137 shots in an entire year while the LA police fires 107 in a single incident.
      - 4y ago
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest That in and of itself is a problem.
- microtherion 4y ago
  Just to put this in context, 107 rounds is on the order of what police in all of Germany are firing at people IN A YEAR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#...
the_only_law 4y ago
Doesn’t LAPD have gang infiltration? I think I heard that a few times.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Not so much gang infiltration, which implies existing gangs getting access to LAPD, but the harboring of deputy gangs, which are gangs created by police officers in the LAPD. More info: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-sheriffs-deputy-gang-crisis https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-...
  - tomjakubowski 4y ago
    That story is about the LA Sheriffs, not the LAPD. They're different organizations.

They fired 107 shots, some of which made it into my old teachers’ house. Completely wild that none were charged as those actions were actually worse than a gang related drive by.

Alupis 4y ago

> They fired 107 shots I don't know anything about this incident, and will not comment on such. I just wanted to point out the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest, and is not an argument point that should be used to convince anyone of anything. Too often uninformed folks throw around the number of shots fired as-if it means incompetence/maleficence/or worse. It rarely if ever does. EDIT: Allow me to add an edit here since no one seems capable of understanding the nuance in my original post above. DO NOT Use round count as an indicator of anything, or as a cornerstone for an argument. You will be trying to imply something that is just flatly wrong, and it will reduce your argument to being an uninformed person. DO Focus on the facts of the events and ensure outrage is placed where it should be. Round count is not it. With that said - allow me to further clarify my original disclaimer. Should the events of that day taken place? From my uninformed opinion (having only read the above quote) - no, they should not have. In summary, don't quote round counts like it means something. It doesn't, and it only serves to make you look uninformed.

evan_ 4y ago
> the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest what's the normal number of shots one should expect to be fired at a completely uninvolved party for no reason by 7+ police officers? I've got a number in my head.
- Alupis 4y ago
  I should have been prepared for the pushback I suppose. No, 107 shots is not unusual. The events under-which these shots were fired was unusual, but 107 shots being fired from 7+ individuals is not unusual. Averaging about 15 rounds per individual (if only 7 were present, the quote says at least 7), this "firefight" (I realize there was no return fire, just using generally accepted terms) was over in seconds. Anyone with any iota of firearms training can attest to this. If I had to guess, one individual initiated fire (jumpy, poor training, thought they saw something, who knows), and then the rest fell back into their training and opened fire as well. That is exactly how it is supposed to work, and not just for LE. In all firearms training - be it military, law enforcement, and even civilian - you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat. This isn't the movies, you don't "just shoot them in the leg" or whatever uninformed slogan is popular these days. As I previously made a disclosure that I was not commenting on the events themselves, only the specific comment that sought to use the round count as some sort of outrage data point.
  - evan_ 4y ago
    > I realize there was no return fire > the rest fell back into their training and opened fire > That is exactly how it is supposed to work > you are trained to fire until you are certain there is no more threat This is very unusual! I don't give a single shit that they were trained to do it! If the training is to just start shooting and let God sort it out- THAT'S BAD! I find it very unusual that you can just randomly be annihilated by a death squad while driving to work!
    - Alupis 4y ago
      So we agree the events were unusual? Good because that's been my disclaimer all along. What is not unusual, is given that there was a shooting, 107 rounds from 7+ individual is completely normal. Do not use round count as a data point to attack events like this. It only diminishes your actual argument, which I assume is this event never should have happened in the first place.
      - evan_ 4y ago
        Here's what you sound like- "Yes obviously they were trained to shoot random bystanders as many times as possible, how else could they be sure that they killed the random bystanders? If they only shot THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS 14 times each instead of 15, there's a dangerous possibility that THE RANDOM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS will not be killed as completely as possible!" If this is how they're trained then it's bad training! Please kindly fuck all the way off!
        Alupis 4y ago
        I'm unsure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're just trying to sensationalize what I've said. Neither are good... and this is quickly devolving from a discussion about being well-informed to a flame war. Let's not flame war please. Nothing I've said says anything about shooting bystanders. What I have said, over and over again, is using round count as some sort of point is very misguided. Given the events of that day already occurred, it is very unsurprising 107 rounds were fired. That does not make it right that any rounds were fired at all. I'm sorry if you cannot understand this nuance.
uoaei 4y ago
"Unusual" is a normative claim, and thus means precisely nothing in this analysis.
bombcar 4y ago
If a shot is fired, you can basically assume a magdump. If a shot was fired, and the mag wasn't dumped, something is very suspicious.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I read it as 7 x 15 round magazine emptied, with two officers carrying 15 + 1 in the chamber. Complete conjecture on my part.
r00fus 4y ago
107 shots randomly fired is complete negligence. Cops should be held to a higher standard than street thugs even though the results for bystanders may be the same.
fudgefactorfive 4y ago
I'm sorry but the American police and their training to "mag-dump" is something even an uninformed bystander could probably call excessive. A car with no weapons, hence no returning fire and 7 separate officers all but empty their clips until the smoke clears is a quintessential example of the criticisms of American police training. I spoke recently with a swiss police officer that complained they aren't even allowed to taze someone with a knife explicitly threatening life and instead must attempt to talk them down before even being allowed to put hands on the obvious perpetrator. One is training as an officer of the peace, the other is training for a soldier in a warlords personal hit squad. Even actual American soldiers are court-martialed if they even raise their weapon at an incoming hostile without several verbal warnings going unheeded and even then must fire a warning shot before they can engage.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > even then must fire a warning shot before they can engage Calling BS on this story, sorry. No one in this world is training to fire a "warning shot". That is from the movies - full stop. A "warning shot" - where do you fire it? Into the road so it can ricochet and kill an innocent onlooker? Into the air so it can do the same? Into a building with an unknown backstop? This is beyond absurd. > Even actual American soldiers are court-martialed if they even raise their weapon at an incoming hostile without several verbal warnings going unheeded You have some fundamental facts wrong here.
  - fritztastic 4y ago
    The regulations on the use of deadly force in the military are much more stringent and the escalation has to occur in a specific way to justify the use of deadly force, even when a person is being hostile. In an active war zone, the situation is different but it is a war zone (which is the exception, not the norm)- in most situations for most people trained in the military, the standard way to respond is much more reserved in terms of violence than how a lot of police behave domestically (maybe because of the context of preventing an international incident) and there are very strict rules and serious consequences to using a firearm- at least in most places/situations when servicemembers are issued a firearm.
shortstuffsushi 4y ago
For reference, the LAPD standard issue pistol seems to be a FN 509 MRD-LE, with a magazine capacity of 17. Because police seem to be trained to empty their entire magazine any time they fire, that would be about in line with this number.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > Because police seem to be trained to empty their entire magazine any time they fire That is not just police - that is firearms training 101. Even civilian training courses hammer this into you. You do not stop firing until it is absolutely clear there is no more threat. I realize a significant portion of HNers are not familiar with firearms and have had zero firearms training. You'll have to take my word, and that of any other brave voices that this is how it's suppose to work. The amount of rounds fired is quite literally the least concerning thing about the event. My original point was do not use round count as some sort of hammer to make a point - you only come off as uninformed and it diminishes your overall argument.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Emptying everything is a foolish action because it leaves you without any bullets where unregistered threats can emerge.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      Nobody carries only a single magazine...
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        Taking time and attention to reload means you are a sitting target. Whoever is teaching this assumes one threat and one exchange model which is foolish and fatal in real life. Anyone can take your money and call it a class but it is not what they teach you in the army or special ops. It might go over well with the soccer moms but it is not even a good strategy for paintball.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cycomanic 4y ago
Maybe it is in the US that it's completely normal that 7 or so individuals fire 10+ shots each, without any shots being fired back. I can tell you it's completely not normal in pretty much any other country in the world. If they teach people in gun classes to empty their clip "just in case" then maybe you should take a hard look at the gun classes (and the people we are talking about here are professionals supposedly). To put this in perspective in 2021 the German police fired 139 shots in total against people or things (this excludes shots fired against dangerous, sick or injured animals which is much higher), of which 60 were warning shots. [1] [1] https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/182399-falle-von-polizeilichem-schusswaffengebrauch-2021/ https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/182399-falle-von-polizeili...
- Alupis 4y ago
  This isn't a movie. 107 shots didn't take 30 minutes... this "firefight" was over in seconds. The fact that no shots were fired back is the only reason the round count is as low as it is. > If they teach people in gun classes to empty their clip "just in case" then maybe you should take a hard look at the gun classes This isn't a movie folks. If the gun comes out of it's holster, there is a non-trivial chance someone is about to die. We can all agree the events in the above story should not have taken place. I want to be really clear here, uninformed folks passing judgement by number of rounds fired is about as absurd as it can be. It literally has no impact on the story, and it literally does not mean any of the things you might want it to mean.
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    I don't understand your point. The comment you answered points out that in other countries, the police firing 107 shots is in fact, very not normal. Your comment doesn't attempt to explain why there is a difference between it being normal in the US and abnormal everywhere else, besides dismissing it as "uninformed folks passing judgement". I'd like to know your opinion on why you think the entire German police can get away with firing 137 shots in an entire year while the LA police fires 107 in a single incident.
    - 4y ago
yellowapple 4y ago
> the number of shots fired here from 7+ individuals is not unusual in the slightest That in and of itself is a problem.
microtherion 4y ago
Just to put this in context, 107 rounds is on the order of what police in all of Germany are firing at people IN A YEAR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#...

the_only_law 4y ago

Doesn’t LAPD have gang infiltration? I think I heard that a few times.

heavyset_go 4y ago
Not so much gang infiltration, which implies existing gangs getting access to LAPD, but the harboring of deputy gangs, which are gangs created by police officers in the LAPD. More info: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-sheriffs-deputy-gang-crisis https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-...
- tomjakubowski 4y ago
  That story is about the LA Sheriffs, not the LAPD. They're different organizations.