View Full Version : North Hollywood Shoutout Episode
Sir Hacksalot
11-18-2005, 19:08
Did any of you see the episode of shootout about the North Hollywood bank robbery?
There were two notable things to me.
1. The cops were woefully unprepared for an event like this sort of event.
2. The badguys really did not seem intent on getting away...they seemed to just stand there and enjoyed shooting it out.
3. What would have happened if this had been a REALLY high powered weapon, say a 7.62 NATO type weapon, or even an old M1918 BAR?
4. Headshots under duress are apparantly only for NAVY SEALS.
5. AN AK JAMMED!
Thoughts?
Hax
Everyone pretty much discussed this about 6-7 yrs ago. After watching the video, don't you wish they had an Assault Weapons Ban? Oh wait, that's right, those guns WERE banned!!! I wonder how they did that.
SmartOne
11-18-2005, 20:45
:cool: Well, it's about time! I've wondered about these things for years, too. The BG's seemed almost preprogrammed for self-destruction. Whatever happened that day, it wasn't about robbing banks. I really have to agree with you: The shootout certainly looked like it took precedence over trying to get away.
Police are used to taking control of a dangerous situation by, 'mobbing the scene'. Usually this tactic works: The more personnel you put on a problem, the faster it comes under control. That day in Laurel Canyon, however, this frequently used tactic didn't work.
The Los Angeles Police reported that Phillips and Matasareanu fired over 1,100 rounds from 5 shoulder mounted firearms and one pistol: These weapons included: three fully automatic 7.62x39mm AK-47s, one fully automatic 5.56mm Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, one semi-automatic .308 caliber H&K assault rifle, (Model 91?) and (4) a 9mm semi-automatic (Model 92?) Beretta handgun.
The fact is, Phillips and Matasareanu WERE using state-of-the-art battle weapons - None better! IIRC, the AK that jammed was running a drum magazine. (Which may have sustained hits and, what? - Wolf ammo?)
If you look closely at the footage you'll notice that many of the police WERE making body strikes with their 9mm Berettas: At one point you can see the clothing actually ripple on Phillips! Radio messages can be heard in some accounts telling officers to aim for the head, too; but, headshots with a pistol from 100 to 150 yards away? I don't think so!
North Hollywood is a classic example of the old axiom: 'Never bring a pistol to a rifle fight!' The BG's had the firepower and they, also, had the range. During those first 15 minutes, Phillips and Matasareanu had every advantage! The other question I've often wondered about is, 'Why did they separate?' That really made no sense and seemed - if not peculiarly disloyal - certainly stupid in the face of what was (already) overwhelming odds!
(I, still, haven't made up my mind whether or not Phillips died, 'angry' or like a coward? I've, also, heard 3 different versions of his last moments; and, based on the early unedited film footage, I personally don't quite buy the official version.)
Perhaps their initial overwhelming firepower is the main reason, 'why' these guys chose to stand and fight when they should have been running away? One thing's for sure: Phillips and Matasareanu had enough experience at robbing banks to understand the longer they hung around, the hotter things were going to get for them; but, yes, you're right, they didn't seem to really care!
(Even when Matasareanu was down he continued to smirk at the officers who'd captured him. The last photo taken of him shows him smiling as he slowly bled to death!) ;g
glock19_fan
11-18-2005, 21:19
They took muscle relaxants prior to the robbery, which may have changed their reaction to the police response.
crazymoose
11-19-2005, 00:44
I was watching the DVD of "Heat," and director Michaeal Mann pointed something out about the shootout in that movie that bore parallels to the one in North Hollywood (in fact, I believe the North Hollywood guys got some of their ideas from that great movie!). He said that the reason he believed the outcome of the firefight in "Heat" was plausible was because police are not generally prepared for that kind of thing, both in terms of equipment, and psychologically. The policeman's job is usually to catch someone who is trying to get away. They may be shooting, but they're also running. This puts the cops in "predator" mode and the criminals in "prey" mode. But when the bad guys decide to stand and deliver, as in "Heat" or North Hollywood, you have a situation for which the cops aren't as prepared. That's why they have SWAT.
And FWIW, as much as you hate an SOB like Phillips, and feel the world is better off without him, you've gotta admit it took some serious stones to do what he did.
If they had wanted to escape, they could have used their fire superiority and escaped easily. All it would have taken is a little bit of aggressiveness on their part. I think they wanted to die.
Wasn't there a ridiculous lawsuit after the shootout, and didn't some of the officers involved loose their jobs?
RMTactical
11-19-2005, 05:02
You must be mistaken. AK's simply do not jam. It's true, I read it on the internet.;g
;f
DunedinDragon
11-19-2005, 05:17
But the good news is for all those that live in Kommiefornia...
You'll NEVER EVER have to worry about anything like that happening again. Fortunately you have laws that severely limit and emasculate assault weapons in that state, so no bad guys could EVER have anything like those weapons now!!!!!
;g ;g ;g ;g ;g ;g ;g ;g
Smartone makes some accurate observations.
The fact is that regular police are not trained for that type of incident. Ever since the Patty Hearst/Simbianese Liberation shoot out and the preceding shoot out in the Bell Tower at the University of Texas it became apparent that regular cops needed additonal tactical resources. California responded. Darrel Gates created the SWAT monster and now even the Department of Agriculture and some college police departments have SWAT Teams. This has allowed regular patrol officers to remain less trained for these intense incidents but are trained perfectly adquately for regular patrol activities. We are talking about real budget dollar savings in terms of equipment and training. Things went along fine for the SWAT concept which calls for the initial responding officers to seal off the incident area and wait for the shooters/SWAT to arrive and storm the place or apply whatever tactical skills they have.
Then came the shoot out in Miami in 1986 which showed the sad state of training and ability of the FBI to respond to well trained, determined bank robbers. That incident prompted huge changes in the way police were trained. Generally speaking national training standards were set and the shift to high capacity pistols and semi-automatic weapons, more equipment and more technology.
Then came Columbine. The cops responded and sealed off the school and while they were waiting for the assault cops to arrive and get organized people were getting shot inside the school. The response to this tragedy has been to encourage training for the street cop so they can engage immediately with the necessary force instead of standing by for the highly trained SWAT to arrive.
Still, under normal circumstances, cops will mass resources before responding at the scene of an incident and do poorly when facing a trained determined criminal who is not afraid to stand and fight.
Look at the police response in the LA riots and look at New Orleans for an accurate portrayal of police determination to "serve and defend" under out of the ordinary resistance.
I am convinced that as long as police staffing remains at one officer per 1000 citizens in the population the Second Amendment really shows the wisdom of our founders.
Rant off.
DunedinDragon
11-19-2005, 10:40
Originally posted by Sierra
I am convinced that as long as police staffing remains at one officer per 1000 citizens in the population the Second Amendment really shows the wisdom of our founders.
Rant off.
I'm not sure staffing is the issue. Police are able to respond in force in all these incidents. They're just not able to respond in kind to all these incidents. To my knowledge, the most that has been done in response to these types of situations is to qualify a few select street officers to carry AR15s. That's what I don't understand. How much more effort and cost could there be in making sure street officers are equipped and able to deal with something more than a CQC situation? The don't have to be SWAT trained, but they should be at least able to contain a situation in which the range is greater than 50 feet.
dbrowne1
11-19-2005, 11:47
There have been many anaylses of the N. Hollywood shootout, some much better and more accurate than others.
One question that I have not seen addressed by somebody of any authority is whether the pair were actually using true "armor piercing" ammo, and not legal mild steel jacket or mild steel core 7.62x39mm. The media, and many TV shows that purport to recreate this incident, seem to mention this frequently. However, the legal/military definition of AP and the media definition seem to differ drastically. I tend not to trust the media characterization of weapons and ammo.
RMTactical
11-19-2005, 12:42
Originally posted by dbrowne1
There have been many anaylses of the N. Hollywood shootout, some much better and more accurate than others.
One question that I have not seen addressed by somebody of any authority is whether the pair were actually using true "armor piercing" ammo, and not legal mild steel jacket or mild steel core 7.62x39mm. The media, and many TV shows that purport to recreate this incident, seem to mention this frequently. However, the legal/military definition of AP and the media definition seem to differ drastically. I tend not to trust the media characterization of weapons and ammo.
The media likes to use words like "sniper rifle", "high powered rifle", "Armor piercing", "machine gun" and many others to describe something that is simply none of those things 99% of the time.
dbrowne1
11-19-2005, 14:13
Originally posted by GoreLicks
The media likes to use words like "sniper rifle", "high powered rifle", "Armor piercing", "machine gun" and many others to describe something that is simply none of those things 99% of the time.
I know, which is why I asked about the "AP" ammo.
For once, however, they got the "machinegun" part right, as these two guys did in fact have (illegally converted) automatic rifles. I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day...
I don't think they were using armor piercing ammo; not the military definition anyway. Here is my reasoning and logic. The police/first responders used a bank armored car to evacuate some of the wounded. That vehicle was not only exposed to the rifle fire it was less than 50 yards away. If they were shooting Military AP that vehicle would have been taken out given the volume of ammo expended.
Originally posted by Jeff S.
Wasn't there a ridiculous lawsuit after the shootout, and didn't some of the officers involved loose their jobs?
Anybody know?
My memory tells me that a lawsuit was filed by the family of the last robber claiming that the LAPD could have responded much quicker with medical assistance to the robber who shot it out with the SWAT cops. I believe the lawsuit was dismissed. The other robber apparently committed suicide.
glock19_fan
11-19-2005, 18:54
Some info here. (http://www.student.oulu.fi/~hmikkola/shootout.html)
There are few who would criticize LAPD on their performance during this violent confrontation with murderous felons. The suspects, Phillips and Martasaurano were experienced, well trained, committed terrorists. The violent assault they perpetrated upon innocent citizens including children was atrocious. Some allege that the police did not provide medical attention in a timely manner and that caused the death of the suspect, Martasaurano. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When the final suspect surrendered, wounded citizens were scattered throughout the area. Wounded police officers were lying in parking lots and the street. Both the citizens and the police were a priority for two important reasons. First, they come before suspects when there is a "waiting list" for medical attention. Second, the police and EMT personnel did not know if Martasaurano was in possession of explosives or was "booby-trapped." Based upon the suspect's actions and appearance, these concerns were very real. Only when a suspect is rendered safe and can be searched safely can medical aid be risked.
Police training and the foremost experts recommend extreme caution, and response to citizens and officers first, under the circumstances that confronted the LAPD SWAT team. The National Tactical Officers Association's Tactical Emergency Medical Section has trained hundreds of officers to respond just as the LAPD SWAT team did. Medical doctors familiar with this kind of tactical medical emergency would and have endorsed the actions of the LAPD SWAT team.
MrMurphy
11-19-2005, 19:16
I watched the whole thing live unedited on TV. Philips whacked himself.
RMTactical
11-19-2005, 20:09
Originally posted by dbrowne1
I know, which is why I asked about the "AP" ammo.
For once, however, they got the "machinegun" part right, as these two guys did in fact have (illegally converted) automatic rifles. I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day...
;f
Exactly!
they took muscle relaxants?
why?
;g
glock19_fan
11-20-2005, 04:01
Originally posted by JinVA
they took muscle relaxants?
why?
;g According to the show, it was to be more relaxed under the tension of the anticipated robbery.
crazymoose
11-20-2005, 21:17
Quote: The suspects, Phillips and Martasaurano were experienced, well trained, committed terrorists.
Does anyone else get tired of the word "terrorist" being thrown around so much? A terrorist seeks to bring about some political end by terrorizing a population. These guys were indiscriminate bank robbers. There is a difference.
dbrowne1
11-21-2005, 09:40
Originally posted by crazymoose
Does anyone else get tired of the word "terrorist" being thrown around so much? A terrorist seeks to bring about some political end by terrorizing a population. These guys were indiscriminate bank robbers. There is a difference.
Yes, I do get tired of it. And yes, there is a BIG difference. It's almost as though anybody worse than a purse snatcher is labeled as a "terrorist" by at least one media source these days. It cheapens the definition and misleads an already irrational public.
Terrorism is an "ism" because it is a system (however flawed and wrong) of political force. Using violence and intimidation to achieve a political goal is terrorism. Using automatic rifles to rob a bank is a crime.
Razoreye
11-21-2005, 12:26
Do terrorists have to be politically affiliated? What about some of those radical Greenpeace people? I don't know if environmentalists like them can be aligned with a political idea more so than their own whacked out ideas.
crazymoose
11-21-2005, 13:44
Originally posted by Razoreye
Do terrorists have to be politically affiliated? What about some of those radical Greenpeace people? I don't know if environmentalists like them can be aligned with a political idea more so than their own whacked out ideas.
Greenpeace has political ends as much as the militant Muslims do. Both of them want to alter public policy. Greenpeace wants to bring about more environmentally friendly policies, the Muslims want us to dump Israel, stop screwing them for their oil, and cease the exportation of what they consider "cultural pollution." Some of the things they want are wacky, some are actually sort of reasonable, but they go so waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line in their methods that they forever discredit themselves and prohibit any rational negotiations.
dbrowne1
11-21-2005, 15:27
Originally posted by Razoreye
Do terrorists have to be politically affiliated? What about some of those radical Greenpeace people? I don't know if environmentalists like them can be aligned with a political idea more so than their own whacked out ideas.
Yes, they are terrorists if they use violence or threats of violence to attempt to achieve political goals. A better example along those lines would be ELF - Earth Liberation Front. They have committed arson on numerous occassions and some of their members have advocated assasination.
northidaho
11-23-2005, 16:37
The AK Jammed: The shooter simply threw the gun down and didn't even do a basic malfunction test.
One of the shooters had an HK91 .308. They were horrible shots (thankfully for the cops).
the AK was shot. thats when it stopped working.
Originally posted by Razoreye
Do terrorists have to be politically affiliated? What about some of those radical Greenpeace people? I don't know if environmentalists like them can be aligned with a political idea more so than their own whacked out ideas. No but terrorists do want social or political change. It's not the association it's the motivation that makes them a terrorist.
Black Tiger
12-09-2005, 10:11
Originally posted by northidaho
The AK Jammed: The shooter simply threw the gun down and didn't even do a basic malfunction test.
In my experience with weapons and as a soldier, the only way that AK-47 would've malfunctioned was if it was hit by a bullet, which was the case; I have confiscated AK-47s in Iraq that were filthy on the inside and hidden of all places under hay, buried in a pit and covered only with a tarp; yet you could pick it up, shake it a bit and fire the whole mag without a hitch; it might not shoot 2 inch shot patterns, but it will fire.
AKs aren't bulletproof???
;f
jonathon
12-09-2005, 12:40
Select officers carrying AR-15's?
Dayum, in my hick town that has only 9 full time officers, they all carry AR-15's ;P
jonathon
12-09-2005, 12:41
Originally posted by jonathon
Select officers carrying AR-15's?
Dayum, in my hick town that has only 9 full time officers, they all carry AR-15's ;P
I guess I should say, I don't know FOR SURE, but every time I've seen a Washougal squad car in the place of the shotgun I see the tell tale M4 profile barrel and the A2 front sight base.
Originally posted by GoreLicks
You must be mistaken. AK's simply do not jam. It's true, I read it on the internet.;g
;f
Crap, all that he had was a stovepipe, so clear the action!
Its robberies like that, that I carry my AR15 in my truck.
if all else fails at least I will have a long gun with me.
muscogee
12-10-2005, 22:57
Where did they get full auto AKs. Have those ever been legaly imported into the U.S.?
What i dont understand, in the movie 44minutes, they say the bad guys got their ak47s back from a judge so they could pay their court fees? I guess they werent converted to full-automatic or nobody checked ;Q
bob smyth
12-16-2005, 12:40
Originally posted by muscogee
Where did they get full auto AKs. Have those ever been legaly imported into the U.S.?
Good question.
Who/where was the illegal semi-to-auto gunsmithing performed?
Bob
RMTactical
12-16-2005, 14:09
Originally posted by Alchemy 53
Crap, all that he had was a stovepipe, so clear the action!
Exactly, it was a stovepipe jam.
Some people in here tried to defend the AK design by saying it was shot or the mag was shot...
What would that have to do with a stovepipe??
Originally posted by bob smyth
Good question.
Who/where was the illegal semi-to-auto gunsmithing performed?
Bob
if you look online its not hard to find the plans to make the guns FA. AR and AK are the same way
UNDER THAT BIG TABOO drugs.muscle relaxants are used to describe many many drugs.if it was valium or zanax it would have not only relaxed them slightly but more important to them anyway was to catch a buzzGET HIGH DU HUH!
muscogee
12-17-2005, 09:15
Originally posted by TimP
if you look online its not hard to find the plans to make the guns FA. AR and AK are the same way
So if it was a hack job, that could explain the jam.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
