Four Oakland cops killed by one man

[Rashiminos]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/22/18580559.php


Bias defined, I would say.

Apparently the SWAT team shot themselves!~

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/22/18580559.php


Bias defined, I would say.

Pretty much. But look at the comments - they are sickening.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Pretty much. But look at the comments - they are sickening.

true... there were likely people with some link to the incident posting comments

 

[Module88]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

That was my first thought too. Blowing an officer away while he's at your window asking for your license and registration is one thing. Gunning down two SWAT members with shots to the head before they can react is quite another. I have to wonder how "he wasn't a monster" given that kind of nerve in the heat of battle, when doors are being crashed through and flashbangs are going off.

Reportedly, he fired through the closet door he was hiding in, so there was no time to react. In fact, it might have been difficult to isolate the source of fire because there was no visible target at all (if those circumstances are true).

And ironically he used an AK-47, which was not only already illegal in his hands as a felon, but doubly so it was fully automatic and unregistered.

Source? A news story isn't going to cut it. The media doesn't know the difference between an SKS and an AK variant and an AK-47, or an assault rifle or assault weapon, or semi-automatic or automatic weapon. In other words, they don't know jack ****, and unless I actually see the weapon, blood and all, or have something that would be as good, I wouldn't believe it was an "AK-47" for a second.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

That's pretty ****ed up. Were people seriously cheering or is that just crap?

I don't think the SWAT guys getting killed show he was some kind of superkiller, they're not invincible. A high powered weapon in close quarters and that armour is less than impregnable. Doesn't cover the whole body anyway. And how does being cool in a tense situation make you a monster? So if level-headed and you do something good it makes you a hero but if you're level-headed and do something bad it makes you a monster? See, I would've thought it was the murdering of innocent police officers just to dodge 6 months in jail that made him a monster.

So my question would be how did he get this AK-47?

 

[Johnny]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Swat armour cant stop a 7.62 mm bullet. Even the armour used in war can't stop a bullet from an Ak47 except for some very expensive rarely used versions.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Swat armour cant stop a 7.62 mm bullet. Even the armour used in war can't stop a bullet from an Ak47 except for some very expensive rarely used versions.

Quite untrue, but military body armor is more intended for anti-shrapnel purposes than for protection against rifle rounds. The set I wore had inserts, but they really only would stop one fired at center of mass from front or back.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

That's a 3 year old article about the last election. What the hell does that have to do with things. The closet it gets is about how many pieces of body armour the united states purchased.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

That's a 3 year old article about the last election. What the hell does that have to do with things. The closet it gets is about how many pieces of body armour the united states purchased.

Regardless of your Freudian slip about "closet" status, the article has a nice history of U.S. body armor at the bottom. But then, this slaying occurred in Sweden, right? :coffee:

 

[Johnny]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

the article has a nice history of U.S. body armor at the bottom

Great. I'll keep it in mind when someone makes a thread labelled "does anyone have an article about the history of US body armour from 41-2006. The location of the shooting is redundant because the article had nothing to do with it in the first place.

 

[Amra]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Too many things unknown at this time. Have to wait and see the facts.

Me complaining about the name will bring the exact same amount of people back to life as you admonishing me from doing it.

Once again with clarity. Bring them back to life? That was not my point.

If I get pulled over in Oakland in the future I'm putting both hands on the roof after I pull over.

The standard is to put your windows down and both hands on the wheel near noon.

Bias defined, I would say.

Maybe a bit but they were careful with the wording.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Great. I'll keep it in mind when someone makes a thread labelled "does anyone have an article about the history of US body armour from 41-2006. The location of the shooting is redundant because the article had nothing to do with it in the first place.

Density, thy name is Johnny.

*You* alleged that body armor such as that used in this shooting (which occurred in America - AKA the US) couldn't have stopped AK rounds. Remember? Or are you proposing that the Oakland P.D. buys its armor through a sole-source contract with South Africa?

 

[The Sandcat]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

I have yet to see armour that prevents a cop from being shot in the head or neck.

 

[Amra]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

I have yet to see armour that prevents a cop from being shot in the head or neck.

It's about mitigating the risk as best you can. As with any job or situation.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

*You* alleged that body armor such as that used in this shooting (which occurred in America - AKA the US) couldn't have stopped AK rounds. Remember? Or are you proposing that the Oakland P.D. buys its armor through a sole-source contract with South Africa?

Except that the California swat use armour with a protection level of 3A (ie no plates) which could never stop a bullet from an AK47.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Except that the California swat use armour with a protection level of 3A (ie no plates) which could never stop a bullet from an AK47.

Too bad that bears no resemblance to what you said; this entire tangent could have been avoided.

Also, where did you see the type of body armor the victims wore mentioned? I looked, but might have missed it.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Also, where did you see the type of body armor the victims wore mentioned? I looked, but might have missed it.

Since It's California then they could only be using level 3A armour, especially since the SOV-2000 lost it's certificate and was taken out of use.

 

[Module88]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

That's pretty ****ed up. Were people seriously cheering or is that just crap?

Reportedly. Given the tensions in Oakland between the population and the police, it wouldn't surprise me. Rumor has it later on someone else drove by the scene and yelled "they deserved it."

So my question would be how did he get this AK-47?

Probably broke the law, IF it was an AK-47 (unlikely). They are illegal in California.

Swat armour cant stop a 7.62 mm bullet. Even the armour used in war can't stop a bullet from an Ak47 except for some very expensive rarely used versions.

By rarely used here, Johnny means standard issue.

And ESAPI's WILL take multiple 7.62 hits. Still, they were shot in the head, and even if they weren't, they probably weren't running plates anyway.

Since It's California then they could only be using level 3A armour, especially since the SOV-2000 lost it's certificate and was taken out of use.

Obviously I'm of the belief that you're talking out of your *** (still). Citation on, "California Peace officers can only use level 3A armor (or lower)"?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

Probably broke the law, IF it was an AK-47 (unlikely). They are illegal in California.

According to the coverage, it was an AK-47 modified for full auto. As a felon, he wasn't even allowed to own one, I believe.

By rarely used here, Johnny means standard issue.

And ESAPI's WILL take multiple 7.62 hits. Still, they were shot in the head, and even if they weren't, they probably weren't running plates anyway.

I find it quite unlikely that they were using so-called Dragon Skin (SOV-2000) in the first place. Yet another thing he's probably unclear on is that 7.62 NATO <> AK-47 ammo.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Four Oakland cops killed by one man

I find it quite unlikely that they were using so-called Dragon Skin (SOV-2000) in the first place. Yet another thing he's probably unclear on is that 7.62 NATO <> AK-47 ammo.

California police did buy several "Dragon Skin" body armour after a very successful test a couple of years ago but as far as I know they no longer use them and havent bought any more of them. Hence why I mentioned just that.