Posted on 05/12/2015 4:33:07 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
On Monday, Mitch Bates, the Garland police chief, clarified details of this shootout between the gunmen and five of his force’s officers.
Bates said that the officer and the security guard who were confronted by the armed gunmen were not in a police car, as was initially believed, but were standing by it when the gunmen drove up to a barricade and got out of their car.
In addition, Bates said that the Garland police officer, who has not been identified, shot the gunmen and wounded, rather than killed, both of them. Four SWAT members armed with assault rifles and pistols came over within seconds, Bates said, and after dozens of rounds were fired from police and the suspected shooters, both gunmen had been killed.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That was my first thought. SWAT is a bit more anonymous.
Just yesterday I told my wife there was more to this story. I thought a sniper well positioned took them out.
Credit....
Can you imagine the thinking of bureaucrat swat commander having troops on site and a single officer does the SWAT job? If one guy can do the job, the SWAT funds will dry up. The money will disappear.
Seems to me tgere were photos. And not of a swat team. Not that I care
It also stands to reason that swat was involved since the perps were wearing body armor. The initial shots by the patrolman put the shooters down but not dead due to the armor, the follow up more time by swat with rifles to finish the job.
If I shot some muslims I’d be happy to give a local SWAT team credit. In fact I think I’d actively pursue that kind of cover.
Also, I am glad the SWAT team wants credit for this. It’s not too far-fetched to imagine them (in Obama’s America) to be on the other side.
So I say, three cheers for the SWAT team, no matter who did the shooting.
Additionally, review the photo of the chalk outlines. Bleed-out stains were both from the head.
I prefer my traffic-cop to have a marksman honor with his service pistol.
Shots could have happened before the audio started.
I saw live video immediately after and saw 2 SWAT-looking guys. I thought at the time that they took the jihadists out.
Excellent thought, cc. Protection of him and his family would definitely be a concern. SWAT is sort of anonymous IMHO.
dead = good. bye bye bad little muslims.
Or, if you believe anything a government official or big company tells you these days, you're an idiot.
Did the police bomb squad intentionally explode the back of the car? I’ve seen the pics but no explanation in captions.
How they got to hell is no concern of mine.
The original story made it look like it was possible for an armed individual to protect himself and others when we all know that it takes an armored truck full of soldier cops armed with German made submachineguns to get a cat out of a tree.
Which lie is the truth?
Watch the spin, indeed...the Obama Justice Department will turn this into an act of police brutality, mark my words. SWAT reinforcement of the officer on the scene will be depicted as an “execution” of gunmen who were already down.
Something sounds a little fishy about this “new” narrative. A blogger named Robert Owens, who is very knowledgeable about firearms and police tactics, has done an interesting analysis of the engagement. He notes the “pattern” of ejected shells from the first officer’s Glock, in relation to the position of the gunmen. The evidence markers appear consistent with a single police officer, firing a limited number of shots, and taking out both jihadis. If SWAT was on the scene, there would be dozens of markers for the rounds fired by their weapons.
And here’s the biggest unanswered question of all: the FBI had been tracking one of these guys for almost a decade, recorded 1,500 hours of conversation with him through an informant and even built a criminal case against him (which was gutted by a Obama-appointed federal judge). The bureau knows he’s enroute to the Dallas area and may target the event in Garland. Yet, there is no indication the FBI dispatched agents to try to intercept the jihadis, or personally brief the local police on the threat. Instead, they send out a bulletin, which apparently wasn’t received by the Garland PD.
The recently-appointed SAIC of the Dallas field office (Thomas Class) has spent much of his career in counter-terrorism operations. But in his first big terrorist-related challenge since arriving in Dallas, he expends minimum effort in the face of a known threat. Is SAIC Class incompetent, or was he told to “back off” from a more intensive effort to find and apprehend the terrorists?
This is my interpretation, too. A cover story for the benefit of the officer's safety.
I didn’t believe the tale for a minute. Two guys with AK’s and body armor? A 9mm or .40 would need a crack shot to take them out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.