Talk:North Hollywood shootout/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Type of rifle borrowed by police from gun store

I haven't found a good cite regarding the type of rifle the police retrieved from the gun store, but to the best of my knowledge, they were AR-15s, semi-automatic "civilian" versions of the M-16 full-auto military rifle. M-16s are rare among civilians, cost around $20,000 each as of this writing, and are not typically sitting around in quantity on your average gun store shelf. WeedWhacker 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you go to your nearest gunstore (not a Wal-Mart, that won't work) you'll see about 10-15 AR-15's. The price of a real, full auto M-16 is $10-20,000, but an AR-15 can go for $750-3,000.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=68846780 http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=68340389

If you listen to the dispatch audio, available on www.freqofnature.com, 15L40 and another unit state that they have 'retrieved several AR-15's' and are able to engage the suspects. By they time they had procured these weapons, One suspect was dead, and Metro was engaging the final suspect.

No legally used full-auto weapons used in crime?

I'd like to see a reference for the following statement, "to date there has been no recorded commission of a crime with a legally-registered fully automatic firearm by the legal owner - a few stolen weapons have been used by criminals." I won't edit it, but it seems like something that should have a reference. - johndodd

I distinctly remember that one of the robbers was armed with a g3 or hk91 clone, anybody have images of this incident that can confirm this? - nitrogensixteen

Heh. I was actually involved in this shootout. I can confirm this 100%. It was a G3A4. - LAPD85

Suspects? Gunmen?

I'm not too sure about all the references to Phillips and Matasareanu as 'suspects' and 'gunmen' - 'suspects' seems inappropriate since their guilt is not disputed, and 'the two gunmen' ignores the fact that the officers who returned fire were also gunmen, in the strictest sense. TheMadBaron 10:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

How about "perpetrators" or "criminals"? "Scrote", "slag", "toe rag", "skaghead", "skell", "scumbag" and "mutt" are probably not appropriate for Wikipedia :) However, I believe "suspects" is still appropriate, as it is common usage in law enforcement reports and articles. See this article discussing another infamous modern-day shootout (FBI 1986 Miami shootout): http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm GMan552

It is common usage. but it's also very lazy usage. I much prefer 'perps' or 'crims', but I can't help thinking that there's a better way to phrase this for the context.

I had a quick look at the article you've linked to, and I don't think it's quite the same thing.... the article establishes from the ouset that the criminals involved in the shootout are, indeed, merely suspects with regard to robberies commited earlier.... their guilt, with regard ro the robberies, at least, may be safely assumed, but is not firmly established at the time of the shootout, which justifies the use of the term thereafter.TheMadBaron 11:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but the point I was trying to make was that the FBI report on the Miami shootings (in italics in the linked page) uses the term "suspects", despite the report being written after the shootout, where their guilt was more than proven.

In my latest edit of the North Hollywood article, I've tried to use the criminals' last names as much as possible. GMan552

A person is a suspect until they are adjudicated as guilty in a court of law. This is a proper usage, and in now way 'sloppy.'

The above statement is crap. A person who is charged is a defendant and no longer a suspect. A suspect is someone who the police believe to be involved in a crime. But on the video we are not seeing "suspects" we are seeing perpetrators. The gunment—yes, that's a proper term for these guys and not a realistic way of referring to the police—are clearly seen firing weapons. There's nothing that needs to be "suspected" here. The worst use of the word "suspect" is by hack TV reporters who will say that "the suspect robbed the store." A suspect in that crime might have robbed the store, but the person who actually robbed the store is the perpetrator.

I was always under the impression that the term suspect was appropriate since the 2 individuals were never actually convicted. Its extremely obvious that those individuals DID in fact commit the crime, however they were never convicted of it. -- xchsxbigxmike

Edits

I made a few edits to recent changes, but we still have an article which now appears to contradict itself in claiming that the criminals' weapons were obtained both legally and illegally....

"Phillips and Matasareanu had previously been arrested in 1996 for armed robbery, but legally fought and successfully won for their assault rifles to be returned to them."

"Opponents of gun control counter that since the weapons had been obtained illegally, the incident did not indicate that criminal use of registered fully automatic firearms was a problem; to date there has been no recorded commission of a crime other than suicide with a legally registered fully automatic firearm by the legal owner--a few have been used following their theft"

Please clarify, or cite sources.

The judges gave them their guns back so they could pay their crimes. - LAPD85

---

Somebody should add two bits of information:

• The two suspects were stopped that morning by police; guns were found in the trunk; they were let go.
• The mother of the guy who did not get medical attention in time sued the city; this resulted in a mistrial in 2000

AxelBoldt 03:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I walked this area today. The map supplied places the second assailant's death southwest of Archwood and Hinds Ave. According to the CNN video it is actually half a block east of that location, at the center of this map: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North+Hollywood,+CA&t=k&ll=34.192041,-118.390721&spn=0.001706,0.003012&t=h

An odd thing happened when I stopped to ponder where the first assailant shot himself. I stood there feeling the weight of the event, the courage of the police. There is simply NO cover there for the cops to use, even Archwood was deathtrap for officers trying to persue; a walled in space offering nothing to hide behind. Then I heard a cooing, and on the fence next to me a pidgeon was staring at me. I cooed back, mockingly, and the bloody thing launched itself and landed on my head. I sat there dumbfounded as a car drove slowly by. I simply pointed at it in that everyday gesture of "hey, there is a pidgeon on my head".

Officers, thank you for your fine service. -corp

---

Bullets shot through cement

Can bullets really go through cement walls? Could somebody confirm this? Ravenstorm 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the weapons used, and how thick the wall is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ECJ2Lt0cU and the 2nd and 1st video demonstrate. An M2 machinegun sends bullets through a cement wall, and sideways through steel office furniture. An m16 can't get through the cement wall in a single bullet.

The wall fired through was a cinder block, not reinforced concrete. A normal rifle, and even high-velocity handguns can take cinder blocks no problem.

Contradiction in Civilians wounded

Early: The shootout resulted in the wounding of twenty people (twelve police officers and eight civilians)

Later: During the shootout, a total of twelve officers and two civilians were wounded

I mean, I guess some civilians could technically have been shot after the shootout, but that would be under very strange circumstances.

I'm guessing the lower number is true. One of the gunmen hit a hostage in the bank, and then trapped the hostages in the bank so they wouldn't get hurt. Later, Larry shot at a chopper with a reporter. There was no other mention of civilians being hurt, though it's possible they were caught in crossfire. However, the cops had the area surrounded before the gunmen got away from the bank.

Ah, I'll just change the article myself to reflect what the article says. A random CNN article I found only mentions one civilian... 70.66.9.162 10:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

B&B store sued & closed?

I'm just curious as to why the store that helped end the conflict was sued and closed down. Really, why would a business that helped bring down the suspects be punished in return??? Did they have any part in providing the suspects assault rifles?

Also, did the store have a choice to begin with? I thought that police and authority have the right to commandeer property in case of emergencies like the North Hollywood shootout.

Can someone clarify that in the article, or write a new one? I'm curious on the rationale behind this, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Il consiglieri (talk • contribs) 01:11, August 13, 2006

That may be right ethically, but that's not how the courts saw it. As far as I know, B&B Sales didn't have any part in providing the suspects with any of their weapons. I believe B&B's options to provide or not were slim to none, but they wouldn't really argue about it because it went by a "it's ok, you're police and the suspects are malicious" rule. In the heat of the moment, and due to that property commandeering bit you said, B&B let the police have their way. The anti-gun advocates sued B&B because they didn't do a full investigation into whether the men entering the shop in police SWAT (mainly), detective and whatever-they-were-wearing garb were legitimate police and whether at that time, there was actually an emergency going on. The anti-gun people wouldn't allow an assault rifle handout to slide because it was handed out on the honor system. Plus, some of them just hate assault rifles in general and like to sue first and play it as it goes. Slof 10:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Real reason for B&B's closure

OK, guys, here's the truth: B&B gave the police officers weapons without the waiting period, action was taken against B&B by the Department of Justice, and B&B is now closed, but according to this website [1] from the DOJ, it was unrelated to the North Hollywood Shootout. According to that page, it was due to overcharging of customers. You can read the page for youself. Now, it says these were customer complaints and so on, and while it's still possible that secretly it was also related to the Shootout, I think we can safely say that they had some cause to be investigated, at the least. If true, I'm glad to hear this, for one. CumbiaDude 06:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

B&B Sources?

I smell bullshit.

Yes, I agree, let's see a court case citation, or remove this from the article. It does sound a lot like a conservative urban legend.

Yah, the paragraph directly following it is pretty fishy too. I added citation needed tags, and we might want to add NPOV as well. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--- My old boss used to work at BnB... I heard that the store closed for unrelated reasons. Apparently one of the owners was crooked.

I worked at a different gun club a while back...If a cop comes in and says "shots fired, officer down, gimme the biggest rifle you have" an employee would reply "How many would you like, and would you like me to load it for you." There is no 10 day waiting period for an emergency like that, no more than there is a lemon law if an officer commandeers a vehicle. - xchsxbigxmike ---

Original Info posted by

I don't know their source, but this info was originally posted by 71.245.133.181 in July 2006. Based on edit history and links placed in the article at various times, it's highly likely that this person was, or was somehow related to the admin of this site memorializing the perpetrators of the crime.

71.103.121.188 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who believes that the gun store was closed because it supplied weapons to the police is a moron. Officers seizing property for the purpose of dealing with an emergency indemnifies the store.

Left or right arm?

The first mention says he was hit in the left arm, and the next paragraph says that he was reloading one handed as "his right arm was still not working, as shown in video tapes". Which is it, left or right? Pennywisepeter 11:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

HK91 hit?

"Phillips walked over to the car, opened the door, and reached inside--possibly he was going to get in--but a round from detective Bankraft distracted him. The detective had been firing at Phillips; one of his rounds, a ricochet, struck the gunman's hand, while another hit the HK-91's trigger group. Instead of disabling the weapon, however, the bullet destroyed the second sear inside the gun, accidentally causing it to become a fully automatic rifle."

Yet 'The Weapons' section claims the rifle was only hit in the bolt guide rails. The latter seems far more likely to me, so do we have a source as to where it was hit? Geoff B 02:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

drugs/medication used by suspects?

The movie 44 Minutes: The North Hollywood Shoot-Out shows both gunmen taking pills shortly before the shot out. What/how much did the gunmen take?

• I don't know how old this is, but they took one pill each of muscle relaxant. 66.53.209.212 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

--I added this, which I obtained from a few narrated videos, but they took phenobarbitol, a barbituate muscle relaxant. Who and why is in the article.

This reads like a "true crime" magazine

It needs major trimming. There's loads of unreferenced junk, omniscient description, and conjecture. The "Shootout" section needs a complete rewrite. I wouldn't even know where to begin to salvage it. I seem to recall that earlier versions of this article were much more readable and concise, and contained real verifiable information. What happened? Rhombus 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The garbage all seems to have come from a series of edits by an anonymous user on July 12, 2006. The additions included such gems as "When the cops outside saw him, they immediately thought he resembled a hollywood monster, bulging with body armor and clad in black, the sunglasses under his ski mask giving him an almost insectoid appearance." I would revert the entire article and then reincorporate what verifiable information is left in the current article.Boondock 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently watched an episode of Shootout! about this, and I have a feeling that someone has watched the same program and tried to add extra information from it to the Shootout section. I'd say that more than three-quarters of the quotes seem to have been taken directly from the interviews. RWyn 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

--I'm an anonymous editor, but only for the last few days. I try to keep my info cited, relavent, and encyclopedic. If there is a way to revert to a better form, please do so?

Retagging from unreferenced to non-compliant

Based on recent mostly-anon edits(past few months), this has gone from an unsourced article to a total mess afoul of NPOV and possibly loaded with original research distorting its accuracy. If this was a bit harsh, please feel free to revert/undo my retagging... Ranma9617 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

-- While I didnt have time to totally re-write this article, I did go through and delete some of the personal opinions that were cluttering this article. ~xchsxbigxmike --

POV paragraph

What's this paragraph doing at the end of the Shootout Section?

"This shooting bore similarities to both an actual earlier shootout in Norco, California on May 9, 1980 and a fictional incident in the movie Heat. There was speculation that Phillips and Matasareanu used Heat as a training film."

Speculation? By whom? What's this crap about a training film? What earlier shootout? Which fictional incident? I'm removing this until further notice. Soniczip 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

AK-47 / Norinco?

Are we sure the stovepipe malfunction was of a Norinco rifle and not an AK-47?

References

I have added specific citations using the National Geographic program. Someone should do the same with the corresponding episode of Shootout! so that this page looks less like a load of unverifiable original research. Cliff smith 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shooter Three

I don't believe it mentions that officers searched until about 11:30 PM or so for a third shooter. Shouldn't that be added? --Defender 911 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If a reference an be found for it, then yeah that would be good. That could be with that small 5th paragraph in "The shootout" section. Cliff smith 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NhshootoutNshot.jpg

Image:NhshootoutNshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They had AKM not AK-47 rifles like the media reported. AKM's shoot at a higher rate of fire than the AK-47 which was evident in the footage

Facts section

It has only one linked source, and it looks somewhat like trivia sections you see on some film articles. The only thing that is linked was in the episode of Critical Situation, so that could be incorporated somewhere and referenced, but the rest of it has no sources. Because of this, it looks like it warrants removal. Any thoughts? Cliff smith 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research

Let's keep Wikipedia factually accurate by providing properly-formatted citations to reliable sources. Whether or not you know something to be fact, you can't just add it without a reference. Cliff smith 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Are you the dude who added "citation needed" after every single unattributed sentence? Gimme a break. Citations are great, but I don't think they're needed after every sentence. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your edits/comments

While reading through the archive to get up to speed, I noticed a lot of unsigned comments that made some pretty bold statements. Let's make sure we all sign our comments here with the four tildes (~), the key being located right above the tab key while holding downthe shift key. As well you could just ckick on the button in the edit bar. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. I personally tend to ignore unsigned comments. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I've been asked to weigh in on the matter of some statements that have been apparently hotly contested in the article, to whit:

1. the inclusion of the name of a gun shop,
2, its owner's identity;
3. that LAPD officers commandeered some rifles from aforementioned store during the ensuing shootout; and
4. the weapons siezed in the shootout were not returned to the owner, and that the LAPD didn't compensate him for their use.

Specifically, I have been asked to weigh in on the noteworthiness of the inclusion of these statements. Please feel free to weigh in on why you feel that these statements should or should not be considered noteworthy. If you have WP policy or guidelines to back up your claims, please include that in your statements. Aaaaaannnnnd, GO! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'll prejudice everybody against myself, I'm sure, but I thought the matter was solved until now. So, when I don't get my way, I can just go and talk to an admin and see if I can get my way THAT WAY? Is that how we roll here? We revert other people's edits (even those with references) and force our opinions on others? Received and understood. I'll bite: Items 3 and 4: Nobody said the LAPD didn't compensate them (which BTW is a true statement) nor that they didn't return them. They were returned after B&B had to sue because the city considered them confiscated and had a policy for disposal of guns. Item 1 & 2 are important as Bob Kahn and B&B Sales WERE the 'gun store of record' for at least 15 years. Virtually every law, every ordinance, and every tax that effected firearms commerce in Southern California included an interview with Bob Kahn. TV interviews nearly always included Bob with rows of rifles in the background. When the LAPD needed guns, they knew where to get them because EVERYBODY (cops included) went to B&B to get their guns. It was a mom and pop store for firepower and prominent in SoCal gun politics. The Irony of the police needing to go to the gun store that the Politicians hated and, eventually, ran out of business deserves mention.--Asams10 09:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I should have suggested that tossing about accusations tends to make me a bit testy, so dial it down several notches, okey-doke, partmer? I am not an admin, and if you had asked before shooting off your mouth, you wouldn't be looking foolish right about now.

Now that that's out of my system, let's move on.

To discover what the focus of the article is, we need look no further than the title of the article itself: North Hollywood Shootout. It is important to avoid focusing on people not directly involved with the conflict, as per notability and the identities of living persons. Focusing on this, the name of the gun shop owner should be excluded. Less of a privacy issue is that surrounding hte usage of the gun shop name, which can be traced to the owner relatively easily. However, the criteria that the name of the gun shop should be avoided is the notability clause. Outside of California, neither the name of the gun shop nor the owner is really that notable. This is the English-language wiki, not the American one.

That said, the fact that the LAPD was forced to obtain what they felt was the appropriate level of firepower for the situation is noteworthy. That the siezed weapons were not actually used is likelwise noteworthy. Lastly, that the weapons were not returned (if solidly cited) should be utilized in the article.

Now, if the gun store owner sued the LAPD for thier non-return, that warrants an article in itself, but not within the scope of this one (except as perhaps a ' See Also ' wikilink to said article). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect any different outcome. Next time, I'll go recruit all of my buddies to defend me. How was it you were chosen to 'mediate' this, eh? Why didn't I get any say in who was chosen?--Asams10 07:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, go back to my Discussion page. Look at the very tippy-top of the page, since you appear to actually grasp the gross points of assuming good faith (visit that link, btw, and read it good and well before you choose to respond again). You will notice a userbox that notes I am a member of Third Opinion. Cliff asked for my opinion, and you will note that my opinion follows Wikipedia policy, and I didn't choose either yours or Cliff's opinion; you will also note that it was a middle road between the two.

Now, I was polite enough to point out the relevant policies that support my Third Opinion. If you do not choose to follow it, that's fine with me. Ask an admin to weigh in on the topic. Please. You can ask for an admin to weigh in by choosing one from here. However, they might encourage you to follow the protocol for resolving disputes. However, if you can hold your temper a bit and stay civil, I am sure that one might be coaced into offering an opinion on the matter.

I have to say that you have handled this attmept to help you resolve a content issue extremely poorly. You might find your behavior a future impediment to resolving issues, so you may want to consider evolving your behavior into something more approximating politeness. An editor with a bit less self-restrain might have unleashed hell, sending you weeping into a corner. Be thankful you got me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll disagree and leave it at that.--Asams10 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then the changes can occur, as you've withdrawn your objections. Thanks for being reasonable. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic that needs to be revisited. The truth is that not including the B&B Gun Store and the details on their loaning of weapons to the LAPD is omitting facts and details from the North Hollywood Shootout. This part should be included, as well as what weapons were loaned to the LAPD. Ignoring this important piece of information still leaves a gap on how the LAPD was able to stop the perpetrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.46.91 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Situation Critical

This event was featured in one of the "Situation Critical" episodes on National Geographic. Perhaps it should be added in the Aftermath section? -Spliefer 01:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of conclusory claims made in this article which are facially invalid. e.g., "The LAPD patrol officers were not adequately armed or protected to deal with such criminals." If that claim were true, the assailants might have accomplished their goals, rather than dying. Further, it and many claims like it, are either not supported or supported only by a made-for-tv show with numerous factual inaccuracies. Take the very next claim, that cars and walls are considered safe cover. When I edited this and provided a link to the relevant portion of the US Army Infantry handbook on combat, cover and concealment, I proposed that only the lay public believe such things. My references and my work were reverted without comment or modification. As a result, this entry reads like the highly opinionated and inaccurate made-for-tv show and pulp novels it was extracted from.208.158.5.7 16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Nobody

SaintNobody (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because the US Army Infantry handbook says a car or car door is bad cover, it doesn't necessarily mean police officers know this or won't use a car for cover. Fact is that two civilians were commanded by officers to retreat to their patrol car for cover. Another fact is that the robbers were using armour-piercing ammunition. If your "corrections" were removed, it's probably because what you corrected whatever it was to, it doesn't match up with reality, and hence is irrelevant.

what happened to the external links ?

if the police need to get out their own biased version of events they should create their own webpage instead of ruining every online resource concerning this topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by EzRandall (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an uncivil comment, and its utterly uncalled for. Information needs to be cited, or it will be removed. Information that is cited, stays. It's that easy. If you are not content with the status of the current article, find sources that articulare what you feel are missing. As for missing references, go throught he editing history and find them. If you want, create a section in Discussion and store them here so they don't 'go missing'.

In short, play smart and more importantly, play nice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

There are so many comments I'm not sure where to put this one where it will be noticed. The article says "citation needed" after a statement that the length of time before one of the dying criminals received medical aid was criticized. The last reference says that a suit was fired about that very issue. Isn't that enough reference to satisfy "citation needed"? I think that "citation needed" should be deleted, or the reference to the civil suit should be repeated at that point. It looks dumb when obvious "citation needed"s are left in forever. The sun came up on August 14, 1945 [citation needed] Geneven (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph One

0. "United States patrol officers" - there are no such things as "United States patrol officers". The LAPD are officers of the City of Los Angeles and have no standing outside that specific jurisdiction, which explains the common movie theme of "don't give me any of that juris-my-dic-tion crap" seen in every single cop movie involving local, state and federal law officers. The FBI, ATF, US Park Rangers, Secret Service...I'm missing some Federal agencies I bet... are US Officers but do not "patrol" (save the US Parks, perhaps). Each localities patrol officers have their own rules for arms and rules of engagement.

1. "both robbers were killed" - contradictory statements made within the same article should be corrected by Third Opinion

2. "Phillips and Matasareanu had previously robbed several banks" - has this ever been proven to the standards of Third Opinion ?

3. " Phillips and Matasareanu ... were notorious for their heavy armament, which included automatic assault rifles." - wouldn't this suggest the police had identified the robbers before the robbery ? A theory worthy of discussion and investigation, but until LAPD is ready to verify, I don't think Third Opinion would allow it's inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EzRandall (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since you are new, please alow me to explain a little bit about how Wikipedia works, EZ (and I'm not being condescending; I'm actually trying to help you here). First of all, Wikipedia works on citable information only. It doesn't matter what you or I think; it only matters what we can verify with cited references. Truth is not the standard we strive for but verifiability - the two are not mutually excusive.

Secondly, Third Opinion is a loose group of volunteers who attend to fairly bitter and unresolved points of contention with in the article. I think you are applying a set of standards, skills and capabilities that they simply do not have.

Instead, what you should be asking is: 'can this be cited verifiably?' If there are contradictory statements about the robbers being killed, ask about it here. You might have found a mistake that someone else overlooked. Do you think that Phillips' and Matasareanu's previous criminal history needs citation? Ask for it. The same goes for the heavy armament thing as well. Ask for citations, and tag the info with a fact or citaiton needed tag (I'll put a nifty helper on your user page so you can get a crash course on how to really use Wikipedia do accomplish what you want).

The key here is to not jump to conclusions, EZ. Everything you wrote about here is in the Lead or introductory paragraph. the Lead summarizes the information that will be covered in the rest of the article. Do me a favor and read the whole article. If you find that a statement appearing in the Lead is not substantiated by cited statements elsewhere in the article, it is then that you should be asking for citation (and then removal, if none is offered after a period of time). What you shouldn't be doing is suggesting that this is one big conspiracy by the LAPD.

Again, we don't include ANYTHING remotely arguable without citation. Anyone telling you different is lying or selling you something. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to Heat (1995 film)

There is discussion on that page that the robbers used Heat (1995 film) as a training film, and there are significant similarities. Worth mentioning here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

According to NGC documentary videotape with Heat was in robbers hideout.

Really? Could you reliably cite that assertion, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The connection is astounding and too obvious. If there is documented evidence the robbers had the video, I contend that this is certainly worth mention. 124.181.209.160 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The TV documentary series Zero Hour, The North Hollywood Shootout, stated that the Heat video was found in the house of the two robbers, along with more ammunition and firearms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hour_%28TV_series%29. This is the wiki page on the series. stated information is in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightvisions (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Repercussions

• According to NGC documentary after shootout some policemen got access to machine guns (not clear about class SMG or Assault rifles?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.148.137 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Could you reliably cite that assertion, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was on the History channel..an episode of Shootout and they mentioned it on the Discovery Channel's coverage of it and again on the History Channel they had a special episode of Zero Hour and that again mentioned that. M16s where given to officers who were trained to use them. I was not the IP, but I will try and find a source but it is going to be fairly hard as they only really mention this on shows dedicated to the shootout. Rgoodermote  23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been mentioned in the article. Rgoodermote  23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Emil Dechebal Matasareanu

Do not merge The article is to big to fit into Emil Dechebal Matasareanu's bio and it has nothing really to do with him...with the exception that he one of the two robbers. His article is a bio of his life and the robbery this article is about the robbery. They are two different articles that intercept, it would be like merging the Civil War article with Abraham Lincoln because he was the president at the time and he had his name in the article. They are not one and the same and need to stay separate. Rgoodermote  23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge The two articles would only be merged if the bio of Matasareanu was stub-length (<1 KB). His article is 3x longer, so I don't think it is appropriate to merge the two articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• No merge Bio looks like it is longer than a stub, and that it is worth leaving as a standalone article. Yaf (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• No merge besides my agreement with the above points, what about Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr.? Anynobody 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How did they procure these weapons?

Now where is it mentioned on the Internet exactly how the hell they gotta hold of all this serious firepower...? Anybody know?

Gamer112 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

making an AR-15 fully automatic can be accomplished with a 5$ piece of metal, it's just not legal at all...they probably bought the weapons legally (don't think california had an AWB at this point) and then illegally modified them. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Caliornia did have the useless AWB at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1man838 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Keys in Pickup Truck?

I just saw a show on History Channel (Canada) called Zero Hour (9am Friday Mar 14, 2008) about this incident. In the show they state that the pickup truck owner left the keys behind but Matasereanu could not start the truck because he didn't realize there was a separate starter button in it (it was an old '61 pickup). Here it is stated the owner took the keys with him. Anybody can clear this up? NevarMaor (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (oops forgot the tilde's)

Is there a way for you to seek out a citation for what the Zero Hour segment stated? If you can find that, then we can move on it. In fact, once you find it, send me a message to my talk, and I will institute it (since this page isn't one of my frequent watchlisted items). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't been on in a while ... I've searched for something from "Zero Hour" but nothing turned up yet relating to this. Unless I (or someone else) can turn up something I guess it stays as it is. NevarMaor (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Zero Hour tv series stated the keys were left in the pickup, and showed the actor turning the keys in the ignition. 16 april 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightvisions (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In Situation Critical it is stated the driver, Billy Marr, was it? took the keys with him. I remember they interviewed the driver for the show, but I don't remember if he himself mentioned the keys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.161.231.88 (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please view the video on the following link to hear Bill Marr explain in his own words the issue of the keys. http://northhollywoodshootout.weebly.com/myths.html Roguebear (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The citations

I am pretty concerned that a lot of the citations look a bit false, so I am hoping that someone properly checks them out in the coming week to verify them. If this cannot be checked before next weekend, I will do so, and probably end up removing a lot of text associated with bad linkage. This is just fair warning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted, the older uncited statements were removed. Some of them had been uncited since October of last year. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Emil was left to die while the paramedics were held back by LAPD.

Source 26: "Critical Situation, "North Hollywood Shoot-out"; Jury Unsure If Cops Let Shooter Die."

As an ex-airborne infantryman.. the mentality within this culture, to include police officers (as many are ex-military), is such that when an 'enemy' is shooting at you and others and has wounded or killed your comrades, the instruction is clear: If the enemy survives after being shot, you shoot them to death until you have cleared the scene. Any shooting of a wounded surrenduring combatant afterwards is defined as an execution/murder.

This mentality would have been quite prevelant amongst police at the scene, except rules of combat do not apply to civil police matters. Therefore, a passive aggressive statement like "oh, the area is not secure for the medics", is tantamount to some level of manslaughter or criminal failure to perform the duties of a uniformed peace officer.

Frankly, I understand the officers lack of concern for Emil, even to the point of criminal negligence.. as I realize that Emil's actions should not require that waste of money for the trial and incarceration for life of that individual. However, police officers are not supposed to be that emotionally involved.. they are professionals, correct? If that is true, then they should have done what they could to ensure his survival.

So, in conclusion: Emil's family was threatened with a frivolous lawsuit after they challenged the LAPD for letting Emil die. In effect, a rightful claim by the family was politically crushed.. because the cops are above the law. Hammurabi's Law of "eye for an eye" appears to have been followed by the LAPD. The only problem is, the USA dosen't follow Hammurabi's Law.

We have two sets of laws. Imagine that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

People who render opinions in cases like this are often people who've never been involved in any critical incident, let alone a shooting. Even among ex-military or law enforcement, just having held the job doesn't mean they know the what really goes on when the crap hits the fan. Much of this "controversy" stinks of Monday Morning quarterbacking. (600 menNiteshift36 (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It sure does, but the fact that it has an odor doesn't immediately preclude its inclusion into the article. It's votable, verifiable and - so long as as there are multiple sources listed in the book that can be used to support the arguments being made by the book (and not just cite the book itself, as it alone would fail under our undue weight criteria) from a reliable source. If the furdles in the parentheses can be overcome, I am not sure there is a problem with inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that it is OPINION and nothing more. The fact that a jury, who had all the facts, couldn't agree, then the plaintiff backed off the case, strongly indicates that there is no clear answer. By providing only one side of the issue, one that definately gives at least the appearence of an agenda, I believe we'd be giving undue weight to one side. If it is to be included, then the counter-point should be included too. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift36, your first attack is against my experience in emotional/lifethreatening situations, with the implication that I have no idea what I am talking about. You also mention the "plaintiff backed off the case", with the implication they did that willingly... as opposed to the plaintiff dropping the case due to unreasonable threat of malicious prosecution by an entity with vastly greater means to pursue such prosecution. You mention an agenda: my agenda is the truth, my intent is not to soil the characters of the Officers involved nor the Police in general. Arcayne, thank you for your impartial reasoning ability. My response to Niteshift36 is: I have felt the mind altering effects of adrenaline while under live fire exercises, no combat however. I have been shot at before as a civilian by drunk bar-types, I know what is like to feel like you are about to die. The official proposed reality is: that police held paramedics back fo an hour as they assumed he was still a threat... lying on the ground, bleeding to death. My proposed reality, based on EXPERIENCE, is the LAPD had rendered Emil a non threat by shooting up his lower legs. Then at some point LAPD was able to approach Emil and take his mask off which revealed he was still alive and quite conscious (as the photo indicates). My main point is: Emil could probably have been saved by the ambulance sitting 100 yards away with transfusions and plasma; presumably, however it is QUITE likely police did not care about Emil's life. I understand this. I have no problem with this. My goal is the exposure of the TRUTH of the matter. I have no hope this will be included in the article, I mearly wanted this to be discussed because of this recent US trend of executions by police (30 rounds of 9mm +P JHP... or more into a person) is disturbing. Oh, as far as a counterpoint is concerned.. the LAPD record of events is the counterpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You can call it an attack all you want. I didn't intend it to be personal. If you feel my response resembles you, that is your issue, not mine. I didn't address you specifically. But since you want to respond to me specifically and make it about us, I will NOW address you specifically. First, they did back off the case. If they were sure they were right, they would have proceeded and would have also beat the alleged threats. Second, regarding your alleged EXPERIENCE, if you think someone is out of the fight solely because of lower leg wounds, then you have been lucky. Leon Platt suffered an irrecoverably fatal wound within seconds of the start of the FBI shooting in Miami and still managed to kill afterwards. They could have shot his lower legs completely off of him and he still been a threat. Next, I appreciate your military training and misfortune as a civilian in bars, but my personal EXPERIENCE is both as a military combat veteran and a police officer who has shooting experience as both a patrol officer and SWAT member. Next, I don't know about Los Angeles ambulances, but I've never seen ambulances in any location I've lived or worked that carried blood for transfusions. What is "quite likely" and what is encyclopedic are not the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let's leave ourselves out of the equation (your experiences in life-threatening situations are important to you, but are not not notable here unless they have been cited elsewhere in conjunction with this subject). It was suggested that for the book to be used - and, if properly cited, is entirely valid for the article, that the citations from the book itself need to be noted to avoid the issues presented by undue weight. Even then, I am not sure that the views that the LAPD have certain behavioral issues that tend to keep cropping up are really all that much a trifling view. The point of the article is to give a round perspective of a subject, and that often includes dissident views, so long as they are reliably cited and aren't given undue weight. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift36, you mentioned "monday morning quaterbacking" as part of your assessment of my initial discussion point. This represents a logical argumentative attack against my credibility. Your tone is indicative of the lack of respect police feel for anyone who is not police. It is this very mentality I am attempting to address, as American police are under-educated and poorly trained (particularly with the pistol), through a lack of standardization of qualifications, techniques and tools. Otherwise, I will continue to research this primary source (#26) to determine if police negligence can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you can claim the comment was directed specifically at you all you want. But your claims won't make it so. And you're right, if you haven't been there, I don't put as much weight on your opinion. And I'm sorry, live fire exercises and some rounds fired in a bar by a drunk do not qualify. Some guy shooting in a bar doesn't put you in the position of having to decide whether or not to return fire and put you under the stress of having to defend your decision through weeks and months of internal review, criminal investigations and civil suits. You were simply a witness. And everyone knows the great pains taken during military live fire exercises to minimize the possibility of injury. While it might give you a scare, you always know in the back of your mind that nobody is specifically shooting at you. There is a saying "He has not only seen the elephant, but smote him". You saw the big gray animal, but that was the extent of it. While you claim to understand what it is like to be close to being killed, you miss the rest of the point. It's not about being shot at. It's about the RESPONSIBILITY of having to respond and the responsibility of those actions afterwards. Do you want to be the one who tells EMS to bring the ambulance up, then the paramedics get killed and you have to face their families in court when your name is on the top of a multi-million dollar lawsuit? Unfortunately, in our litigious society, the legal (civil) ramifications are as important in decision making as are the tactical ones. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great pains are taken during military live fire exercises because they ARE dangerous. The last one I participated in, the batallion commander stood up just a little too quickly and was shot in the back of the helmet by an M60. Mearly yards from me.. poof, his head is bloody mush. This is the real deal sir, this is not just another raid on Billy's meth trailer and your apparent lack of military experience is exactly what I am talking about with underqualified police. All of the cops I have ever met who were overweight (and should have been fired)... never served in the military. The fact that you left high school and didn't even consider the military.. speaks volumes to me, rendering you unqualified to talk to me about anything to do with bravery or service. You see how that works, I get to look down upon you due to your lack of military service. However, I understand your righteous concern about civil liability. Police should be allowed to do their job without fear of frivolous lawsuits. Oh, and no I don't shoot at elephants or whatever it was you were talking about. Keep shooting straight, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my main point there was: the police fight an enemy which is untrained, relatively unequipped, and high on drugs. Forgive me if I am not dripping with respect. In the case of the North Hollywood shootout, the LAPD met their match in firepower and equipment, but these guys were untrained and terrible shots and high on drugs. It lasted 45 minutes. Wow. No reply necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with how dangerous live fire exercises are. I've participated in a number of them. I'll be honest, I don't believe your story. There are damn few deaths in them and deaths of field grade officers in them are even more rare. The odds that you happened to be yards from a battalion commander as he caught a round in the head are very, very slim. Maybe you are tellign the truth and I might be wrong. But I don't believe it. Either your guy was 10 feet tall or your range officers negligently ignored TRADOC guidelines and should have been criminally prosecuted for negligent manslaughter. Furthermore, you CLEARLY DON'T PAY ATTENTION. You carelessly said that I left high school and didn't even consider the military and how you look down on me for my lack of military service. However, if you actually bothered to READ, you'd see that I VERY CLEARLY said "my personal EXPERIENCE is both as a military combat veteran... " I AM A VETERAN. LEARN TO READ! So that makes you not only lacking in reading comprehension, it makes your pathetic attempt to look down on me both ridiculous and wrong. And, for the record sport, I'll put my body fat percentage against yours any day of the week. Another example of your lack of reading comprehension is your comment about shooting elephants. Who said anything about shooting elephants. I said "smote". Got to dictionary.com [2], look the word up and expand your education. You'll find out that it isn't about shooting. Keep responding, you just make me look better each time you do. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, indeed. This went from zero to personal far too fast. Clearly, this subject touched a nerve with both editors. I would suggest they step back from the article and assess how best to address the edits and not the editor. Nightshft and User:66.159.217.90, you fellers need to recognize that when an edit isn't going your way, it is not a slam against who you are or what you do or what experiences you possess. It is merely. It is a difference of interpretation, and keeping cool always helps get your point across better.

The source is, on its face, notable. Some people are out to make a buck, but the voice of dissent isn't given a swift kick in the teeth in Wikipedia. The point of having millions of contributors is that we get a full view of a subject, not just that which is politically expedient or unrefined. We all get a say in how an article looks, unless we are trolls or vandals, in which case we are shown the door in short order.

There is room for dissent. Please remember that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, you can't tell when someone is just playing with you Nite. My intentions here were to find a cop, and try to piss him off to see what underlying mentality/intelligence cops have. All of the police I look at around me are really pretty angry looking and alot of the people in my city are unhappy and are thinking of cancelling the LASD contract, myself included. So, now I know... there is a REAL personality with all kinds of smart ass beneath the uniform veneer, as expected. It's ok, I am the same myself. I mean, who would join the Army at 19 and choose airborne infantry ranger with asvab 98%... I would! They screwed me out of ranger school (Clinton's Army). The training accident as described above happpened, no one was identified as responsibile. This was a battalion attack against a trench network with apache's firing ffar and 30mm. Also was: 105mm arty, .50cal, and tow missiles and an a-10 30mm strafing. We were high speed, Tradoc be dammed. I witnessed M203 accidents.. M67 gernade accidents, UH60 collision accidents, and bullet in the head. Saw similar stuff at the DMZ in korea 1/506 Inf. I was not in a bar being shot at: I was across the street from a bar walking home from university, when drunkards yelled at and and argued with me and then fired at ME with a handgun as I "dodged" bullets and ran. Had I been carrying a pistol at the time, I would have returned fire and left them to die as I walked home. Police later failed to catch anyone... of course. It's all about CCW now. Realize also, the only people in society who really want cops around are women, and perhaps the elderly.. mostly to protect them from themselves. Police are a necessary evil, alas.

So, what was your MOS Nite? MP right? In desert storm? mechanized? real high speed there.

Nite I am glad you aren't like the fat cops we have around here. Also.. have a smile when you deal with citizens. Just the same, when the vote comes around I think I'll vote the CHP back in, the most professional cops I have ever dealt with. Also, I thought my elephants response rather funny.

My contention still stands about the LAPD letting Emil bleed to death, after he was subdued.

Arcayne, you just wrote the most effective paragraph I think I have ever read. I will take my trolling away from wiki.

Missed your guess again. Although some of my time in was as a MP, some was not. No, not Desert Storm either, although I was in during that time. Never in a mech unit. The only infantry unit I was ever in was this little unit called the 2nd Battalion/75th Ranger Regiment. Maybe you've heard of it? And no, when someone starts making statements about how they served in the Army but I didn't, I don't see play time anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed mask?

There's an image at the bottom of the page that shows one of the suspects lying on the ground "after the police removed the mask". Am I right in interpreting this as stating that the officers approached him? Maury (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i have seen video of it and basically what happens is he's shooting at the swat team from over a truck, as he is standing behind it...they shoot him in the legs until he falls to the ground and then they swarm over him. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The TV series Zero Hour showed police photos of the two robbers dead on the ground, masks removed. 16 april 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightvisions (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

11 Wounded

11 police officers were wounded by gunfire. With the exception of the two gunmen, there were no deaths. I believe that the two gunmen would be more than capable of killing most of the police officers there. Would I be correct in assuming that they had no intention to kill the cops, only to wound? 206.172.238.50 (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• 206.172.238.50, what's the point of your assumption? It clearly shows you haven't seen the news footage of the incident, and an opinion of what may or may not have been in the minds of the offenders at the time isn't relevant to the article. One generally doesn't fire 1000+ rounds at people with the intention of only "wounding" them.

YEPPOON (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)YEPPOONYEPPOON (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Really, that looks more than mysterious to me, as the combat was fought on close distance (~100m) and AKM for example has ~12cm dispersion in burst mode on 100m. And during 45 minutes 2 guys that had been seriously prepared, managed only to shot couple limbs... If that wasn't intentional, the only sane reason I see is that they ate like tonns of phenobarbital. Are there any investigations on their blood, how much drugs did they take, and is it possible at all for this drug to impair human's physical and mental abilities so severely? Gosh they could just come close and shot those cops from 1m... wolfRAMM  19:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Decebal vs. Dechebal

Does anybody know for sure that his name was spelled "Dechebal"? "Decebal" is an ordinary Romanian name (but it is pronounced indeed "Dechebal"), but no Romanian spells his name "Dechebal". Did he change the spelling of his name after he came to the States? Try to Google "Decebal" and then "Dechebal". All "Dechebal" hits are for this guy only.Mycomp 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be worth updating the main page and Emils Bio. His full name was Decebal Stefan Emilian Matasareanu. (source:http://translate.google.co.uk/translatehl=en&sl=ro&u=http://www.elevationoftheholycross.org/inmormintari/index.html&ei=cNaiS5SaO5v40wSm1Pj1CQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAwQ7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dviorel%2Bmatasareanu%2Blong%2Bbeach%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff)

As a sidebar i am a Brit author who has been studying this event for the last 9 months and i find some of the comments informed, accurate and worthy of debate, although there appears to be too much reliance on critically flawed tv documentaries. --Roguebear (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the "aftermath" section

Cars are not considered "safe" cover by any means...Regular .223 you can buy at any store will zip right through them and the armor-piercing ammo he had was probably just FMJ. Rifles will also go right through cinderblocks. 76.25.115.99 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The source on this says CNN, and they are never accurate on firearms. The shooters used regular FMJ rounds, that will easily go through a lot of things. In fact, a .357 will go through a car door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing the errors in the Aftermath section. Here are my references: <a href="http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot4_3.htm">"Car doors offer absolutely NO reliable cover from rifle rounds."</a> and two lessons for pistols:

<a href="http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot3_2.htm">1. A single car door offers NO protection against handgun rounds.

2. Even two car doors and the passenger compartment offer little protection, and even that protection can be expected to evaporate when multiple rounds are fired.</a>

The "documentary" produced in conjunction with National Geographic had too many errors to be considered credible. It was just sensationalist garbage lacking scientific substance. A North Hollywood Shootout or Miami FBI shootout happens so rarely in North America that it seems ridiculous to spend millions of dollars arming police with overpowered rifles to protect the citizens from a statistically rare event. Especially when the police have demonstrated an inability to hit their targets and often gun down innocents. I think the last thing they need are more dangerous weapons.

<img src="http://ubermutant.googlepages.com/CopsAndGuns.jpg">

Leave those to the experts. SaintNobody (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking back in the edit history for the article, I don't see any edits from you that were reverted. In fact, you appear to be pretty new to editing. Did you contribute under an IP (perhaps this edit)? If so, your edit didn't have an edit summary, and I reverted it with an edit summary that stated "Unsourced". [[WP:NOR|Wikipedia isn't a place for unsourced information], and definitely isn't a place for POV statements like "The facts of this case simply read like the laundry list of a botched job by the LAPD." This all appears to be a personal theory- again, verifiability is crucial, Wikipedia isn't the place for meta-analysis. tedder (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My sources are the www.theboxotruth.com sources listed above. The article presently states that someone thinks car doors are normally considered "safe cover." That's true of that unique source, but is a reflection of poor editing and data inclusion in that it is false. See my sources.SaintNobody (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC

And, of course, the US Army field manual defining both cover and concealment. Seems that people who regularly shoot stuff call things that can't be penetrated by bullets "Cover" and things that can be penetrated by bullets but don't look like the target, "Concealment." Also, why does this thing say at one point that their body armor stopped the police from shooting them and in another point that there were multiple penetrations of their bodyarmor? Those two claims seem to be mutually exclusive. Third Party ruling on this? _205.217.241.140 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Backgrounds: Steel core ammunition

In section "backgrounds" it says:

"Phillips imported steel-core ammunition for his illegally modified assault rifles, and acquired Aramid to make body armor.[5]"

The source cited does not indicate that steel-cored or otherwise special armour-penetrating ammunition was used. In the documentary, "steel plated bullets" is repeated many times. "Steel plated bullets" in english means cartridges that have steel jacketed bullets. Those are a common Soviet bloc type of normal FMJ bullets that have a mild steel jacket instead of a brass jacket. They both serve the same function and are the standard type of bullet in military rifle ammunition.

The current way of phrasing this basically says the robbers used special ammunition. Unless there is a reliable source to confirm that armour-piercing steel cored bullets were used, shouldn't this ungrounded claim be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.95.143.140 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because we are not interested in what is demonstrable and true, only in that which we can cite!!! 205.217.241.140 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC

^^^^ That statement makes me rage

POLICE OFFICERS VS "CIVILIANS"

Police officers are civilians. They are subject to civil and criminal law, just like every non-police officer. The distinction "civilian" is opposed to a member of the military subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You see it on television as well, like "Cops" or "Police Video" shows that reference "civilians" as any one that is not a police officer. There are police officers and non-police-officers. There are civilians and there are military. Police officers do not enjoy some special status. They are civilians and citizens, just like us ordinary folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkel1982 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's really not a cut and dried issue and is based on perspective. A fire chief will tell firefighters to keep "civilians" out for example. And no, police officers are not always subject to civil and criminal laws in the same way. There are exceptions built into many laws for things done in the line of duty. But you don't want my opinion, you want to look at something "official". Look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. In the police employee data chapters, the FBI breaks down the employees of police agencies into 2 broad categories: 1) Sworn and 2) civilian. It would appear that your personal interpretation of the application of the term would be at odds with the way the Dept. of Justice thinks it should be used. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Related articles

I don't see a shooting by police of an armed individual and a shooting of armed indviduals by the police as being related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

They are both high-profile shootouts that happened in California; it stands to reason that interested individuals would like to read about related shootouts whether or not it was the police or criminal who ultimately killed in said shootouts. –xeno (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see it, except as a category or List of law enforcement shootouts#California. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with both as a replacement for the several "See also"s, do you want to start the list or should I? –xeno (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. You may be more familiar with the topics than I am, and I can't find a good search term or Wikipedia categorization which would pick up a number of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Coroner's report

The article says, "The coroner's report listed cardiogenic shock as a contributing factor [in Matasareanu's death]". I'm not sure the statement is correct. Of course, the reference should be the coroner's report, but how do we find it? Or, if it's unavailable to the public, where do we find a statement made by police or others referring to the report?

I'm not a medical expert, but reading over the cardiogenic shock article, I understand that it's caused by injury to the heart itself, usually from a heart attack, and the hypoperfusion is a result of the damaged heart's diminished ability to pump blood. Isn't it more likely that Matasareanu succumbed to hypovolemic shock—that is, shock caused by a severe deficiency of circulating fluid? In the case of cardiogenic shock, there's not necessarily a lack of blood in circulation—in fact, the excess fluid not being adequately distributed by the heart can back up into the lungs (cardiogenic pulmonary edema), causing further problems. TaintedMustard (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, TM; I've pulled not only that but the rest of the uncited info in the section:

Phillips was hit 11 times, including the self-inflicted shot to the head; Matasareanu was hit 29 times, and despite his wounds, lived another 40 minutes before dying. The coroner's report listed cardiogenic shock as a contributing factor.

Until we have a citation telling us these things, we shouldn't have them in the article. Ever since the Irish student used us to kick the world media in the nuts, I've been knuckling down on uncited info in articles where citations really count. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of Matasareanu's autopsy report sitting in front of me as i type, page 3 is the one that will answer the question asked. 'From the anotomic findings and pertinent history I ascribe the death to: Multiple Gunshot Wounds'. This seems a little strange as none of the wounds of themselves were life threatening, bleeding to death from multiple wounds would surely list the cause of death as 'Exsanguination'. Just for clarity too. Matasareanu was not shot 29 times...he had 29 wounds to his body...there is a difference, not every wound is evidence of a direct single gunshot (Roguebear (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

I doubt it is standard to simply cite "exsanguination" as the cause of death. I'd like to see that report myself.

Several sources say that he was, indeed, shot 29 times, but not all of those shots actually inflicted much, if any, damage. TaintedMustard (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

References to both 1,300 and 1,100 rounds fired

In this article, there are references to both 1,300 and 1,100 rounds being fired, each with a different source. At this time, the current phrasing is:

By the time the shooting had stopped, Phillips and Matasareanu had fired about 1,300 rounds.[13]

Yet the next section states:

In this case, approximately 650 rounds were fired at two heavily armed and heavily armored men, who had fired 1,100 rounds.[4]

This is rather unfortunate to have differing sources in the same article, each quoted separately. If each source is considered reliable, then perhaps it would be better to say that "Sources say that Phillips and Matasareanu fired approximately 1,100 to 1,300 rounds."? Dayid (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've seen a doc (Situation Critical) about this on the Nat Geo Channel. It was quite long ago, though, but I REALLY believe it said there were fired 1,100 rounds. Plus, now both references are the same (1,100), so I guess we shouldn't worry about this anymore. Yet I appreciate your concern about it! Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Police Force Size

I herd that about 100 police officers responded to this robbery. What's the real number of cops and swat members?Pikazilla (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Firearms

Whoever decided to include the list of firearms is working on pure assumption. The 'AKs' were not Romanian AIMS, this is laughable in the extreme, they are Chinese Norinco Type 56 Sporter. In depth analysis of independent identification and their heritage can be found on my website about this event (which i have spent over a year working on). http://northhollywoodshootout.weebly.com/rifle-1-emil-matasareanu.html There was NO second Beretta 92 found at the scene. If proof is needed, as im sure it is, i have photographs of the LAPD's evidence tags of the rifles and copies of the various pages of the FBI reports which list the amount of recovered firearms... 2 x Norinco Type 56S 1 x Norinco Type 56S-1 1 x Heckler & Koch Model 91 1 x Bushmaster XM15-E2S (A2) 1 x Beretta 92F

I understand the premise of a community project, but there appears to be absolutely no control or inclination to 'back up' what is written by certain members. (Roguebear (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

It appears that the firearms listing may be cited to a program on the National Geographic Channel that I don't know how to easily verify short of finding that particular episode on DVD. If you have better, more accurate information that can be attributed to a reliable source then by all means be bold and correct it yourself. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

'Reliable source' in this instance would be the FBI investigative documents that i have in my possession. I presume that would be sufficent to alter the incorrect info already published? (I'm kinda new to the whole editing and whats allowed and what isnt thing) The only reason the rifles have been incorrectly listed as Romanian AiMS is the VFG on Phillips rifle which slightly resembles the VFG on a AiMS 90...although the VFG in question was actually manufactured by a company in Texas. (Roguebear (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

If you intend to cite the official FBI document, it would be a good idea to link a website where anyone can access that document in its entirety. If you have it uploaded in its entirety on your personal website that may be acceptable, but if you can find it on an official government website that would be ideal. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Shootout section

In the shootout section, it says Phillips was shot in the spine at the same time as he shot himself in the head. Looking at the news footage, it doesn't look like this is true. Any evidence to back it up? Also, it says Phillips used an AIM - whatever that is. Wasn't it an AK-47 copy? Norinco or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.161.231.88 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The "AIM" and "AIMS" are the export versions of these Romanian rifles (basically copies of the AKM and its AKMS variant). However, those models seem to have integral foregrips, whereas—at least according to this drawing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nhso3.png )—Phillips' weapon lacks that feature. It does appear to have a folding stock, though, which would mean it's not simply a copy of a regular old AK-47. It's probably an AKMS or one of its clones.

As for the spine shot hypothesis, I really have no idea. It'd be hard to tell such a thing from the video footage alone. TaintedMustard (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

Reading through this article I found it chockablock with syntax and grammar errors. Please do not remove the tag until it can be proof-read and found error free. ViniTheHat (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When do you propose to do that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

when i have time. And in the meantime, maybe someone else has the time. Thats how tagging works. ViniTheHat (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, more than three months later you still haven't found the time. I've removed the template. Please go ahead and rectify or identify the syntax and grammar errors if you wish. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I help?Slx03 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Asperger's much?

As soon as I came to the shootout's entry, I wondered if I'd find LAPD radio jargon; sure enough: "15-A-43, requesting assistance, We have a possible 211 in progress at the Bank of America." Just leave that off, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.28.86 (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:North Hollywood shootout/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would like to know what happened to the officers that were injured. Did they recover? Did they continue on as police officers? Where are they now? Also I would like to see mention of the injured civillians' recovery status and current status.BrianAlex (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

muscle relaxants

Several documentaries as well as paper sources mention the perps being on muscle relaxants to improve their nerves and possibly to increase resistance to gunfire. Yet I do not see that in the article. Has this been discussed previously? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

NM, I found the phenobarbital in the article, I was looking for the words "muscle relaxer" Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AKM or Norinco?

The article mentions that the gunmen used Norincos, but then it switches to AKM mid-article. What's what? 75.51.144.9 (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Deaths of the gunmen - Alternate ?

Hello, I followed this story from the day it happened and in the evening of the event I downloaded a quicktime movie file of the event from a local, (local LA) news site.

The file is long since gone and I do not recall the site I downloaded it from.

The problem I am having with the current narrative is the question of the death of the Phillips gunman. It seems to me that the story has changed from the story I saw in the video and the written narrative posted along with it.

My recollection of the events were similar, but significantly different in a few ways. I recall seeing the handgun shot out of Phillips hand, and he bent down to pick it up again. He was standing still, trying to unjam the pistol, (it was reported that the pistol had been struck by a police round and was jammed) at this moment, Phillips was struck in the head by a police round, he fell to the ground and was struck at least once again in the head. The video showed this quite clearly and there was no possible way that Phillips accidentally or otherwise used the weapon on himself. The weapon was jammed and besides it simply wasn't pointed at his own body before the head shot came in.

I am disturbed that the narrative has changed, to me it's significant because essentially Phillips was unarmed at that moment in time before he was killed.

192.189.128.12 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Jeff L.

I have also followed this story closely, and the drama and other court cases related to it, because Emil Matasareanu was a friend of mine since tenth grade in 1982, although we had not been in contact with each other since 1991 when I recommended him for a job as a bouncer at a club where I was the DJ. I have a copy of the videotape taken by the helicopter that was hovering above Phillips when he capped himself. He clearly placed the pistol under his chin and fired. One report states that at precisely the same moment, a detective shot Phillips from the backyard of one of the residences, and the bullet entered his neck, severing his spinal cord.

The part of this article that is a total crock is the idea that Phillips accidentally shot himself while trying chamber a round in his pistol. In the first place, for that to happen, the barrel of the pistol would have had to be shaped in 270-degree loop, curved just the right way for that type of accident to occur. In the second place, no one would try to use his or her teeth to do that. One would use one's non-shooting arm or inside edge of the sole of a boot to operate the slide because the human jaw is not strong enough to hold the slide during the required action. In addition, the video does not show Phillips putting the pistol in his mouth. Again, he clearly places the muzzle under his chin, pointed upward, and his body collapsed. Larry Phillips, Sr. told Peter Wilkinson of Rolling Stone Magazine that his son had no intention of being taken alive and that he would go out in a blaze of glory if a robbery plan went south. When he became separated from Matasareanu and he only had a pistol still in operation against the LAPD, he obviously chose the path that the worst cowards always choose.

ETO Buff (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Matasareanu vs.Mătăsăreanu

The overwhelming majority of sources refer to one of the perpetrators as "Matasareanu". For example: [3][4][5][6][7] I can find only one book which refers to him as "Mătăsăreanu": [8] The change was made by an anonymous editor with no explanation or discussion.[9] While the latter may be the correct spelling in the perpetrator's home country, in regards to this incident in this country the common and correct spelling seems to be "Matasareanu". Unless there's clear evidence that the perpetrator personally preferred the more unusual spelling, the common one should be used. Rezin (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Rifle Ammunition and Law Enforcement Vests

The current article states "ammunition capable of penetrating vehicles and police Kevlar vests," which makes it seem special ammunition was used. Virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition from a rifle will go though a non plate Kevlar police vest like butter. Especially target ammo, which is FMJ. The sentence needs some modification because it implies the ammunition was specialized, and it was not.Carwon (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on North Hollywood shootout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110923003825/http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com:80/timeline.html to http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com/timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120729031522/http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com:80/clothing---phillips.html to http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com/clothing---phillips.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029193138/http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com/part-i-robbery.html to http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com/part-i-robbery.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141021040601/http://www.durikgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/img1231nb.jpg to http://www.durikgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/img1231nb.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Hollywood shootout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140619001354/http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com:80/myths.html to http://www.northhollywoodshootout.com/myths.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of other crimes

In the lead of the article it says that:

Phillips and Mătăsăreanu are believed to have robbed at least two other banks [...] and are possible suspects in two armored vehicle robberies.

Yet the article then proceeds in the "background" section to describe these incidents as if it is fact that they were committed by these guys. If it was never confirmed, the background should stated that "unidentified gunmen" did the crimes and then note that it is believes that these guys were those gunmen. If they have been identified as the gunmen, the lead should be fixed. TheHYPO (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead is too detailed

The lead goes into too much detail about the firearms etc. The lead should give us an overview of what is to come in the article, not tell the story. Unless someone opposes it, I'm going to trim it down. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Two maps

There are two diagrams of the area of the shootout. The first - while a somewhat crude rendering - provides a lot more detail than the second one. I don't really see the point of having two - I'm going to pull the second one. Just a heads-up. Anastrophe (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Second suspect's name

Under "Backgrounds," the last name of Mătăsăreanu is not given. Is it supposed to appear in bold after the name "Balint"? Or was there a name change at some point in his life? Rontrigger (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Heat (1995 film)

I noticed the See also section mentions Heat (1995 film). The article itself however, does not mention Heat, so it's not 100% clear why the movie is mentioned. It has a similar shootout (apparently), but readers are left to guess that. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't belong. Removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• It was there because that film was the inspiration for these criminals. They took pretty much their entire playbook from it. The page on Heat explains this, and it was covered extensively at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.17.231 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

They took inspiration and were influenced by it. DmitriVladimir (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

English

I have some doubts about :

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified now fully automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1s". What's that "now"?

"Police likely shot Phillips and his rifle". Wouldn't "probably" be better than "likely", or am I just out of touch with modern english?

There are some occurrences of "Matasareanu" without the accents.Masonmilan (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the "now". Most occurrences of Matasareanu should not have diacritics per WP:COMMONNAME and the English spelling does not have those.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ngram to support name in English.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've made the name substitutions IAW WP:COMMONNAME Leaving his full name intact. TurboManiacal (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph is unreadable, and the one introductory one has weasel-y passive voice

Are the nuances of how each and every victim was injured really necessary? That extreme sentence length makes the whole paragraph unreadable. If a separate section titled "Victim Injuries" is needed, I would put it there.

And don't say "Mătăsăreanu was incapacitated by officers" in the other paragraph. He was shot and killed by them - I HATE those the passive weasel words! Like, "But if we say 'shot and killed' then it makes it sound like the police were being bad." Not necessarily; it just makes the description more accurate. Own it, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.155.15 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You make a very good point, I would support these changes. Also, please sign your comments with four ~ things. I forget what they're called.

Tschau, Dwightol102 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)