Two Orange County CA Cops Wounded in Friendly Fire Incident

A report is called in…someone is slashing tires. Two Huntington Beach police officers respond. A chase and a scuffle ensue and both officers are shot. By each other.

“Based on (a) preliminary investigation, it appears the officers were injured by friendly fire,” an Orange County Sheriff’s Office statement says.

No one came away unscathed as the alleged tire slasher was shot as well.

Officers chased the 29-year-old suspect on foot and they were between multi-family complexes when the shooting happened. Jaimee Blashaw, a sheriff’s spokeswoman, declined to provide more details on the officers’ gunshots.

The good news: according to the Daily Mail, neither of the officers was seriously wounded.

“Both officers were medically examined and have since been released from the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.”

The suspect, who was also shot, is still hospitalized with what are described as “non-life-threatening injuries.” So everyone will recover, at least physically. As for how this all happened . . .

Jaimee Blashaw, a sheriff’s spokeswoman, declined to provide more details on the officers’ gunshots.

Enquiring minds would love to know.

comments

  1. avatar Nanashi says:

    The article should say “California”. There’s 8 “Orange County” in the US.

  2. avatar Remmi300blk says:

    Why aren’t any of you guys afraid of armedwithreason.com?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Can’t be afraid of something we’ve never heard of before.

    2. avatar Swobard says:

      Ha! Having just visited the site, I would suggest it’s simply not scary! Filled with logical fallacies, straw man arguments, and unsupported assertions, it’s pretty much the usual anti-gun pablum.

      Are you shilling for the site, or just sufficiently uninformed to find it “alarming”?

      1. avatar Remmi300blk says:

        No I’m not shilling. Please don’t take it that way. It’s just that I’ve been pro-gun as long as I’ve had an opinion on the issue(which would be since I was in 8th grade, or three years ago), and I had to do a paper for English class, and I wanted to do it over why teachers should be armed, and I came across that site while trying to find sources. At this point the only thing that keeps me happy is the fact that there are millions of households with guns, and several times the millions of households with guns is the number of people who have access to said guns, and yet only(relatively speaking) 125,000 people are hurt or killed with a gun each year in America. Now they might respond, guns aren’t used as commonly in self defense situations as they are in crime, but consider this. Do you value your ability to drive somewhere instead of walk to that place over the 35,000 people killed in car accidents each year? What do you think their answer would be?

        1. avatar larry says:

          over 4,000,000 people are killed or injured by cars every year. that is 32 times as many people are killed or injured with a car than with a gun. by the 11 grade you should have learned in math that what you do to one side you have to do to the other. if you are going to count killed and injured than you have to do it to both sides or else you are lying by omission.

        2. avatar Remmi300blk says:

          +larry Well that just helps me point even more. If these anti-gun types are so concerned about net social benefits on society, how can they possibly still be moral and say “I value my ability to travel somewhere more than those 4,000,000 people who’s lives wouldn’t have been shattered if we all just walked everywhere.” Of course they won’t say that(unless they’re total hippies)! And if you apply that logic here, you gotta apply that logic everywhere.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Remmi, if you continue to have such an enquiring mind, during your studies of many things (but particularly guns and politics) you will eventually come to the inescapable conclusion that you are being systematically lied to. Deliberately, and with malice, usually in pursuit of money.

    3. avatar AFGus says:

      Uh…..sorry guy/girl, but the site you mention is only scary due to its uninformed, anti-gun rhetoric and liberal pablum, all of which has been debunked over, and over, and over again. Until your post, I’d never even heard of this website, which is good because it’s filled with complete and utter BS. Not even a good try there Derp.

      1. avatar Remmi300blk says:

        I haven’t heard it been debunked. That’s welcome news to me. Please enlighten me(not being snarky I swear.)

        1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Gunfacts.info is a good place to start. Gary kleck and John Lott are also good people to look up. I’m not sure what that site claims, so I’m not sure what debunking to recite, but I can give few basics.

          300,000 to 1.5 million defensive gun uses annually depending on what number you go with. This was from the 90s and is probably lower now with our lower crime rates.

          You can also compare crime rates from the us, uk, and aus starting in the late 80s. Everyone peaks about 91 then the current expecial decay trend starts that continues today, only it is interrupted in the uk aND aus to increase coinciding with the start of their gun control and confiscation programs.

          It’s endless really. Search TTAG for nick leghorn’s articles debunking specific stats given by antis. They like to include gang homicides to pad accidental death stats for children, things like that.

        2. avatar Just Someguy says:

          There was a CDC study a few years ago (or rather, a compilation an analysis of studies) and they found that even the lowest credible estimates for defensive gun uses were substantially higher than gun crime. Additionally, there are numerous sources debunking various anti gun “facts” which are almost always bs. Then there’s the Uniform Crime Report and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is very easy to use.

    4. avatar Alex says:

      It also looks to be no longer maintained. Last entry was 22 Feb, 2017.

    5. avatar Ian says:

      It mostly targets John R. Lott. He can handle himself against these fools all day long.

      1. avatar AFGus says:

        You got that right Ian!

    6. avatar Hank says:

      Like most anti gun arguments, it can pretty much all be dismantled. Going through every argument on the site would take too much time for me. I’ll tell you this. As someone who’s got the degrees and real work experience in dealing with crime, I can tell you just about every single anti gun argument is flat out bullshit.

      1. avatar Remmi300blk says:

        Can you explain to me one please? It would be a HUGE relief. Let me tell you something. I love guns. It’s fun being pro-gun. And if those anti-gun snowflakes are right, would hurt. I’ve been dwelling on this since January. It would really appreciated if you debunked even just one of their points.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          It takes a little reading between the lines, and perhaps a visit to John Lott’s site. First is their use of rather broad definitions. For example, you will find that all gun related deaths(about 32,000 per year) are defined as “gun violence.” What they don’t mention is that 2/3 of these deaths are suicides. So they have inflated their “statistics” by including suicides, even though it is difficult to conceive of these a being acts of violence. Second, they talk about all of the “children” killed or injured by “gun violence,” not stopping to explain that their definition of “child” includes the (legally) adults between the ages of 18-21. Third, they rely on “studies” conducted by public health researchers (i.e., professional statisticians) bought and paid for by Bloomberg money, which includes the Hopkins School of Public Health, renamed to the Bloomberg School of Public Health after Bloomberg made a $1 billion donation for the naming privilege and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health. Fourth, the studies commissioned from these schools fail to do the demographic research (typical for a public health researcher) that would demonstrate that the majority of real (i.e. non-suicide) “gun violence” is a systemic issue of the largely black inner cities of America, i.e., gang violence. most of which is committed with stolen guns, i.e., guns that are obtained irrespective of all of the laws these folks would like to see enacted, or which in fact have been enacted. (In this vein, notice that NYC has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the country to day, and that Chicago, up until McDonald v. City of Chicago, had a handgun ban that had been in effect for some 20 plus years. Lat but not least, after all of their proposals have been demonstrated to have no discernible effect on crime (i.e., universal background checks such as California’s), they merely crow that we have to do EVEN MORE to restrict/ban the ownership of guns.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          Keep on being pro-gun.

          I was in your position a few years ago as new gun owner. I’d heard a lot of the talking points about how studies show having a gun increases your own risk of death, injury, etc., etc. I loved shooting the gun I already had, and wanted to buy more, but I didn’t want to put my family at risk. So I went looking for the truth. (Which is how I wound up here: truth is in the name.)

          Along the way, I did a lot of reading from websites on both sides (probably including Armed With Reason), looking specifically for facts and reason. Not anecdotes or heartwarming/heartbreaking stories, just verifiable facts and solid, non-fallacious logic. In a word, evidence.

          What I found was that one side (the one we’re on) frequently used verifiable numbers from reputable sources to back up its claims, rarely tried to mislead or manipulate the audience, and usually used pretty sound logic…the other side, virtually never. That alone tells you a lot about the strength of each position and the type of people in each camp.

          The other side will occasionally make a good point and get something right. But even then, fundamentally the anti-gun position is still wrong. The Constitution clearly protects gun ownership as a core civil right. And the anti-gun argument seeks to cripple that right, turning part of the Bill of Rights into a dead letter.

          Constitutional arguments aside, you have a fundamental right to make the gun ownership decision for yourself — to do what brings you joy and defend yourself and your loved ones however you see fit — and anyone who tries to take away your ability to make that decision based on your own conscience is doing the work of evil. (Can I get an Amen? Amen!)

          Track down all the evidence you can, discard emotional appeals, and use your own logic. (Doubt the experts and look for people who make a logical, non-personal case against their studies & arguments.) You’ll probably reach the same conclusion I did (if you haven’t already).

          Check out the Facts About Guns page here on TTAG (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-facts/) if you haven’t yet. All sorts of goodness in there. You’ll find a well-reasoned, better-supported counterpoint to just about everything Armed With Reason brings up.

        3. avatar Remmi300blk says:

          +Ing Yeah will do. I’m 16, and the proud owner of a 20 gauge Remington 870 and a Ruger American .22 I still haven’t hunted enough with that .22. I’ve killed plenty of birds with Aguila colibri, but only like 1 possum with I believe Remington golden bullet. It’s awesome that it takes 10/22 mags. Bolt handle likes to get a bit rusty though(it is what my sweaty hands grab tho)

        4. avatar BLoving says:

          First off: welcome to the club, Remmi! We, the People of the Gun love having new members!
          Yes, TheTruthAboutGuns.com is a wonderful resource of information that you should always feel free to cite when confronting a gun bigot. Let me explain the accuracy of that last term: if a person disagrees with the opinions and lifestyle of another citizen, no problem. They’re as entitled to their opinion as any – however wrong it may be. But a person who wishes to use the power of LAW to prevent someone from exercising their civil rights (voting, marrying, buying a home where they wish, opening a legal business, worshiping the deity of their choice or owning and using a firearm of any type) is a bigot. Thus, those who wish to infringe on our civil Right to Keep and Bear Arms is what we call a gun bigot. Their argument is based on emotion, not logic. The most evident fact is: many millions of us own firearms and never harm anyone – so why then do the bigots assume that owning firearms makes us inherently dangerous? Kinda sounds a lot like another kind of bigot assuming that all Hispanics are illegal aliens, all young blacks are gang members and all Irishmen are drunks. Good luck on your paper.

    7. avatar Weskyvet says:

      Also if you want to find some more information in video form hit Colion Noir on youtube or nratv’s website and watch Noir. Last season he had 2 antigunners debate him at the end of each episode. Also try Yankee Marshal (youtube), Hickok45 (youtube), The Firearm Blog (youtube), and Dana Leosch (nratv).

      Note: most of Dana’s videos are more like a call out type thing than a presentation of facts but she does get some facts in there.

  3. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    EEOC/AA hires no doubt, gone are the days of six foot males patrolling our streets, under “equality” all formerly “substandard” or “unqualified” applicants are at the top of hiring lists.

    1. avatar Bob876 says:

      From my experience, the 6 foot garillas of law enforcement past tended to be aggressive, dishonest, and have substandard intelligence. But you do have a point with the remainder of your post. A lot of the government hiring processes will eliminate highly qualified and educated candidates simply because of race – because they were not an under represented minority. Equal opportunity is not giving one race an advantage over another. It is giving everyone, well, equal opportunity regardless of race. Unfortunately, that is not how it works in government anymore.

      1. avatar Mike Betts says:

        Being one of those “6 foot garillas” (sic), I’m sorry you had unfortunate run-ins with the police in the past. My police academy class in 1969 was winnowed down to 44 recruits from the over 1400 who applied.

        However, you do have a valid point. The Black Police Officers Association (BPOA) of our department complained that there was a great deal of disparity in the number of officers who were white vs. those who were black in a county which was becoming increasingly majority African-American in its demographics. The department, located in a Mid-Atlantic state, sent recruiters all up and down the East Coast and even as far New Orleans in an attempt to recruit minorities. Hiring standards were lowered selectively and the people doing the background investigations, many of them retired cops well familiar with the temptations of the street, warned the Office of Personnel that there were things in the backgrounds of some of the applicants which practically guaranteed their getting into trouble if they were hired. Their blandishments were ignored and sure enough, no small number of the new minority hires soon got themselves in trouble, sometimes for transgressions against departmental regulations and in far too many cases, for acts which were criminal.

        And what was the reaction from the BPOA? “You hired those guys to make black cops look bad.” It’s called “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”, right?

  4. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “The good news: according to the Daily Mail, neither of the officers was seriously wounded.”

    Curious – Had one or both of the police died, would Mr. Slasher have been charged with murder?

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      I was wondering the same thing! Does it have to be a felony? Is there such a thing as felony tire slashing/vandalising?

      1. avatar bobo says:

        Fleeing form crime, resisting arrest and injuring a office –there is the magic felony!

    2. avatar Bob876 says:

      Yes. Generally, if you commit a crime, you are responsible for everything that happens as a result of that crime. As far as felony, I suspect vandalism is like larceny in most states. If the damage is above a certain amount, usually $2000 or so, it is a felony. Considering I just paid $2400 for a new set of tires recently, I think it is safe to assume he is being charged with a felony.

  5. avatar Accur81 says:

    Well, that’s not good.

  6. avatar Michael says:

    Why did they feel the need to shoot?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It can reasonably be assumed that a tire slasher is armed with a sharp instrument (knife) with which he was carrying out his crimes, i.e., a deadly weapon. It further appears that he really did not want to be arrested, and was actively resisting. These circumstances suggest that deadly force was authorized.

  7. avatar txJM says:

    “Enquiring minds”?

    Did you use speech-to-text to write this article?

  8. avatar Mike Betts says:

    A couple of points. First of all, “friendly fire” – isn’t. Second: I’d love to know more details. As someone pointed out, our suspect obviously had a sharp object to slash tires and anything which can slash a tire can also slash a human being. Why/how did the cops end up going “hands-on” with this guy?

  9. avatar Kenneth says:

    Well what can one expect of a group that regularly violates all of the four rules of proper gun handling? ‘Accidents’ are virtually assured.

  10. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    The corrupt news media and much of the low informed public think LAW ENFORCEMENT are gun experts. LOL LOL LOL.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email