Blue Lives Matter

2 San Diego Officers Shot During Standoff That Left Gunman Dead

A gunman opened fire on San Diego police and firefighters on Saturday night and wounded two officers.

San Diego, CA – Two San Diego police officers were shot at an apartment complex as they responded to a disturbance call on Saturday night.

The incident began at 10:15 p.m., when police arrived at the Tuscany Place apartments and smelled smoke coming from a first-floor unit, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

The officers requested assistance from the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, and firefighters accompanied them as they went to the apartment to make contact with someone inside, according to KNSD.

A neighbor told The San Diego Union-Tribune that he heard them knocking on the gunman’s door repeatedly, and that they ultimately used an ax to get inside.

“As soon as they open the door, they were met with gunfire,” San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit said during a press conference.

“I heard them bashing on the door, then I heard gunfire,” the neighbor said. “There was plaster from my wall on my couch and carpet.”

The gunman, who police later learned was wearing body armor, fired through the walls, wounding two of the officers, FOX News reported.

“It was fast,” neighbor Matthew Rezrouch told The San Diego Union-Tribune. “They were screaming ‘two officers down, bleeding!’”

One officer was able to return fire, Chief Nisleit confirmed, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The wounded officers and at least one firefighter were removed from the complex using a ladder.

They were rushed to a local hospital, where one was listed in serious but stable condition, and the other was listed in stable condition, Chief Nisleit said.

According to FOX News, one of the officers was shot in the chest. The other sustained a gunshot wound to the shoulder.

One of the officers is a three-year veteran of the force and the other has been with the department for 18 years, the chief said.

Officers rushed to the apartment complex and began evacuating tenants in the 100-unit building as the barricaded gunman remained holed up in his residence, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

A SWAT team also rescued a firefighter from a unit near the shooter, after he was forced to take cover during the gunfight, according to KNSD.

Police took a suspect into custody at 11:20 p.m., but quickly ascertained that he was not the gunman, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

At approximately 12:15 a.m., a tactical robot was able to push past the suspect’s door, and a camera mounted on the device showed the shooter lying on the floor with head trauma, police said.

A K9 officer was later sent into the apartment, but the gunman did not respond when the K9 bit him in the leg.

Just before 1 a.m., police determined that the shooter was dead.

It was unclear whether he was killed during the gunfight, or if the fatal wound was self-inflicted.

Police did not release the shooter’s identity and have not confirmed that he was the 30-year-old male who resided at the apartment, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

Other tenants said that they and been warned about a “weird guy” who lived in the complex and said they heard the man screaming and yelling at times.

One resident told the San Diego Union Tribune that the man had been placed in a psychiatric hospital approximately 18 months ago, after he bored a hole through his wall.

Comments
View Newer Messages
Burgers Allday
Burgers Allday

Police could pick up a lot of guns from door to door searches for uninsured guns if we get an insurance requirement. If there is resistance, I am sure police could put it down.

realDonaldTrump
realDonaldTrump

@Burgers Allday The side effect is that yes, there might be less guns out there eventually, maybe in a hundred or so years (in case you weren't aware, there are by various estimates anywhere from 270 million to 310 million guns in the US). BUT even with fewer guns, and law abiding citizens not having them, the few guns out there will be in the hands of criminals, they will find the guns they need. Just like Highest Denominatrix says, they'll just get em elsewhere right? Just like they always find the illegal drugs they need. Most controlled dangerous substances can wind you up with a hefty fine, felony charge and jail time, yet millions still get em anyway. And how are they getting these drug you may wonder? Doesn't the US have a war on drugs since the 80's? And lets not talk about mandatory insurance. The government has more than enough mandates on its citizens already. Remember Obamacare? That didn't work so well, insurance mandate. What would the insurance cover? I don't work for an insurance company but I can assure you a criminal won't get any, nor would they pay for his shootings and robberies. So a lawful citizen who would only shoot someone on purpose if it was a life or death situation justifiably kills a burglar - what is the insurance there for? The burglar's family to sue for a claim? I'm not 100% against insurance just don't know what its purpose here would be for. You can already get insurance if you have a CCW permit in case you have to cap someone and get sued. Pays for your lawyer and liability coverage in some cases.

Troll ARE good for one thing folks, they make an average guy like me feel VERY smart.

realDonaldTrump
realDonaldTrump

@Hi_estComnDenomn so you're saying that criminals are legally buying guns from Indiana, somehow bypassing background checks? Or are you trying to say law abiding citizens are the ones doing all the shooting in Chicago? I don't follow your logic here. Who is doing all the shootings in Chicago?

Burgers Allday
Burgers Allday

now, mrs10 -- that is like saying lets legalize meth because only law breakers take that drug anyway. with better gun control, there will be fewer guns out there, they will be harder to get and many, many criminals don't do things that take a lot of effort. another good measure would be mandatory insurance.

Mrs10
Mrs10

@Burgers Allday - while I know you use this argument by cut-and-paste without worrying too much about relevance, I'll answer for those who don't know you do that all the time and who may possibly be asking the same questions.

  1. As to the question whether this debate should be about Federal or State - doesn't matter bc the state's laws can be MORE restrictive than Federal not vise versa so we can say Federal for sake of argument because they will be the set of laws will the least restriction relative to each other.
  2. Whether Federal or State limited gun ownership/restricted gun or magazine sales will not change current crimes rates as referring to LAW BREAKERS who commit crimes using guns. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS should be treated as such and restricting their gun rights based on actions of those who don't follow CURRENT LAW makes no sense.

Put in very small words: Bad people who break the law NOW aren't going to STOP breaking it if NEW laws are in place.