Sorry, it was a lame little joke–if you wanted to use a psychologist instead of a bullet, you’d need to get the psychologist moving really fast, or you’d never hit the target.
On a more serious and hopefully less lame note: It seems like, even if the police did have a psychologist or negotiator on staff, the presence of any kind of weapon-wielding uniformed officer (even if they weren’t engaging him in any way) would escalate the situation.
If you (or any other readers) were in a position to mold the LAPD into any form you saw fit (i.e., Exalted Supreme Emperor of Los Angeles) how would you have them respond to such situations?
This may be a stupid question (I have a talent for them), but why couldn’t the cops have fired tear gas at the guy? Wouldn’t that have disabled him, maybe made him drop the kid long enough for a body shot to take him down, or (if someone was near enough) a taser shot?
You are correct, he didn’t fire until after the police were on the scene. I didn’t think I had asserted that he had been shooting prior to their arrival, though, I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer.
CNN: LOS ANGELES, California (AP) – A toddler was shot and killed when her father used her as a shield in a gunbattle with police following an hours-long standoff, officials said. The man also died and an officer was wounded.
We really don’t have enough information right now. I highly doubt, as some have suggested, that the cops came looking for a gunfight. In any case, there are likely some huge issues that may have been trying to avoid, like gassing a baby. Taser’s have very short range AFAIK.
However, it sounds as if this was a not a huge standoff situation. If it were, they presumably could have had a sniper take his head off, certainly before shooting everything in sight. or there was something much more complicated than the story we’re getting. Don’t rush folks; the truth takes some time to lace up those boots.
smiling bandit there are likely some huge issues that may have been trying to avoid, like gassing a baby.
Yes, flying lead projectiles proved to be the safer alternative.
Actually bandit, I didn’t mean to be so judgmental. As you said, let’s see what other facts are going to be reported.
Here in Boston, (as some of you may know) a young woman was killed by a policeman shooting a pepper spray pellet gun. Sometimes those “non-lethal” weapons may not be as safe as you might be led to believe.
(Perhaps tear gas would have presented a danger in the LA stuation, as you suggested).
I’m not sure they were planning on getting into a fight at all.
Basically, if this was a screw-up as UncleBeer suggests, it had to have been one of the biggest screwups ever, and whomever started shooting should go to prison, not assing Go, and not collecting 200$. However, I have a hard time seeing even the most trigger-happy officer firing wantonly or making the first aggessive move here.
I dunno. Cops from all jurisdictions and localities (federal, state, municipal, etc.) have been known to wildly overreact and have murdered hundreds of otherwise innocent victims, many of them even floks who’re posing no threat at all and are known by the cops to be unarmed.
[quote]
UncleBeer certainly implied it [caps were looking for a gunfight].
Yep; I did. And deliberately so. Perhaps I am premature (and potentially even in error) in making this implication, but that’s how it looks to me right now. I just can’t ever see the need for cops to expend anywhere near that many rounds of ammunition to subdue a single individual unless they have: a) the supervisors have entirely lost command and control of a situation; or b) are spoiling for a gunfight. Unfortunately, I’m inclined to feel the actual situation is b); the L.A. cops were instructed by their supervisors to subdue this crazy fuck without a proper assessment of the potential costs.
I’ve said it recently, but I think it bears repetition here. I very strongly believe one of the most serious problems with law enforcement in this country today is the large-scale militarization of law enforcement authorities - at every level from tiny little township cop departments all the way up to the dozens of federal agencies which Congress has authorized to act as police.
From the description in the last linked article, it seems that the hostage was killed in the final exchange of fire, as officers were reacting to try to retrieve a wounded comrade. Sad, but understandable.
Adults should not be willing to put themselves at risk to save an endangered child. Children are expendable, not worthy of protection, and may be sacrificed to save an injured adult, especially if the adult is a police officer.
I get it now.
[sub]and here I thought children were helpless innocents who deserve protection by adults. silly me.[/sub]
Give me a break! The guy was firing indescriminately, endangering who knows how many people in the community. It is tragic that a child got killed in the process of taking him down. Would you rather let the children in the area take their chances from his bullets? Hindsight is always 20/20. I’m sure no officer said to himself “I’m gonna off the kid, just to get this over with.”
This “fact” which presupposes your position is not yet in evidence. Or at least it is contested. The CNN story makes a very strong implication, that this Lemos nutcase wasn’t doing any shooting until the SWAT team—which was certainly a provocation—showed up. The CNN story makes the further implication that the cops were the ones shooting indiscriminately.
If so, then cop heads should roll. No excuses. If, however, your linked article is correct, then protection of the community at large becomes a factor. Time will tell…
I’d still like to hear how you’d have had the cops handle the situation, UncleBeer. Actually, I’d be interested in more on your “militarization of the police” theme in general. Could hop over to GD if you’d rather do it there…
