Euthanasiast
No way! Gimme the pliers, superglue and blow torch. This birdies gonna sing.
Yeah, cops should never show up to a crime in progress. See what happens.
I just don’t understand how a guy can be in the open, outdoors, and nobody has a clear shot. I’m still waiting to see a bit more on this case.
It’s that depending on the conditions, the clear window(timeframe) for a clean shot may be micro seconds when a sniper prefers (in the case of a hostage in close proximity) much longer. Remember no one stands absolutely still, and especially in a situation like this. He’s turning, spinning, looking here, looking there, shifting his grip on the kid, fumbling with his gun. Stuff like that.
You don’t want to chance hitting the kid but unfortunately that’s what happened.
Finn, have you ever sighted a target long-range, through a scope? Every tiny movement (yours and the target’s) is magnified; a single step or a sudden turn or movement and the target can go out of your visual field, not to mention a little shake or uncertainty on your part.
(My experience is with deer and varmint, not humans.)
Yeah, but I’m pretty bad at it. Never got the whole breathe-aim-slack-squeeze formula quite down.
I just figure that a SWAT grade sniper would be a lot better at it than I am. And I also have trouble believing that during the whole standoff, the guy was never still long enough. Maybe he wasn’t, but it just doesn’t seem right to me.
Another consideration, despite what some here believe, cops don’t want to kill anybody. And deadly force is a last resort. Mostly because a subject can usually be talked down and no one gets hurt. I’ve always felt that in a hostage situation though, especially when someone has a knife to their throat or a gun to their head, that they should be taken out immediately. This ensures 100% that the hostage won’t be harmed by the perp. Why react after a throat is cut when it’s too late?
After all…it’s not like the LAPD has a history of firing indescriminately or anything.
This strikes me as suicide by cop. Part of me wants to believe that this man was going to take his daughter out with him one way or another.
“I told them that he needed help, he needs a psychologist, but please don’t shoot. They didn’t understand, and the police fired, like, 300 shots.”
Maybe she should have been asking her estranged husband the same thing.
While this may have been the case before, the Police Academies around here - especially the LA one are changing the way they hire the officers and the training given to them. Futhermore, from the articles I read, it was quite clear that the officers did not fire (‘crawling while dodging bullets’ was one quote) until they absolutely felt they had to - as per protocol.
I also want to note that the average police officer is not as proficient with a handgun as the media would like us to believe that he or she is. It takes a lot of work to get to the skill level where you can blow the legs off of a moving target with a hostage.
I did. In fact, I read both of them. The first story, from CNN, has a different account. TIt says the man was “behaving erratically and aggressively.” That’s why I said to Silenus that the facts are in dispute.
In fairness though, the CNN article also says, “He fired at the officers and ran inside a fenced area that included his apartment and his car wash and detailing business.” But there are at least two problems with this. First, it doesn’t tell us who fired first. Second, the L.A. Times story makes the strong implication that this portion of the gun battle was second of three exchanges between the authorities and shooter.
Others have asked what it is I would have the cops do differently. Here’s that answer. I would have simply given more time for negotiations to work. This matters not even who fired first. If the perp fired first, the cops could simply fall back to a place of cover, cease fire, and let the negotiator/psychiatrist attempt to do their work. If the cops fired first, well, they shouldn’t have - particularly after becoming aware of his hostage.
I would enjoy undertaking this topic, especially in GD. However, I’m afraid I’m not sure I’ll have sufficient time to devote to it in the near future. I’ll do something though, in the interim, to put together an OP which defines the problem as I see it. In the meantime, should you wish to look deeper into this, allow me to suggest a book: No More Wacos, by David B. Kopel &Paul H. Blackman. Despite the title (and in fact the book does provide an exhaustive analysis of the Waco tragedy), the main thrust of the book is the growing federalization & militarization of various police forces. Also of note, the book is no mere simply recounting of the problems. It proposes specific legislation - including actual language which could be incorporated into an act (or acts) of Congress to solve the problems it posits. Waco is used only as a magnfying lens through which the problems can be more clearly seen.
100% assurance the hostage won’t be harmed? How is it then that this small child is dead?
Because this small childs father chose to try and use it as a shield. Place the blame where it lies, with the man who chose to carry his toddler into a gunfight.
Blame isn’t a finite resource. We have enough for both the father who used the kid as a shield and the guys who shot the kid.
You were quoting me, not mhendo. He hasn’t posted in this thread. 
Posting from Cnn sucks. i tried before and after a couple days they just scrap it.
My quote came from the CNN article.
Well color me stupid. Sorry 'bout that.
My mistake - again. Apologies to you, too, Rysto. Still, the L.A. times story says that portion of the gun battle occured at 5pm making it the second exchange of fire. There remains conflicting stories about who fired first in the first of the three exchanges.
In the first exchange CNN does not say who fired the initial shots, but the L.A. Times says the man was shot at the first officer to arrive about 3:50pm.
In the second exchange at about 5pm, police were attempting to provide cover for a woman to escape. This details of this exchange are given in the L.A. Times. The CNN story mentions this with lesser detail in its final paragraph.
In the third and final exchange at 6:20pm , the perpetrator shot and wounded a cop, the cops shot and killed the perpetrator and somebody fired the shot which killed the child.
Another discrepancy to note: CNN says the guy was armed with two guns (a 9mm pistol and a shotgun); the L.A. Times story makes note of only one gun (the pistol) in the possession of the perpetrator. This, too, is curious.
I do agree with you on where the blame lies - ultimately. This crazy fucking bastard is ultimately to blame for the death of his child. However, I believe the cops had other less catastrophic options they should have pursued prior to that final deadly exchange of gunfire. The first portion of your post is, however, a non sequitur. jimpatro says that by taking down the perpetrator by gunfire would have “100% ensured” the safety of the hostage. And that’s exactly what the cops did - they shot the bastard just as jimpatro advised. But yet, the hostage is dead.
The L.A. Times has more details today, here. These details make it apparent that the guy fired first, but not quite as either of the stories stated yestarday. Today’s story says that Pena (the perpetrator’s name was reported incorrectly yesterday, too), didn’t fire until after the first cops on the scene noted he had a gun, and their requested backups arrived. It also notes that the cops deployed a armored vehicle and that the final gun battle actually took place inside a “cramped office.”
I dunno what any of this means - except that I have at least as many questions about what actually transpired as I did yesterday. These new details aren’t particularly exculpatory of either Pena, or the cops.
Just to clarify, I was talking about a sniper shot. In most cases the cops are giving the perp a break by first trying to talk him down. I say take him out immediately so that he can’t harm the hostage. If he pulls the trigger or slashes the carotid, shooting then will not resurrect a dead hostage. 100% means a dead actor can’t hurt anyone.
Maybe. But it takes time to get a sniper team in place. And they’re still gonna have to wait for an advantageous moment to take a shot. In the meantime, the hostage-taker may see this as a provocation and take more extreme actions.
Once a hostage is taken, there is no way anyone can give a “100% assurance” that the hostage won’t be harmed. There might be in your overly simplified scenario, but the actual, real world most of us habitate just doesn’t work like that.