LAPD officers kill man holding baby when he opens fire; baby dies

[0roo0roo]

and yea too much counterstrike and hollywood. aim for feet? lol🙂

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OrByte

no I don't think he would have saved bullets, he was supposedly doped up on drugs and alcohol. To me he was beyond rational thinking but thats neither here nor there...

Well if I was one of the 30 40 50 or whatever many cops out there I would have ducked and not fired one single shot. At least that way I would know for a fact that I wasnt firing into a baby. I wouldn't have fired. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be the officer that shot the baby?

Goes to show what kind of mentality some of these officers have, and why I'm not one of them. Adrenaline doesnt seem like a good enough excuse. Their rational minds should have been able to prevent the officers from shooting at a baby, no matter the circumstance.

Ok, so you say you wouldn't fire at the man as long as he has the baby. So what do you do once he runs out of bullets?

If I'm an officer, and I have no real shot at taking him down without blasting through his baby shield then I wait until something better opens up for me or for another officer.

But maybe the officers figured that the scenario just wasn't good enough for a sniper or something else.

 

[x471x]

Don't u ppl kno that u lose money when u kill hostages, ur supposed to press "E" and take them to the rescue zone GAWD 😀

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I hate when losers become cops. If I was a police officer I would ACCEPT the fact that my life is on the line for innocent people. I would rather have taken a few bullets, and potentially have died, than have fired that close to a baby. That's why I'm NOT a cop. Too many people think being a cop is some job they do and go home to their familes. They're more interested in saving their own asses so they can go home to their families each night with minimal risk to themselves. Hey, go work as an admin assistant if that's what you want.

The guy shot at the cops. Fine, he needs to die ASAP. But how about everybody takes cover and we give one of those highly trained snipers a chance to do his job instead of panicing and letting loose a hail of bullets.

I'm usually sympathetic to the cops when it's a questionable call, but their actions in this case, unless there's more to it, are abhorrant to me.

Easy to talk big from the keyboard.

Oh, I'd live it if I were a cop. That, as I said and you failed to read, genius, is why I'm not a cop. I have a family and they mean more to me than protecting and serving the community.

Look at the cops and firefighters in NYC on 9/11 who ran into a burning/collapsing skyscraper to try to save some people if they could. They didn't stand at a safe distance and shout for people inside to hurry up, did they?

 

[phreakah]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NFS4

Accidents happen. In this case, the baby was just in the wrong place at the wrong time...of no fault of its own...but also of no fault of the cops.

The bullet that killed the baby was fired from a cop's gun. Therefore you can't say that it's no fault of the cops. Sure, the cops were put in a bad situation, but they handled it poorly.

So, in your vastly superior opinion, how many cops need to be shot before they can return fire at a suspect holding a baby as a shield?

5 cops?
10 cops?
20 cops?

What if the cop who was shot was your father?

what if the baby being held as a shield was your son/daughter 😕

 

[HardcoreRobot]

if he is firing at you, you have to to take him out. sucks for the girl, but more lives would have been lost if they did not return fire

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OrByte

no I don't think he would have saved bullets, he was supposedly doped up on drugs and alcohol. To me he was beyond rational thinking but thats neither here nor there...

Well if I was one of the 30 40 50 or whatever many cops out there I would have ducked and not fired one single shot. At least that way I would know for a fact that I wasnt firing into a baby. I wouldn't have fired. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be the officer that shot the baby?

Goes to show what kind of mentality some of these officers have, and why I'm not one of them. Adrenaline doesnt seem like a good enough excuse. Their rational minds should have been able to prevent the officers from shooting at a baby, no matter the circumstance.

Ok, so you say you wouldn't fire at the man as long as he has the baby. So what do you do once he runs out of bullets?

If I'm an officer, and I have no real shot at taking him down without blasting through his baby shield then I wait until something better opens up for me or for another officer.

But maybe the officers figured that the scenario just wasn't good enough for a sniper or something else.

What better could possibly open up? We wait till the drugged up looney decides to go to sleep or surrender? And in the process how many neighbors/officers may have died because the police didn't fire a single shot? With your judgement, the man could've found a much more defensible position, and started picking off cops.

 

[chambersc]

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: OrByte

If I'm an officer, and I have no real shot at taking him down without blasting through his baby shield then I wait until something better opens up for me or for another officer.

But maybe the officers figured that the scenario just wasn't good enough for a sniper or something else.

Or maybe they're just LAPD and they're known for this sort of thing.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

So, in your vastly superior opinion, how many cops need to be shot before they can return fire at a suspect holding a baby as a shield?

5 cops?
10 cops?
20 cops?

What if the cop who was shot was your father?

In my vastly superior opinion, with my vastly superior judgement, I would not have allowed myself to get into that situation. If I were in charge of the cops responding to this call, I would have made sure that I didn't have 20 guys standing around a madman with a gun, just waiting to get shot.

This reminds me of an argument I had with a kid who was going 120 mph and crashed his Z. I criticized him for crashing his car and reacting the way he did, and he challenged me and asked what I would do if I was doing 120 mph and a person pulls out in front of me. I told him that I wouldn't be going 120 mph on a crowded road in the first place, and that by doing so, he put himself in a really bad situation that he couldn't get out of.

Putting yourself in a bad situation is a surefire way to get undesirable results. How you react is only part of the solution... where you put yourself defines the problem.

You conveniently failed to answer my question.

What do the cops do then? Not respond to the call? You have a guy taking shots at people and police in a neighborhood. They had to respond.

 

[Ronstang]

So by the bleeding hearts' opinions in this thread I can take a baby and a machine gun and go to the mall and start killing people at random and the cops have to stand by watching and ducking from my bullets because I am shooting at them too......until a sniper can be put into place? Good reasoning skills people. I want to see your ass getting shot at. In fact why don't we put you on a plane over to Afghanistan or Iraq, give you an M4, and see what happens when a terrorist starts firing upon you from behind a human shield. Sorry, but it I'm being fired at I would do my best to avoid hitting the human shield but that doesn't keep me from firing and if the human shield is hit then so sad too bad.

I am sorry for the baby, but I am even sorrier for the cops that have to cope with the results of a situation the father of the baby set the rules on. No one here was there, no one here was getting shot at because they were sitting with safety and comfort behind a computer screen which they never leave as they judge events that happen in the real world so no one here really knows if the situation could have ended differently.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Sucks that the baby died, but maybe hostagetakers would think twice if cops started saying fvck this and went for it...

What about the hostages?

Thing is police are there for that purpose, a cop goes down it doesn't mean open fire.

Now if the guy were picking off civilians then you need to act, but just law enforcement no way.

They could have done way more things rather than just pepper him with bullets.

I am willing to bet the decision came down to 'who is going give a crap about these poor people, we say we are sorry about it tomorrow and all is good, we go home early today'.

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The police could have handled this much better. Whenever they make a mistake, they try to justify it somehow, but if a suspect made a mistake like this, it cannot be justified and they're going to jail.
The police screwed up and killed a hostage just to kill the hostage taker. Real good job.

STFU. You have no idea how the situation went down. I am even more sick of people like you who always point the finger at the police. Police put their lives and careers on the line every single day. The police department cannot have a 100% success rate. If they prevent 1000 hostages from dying and kill one, that is a damn good return in my opinion.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I hate when losers become cops. If I was a police officer I would ACCEPT the fact that my life is on the line for innocent people. I would rather have taken a few bullets, and potentially have died, than have fired that close to a baby. That's why I'm NOT a cop. Too many people think being a cop is some job they do and go home to their familes. They're more interested in saving their own asses so they can go home to their families each night with minimal risk to themselves. Hey, go work as an admin assistant if that's what you want.

The guy shot at the cops. Fine, he needs to die ASAP. But how about everybody takes cover and we give one of those highly trained snipers a chance to do his job instead of panicing and letting loose a hail of bullets.

I'm usually sympathetic to the cops when it's a questionable call, but their actions in this case, unless there's more to it, are abhorrant to me.

Accepting a job in law enforcement does not make your family any less important than anyone else's. Nor does it make your life any less important.

To argue otherwise is simply asinine.

Viper GTS

Being held as hostage doesn't make an 18-month old girl's life less important either.

To argue otherwise is just asinine.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: OrByte

no I don't think he would have saved bullets, he was supposedly doped up on drugs and alcohol. To me he was beyond rational thinking but thats neither here nor there...

Well if I was one of the 30 40 50 or whatever many cops out there I would have ducked and not fired one single shot. At least that way I would know for a fact that I wasnt firing into a baby. I wouldn't have fired. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be the officer that shot the baby?

Goes to show what kind of mentality some of these officers have, and why I'm not one of them. Adrenaline doesnt seem like a good enough excuse. Their rational minds should have been able to prevent the officers from shooting at a baby, no matter the circumstance.

Ok, so you say you wouldn't fire at the man as long as he has the baby. So what do you do once he runs out of bullets?

If I'm an officer, and I have no real shot at taking him down without blasting through his baby shield then I wait until something better opens up for me or for another officer.

But maybe the officers figured that the scenario just wasn't good enough for a sniper or something else.

What better could possibly open up? We wait till the drugged up looney decides to go to sleep or surrender? And in the process how many neighbors/officers may have died because the police didn't fire a single shot? With your judgement, the man could've found a much more defensible position, and started picking off cops.

OR lets pop 300 rounds into him and hope and pray the baby doesn't get hit.

yeah that makes sense too.

well at least he is dead right?

I have a hard time accepting that there was no better option. If my rational mind is telling me not to fire at the guy EVEN tho he was firing wildly at people and EVEN tho an officer was down then thats why im not a cop. I will be able to sleep at night knowing that.

 

[cerebusPu]

Originally posted by: chambersc
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

whats so funny dude?

 

[yllus]

Did any of you actually read the article?

Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man; when they at one point attempted to help a neighbor escape the area, he fired at them and they fired back, McDonnell said.

The guy fired on officers while they were trying to help an innocent out of the danger zone. What choice did they have but to fire back?

Police officers aren't bullet absorbers for the public, you loons. Even if they were, what kind of retarded logic results in the police fleeing from the cordoned-off suspect and letting him roam through the neighbourhood freely to cause chaos? If the guy threatens a third party (the neighbour) or tries to leave the containment area, he's gonna get shot - plain and simple. It's the best choice out of a lousy set of choices made to minimize the potential loss of life.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: BigJ

What better could possibly open up? We wait till the drugged up looney decides to go to sleep or surrender? And in the process how many neighbors/officers may have died because the police didn't fire a single shot? With your judgement, the man could've found a much more defensible position, and started picking off cops.

OR lets pop 300 rounds into him and hope and pray the baby doesn't get hit.

yeah that makes sense too.

well at least he is dead right?

I have a hard time accepting that there was no better option. If my rational mind is telling me not to fire at the guy EVEN tho he was firing wildly at people and EVEN tho an officer was down then thats why im not a cop. I will be able to sleep at night knowing that.

Listen, you're the one questioning the police, saying you could've gotten the baby out alive. You're the one saying the police were incompetent.

Those are some pretty bold claims when you don't even know what the fvck you would do. Nice job there, Monday morning quarterback.

 

[Baked]

Not everybody's a sharp shooter and even snipers requires time to setup a head shot. The police had no choice.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus


You conveniently failed to answer my question.

What do the cops do then? Not respond to the call? You have a guy taking shots at people and police in a neighborhood. They had to respond.

The police have established procedures for dealing with hostage situations. We'll see if they followed the proper procedures. In time, this information will come out (although they tend to try to bury the story if they're at fault)

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: OrByte


Well if I was one of the 30 40 50 or whatever many cops out there I would have ducked and not fired one single shot. At least that way I would know for a fact that I wasnt firing into a baby. I wouldn't have fired. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be the officer that shot the baby?

Yeah, I'm sure I'd want my tax dollars to fund a department full of cops that simply duck and hide unter intense hostage situations. :roll:

While some action can be incorrect, no action is often worse.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Baked
Not everybody's a sharp shooter and even snipers requires time to setup a head shot. The police had no choice.

On top of that, I'd like to know how many people have actually held a baby before. Especially a 17 month year old baby. That baby could've been almost 3 feet long. Which would mean that it sure as hell could've been covering part of his head. Would people still be complaining if a sniper had tried to get a headshot off, and hit the baby in the head, along with the father?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: yllus
The guy fired on officers while they were trying to help an innocent out of the danger zone. What choice did they have but to fire back?

Uh, it sounds like they were leading the innocent THROUGH the danger zone.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: cerebusPu

Originally posted by: chambersc
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

whats so funny dude?

It's a shame that the cops didn't shoot an idiot like this one who thinks this situation is funny.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: yllus
The guy fired on officers while they were trying to help an innocent out of the danger zone. What choice did they have but to fire back?

Uh, it sounds like they were leading the innocent THROUGH the danger zone.

How do you suppose they try to take them to safety? Attempt a daring airlift? Bring in a tank?