Manhunt: Police shoot innocent people looking for suspect

[hornadylnl]

and had it been the attacker in the vehicle?

You're weighing one group of people's safety against that of another. That's emotional thinking rather than logical. Thereby putting more emphasis on the safety of the "innocent victims" rather than those charged with risking their lives to find a dangerous man when in reality one life is not more or less important than another.

Considering tensions and potential threats there was no possible "win" to this situation. We can play the "what if" game all day long after the fact, but that is only helpful in planning PREVENTATIVE measures for the future, not judging AARs. The truth of the matter is we're simply debating over TWO ends of a stick.

Couple of innocent citizens die unintentionally by LEOs VS a couple of LEOs potentially dying at the hands of the criminal. There's no way for them to know ahead of time who was in the vehicle and whether or not they posed a threat. They made a decision and now must HOPEFULLY face due process for that decision. At the time, in their minds, it was either take a shot and risk it being the wrong person, or Don't and possibly risk being shot at.

I don't think anyone here could/would have conducted themselves in any manner contradictory to that of those officers in THEIR situation at that time. Although many of us may have been more judiciary with our marksmanship, I doubt anyone would have made a different decision otherwise.

You've read what I know.

A vehicle "creeping up on and past" at low speed a group (of unknown size) of police officers working this investigation in the dark with their lights turned off, while ignoring verbal commands of those officers ONCE it was noticed. There could be a level of "startle factor" involved, but who knows?!?

Crossing that with what the MEDIA says, how do ANYONE of us know what's true and what isn't? We DON'T. We're merely filling in the gaps of information with our own biased in combination with media reports which are known to be 100% truthful and unbiased.

IMO, officers protect themselves at all costs. Their is often little ethics involved in their actions. So could a bit of that psychology be tarnishing the information I've been given by a close officer? Absolutely. Do any of us know that for sure? No. All I can do is vouch for the integrity of those I've talked to as far as standing up for what's ethically right even if it means his job. That doesn't inherently mean that he's not willing to go to SOME lengths to defend his brothers in blue like all others.

At the same time, we also know the media of ANY variety is RARELY 100% truthful, accurate, unbiased, and NOT misleading.

Hence, WE DON'T KNOW. It's up to each person what one wants to believe while NONE of it is 100% reliable sourcing. It is what it is. NOT justification for condemning a man. Believing otherwise is "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty" just as we gun owners CONSTANLY suggest we are victims of by LEOs.

According to the women who were shot, they received no notice or warning. Yet you'll absolutely dismiss their word and take the LEOs' word for gospel. If these women committed actions that warranted being shot at, what were they charged with? Or are police allowed to shoot at someone that has committed no crime? Is it standard procedure for the police department to replace a vehicle of someone they shot so quickly or are they trying to head off the PR and legal nightmare?

 

[hornadylnl]

No, it's rational. I'm just not "emotionally tied" like most people.

It's easy to judge a situation when you aren't there and don't have the same responsibilities as those who are.

What responsibilities do the shooters have? They way you're trying to tell it, none. Are the shooters responsible for replacing the truck? Are they responsible for the payout these women will receive? Of course not. Want to put up a case of beer that these shooters will get off scott free? So what responsibilities do they have again? If I had committed these same actions in Bosnia, I'll guarantee you that my court martial proceedings would have been initiated by now. The citizens of Falujah are probably protected by a stricter ROE than these LA cops are operating under.

 

[the1kidd03]

According to the women who were shot, they received no notice or warning. Yet you'll absolutely dismiss their word and take the LEOs' word for gospel. If these women committed actions that warranted being shot at, what were they charged with? Or are police allowed to shoot at someone that has committed no crime? Is it standard procedure for the police department to replace a vehicle of someone they shot so quickly or are they trying to head off the PR and legal nightmare?

You're implying that the media is accurately reporting EXACTLY what they said. Regardless, did they have their radio on? Do they have normal hearing capabilities, or could there have been another cause of audio interference preventing them from actually hearing the officers? ...and none of us here know any of that to any degree of certainty.

Police don't shoot to enforce law. Their duty is to shoot to protect themselves from serious bodily harm or death just as ANY of US. They did not KNOW they weren't in danger and had to make a tough call. One which HOPEFULLY is going to land those officers in hot water, but I certainly cannot condemn them for making such a call in a situation I wasn't in.

With the vehicle of course they are trying to ease some of the legal and PR nightmare. There's no other reason to do so.

 

[the1kidd03]

What responsibilities do the shooters have? To capture the man they're looking for to keep him from harming others and to keep each other from getting hurt. They way you're trying to tell it, none. How so? Are the shooters responsible for replacing the truck? Are they, or SHOULD they be? No and YES Are they responsible for the payout these women will receive? Of course not. See previous statement Want to put up a case of beer that these shooters will get off scott free? We know they will since they wear a badge. Double standards for LEO is rampant. Everyone can agree with that and nobody has contested otherwise. So what responsibilities do they have again? If I had committed these same actions in Bosnia, I'll guarantee you that my court martial proceedings would have been initiated by now. The citizens of Falujah are probably protected by a stricter ROE than these LA cops are operating under. Falujah, yes. Other places, not necessarily

Answers above in RED

 

[jrainw]

Police are supposed to be the professionals here, shooting the hell out of a truck because it was driving slow on a public street is unacceptable. The police are lucky they didn't kill both of the women, it wasn't for lack of trying.

 

[mima07]

I'm shocked! Shocked! that Sen. Diane Feinstein hasn't submitted legislation for a ban on pick up trucks in California!
Seriously though, how much more silly are the endless tirades for firearms bans?

 

[the1kidd03]

Police are supposed to be the professionals here, shooting the hell out of a truck because it was driving slow on a public street is unacceptable. The police are lucky they didn't kill both of the women, it wasn't for lack of trying.

Indeed and hopefully they will be, although we all know that probably won't happen.

When taken out of context from how the information is presented, it can be justified in any way one chooses. "Driving slow on a public street" is quite a bit different than "driving slowly towards and past investigating officers in the dark with lights turned off." If you don't agree that that is suspicious activity enough for those LEOs to question, then you're simply thinking about the situation through emotion.

 

[jrainw]

Not suspicious enough to try to kill the occupants of the vehicle.

 

[hornadylnl]

Indeed and hopefully they will be, although we all know that probably won't happen.

When taken out of context from how the information is presented, it can be justified in any way one chooses. "Driving slow on a public street" is quite a bit different than "driving slowly towards and past investigating officers in the dark with lights turned off." If you don't agree that that is suspicious activity enough for those LEOs to question, then you're simply thinking about the situation through emotion.

Is driving slowly with your lights off suspicious activities for people delivering papers? I swear I've read about an INGO here who was complaining that the paper guy left their lights on and would wake them up when delivering the paper.

 

[the1kidd03]

Not suspicious enough to try to kill the occupants of the vehicle.

You're telling me that you wouldn't judge those circumstances as someone trying to get past you unnoticed at the very least? Beyond that, you wouldn't question it and order the vehicle to stop? When they didn't stop, you'd let them go on their way without confirming ID or motives for "sneaking by?"

 

[the1kidd03]

Is driving slowly with your lights off suspicious activities for people delivering papers? I swear I've read about an INGO here who was complaining that the paper guy left their lights on and would wake them up when delivering the paper.

Given the reason the officers were there to begin with ANY vehicle creeping by in the dark with lights off would be suspicious IMO.

I do not know that the officers at this place were operating a vehicular checkpoint or otherwise, but judging from the conversation it would seem as though it was some sort of checkpoint or rally point for investigators.

The way it was put to me was that the vehicle "crept up on" a series of officers conducting searches on the road. That could imply to me a number of things, but judging from the direction of the bullet holes I think it's at least reasonable to assume they crept PAST the officers as well.

This presents my entire point. WE DON'T KNOW. It's IA's job to figure out. I'm sure the double standard will apply and they'll get off scott free, which I HATE but what is this debate going to do about that?

 

[hornadylnl]

Given the reason the officers were there to begin with ANY vehicle creeping by in the dark with lights off would be suspicious IMO.

I do not know that the officers at this place were operating a vehicular checkpoint or otherwise, but judging from the conversation it would seem as though it was some sort of checkpoint or rally point for investigators.

The way it was put to me was that the vehicle "crept up on" a series of officers conducting searches on the road. That could imply to me a number of things, but judging from the direction of the bullet holes I think it's at least reasonable to assume they crept PAST the officers as well.

And the officers have zero reason to paint the story in a light that makes them look better? And the women's lawyer has zero reason to paint the story in a light that will garner a huge payout? Both are guaranteed but you willingly eat the one up whole hog while dismissing the other. If the driver was attempting harm to the police, wouldn't it make sense that the bullet holes would be in the front or the sides of the vehicle?

 

[lucky4034]

Given the reason the officers were there to begin with ANY vehicle creeping by in the dark with lights off would be suspicious IMO.

I do not know that the officers at this place were operating a vehicular checkpoint or otherwise, but judging from the conversation it would seem as though it was some sort of checkpoint or rally point for investigators.

The way it was put to me was that the vehicle "crept up on" a series of officers conducting searches on the road. That could imply to me a number of things, but judging from the direction of the bullet holes I think it's at least reasonable to assume they crept PAST the officers as well.

Being suspicious is one thing... but shooting 40 rounds into a truck who poses no threat is another.

Its negligence and while I understand they are edgy, they should absolutely not get away with this degree of negligence without at the very least an investigation.

These guys should be off the force PERIOD. There is no excuse for this type of screw up.... Besides, it sounds like a good time to leave the force anyway. There is NO EXCUSE... NONE.

Same way there is no excuse for breaking gun safety rules and accidentally shooting your wife.... They ****ed up

 

[the1kidd03]

And the officers have zero reason to paint the story in a light that makes them look better? And the women's lawyer has zero reason to paint the story in a light that will garner a huge payout? Both are guaranteed but you willingly eat the one up whole hog while dismissing the other. If the driver was attempting harm to the police, wouldn't it make sense that the bullet holes would be in the front or the sides of the vehicle?

No, I'm not dismissing ANYTHING. I'm simply saying that debates such as this can garner enough following in the media to force powers to be to take action. That inherently is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is that it can also impose emotionally driven rationale on those who WILL determine the fate of those involved and they may not be judged fairly. Treyvon Martin case is a perfect example of this and we simply do not have the facts. As long as the authorities are investigating it sufficiently that is all we should be "demanding."

The bullet holes are indeed questionable, but again WE DON'T KNOW all the facts. The media is telling one thing, my friend tell me other things that media doesn't, and that's all we have to go on. How do we know what's truth, what's being omitted, etc.? We cannot. All I can do is hope that the APPROPRIATE investigators will be looking into it. I'm certainly not going to propose that I know enough about it to call for a man's termination, criminal hearing, or hanging though.

 

[the1kidd03]

Being suspicious is one thing... but shooting 40 rounds into a truck who poses no threat is another.

Its negligence and while I understand they are edgy, they should absolutely not get away with this degree of negligence without at the very least an investigation.

These guys should be off the force PERIOD. There is no excuse for this type of screw up.... Besides, it sounds like a good time to leave the force anyway. There is NO EXCUSE... NONE.

Same way there is no excuse for breaking gun safety rules and accidentally shooting your wife.... They ****ed up

With the level of information YOU HAVE and ASSUMING it to be all there is and it's TRUE...you would be right.

However, I've already identified very important circumstances where the media has NOT given you necessary information. So, you think it's reasonable enough to assume everything else they tell you is enough to call for a man's termination and arrest? Is that NOT the same treatment OCers complain about getting from LEOs; "guilty until proven innocent."

Indeed, I hope they investigate it appropriately and if there truly was no just cause as it's currently being presented those officers should go to jail. I doubt that will happen because they wear a badge, but I hope it does.

 

[hornadylnl]

No, I'm not dismissing ANYTHING. I'm simply saying that debates such as this can garner enough following in the media to force powers to be to take action. That inherently is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is that it can also impose emotionally driven rationale on those who WILL determine the fate of those involved and they may not be judged fairly. Treyvon Martin case is a perfect example of this and we simply do not have the facts. As long as the authorities are investigating it sufficiently that is all we should be "demanding."

The bullet holes are indeed questionable, but again WE DON'T KNOW all the facts. The media is telling one thing, my friend tell me other things that media doesn't, and that's all we have to go on. How do we know what's truth, what's being omitted, etc.? We cannot. All I can do is hope that the APPROPRIATE investigators will be looking into it. I'm certainly not going to propose that I know enough about it to call for a man's termination, criminal hearing, or hanging though.

Can you not at least see the blatant hypocrisy in your bolded statement? These officers "emotionally driven rationale" almost killed 3 people. Yet you think these same people should be protected from emotionally driven rationale? Screw them. They deserve the same due process they afforded their victims.

George Zimmerman is another prime example. He had already convicted Trayvon Martin of being a criminal without witnessing a single crime. And now he expects innocent until proven guilty. Do unto others as you'd have done unto you.

 

[the1kidd03]

Can you not at least see the blatant hypocrisy in your bolded statement? These officers "emotionally driven rationale" almost killed 3 people. Yet you think these same people should be protected from emotionally driven rationale? Screw them. They deserve the same due process they afforded their victims.

George Zimmerman is another prime example. He had already convicted Trayvon Martin of being a criminal without witnessing a single crime. And now he expects innocent until proven guilty. Do unto others as you'd have done unto you.

I personally believe in an eye for an eye. I think we as a society should do away with law system and LE and simply eliminate criminals ourselves and save all the money such a system costs us.

That however, is what the current system is designed to avoid. It is meant to give a FAIR trial to EVERYONE. In some cases, that is unfortunate but it is what it is. Therefore, we cannot give some people a fair trail and not others thereby condoning the same double standard which we hold in such refute in LE.

Stating that they were acting in an "emotionally driven rationale" is a bit of a stretch in the sense that yes they were acting in fear (possible), but given the circumstances that would be to say that NOBODY else would have done so in that situation. I cannot agree with that since we DO NOT KNOW everything about the situation, only what LITTLE we are told. One cannot expect a man to act differently than most others would in a given situation. His actions however, can be scrutinized and investigated later for accuracy and motives.

 

[fireman76]

Everyone must realize that LEOs carry weapons not to protect you, but themselves.

 

[hornadylnl]

I personally believe in an eye for an eye. I think we as a society should do away with law system and LE and simply eliminate criminals ourselves and save all the money such a system costs us.

That however, is what the current system is designed to avoid. It is meant to give a FAIR trial to EVERYONE. In some cases, that is unfortunate but it is what it is. Therefore, we cannot give some people a fair trail and not others thereby condoning the same double standard which we hold in such refute in LE.

Stating that they were acting in an "emotionally driven rationale" is a bit of a stretch in the sense that yes they were acting in fear (possible), but given the circumstances that would be to say that NOBODY else would have done so in that situation. I cannot agree with that since we DO NOT KNOW everything about the situation, only what LITTLE we are told. One cannot expect a man to act differently than most others would in a given situation. His actions however, can be scrutinized and investigated later for accuracy and motives.

I'm all about a fair trial. But when an agent of the state tramples on the rights of others and demands the same rights that he denies others? Using your logic, any citizen who is approached by LAPD can open fire on them because they're in fear of their lives due to LAPD's actions so far. How does Joe Citizen know that the LEO approaching him isn't going to open fire on him?

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm all about a fair trial. But when an agent of the state tramples on the rights of others and demands the same rights that he denies others? Using your logic, any citizen who is approached by LAPD can open fire on them because they're in fear of their lives due to LAPD's actions so far. How does Joe Citizen know that the LEO approaching him isn't going to open fire on him?

Not really. It would be citizens who choose to approach LEOs in this context.

Again, I agree that if an agent tramples other's rights that he should be treated equally but that would be to deny them the right to the legal system our society has developed. That system and society is what neither one of us agree with, but as long as it stands it must be followed. Otherwise, there's a lot of death and crime in vein and our money is wasted in EVERY possible sense (which is a whole other issue but one I also agree with.)

If the legal system were up to me I'd be considered a dictator by many for harshness to criminals, but I'd guarantee crime would DROP.