TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I think the police were wrong!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I think the police were wrong!

post #1 of 27
7/11/05 at 8:21am
Thread Starter 
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...olice_shooting

The poor mother pleaded with police not to shoot. I think they should of not shot. The poor baby.
Reply
post #2 of 27
7/11/05 at 9:07am
The police said they will only shoot if the lives of others are in danger-- but the life of a baby was in danger if they did shoot! I agree. The police were wrong!
Reply
post #3 of 27
7/11/05 at 9:14am
I read this story over and over and I really do not know what to say, the loss of this baby is horrible so horrible but as for the police being wrong I am not 100% sure if I agree or not.. I really don't know and no body really knows unless we actually were there. I know being a mother I am mortified at that thought that could have been my child with this freaked out father shotting at everyone. What would I have said, yes please don't shoot, is there other ways to knock this man down.. But as the bullets are flying and many many lives not only this child is in danger of being killed, I am not sure what to think. I feel so bad for the childs mother and the officers that was in this situation. My heart goes out to everyone involved.
Reply
post #4 of 27
7/11/05 at 9:55am
It sounds like they didn't try anything BEFORE using their bullets. Why didn't they try to use those guns that shoot beanbags to sting the crap out of him? Or they could have let him run out of bullets and then use a stunn gun. I think that there were other options which were not explored before endangering this child.
Reply
post #5 of 27
7/11/05 at 10:37am
I also think it's tragic, but not sure if the police were 100% wrong. Unless one is there, it's difficult to know what really happened. Our media are certainly less than reliable as we all should know by now.

Also, if my child were one of the police officers, would I want them taking the risk that this drugged up, booze filled maniac would not kill the child himself? Hard to say, but my instinct would be not to take the risk. Our police put their lives on the line every day when facing drug addicts, drunks, felons and just really bad people. Often they get the dirty end of the stick from the media and people who only want to see the bad things about them or their decisions.

Until you walk a mile in their shoes, it isn't fair to judge.
Reply
post #6 of 27
7/11/05 at 10:38am
This one's tricky. We don't know just how he was holding the baby and we don't know just what the police did to get the baby free. At first glance I say the police were wrong, but, then again we don't know if the police shot the baby or if the suspect did. There are alot of gray areas in this one.
Reply
post #7 of 27
7/11/05 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite
I also think it's tragic, but not sure if the police were 100% wrong. Unless one is there, it's difficult to know what really happened. Our media are certainly less than reliable as we all should know by now.

Also, if my child were one of the police officers, would I want them taking the risk that this drugged up, booze filled maniac would not kill the child himself? Hard to say, but my instinct would be not to take the risk. Our police put their lives on the line every day when facing drug addicts, drunks, felons and just really bad people. Often they get the dirty end of the stick from the media and people who only want to see the bad things about them or their decisions.

Until you walk a mile in their shoes, it isn't fair to judge.

Blame lies with the father for having brought his child into the situation in the first place. The article does not go into great detail on what attempts the police made before opening fire, it just says they tried all they could to prevent from shooting. The man was holding the baby and shooting, so many others could have been injured or killed.
This is a terrible tragedy.
Reply
post #8 of 27
7/11/05 at 10:53am
I'd have to agree with the last statement. The article really says nothing about what the police did before they shot. If the man was wildly shooting at people, and the article suggests that he was, there could have been many more people killed. It's hard to know exactly what to believe when you aren't presented with all of the facts. I do place full blame on the father however, had he not taken his little girl hostage and started shooting at people this never would have happened.
Reply
post #9 of 27
7/11/05 at 10:56am
What bothers me about all of these shootings that have been happening. Is that police are no longer useing, NON DEADLY force. My uncle is a cop. and tells me things, so i have a bit of room here. Now yes we do not know how the baby was being held, or what measures were taken. But i do know...that baby had to be held above his legs. Why not take out his legs hm? A single officer with a good shot could have shot out both the mans legs, and 99.9% of the time that will make you fall, and drop the weapon...

But nope..we would rather kill the man..and the poor innocent child.
Reply
post #10 of 27
7/11/05 at 12:26pm
I don't know if it was here but I did read a poster talking about their relative being a cop and they are taught to shoot at the largest body mass to ensure the shot.
They went on to say that would be the chest.

But I do agree with you. You think that you could try and at least take him down by a leg, only risking a fall for the little girl, rather than sure death.

Now, this woman has lost her husband and her daughter.
(Its not really my place to say how worthwhile a husband he was)
Reply
post #11 of 27
7/11/05 at 1:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScamperFarms
What bothers me about all of these shootings that have been happening. Is that police are no longer useing, NON DEADLY force. My uncle is a cop. and tells me things, so i have a bit of room here. Now yes we do not know how the baby was being held, or what measures were taken. But i do know...that baby had to be held above his legs. Why not take out his legs hm? A single officer with a good shot could have shot out both the mans legs, and 99.9% of the time that will make you fall, and drop the weapon...

But nope..we would rather kill the man..and the poor innocent child.
I just wanted to say about police using deadly force. A few weeks ago 2 teens stole a car and the officers claimed that when they tried to stop the kids that the kids tried to run them over so they shot the driver dead. The interesting thing is they fired 100 shots and never tried to shoot the tires or get out of theway. I know there is alot of violence out there against cops but sometimes they over step their jobs and something should be done.
Reply
post #12 of 27
7/11/05 at 1:59pm
Regarding this particular incident, I saw a blurb about it on CNN at lunch. They said the man had been shooting at the police from inside the home for "hours", it was when he came out of the home, using the baby as a shield, and shot an officer in the shoulder that the police opened fire on him. They still have not determined if the child died from a round from the police or from the suspect.

I can't speak for all SWAT teams or police, but I can tell you that advanced marksmanship, which would be needed to be able to take out the legs of a moving target, is not widely known or practiced. My father was asked to help train a few of the SWAT teams in Northern Colorado (he is well qualified to do this) after Columbine when they realized they might need real marksmanship skills. He told me afterward that he was appalled at the level of skill, or rather lack thereof, that these SWAT teams displayed with rifles, and while they definitely improved with his day of training they needed a lot more to be anywhere near proficient with their firearms. While it sounds like a good plan to use non-lethal force with a firearm, there aren't that many with the training and skill to take those types of shots accurately. Add adrenaline to the mix, and the percentage of people who could make that type of shot goes down even more.
Reply
post #13 of 27
7/11/05 at 5:00pm
I just don't understand why **11** officers had to fire. I know it was a chaotic situation but I think 11 officers firing is a bit much. Perhaps if only 1 or a few officers fired shots it could have been more accurate and more beneficial to the situation?
Reply
post #14 of 27
7/11/05 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulBear629
I just don't understand why **11** officers had to fire. I know it was a chaotic situation but I think 11 officers firing is a bit much. Perhaps if only 1 or a few officers fired shots it could have been more accurate and more beneficial to the situation?
Because they are firing at the same time. THe guy is shooting at them, so they all fire. If each one thinks he/she shoudln't fire, then none would have fired.
I fail to see how police is at fault at all. The guy was shooting at them. They obviously had to respond with a deadly force because the guy was using deadly force. Unfortunatley the baby was killed in a process.
But not every hostage situation has a good ending.
Reply
post #15 of 27
7/11/05 at 6:27pm
The article says there was a 3 hour stand-off. That is quite a bit of time. And if the drunk, drug crazed man is holding his own baby and shooting, if he wasn't stopped would he have gone to the neighbor's home and endangered their children?

Somehow he had to be stopped. I don't know if it is true, but I have heard that cops are supposed to shoot to kill. If the person just needs to be stopped, they should not be shooting at him. If they are shooting, it should be to kill.

I still think it is awful. I can't imagine how those 11 cops are feeling tonight, now knowing if they killed a baby today. And I'm sure the Mom is feeling bad, too. But that guy needed a little more than therapy! He endangered their baby, and lead to her death, for totally selfish reasons.
Reply
post #16 of 27
7/11/05 at 6:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
I can't speak for all SWAT teams or police, but I can tell you that advanced marksmanship, which would be needed to be able to take out the legs of a moving target, is not widely known or practiced. My father was asked to help train a few of the SWAT teams in Northern Colorado (he is well qualified to do this) after Columbine when they realized they might need real marksmanship skills. He told me afterward that he was appalled at the level of skill, or rather lack thereof, that these SWAT teams displayed with rifles, and while they definitely improved with his day of training they needed a lot more to be anywhere near proficient with their firearms. While it sounds like a good plan to use non-lethal force with a firearm, there aren't that many with the training and skill to take those types of shots accurately. Add adrenaline to the mix, and the percentage of people who could make that type of shot goes down even more.
Thank you Heidi, you took the words right out of my mouth!!
I grieve for the families involved here, but what the public needs to understand is that the whole "shoot to maim" scenario is pretty much a lot of Hollywood hoopla - very few people are talented enough to make such a shot on a stationary target under controlled range conditions. Add in the erratic movement of a crazed suspect and the adrenaline involved in having a gun pointed at you, and the odds of making a shot like that go down significantly. Under those conditions, if you don't aim for the center of mass, you're probably going to miss, or won't make a solid enough shot to STOP the perp, which was the point to begin with.
IMHO, all blame lies with the father, and all prayers and positive thoughts should be with those 11 officers as they wait to discover if it was indeed their shot that killed the child. They did their best to protect the public, but they may decide that they can no longer do so, and we will have one less protector in that community.
Reply
post #17 of 27
7/11/05 at 7:00pm
Not being there, I would not be so hasty, as to condemn the police officers.

If this man had injured or killed someone else, the police would be damned, for NOT taking him out. He obviously committed "suicide by cop". It is unfortunate that he decided to take his child with him. I'm sure that none of those officers is rejoicing in the fact that a child died.

Lay the blame for this tragedy where it REALLY belongs - on this drug-and alcohol crazed man.
Reply
post #18 of 27
7/11/05 at 7:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy
I don't know if it was here but I did read a poster talking about their relative being a cop and they are taught to shoot at the largest body mass to ensure the shot.
They went on to say that would be the chest.

But I do agree with you. You think that you could try and at least take him down by a leg, only risking a fall for the little girl, rather than sure death.

Now, this woman has lost her husband and her daughter.
(Its not really my place to say how worthwhile a husband he was)

My uncle was taught to shoot NOT to kill..but hes from an older school...*sigh* i think now they do say largest mass.which is indeed the chest..but you can shoot someone in the chest..say not fatal..but..
Reply
post #19 of 27
7/11/05 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by catlover7731
I just wanted to say about police using deadly force. A few weeks ago 2 teens stole a car and the officers claimed that when they tried to stop the kids that the kids tried to run them over so they shot the driver dead. The interesting thing is they fired 100 shots and never tried to shoot the tires or get out of theway. I know there is alot of violence out there against cops but sometimes they over step their jobs and something should be done.
I agree. the amount of shots being fired, and the places fireing at are getting insane. I understand people to try to fight them..and what not..but like in that situation. why not shoot the tires? or try something..
Reply
post #20 of 27
7/11/05 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Regarding this particular incident, I saw a blurb about it on CNN at lunch. They said the man had been shooting at the police from inside the home for "hours", it was when he came out of the home, using the baby as a shield, and shot an officer in the shoulder that the police opened fire on him. They still have not determined if the child died from a round from the police or from the suspect.

I can't speak for all SWAT teams or police, but I can tell you that advanced marksmanship, which would be needed to be able to take out the legs of a moving target, is not widely known or practiced. My father was asked to help train a few of the SWAT teams in Northern Colorado (he is well qualified to do this) after Columbine when they realized they might need real marksmanship skills. He told me afterward that he was appalled at the level of skill, or rather lack thereof, that these SWAT teams displayed with rifles, and while they definitely improved with his day of training they needed a lot more to be anywhere near proficient with their firearms. While it sounds like a good plan to use non-lethal force with a firearm, there aren't that many with the training and skill to take those types of shots accurately. Add adrenaline to the mix, and the percentage of people who could make that type of shot goes down even more.

That is a good point. My dad was a sniper, so i know how to shoot. and yes it does take skill. But these are indeed Police officers. those who we want to protect and serve. professionals, who yes deal with alot.

Perhaps we need to look into how are police are trained than. Because personaly i feel if we are going to give Law professionals guns to go against the bad guys..they should have a higher skill than the bad guy on how to use it.
Reply
post #21 of 27
7/11/05 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScamperFarms
That is a good point. My dad was a sniper, so i know how to shoot. and yes it does take skill. But these are indeed Police officers. those who we want to protect and serve. professionals, who yes deal with alot.

Perhaps we need to look into how are police are trained than. Because personaly i feel if we are going to give Law professionals guns to go against the bad guys..they should have a higher skill than the bad guy on how to use it.
Professionals or not, they don't want to die.
So, if someone is shooting at them, they will shoot back. I think it's very easy for us to say they shouldn't have shot at the guy-easy to say because we weren't the ones this guy was shooting at.
As for skills, I doubt this guy (the father of the little girl) had much. He was just shooting at all directions. I imagine he was having some sort of drug induced episode and gone crazy. So, it wouldn't be difficult to have better skills than he did.
Reply
post #22 of 27
7/11/05 at 7:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScamperFarms
What bothers me about all of these shootings that have been happening. Is that police are no longer useing, NON DEADLY force. My uncle is a cop. and tells me things, so i have a bit of room here. Now yes we do not know how the baby was being held, or what measures were taken. But i do know...that baby had to be held above his legs. Why not take out his legs hm? A single officer with a good shot could have shot out both the mans legs, and 99.9% of the time that will make you fall, and drop the weapon...

But nope..we would rather kill the man..and the poor innocent child.
AMEN
What happened to shoot to disarm .. that used to be the training that cops got...
Reply
post #23 of 27
7/11/05 at 8:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky
AMEN
What happened to shoot to disarm .. that used to be the training that cops got...
Try just for one moment to put yourself in the officers' shoes:

You've been sitting outside this home for three hours attempting to negotiate with the individual inside. Not only is he not complying, he's been taking potshots at any cop he can see. You have no idea who he will shoot at next, or if he will hit anyone. It's hot, you're tense, and he's crazy.

Then he says he's coming out. You already know he has a gun, and he's not afraid to use it against you because of who you are. So even if he says he's surrendering you have to wonder, since he's already proven he's crazy, if he's telling the truth.

He comes out, carrying a toddler in one hand and that gun in the other. He levels the gun to take another shot or four at you or one of your co-workers. Your training says you should do everything you can to neutralize the threat - the gun, but your body is telling you this man is the threat, and he is going to kill YOU.

With all due respect, I don't know anyone who could keep steady enough to aim to "disarm" - at some point the body's defenses take over. YES, police are trained to neutralize a threat, but after 3+ hours of stress and heat and irrational behavior by the suspect, the best that we can hope for is that each officer did his utmost to protect the public. They are still HUMAN, fallible creatures subject to fatigue and duress.

And let's not forget, we STILL don't know whose bullet killed that little girl.
Reply
post #24 of 27
7/11/05 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScamperFarms
i feel if we are going to give Law professionals guns to go against the bad guys..they should have a higher skill than the bad guy on how to use it.
ABSOLUTELY agree. I know my way around a rifle, if you will. I grew up shooting, I know the safety rules in my bones. But I know there are police officers whose first opportunity to fire a weapon came during their academy training, and that scares me.
Reply
post #25 of 27
7/11/05 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicaLynn
Try just for one moment to put yourself in the officers' shoes:

You've been sitting outside this home for three hours attempting to negotiate with the individual inside. Not only is he not complying, he's been taking potshots at any cop he can see. You have no idea who he will shoot at next, or if he will hit anyone. It's hot, you're tense, and he's crazy.

Then he says he's coming out. You already know he has a gun, and he's not afraid to use it against you because of who you are. So even if he says he's surrendering you have to wonder, since he's already proven he's crazy, if he's telling the truth.

He comes out, carrying a toddler in one hand and that gun in the other. He levels the gun to take another shot or four at you or one of your co-workers. Your training says you should do everything you can to neutralize the threat - the gun, but your body is telling you this man is the threat, and he is going to kill YOU.

With all due respect, I don't know anyone who could keep steady enough to aim to "disarm" - at some point the body's defenses take over. YES, police are trained to neutralize a threat, but after 3+ hours of stress and heat and irrational behavior by the suspect, the best that we can hope for is that each officer did his utmost to protect the public. They are still HUMAN, fallible creatures subject to fatigue and duress.

And let's not forget, we STILL don't know whose bullet killed that little girl.

I would try , but my gun training included learning to shoot with little sleep, in the rain , and at night so diress or no diress the are trained to deal with stress ... I do give them they are human but.....no matter who shot the baby too many bullets flew
Reply
post #26 of 27
7/11/05 at 8:42pm
I am a police firearms instructor, and while I wasn't there I do feel compelled to address some of the statements being made.

We train police officers to shoot to stop the threat....the threat being the person trying to kill us or someone else with a weapon. Shooting someone in the leg will not prevent them from continuing to fire a gun, stab with a knife, run me over with a car etc. We train Officers to shoot at center mass in order to STOP the threat. Shooting tires out works pretty good in movies but that isn't real life.

Less lethal options are available to Police Officers to use in less than lethal situations. Expecting a police officer to defend against deadly force attack with a less than lethal weapon is unrealistic.

From what I have read on this case, the officers used great restraint during the stand off, and an officer was shot during this incident. Should the officers have just allowed the man to walk off, taking that baby with him after he shot the officer? What an uproar there would have been from those who are now condemning the officers when the suspect went off and shot someone else (the baby for instance or some innocent bystander). This was a bad situation and the suspect put his child in it.

I pray the officers involved can recover from the memory of that day, because I KNOW they did not want to shoot that baby, and I KNOW that the memory of that day will stay with them till the day they die.
Reply
post #27 of 27
7/11/05 at 9:06pm
This reminds me of an incident in my town where a university student was shot and killed by a police officer. I remember it making national news because my aunt down in Houston asked me about it. The kid was drunk and pounding on the door of a strangers house, screaming and trying to get in. A poor rookie cop was sent out on his first patrol, by himself, and ended up shooting the kid. Everyone made this officer out to be a murderer, but when a thorough investigation by the FBI no less showed no fowl play the officer was exonerated. It was easy to get angry with this young man (he was younger than me even!) based on what the media presented on the case, but when all was said in done he was in the right. If a crazed person under the influence of drugs threatens your life or the lives of others sometimes there is no other option but to use deadly force. That might sound crazy coming from a pacifist, but I believe it's true. We can't judge the officers until we know the full story, but either way the blame goes soley on the father. He created the situation, and like someone else mentioned, was probably committing "suicide by cop." He had no problem bringing his daughter into the situation.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I think the police were wrong!