LAPD Officers Kill Man Holding Baby (grrr and they killed the baby too

[wakeme2008]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Police-Shooting.html

uly 11, 2005
LAPD Officers Kill Man Holding Baby
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:28 a.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Police officers shot and killed a man Sunday night when he emerged from his home carrying a young girl following an hours-long standoff and opened fire, wounding one officer, authorities said. The girl was also killed in the gunfire.

The man killed was identified as Jose Raul Lemos, and the girl, about 17 months old, was related to him, police said. The officer, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the shoulder and was expected to survive

..more at link...

[truthisfreedom]

1. tragic.

[progressivebydesign]

2. Total asshole used baby as a shield while firing at officers..

.. sounds like he's the complete asshole here... but I notice that you had to bold the description of the girl. HE USED THE CHILD AS A SHIELD WHILE HE SHOT AT THE POLICE. Sounds like HE is worthy of scorn. I cannot bear the cop haters at DU any longer... do you HONESTLY think that a cop would RELISH shooting a child??? Really? The scorn should be saved for the coward that chose to shoot at police while holding a child, a child that he apparently had held at gunpoint during the standoff. Nice values here in attacking the police and making this guy sound like a victim. The child was a victim because of this guys disgusting actions...

I am so done with DU.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wakeme2008]

4. A 17 month old baby is not a BIG shield...

They could have mowed his legs into mincemeat and took him down that way.

[TryingToWarnYou]

14. Then you would be crying that they crippled the guy...

And yes a child as a shield to prevent officers from shooting at him, not as in a shield that is big enough to hide behind. Dont act stupid.

[The Stranger]

22. The level of denial these days is incredible.

Is everyone just going to say "Oh, how tragic," for fear of upsetting the police? Will no one admit that this was a catastrophic mistake on the part of L.A.P.D.?

Come on, people. If he is holding an infant, you don't confront him then. You follow him and wait for a more opportune time. Come on, people.

[Dhalgren]

25. Absolutely. That would have been the best choice of action.

[youspeakmylanguage]

37. Why pass judgement until more facts are known?

This POS was using an infant as a human shield. If you ask me, getting shot by the police isn't punishment enough. But that's out of all of our hands now.

If the POS was not posing a threat to anyone else and he wasn't threatening to kill the baby, then the cops should have held back. But if he was putting more lives in danger, then they did the right thing.

It's amazing how easy it is to pass judgement on the police before all of the facts are know, isn't it?

[Dhalgren]

51. It isn't a matter of passing judgment on these cops.

These cops were face with a choice. One or several of them decided that killing the suspect was more important than trying to save the little girl. It was a choice and they made it. They have to deal with the consequences. Just because of their position and the circumstances, it does not remove their responsibility for the decision they made. Of course the suspect has responsibility in this matter, too. But the cops were the ones who chose their own course of action. Responsibility - it is a bitch, but it cannot be avoided...

[youspeakmylanguage]

54. But if you don't know all of the circumstances and details...

...that led to their decision to use deadly force, then you really don't know what happened or why the cops did what they did.

Of course the suspect has responsibility in this matter, too.

The suspect appears to have had all of the responsibility in this matter, as he was the one that chose to use an infant as a human shield.

[Dhalgren]

67. The police are tasked to protect the public.

That little girl was a member of "the public". All I am saying is that the cops made a choice - you nor anyone else can say, now, that they had no choice. I agree with another poster here, that this is a tragedy all the way around - on all corners.

[geek tragedy]

72. No, they can't let a madman run through the streets with a firearm.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, cops are human beings whose lives are valuable too.

[geek tragedy]

56. And they made the CORRECT decision which they are trained to make.

When you have a scumbag opening fire at cops, they are trained to shoot him dead. End of discussion.

[Dhalgren]

69. I guess the little girl is just another case of collateral damage, eh?

I suppose we have to accept the fact that the police will kill anyone, if they feel threatened. I just feel sad for the little girl and her family, and for the cops who killed her...

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

82. The only one displaying ignorance her is the one calling names

and using ad hominem attacks. I do not hate cops, but I do think that any time an innocent citizen is killed by the police that a mistake has occurred. I bet most cops (worth their salt) would say that killing an innocent citizen is at the very least a mistake and at worse a crime. Cops are not relieved of the responsibility for their actions, just because they happen to be cops. Idol worshiping is just that...

[geek tragedy]

89. You don't know diddly about police training.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-shooting11jul11,1,4814296.story?coll=la-news-state

Sometimes there is no real choice. They had a duty to keep this drugged-up animal from shooting up the entire neighborhood.

[davepc]

99. If the state of police firearms training wasn't so god damned pathetic

in this country maybe the whole thing could of been adverted from the beginning.

After Lemos fired shots in the direction of the first officer on the scene, the officer fired back but did not hit him, police said.

The problem is ESPECIALLY acute in major cities where people with virtually NO firearms experience at all are given a hi-cap 9mm, a real bare amount of training and followed up with lax re-qualifications, and you have piss-poor shooters who have lots of bullets and no ability to control their weapons in a tactical situation.

Go to any firing range where police regularly train or qualify with their sidearms, and ask the range officers about their opinion of the marksmanship of the average urban cop. Their answers will not fill you with confidence.

[geek tragedy]

101. The guy was holding a baby, and given his drugged state, probably

not standing still. I'm guessing they were doing their best to not hit the baby in the beginning.

[davepc]

103. he didn't have the baby at the beginning of the encounter

only when he retreated into the building after the 1st officer shot at him, and missed.

[geek tragedy]

105. With all due respect, that's not correct.

<snip>
The shooting came more than two hours into a tense hostage situation that began about 3:50 p.m. with a call to police reporting that an armed man was standing near the intersection of 104th Street and Avalon Boulevard holding a gun in one hand and a child in the other.
<snip>

[Sequoia]

193. Guess the cops missed their doughnut break time.

I lived in LA for a long time and know how trigger happy these cops are. I will not defend them, they did wrong. They are about the most horrid cops in the USA. Shoot, shoot, shoot is all they know and all you people who live or are familiar with LA county cops know exactly what I mean. They've shot old people, women and children with typewriters, plastic knives, toy guns, shopping cards and food. Need I remind you the outcome of the Rodney King incident? They're heartless through and through. The stories I could tell you but you can look it up yourselves.

[geek tragedy]

209. A doughnut joke! Brilliant!

Would you have been happier if a couple of cops had gotten capped?

[TankLV]

219. Oooooo-kay!

This discussion has lost all semblance of sanity now.

Glad you are using such a broad brush there.

My friend who moved to LA and is a cop must be some jerk according to you.

[Vuem]

230. Yup. Should've just let an armed, drugged up lunatic out on the streets

Yessir, that would've been the right thing to do.

Righto.

[TX-RAT]

102. "If the state of police firearms training wasn't so god damned pathetic"

And your qualifications to make that statement are what?

[davepc]

108. personal observation at my local range

and many many stories in the media.

What was it, 41 shots to murder Amadou Diallo?

A recent police action in California where they expended over 100 rounds into a parked car and the suspect inside, MISSING HIM with every shot.

Back when police had 6 shot .38 revolvers marksmanship was a necessity and spray & pray tactics were unheard of.

Now every cop gets a Glock 19 and 3 spare magazines with 17 rounds.

Instead of taking careful aimed shots from behind cover, its spray down the general area around the suspect with 9mm until you hear the 'click' of the firing pin and hope you hit something.

[TX-RAT]

So you've shot a gun, and you watch the news.

Yea! That really qualifies.

[davepc]

115. The stats dont lie

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect02a.htm

However, there seems to be a consensus among practitioners and researchers alike that police marksmanship in real-life (scene of a crime) situations is less than desirable, something along the order of one hit for every six shots (Morrison 2002). This means that in gunfighting with actual criminals, the average police officer effectiveness is at the level of 17% proficiency. This is much less, as you will have noticed, than the 84% proficiency level required for qualification in police training. It also illustrates the problem, that real-life situations are so vastly different from training situations.

One might ask at this point if police officers are such bad shooters in real life, how good are the criminals? As far as determining the average proficiency of armed criminals, researchers typically distinguish between determined adversaries and ordinary adversaries. Most police encounters involve ordinary adversaries - those criminals who are on unfamiliar territory themselves, and typically firing shots over their shoulder while fleeing. From what limited research exists, we know that the average ordinary adversary effectiveness is something around the order of 10% proficiency (Morrison 2002). The proficiency of determined adversaries is presumably higher. It may or may not be reassuring that, in real-life situations, criminals are only 7% worse shooters than police.

In 2000 in New York city, the average gun battle involving police, the police fired 16 shots. The New York City police department is not much better then the 17% accuracy stat already given.

In the early 1990s, back when police had 6 shot revolvers, the average number of shots fired was closer to 6.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS-%20What%20We%20Didn't%20Know%20Hurt%20Us.pdf

Police are shotting their weapons untill they run out of ammo.

VOLUME OF SHOTS

- There is a strong relationship between the volume of shots by police and the probability of killing the suspect. In 17 incidents in which police fired three times or less, only two persons died. In 12 incidents in which four or more shots were fired, nine persons died.

Most of the deaths resulted in "bunch shootings" involving two or more officers. There were seven of these, five of them ending in death.

- There appears to be a relationship between the amount of ammunition a weapon holds and a tendency to shoot more. Twelve officers firing six-shot revolvers fired an average of 2.6 times each. Nineteen officers using semiautomatic pistols with capacities ranging from eight to 18 rounds shot an average of 4.6 times apiece.

http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Articles/Files/Oregon/92-Oregonian_Study.htm

[TX-RAT]

195. Comparing stats from actual officer involved shootings

To stats shot over a known course of fire doesn't take into consideration, how a person responds when being fired upon.

Your other link actually helps prove a point i've argued here, a couple of times. Since the adoption of semi-autos by most departments, accuracy has went down considerably, and the amount of shots fired has increased.
Is this because of a( i've got plenty of rounds, so the firsts not that important scenario) or it just that a revolver gives the shooter more time to accurately get a second shot off. I've always favored revolvers for LEO work, sometimes sheer firepower is not the answer.

[Zynx]

170. Non-SWAT police are notoriously inaccurate and trigger-happy

Doesn't change the fact that there wasn't any option other than to kill this guy and hope you didn't hit the baby.

[TryingToWarnYou]

306. Wow a TV expert!

and many many stories in the media.

Cool! Those of us like myself and TXRat prefer actual experience though, thanks.

What was it, 41 shots to murder Amadou Diallo?

Actually, it was 19. You might want to try a different channel on TV.

A recent police action in California where they expended over 100 rounds into a parked car and the suspect inside, MISSING HIM with every shot.

Well, I dont know the particulars of that scenario (and I would wager that even watching as much TV as you do, that you dont either), but I wouldnt find it impossible.

Back when police had 6 shot .38 revolvers marksmanship was a necessity and spray & pray tactics were unheard of.

Completely unfounded, ignorant statement with no factual basis or even supporting evidence.

Now every cop gets a Glock 19 and 3 spare magazines with 17 rounds.

Not for spray and pray, but because thats what the bad guys are carrying. Cops today are outgunned in most confrontations, typically. Over the past, say 15 years, this has pretty much been evened up. Now, the cops have a fighting chance should they be in a prolonged shootout such as the North Hollywood nightmare. Thankfully, since that happened, the LAPD is going to (or already has) given their officers much greater firepower. Tell me, do you believe that given the scenario that caused that decision, it was a good idea or a bad idea?

Instead of taking careful aimed shots from behind cover, its spray down the general area around the suspect with 9mm until you hear the 'click' of the firing pin and hope you hit something.

Completely unfounded, ignorant statement with no factual basis or even supporting evidence.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

310. I think it was 19 AND 41 shots.

41 shots fired, but 19 actually hit Diallo, so you're both right on that count.

[TryingToWarnYou]

304. Before you make any more ignorant statements, do some research

1. It aint like on T.V. You cant just pick an appendage and shoot to wound.

2. Physical and mental stresses at the time of the event have physical effects on the abilities of those doing the shooting. Fine motor coordination is practically gone, tunnel vision takes over etc. There are many other factors as well.

3. Ill take a trained officer to do the shooting any day of the week and twice on sunday before someone who might not have any experience *at all*.

[sojourner]

151. It's true and enablers like these people ...

make it ever less likely that one will survive a crisis involving a "peace officer".

I actually fear coming into contact with them, after working with top cops and hearing their rationale for what they do. I have instructed every person in my family not to EVER argue, try to reason with or resist a policeman. That means that some bad cops could do whatever...(my girls are awfully pretty)...but I believe that today, encounters with policemen are BAD things to have, because they are "right" no matter what they do or say.

And someone will come back and say...the innocent have to suffer because of the bad guys. Bullshit. If someone had some imagination they would redo the whole god-damned (in)"justice" system and we might just acheive a more peaceful society.

But truth to tell, that is NOT in the economic best interests of the "security" sector.

[geek tragedy]

158. Did you even read the story? There was a psycho with a gun

on a public street shooting at police and presenting a grave risk to anyone within range of his gun.

This criminal piece of shit ran at police while firing his gun--wounding one officer and then shooting at the officers who tried to rescue the first guy.

Why are you completely unwilling to understand the situation? Is it just easier to hate cops?

[sojourner]

169. boy you throw that "hate" word around a lot......

I don't hate cops. I DO fear them, you bet your ass. They have a license to kill. And they use it...increasingly.

I worked with cops so don't tell me I should get to know some. I know how superior they feel to the public.

[geek tragedy]

172. I know cops are cocky. Have you heard this joke: What's the difference

between God and cops?

Answer: God's not a cop.

At the same time, there is nothing to indicate itchy-trigger fingers or an arrogant disregard for life. This guy had fired his weapon at them several times before, and was charging them after hitting one with a bullet.

[genieroze]

338. Answer: God's not a cop.

How is this answer? God doesn't carry a gun.

[geek tragedy]

343. I'll take a lightning bolt over a gun. ;) nt

[TX-RAT]

190. I worked with cops so don't tell me I should get to know some

(I DO fear them)
(They have a license to kill)
(And they use it...)
(I know how superior they feel to the public.)

Strange comments from someone who worked with LEO, please tell us what exactly you did.

[Vuem]

198. Golly, that's sure neato. I am a cop. You needn't fear me.

We don't have a license to kill, as you put it, but we do have authorization from the state to use the necessary amount of force to apprehend/subdue/disable certain people at certain time.

Not only do you not know how we feel, you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe in TX, it's different. In CA, we fear the morons who fear us, because they get trigger-happy more quickly.

[TX-RAT]

199. I believe you've made a mistake.

I was responding to another's post.

[Vuem]

205. Cocked off early. Sorry. Italics would have made that more clear.

Wasn't quite sure what the parenthetical sentences were for.

[TX-RAT]

208. no prob

[crimson333]

200. I think you responded to the wrong guy

tx was quoting someone else


but I may be wrong here

[TX-RAT]

203. thank you

kinda caught me off guard

[sojourner]

204. That's what I'm talking about. Your fear is what is deadly.

I'm not a bad guy. But I'm a hot-tempered bitch and if I am threatened it doesn't "cow" me. And that, in a situation with a cop (say a case of "mistaken identity" for example), could get me hurt. And I'd be to blame for not knowing that cops consider any reaction except immediate obedience a bad reation, which is a feared reaction.

[Vuem]

210. If I understand you correctly....

You need to keep your temper under control when speaking to a cop in an official capacity.

I never try to 'cow' anyone, unless the potential for violence/escape if very high, or I know the person already, like a banger fresh out of the joint.

Be polite, volunteer nothing, and respond accurately. We ask nothing more.

[sojourner]

282. But if it's a crisis situation it's all a different matter. I'm excited

and NOT processing cognitively awfully well. So there's the crisis, there's my excitement/physiological arousal leading to less ability to process information and there's your fear of my excitability and there's your weapon. 'Scuse me if I don't feel all that safe. Your training is NOT about de-escalation.

BTW I have no problem with being polite. Nor do my children. Yet my 20 yr old son (majoring in CJ at the time) got the treat of having a fat old (small town in CA) officer wave his gun in his face, yell at him, and scare the livin' hell out of him...all over speeding in a souped up little rice rocket (admittedly broke law but did he need the gun? and the aggression?)

Thank god he got his dad's genes cuz he was calm and did everything the idiot little barney fife told him to do. Still came away pretty enraged that he'd had to fear what the cop might do to him. But he did agree that it's best to exercise extreme caution when dealing with a cop.

[Vuem]

283. WTF? Our training is all about de-escalation

Toning things down so that violence does not ensue is part and parcel of CA police training. Where did you ever get the opposite idea.

BTW I have no problem with being polite. Nor do my children. Yet my 20 yr old son (majoring in CJ at the time) got the treat of having a fat old (small town in CA) officer wave his gun in his face, yell at him, and scare the livin' hell out of him...all over speeding in a souped up little rice rocket (admittedly broke law but did he need the gun? and the aggression?)

Not knowing the details of the case, and possibly having a dinosaur involved, I can't comment.

[sojourner]

290. "Measured response" ---

it's escalation in response, tit-for-tat...

Look I worked with agencies where, for example, a guy was shot and killed because he was sitting on a curb fiddling with a "flip-comb", because co-incidentally the guy was also mentally ill and non-responsive to the shouted commands of the cops (called by famly hoping to help get the guy to a facility where he could get appropriate help).

Unarmed. Killed.

I don't doubt your sincerity. I hope you are as you sound. God knows the world needs people like you. But I don't have much confidence that there are that many.

[sojourner]

201. prefer not...

but I can tell you it was in a professional and not criminal capacity.

I respect the men I worked with...they were "top cops". But I learned enough from them, about their worldview, to know that I now fear them.

[TankLV]

216. Unfortunately, yes. This is the classic example of "collateral damage".

I think it would be safe to say, that the idiot using the child as a shield - he is an idiot, don't you agree - ran outside and immediately started firing at the police outside. Nobody had the luxury of time to fully access the situation - and the immediate response when shot at is to expect the worse and shoot back, or be killed by delaying.

The only true "victum" was the little girl who had an IDIOT as a father!

[okieinpain]

95. you're absoulutely correct. and that's why back seat drivers are

always right.

[Chrisduhfur]

142. He came out shooting.

He would have killed many more people if they allowed him to shoot his way through. Do you disagree?

[TryingToWarnYou]

302. They were being shot at, one was wounded

These cops were face with a choice. One or several of them decided that killing the suspect was more important than trying to save the little girl.

When the suspect comes out, guns blazing, and he is carrying a child as a shield, there arent many options but to try to stop him right then and there.

It was a choice and they made it. They have to deal with the consequences.

Agreed. If they had not taken action, officers, the child and perhaps others would have been killed by the bad guy. Its horribly tragic that this happened the way it did, but the offender didnt give many options in how this was handled.

Just because of their position and the circumstances, it does not remove their responsibility for the decision they made.

I dont think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

Of course the suspect has responsibility in this matter, too.

Wow, how nice of you to concede that there were other parties that had responsibility in this.

But the cops were the ones who chose their own course of action. Responsibility - it is a bitch, but it cannot be avoided...

Um, the gunman came out shooting at the officers, what exactly were the cops supposed to do?

[okieinpain]

94. you're damn right, this is DU dammit.

[youspeakmylanguage]

100. Damn skippy.

:eyes"

[okieinpain]

by the way love your site. nicely done.

[youspeakmylanguage]

111. Thanks! (n/t)

[sojourner]

134. there's a saying...to whom much is given, much is required.

The more power, the more accountability.

[geek tragedy]

140. But they do not have absolute power, nor do they have absolute

accountability.

There was no real choice here.

[sojourner]

153. hello there geek........

they don't have absolute power? no...cuz if they did they could resurrect the child. but closer to it than you or i will ever come (unless you're a cop, too).

[geek tragedy]

160. They had a responsibility not only to that child, but to the rest of the

public as well.

Quite simply, they couldn't let him go so he could take hostage and/or kill other innocent people. They couldn't just sit there while he ran at them with his gun blazing.

He forced their hand.

[conflictgirl]

303. Given all the overuse of tasers lately

I think the mistrust of the police is valid, unfortunately. I'm not a cop-hater in general and I know their job is difficult. I also think most cops are probably good people. But in light of the actions of many policemen, it's getting harder for me to assume positive intent when I hear that they killed someone.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

62. Geek, get off the boat trailer.

He fired on them because he had a line of fire on them. They should have stayed away and not engaged until a more opportune time. Hint: He can't drive while holding a child with both hands in front of him.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

88. There was an hours-long standoff.

He wasn't "shoot(ing) up the streets" or "run(ing) freely."

[geek tragedy]

90. Of course he didn't run freely--because they shot him. You're just wrong

about the other part:

<snip>
Police said Lemos was armed with one weapon and was randomly shooting into the street. Officers said they believed that he was on drugs or intoxicated.
<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-shooting11jul11,1,4814296.story?coll=la-news-state

[crimson333]

47. yeah he comes out shooting, shot at his next door neighbor, and one

of the officers.............but let let the incoherent man with a gun go. I am sure he will put no one else in danger

because their lives are not worth protecting, only the baby.

easy to make decisions if one is not the one being fired on.

[Dhalgren]

64. It makes no difference who was making the decisions.

It's "easy to make decisions if one is not the one being fired on." If you or I had been responsible for the decision to kill the little girl, either of us would be faced with exactly the same responsibility for the outcome. This isn't about whose life is worth more or less, it is about the choices the cops made. Was it the correct choice to kill the little girl? I would almost always say no, it was not the correct choice; some other avenue should have been followed, but that is beside the point. The decision was made and the responsibility for it cannot be sloughed off. That little girl deserved all of the protection that the L.A.P.D. could provide. Did she receive it? Again, choices were made and the consequences have to be owned.

[crimson333]

74. they gave the child all the protection they could

they were there for hours. The had three shootouts and they tried everything to avoid the situation, according to the article. They would not have fired, if the man had not fired. The neighbors deserved all the protection that the LAPD could provide.

eitherway it is a lousy choice to make

[geek tragedy]

75. And only people with a strong prejudice against the police

would blame them for stopping a madman with a gun who was a threat not only to them but to anyone else in the vicinity.

Sometimes there is no "good choice" no matter how much people want to pretend so.

[TankLV]

223. BIngo! There. Was. No. Good. Choice.

Damned if you dd.

Damned if you don't.

[okieinpain]

92. yeah, wait for him to go and find another hostage dammit.....

[Chrisduhfur]

138. correct me if I am wrong.

but didn't it say the guy came out shooting?

[geek tragedy]

143. You are correct, sir.

/Ed McMahon.

[TankLV]

222. We will do no such thing. The IDIOT here is the IDIOT who used the

CHILD as a SHIELD and FIRED AWAY at the cops FIRST!

And I am hardly one to excuse excessive or unreasonable behavior from anyone here.

[geek tragedy]

233. Sir, I would maintain that those in denial are those who would let a drug

crazed maniac with a gun walk down a residential street unobstructed and unmolested.

[TryingToWarnYou]

300. Its absolutely a catostrophic mistake on the part of LAPD.

No one here is saying it wasnt. Some are, however, taking issue with it being suggested that it was an intentional act because they hate law enforcement.

[geek tragedy]

344. Actually, a lot of people are saying it wasn't a catastrophic mistake.

We're saying it was an awful situation created by an awful human being that left no great choices.

[TryingToWarnYou]

362. True, but a mistake nontheless. The officer didnt intend to kill the kid

child didnt fit...sorry.

[geek tragedy]

364. It was a tragedy, and I'm sure the police will relive it in their

nightmares.

Do we know whose bullet killed the kid yet?

[proud patriot]

116. Bull Shit

:grr:

[sojourner]

130. how do you know what anyone "would be crying" about? Psychic?

Huge difference between crippling a drug-crazed criminal endangering a child's life and killing the asshole AND the baby! WAKE THE FUCK UP!

[geek tragedy]

145. The big problem is that the guy who was crippled WOULD STILL

BE FIRING HIS GUN--with the baby still in the line of fire.

Moreover, this guy was a moving target. Unless the police were extraordinary marksmen, the thug in question effectively killed her by forcing a volley of bullets.

[sojourner]

174. Just curious...

But he didn't seem to have been that good a shot, either. So what was wrong with having everyone take cover, shoot his legs out from under him -- yeah baby could have fallen but her chances of survival from fall are undoubtably higher than being fired upon with lethal weapons. (Also, don't these weapons run out of ammo?)

Baby could have been coaxed out of that scenario. IF the dude shot her, then he truly WOULD be responsible for her death and it would be just as sad, but at least I wouldn't be adding one more police firing on an innocent person incident to my list of killings by cops.

It is not at all unusual for cops to kill a guy who's distraught and acting out. Drugs or no drugs. Their approach is "shoot first and ask questions later".(Fortunately, distraught women usually cry a lot and tend to act out by harming themselves so cops don't feel the need to kill as many of them.)

edited to add: But you're right about one thing. Neither you nor I nor any of us posting were there. So second guessing them is really no use except as an exercise in learning a little about what MIGHT have been. Could be a little useful in helping each of us gain a better understanding of differing viewpoints.

As to changing what happened? Y'know the saying: woulda, coulda, shoulda...

[geek tragedy]

180. One cop was wounded and lying in the street--he was shooting at the cops

who tried to get their wounded colleague out of there. So they couldn't just sit there and let him bleed to death.

As I noted in other places, cops are specifically trained to shoot to kill. It violates their training to shoot to wound. If someone is such a threat that you need to use a gun on them, they're such a threat that you can't afford to merely wound them. That's the theory anyways.

[TankLV]

224. OK - let's say they did just that. According to YOUR logic:

The baby falls from his arms and hits the pavement breaking his neck.

Bad cops.

Or, the man falls, the last bullet hits the baby.

Bad cops.

Or, they cripple the man, HE shoots the baby, whom he didn't care for in the first place, putting the baby in danger in the first place.

Bad cops.

I think you know where this is going.

[sojourner]

298. Her neck. Not a likely scenario that...........even so, the

baby stood hell of a lot better chance of survival. And if something INDIRECTLY caused the child's death -- then that would be sad, tragic. But at least I wouldn't be raging about trigger happy cops, as I am today. Sorry but this pisses me off.

I haven't yet but am working up to doing a search on how many incidents occur each year, in say, just one state - where citizens are "mistakenly" or "inadvertently" shot and killed - or where citizens who are unarmed but not cooperative are shot and killed. (Or tasered and killed). And compare that to the number of police officers who are shot and killed. Might be a real interesting study.

[TryingToWarnYou]

308. My point, which you obviously missed in your hate filled haste to reply...

Was that there was no easy answer to that situation. It was fucked any way it went. It aint like on TV. You dont 'wing em' and rush in and save the child. Its horribly tragic that the child was killed, but I think the alternative would have been much worse.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

132. Baseless speculation.

Would blah blah blah. Get back to me when such a thing ACTUALLY happens.

[DS1]

5. after "hours" of standoff, they should've had a sniper in place

that could have taken him and only him out as soon as he came out the front door

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. BINGO!

They have enough paramilitary training to know that

[slackmaster]

63. Sniper on a Sunday night?

Surely you just. That would probably have cost triple overtime pay.

[crimson333]

78. snipers were there

SWAT was on the location according to the article

[Zynx]

168. Snipers are not as godly as movies portray them

This wouldn't have been an easy shot.

[DS1]

171. Most are

and with the allowed to set up a position I'd expect nothing less than a half-inch group from any given police sniper.

[geek tragedy]

173. How about with a moving target? n/t

[DS1]

176. Doh! You're right! SWAT never trains against anything other than still

paper targets in a vacuum.

[geek tragedy]

179. I know they TRAIN with moving targets. But a guy drugged out of his

mind holding a baby is probably a tough shot for anyone.

[DS1]

182. Yet, it's still the best chance either the druggie or the kid had

should the moment come when someone had to shoot the guy - instead of leaving it up to a handful of Rambos with 9mms that are inaccurate as hell.

I'm simply pointing out the massive fuckup on behalf of the police.

[geek tragedy]

185. We don't know whether the snipers had a clear shot at him before he

ran out of the building firing away.

Of course, had the police gone for a headshot right away without negotiating, we'd be hearing about how triggerhappy and careless they are with the lives of Hispanic men. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[LisaL]

220. It's very hard if the guy keeps on moving.

Obviously, they would hit him with no problem. The secret is how to hit him and not the girl.

[TankLV]

226. Who would have done, what, exactly?

Hmm - shoot at the man!

Gee - isn't where this discussion started in the first place?

Now, it's the Bad Sniper!

[mogster]

6. Hey, don't leave

Read the post again, think of the situation.

The man is irresponsible to a degree that is incredible, but he's not interesting.
The police fired at a man holding a baby in his arms, and you'd expect more seasoned behaviour from police officers than that.

I'm pretty sure that was what the OP meant.

[wakeme2008]

7. Right

they could have mowed this legs out from under him or used a sniper. There were other ways that shooting into the area of the baby.

[OzarkDem]

11. Pretty unrealistic

considering the policeman was nearly killed also. You don't know the details of the situation to be able to judge the policeman's actions. The man could have been kneeling or squatting, giving cops no other target.

If you think a policeman would deliberately shoot a child when he had other choices, you're not being realistic.

[davepc]

35. shot his legs?

maybe in Hollywood Action Movie Police School they teach that, but not in real life.

Putting aside the wonderful display of marksmanship necessary by officers who were taking fire and trying not to get killed themselves...

What if while attempting to shoot his knees a bullet ricocheted off the ground and skipped up (it happens easier then one might think) and hit and killed the child?

Would their actions then be any better or worse?

[wakeme2008]

76. Yes those long things that make good targets nt

[geek tragedy]

80. Yep, and then he drops the babie or falls, thus putting the girl in the

line of fire while continuing to shoot at the police.

Police are trained to shoot to incapacitate, i.e. kill. They do not shoot to wound.

[Desertrose]

118. better that the little girl just got shot anyway?

Isn't it better to try to wound him even if the child was wounded too rather than kill them both? Your post makes NO sense.


BTW...incapacitate does NOT mean to kill.
It means to make them unable to act, move. to wound, not kill.

check your definitions.

[geek tragedy]

126. Ask any cop what "incapacitate" means when they discharge their weapons.

It doesn't mean shooting a guy holding a gun in the legs. It means shooting to kill.

Cops are trained to shoot ONLY if they intend to kill someone.

[geek tragedy]

40. Wakeyourselfup.

The guy was SHOOTING AT POLICE.

Under those circumstances, they are specifically trained to use deadly force.

Crikey.

[Dhalgren]

70. Here's the problem as I see it.

You, nor anyone else, can 'justify' the police killing innocent citizens - ever. You can explain how and why it happened, but it can never be justified. Anytime the police kill a hostage, it is a mistake or failure on the part of the police; any cop will tell you that. The cops are not supposed to kill innocent bystanders, hostages, or "shields"; when they do, it is a error, a mistake. The problem I am having, here, is the sense that you and others are trying to "justify" the killing of the little girl. The cops made a fatal error, and everyone should realize that.

[geek tragedy]

77. I expect that you're an expert on police training and procedures

as much as Bush is an expert on the French language.

There was no better alternative here--the alternative would be for even more death and harm coming to undeserving victims.

Sorry, but the cop haters are wrong on this one.

[Dhalgren]

85. I don't think that the police killing an innocent citizen is ever

the correct action. This has nothing to do with your imagined "cop haters". When the police kill an innocent citizen, something has gone wrong. Worshiping the police will not automatically make everything they do correct. They sometimes make mistakes. I'm sorry if that statement is against your religion.

[geek tragedy]

97. You are operating from a false premise.

This man was a threat not only to the girl, but to place and people in the surrounding area.

This was a drugged-up psycho on a city street in the middle of freaking Los Angeles. They couldn't let him go. They couldn't let him keep on shooting at them.

Sometimes, tragedy like this simply can't be avoided.

[VTMechEngr]

189. More seasoned? Didn't know cops held fire as they got shot to death.

A cop gets shot, its obvious a barrage is coming at the suspect. Period!

[OzarkDem]

10. Agree with you

Stick around, not everyone at DU has such aone sided view of law enforcement.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. I get frustrated here too sometimes

Some on this forum hate authority so much, that without knowing the situation, they automatically assume the worst in police action.

They use the same tactics/line of reasoning / stereotypical judgmental attitudes that freepers do with regard to liberals.

I have worked with a lot of police officers in my career and not one of them has every shot someone because they enjoyed it. They risk their lives daily to protect the same people that scorn them.

DU is a big community. And just like all communities we have some who are intolerent. I take those on here who are always so quick to misjudge police officers with a grain of salt. They appear to have issues and do not see reality.

I often wonder, when I read some of these posts, if they are out of their cells on "free time" and using the computer.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

31. just curious

where is this talk of "police enjoying shooting people" come from, i have not seen anyone mention anything like that except the post you are responding too, not the op.

[liberalnurse]

53. I have to agree with you there!

There are some posters who no matter what.....use some unrealistic thinking to discredit the police at every turn. I have attempted many times to discuss issues and look at the big picture. I'm viciously attacked during those moments.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

30. imo you are reading too much into the op's post

i don't think the op HONESTLY thinks that the cop RELISHED shooting a child.

the situation is a tragedy. several events culminated into this tragedy.

1. the guy initiated a stand off with police(while a child was in the house no less).

2. the guy decided he was going to come out shooting with a baby in his hands.

3. police fired at a man while he had a baby in his hands.


so yes most of the situation is the guy's fault, but i can't believe that it is standard procedure to open fire on someone when they have a hostage.....let alone a baby.

[TX-RAT]

32. Not every situation has a standard procedure of reaction.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

33. i don't get your point

are you saying that LAPD has no guidelines for a hostage situation?

[TX-RAT]

45. Are you saying, one guideline works for all situations?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

48. i am saying there should be protocol

for them to follow in a hostage situation where the hostage taker is opening fire.

that would be the situation they were in correct. it is not like this has never happened before.

[geek tragedy]

50. The protocol when a guy with a gun starts firing away and risking officers

and the general public is to put a cap in his ass.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

52. i'm really interested in seeing it in writing

do you know where i might find documentation of this sort of thing, i am not having much luck with google.

thanks.

[geek tragedy]

55. Try getting to know some cops.

But here's one such set of guidelines:

http://www.pti.uiuc.edu/news_articles/lawonline/useofforcequide.htm

<snip>
DEADLY FORCE ASSAILANT: Is a person whose actions will probably cause death or great bodily harm.

INJURY POTENTIAL TO OFFICER(S) AND OTHERS:

Resistance of this type has the likelihood of creating the most severe injuries of all resistance categories. If an officer dealing with a deadly force assailant receives an injury it will likely be in one of the following categories:

* Death
* Great Bodily Harm (major broken bones, large gaping wounds, loss of organs)

CONTROL TACTICS/OFFICER(S) RESPONSE:

The police officer’s response to this type of attack or resistance is the use of deadly force. The control tactics used upon deadly force assailant include:

* Firearms
* Other Measures Which Could Result in Death or Great Bodily Harm

INJURY POTENTIAL TO ASSAILANT(S):

If a deadly force assailant receives an injury it will likely be in one of the following categories:

* Death
* Great Bodily Harm (major broken bones, large gaping wounds, loss of organs)
<snip>

[SheepyMcSheepster]

61. at quick glance, i don't see anything about hostages

and look we can discuss this without you making suggestions about who i should get to know. we are discussing procedures/protocol, not personal life.

i want to see the protocol for a hostage situation that escalates to the use of deadly force.

[TX-RAT]

58. Had the original poster provided a non-member link, would have been nice

What i'm saying is, you can start out with the best of plans, and have them all change in the beat of a heart. Without knowing the exact details to the story ( sorry i'm not going to become a subscriber just to see the story ) you just can't pass judgment. One thing you have to remember, is the man with the gun, and the baby, is calling all the shots. It's his actions alone that determine how the police respond.


(it is not like this has never happened before.)
I've never heard of a man exchanging fire with LEO, while holding a baby.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

65. i am sure that a similar situation has happened before:

not necessarily a baby as the hostage/human sheild, but i am sure the same situation has been played out before with an adult or child hostage with the hostage taker opening fire.

i am just curious as to what the "rules" for this type of situation are.

[geek tragedy]

41. Actually, it is.

They can't let a guy shoot up an entire neighborhood.

Common sense, people. When a deranged asshole is firing a weapon, he needs to be incapacitated ASAP.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

49. is it?

i would like to see the protocol for such a situation. going to search now.

[xmas74]

157. I can't tell you about LAPD

but in most departments it is to incapacitate the assailant w/ as little damage to the surrounding areas. No officer wants to shoot a victim but would if it meant saving possibly many other lives.
That officer will be awake at night, trying to go over every possible scenario. I know too many cops. Believe me, he'll never forgive himself for it, especially since it was a child involved. But when they have a split second decision to make they do the best that they can.
Things happen. It's horrible, but it happens.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

141. Ah, so YOU are an expert in police training?

You a police office or something? (Hm, maybe there's not much point in me asking this, as they say, in the Internet nobody knows you're a dog)

[geek tragedy]

150. I know cops. And I posess common sense--something

lacking in those people who would let a deranged gunman rampage through a neighborhood and kill cops without resistance.

[geek tragedy]

39. Not everyone is a cop-hating asshole. Stick around.

Otherwise the nutters just take over the place completely.

[Hard_Work]

104. Huh? Cop haters?!?

What did the guy do that was so bad they had to gun down a 17 month old girl to get him? He came out shooting? Duck behind a car or something! Let him go, get his ass later when he ISN'T holding a 17 month old...

Why is that so hard to do?

[Lilith Velkor]

113. He was...umm...on drugs, yeah that's it.

And the police never ever lie so stop saying that!! :sarcasm:

[crimson333]

119. How about shooting at innocent bystanders

bad enough for you?

[geek tragedy]

128. Besides shooting up a street, firing at police officers, and holding a

baby hostage?

Your idea is brilliant--let the drugged-up fiend with a gun continue on down the street. No possiblity of harm there.

Jeebus.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

148. Yeah, "cop haters" like...

...everyone to the left of Augusto Pinochet is a raving mad communist. Ask Ann Coulter. :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

152. No, people who don't value the lives of police officers.

And who can't possibly see that they may have been justified in shooting at a lunatic who was charging them with a gun.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

154. And YOU can't possibly see that the MAY, just MAY have been

some degree of incompetence on the part of the police.

[geek tragedy]

156. When there's evidence that the police had a better alternative, then

I'm willing to discuss the matter.

All I see are a bunch of people proposing childish bullshit ("What did he do that was so bad?") and expressing hatred for the police.

[sojourner]

127. A different viewpoint..............

I'm sure that those concerned only with "blame" will agree that the idiot holding the child caused the tragedy.

However, thinking people will wonder whether this was truly the only possible response to the situation. So we do question the rationale of opening fire on a man and killing the innocent one. Those who did so took on some responsibility for the child's death, for if they had not shot her she would not be dead.

Policemen sign on to a dangerous job, no question. But they know what they are getting themselves into. They apparently think it's worth risking their lives to do the job. I'm grateful, no question.

Ordinary citizens, by contrast, do NOT sign up to sacrifice their lives to save the life of a policeman. I don't agree with the current notion that anything a policeman does is okay -- just because they are getting the "bad guys", and the "bad guys" deserve whatever they get, and the "bad guys" will pay for whatever harm that results from their "bad actions". This mentality is leading to a rising trend of deaths resulting from encounters with law enforcement.

[geek tragedy]

129. This didn't take place at the local police precinct. It was on the

streets of Los Angeles. This guy was a lethal threat not only to the cops, but to anyone else whose path he crossed.

[TankLV]

236. I'm sure the cop(s) who did the shooting are asking themselves

that very question - and will be doing so for the rest of their lives with every nightmare of the situation returns to them each night.

I'm sure no one will NOT ask "was there anything that could have been done differently".

That that question will be asked of each participant - except for certain by the IDIOT who caused this in the first place had/if he lives - is without question.

But again, you can be certain the perp - the IDIOT who used the child as a shield in the first place - will NOT lose any sleep over what he did. Of that we should all be able to agree.

[TankLV]

211. I agree with you totally. But please stay around.

Have to excuse some of us for bad judgement.

Except me.

I'm perfect.

All the time.

[maveric]

234. Its the LAPD! The most fucked up police force in the USA.

I dont think that the cop "would RELISH shooting a child", but more a case of incompetence.

[Vuem]

242. Incompetence? You don't know what you're talking about.

Show me where the incompetence was.

[PittPoliSci]

248. i agree with you 100%

But don't leave DU, we don't all dislike cops.

[Pepperbelly]

277. what an asshole!

Like Martin Sheen in the climax of the Dead Zone. Fucking pathetic thing for a man to do. I don't care much for the laws but that was a seriously fucked up thing for a man to do.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wakeme2008]

9. I am thinking twenty or more rounds in the legs

would have done the trick... Not to the area where the baby was.

[ucmike]

24. and as he fell???

and the baby passed into the range where they were firing a hail of bullets at his legs, then what.

some of you watch too much tv.

i suppose the police should have used "baby averting bullets"

sometimes the lunatic in the story is to blame. sometimes the cops aren't the lunatic in question.

[geek tragedy]

43. He still would have been holding the gun--and probably would have dropped

the baby on her head.

Think!

[OzarkDem]

12. That's just pathetic n/t

[SouthernDem2004]

13. That is a rather racist statement. I guess you are assuming the Police

where all white and white people like to shoot minorities.

[Danmel]

17. It also assumes that the criminal is a minority

Why would you assume the baby is brown/black and the cop white? Without more information, I cant judge this situation. I cannot imagine for a moment that a police officer would want to harm a toddler. It defies belief.

Could they have made a mistake? Certainly that's possible but I have nothing to go on .

Either way my heart aches for that poor child and her family. And for the officer involved. I wouldn't want to have to live with that and I'm pretty sure he is absolutely devastated

[wakeme2008]

18. Well maybe the man's name

Jose Raul Lemos.....

Just a wild guess on my part...

[geek tragedy]

44. That's the MAN's name, not the baby's. No one is disputing that

the man deserved the bullets coming his way.

Think!

[wakeme2008]

280. No but did she

[TankLV]

229. Hahahahahahahahaha!

My boss had a Japanese surname - and guess what - she was a caucason amd married an asian, yet everybody assumed she was Japanese when they hadn't seen her.

Same with my Ukrainian cousin who married a hispanic man.

But don't let your prejudice stop ya! You're on a role there!

[wakeme2008]

279. You are wrong and I was right

[bitchkitty]

60. Assuming?

Where have you been? If you lived in my town, James Perez, Kendra James, Jose Mejia Poot, and Deontae Keller would disagree with you if they could, but they can't. They're dead, shot by police.

[geek tragedy]

81. Do you know the ethnicity of the officers or baby--or do you just hate

cops?

Never mind--it's obvious.

[bitchkitty]

83. Did you read the post I was replying to, or did you just open

your figurative mouth and spew out an opinion of me based on your own insecurities?

Never mind--it's obvious.

[geek tragedy]

98. You're the one who came down on the side of "the racists cop

shot the little brown baby."

[bitchkitty]

109. I don't take sides - I make observations

and usually reserve my opinion until I know what's going on.

I think it's pretty naive to assume that there is not a disparity in the way minorities are treated by police. The numbers don't lie. You don't know the experience behind that poster's opinion of the police. But still you jump in ready to furiously defend our little buddies in blue, all indignant that he dare make such an observation. News flash - they are NOT all Officer Friendly. That's not to say that all cops are bad, they're obviously not. But I can't take my experience with police as a middle-aged white woman and say that there's no problem based on my experience, can I? I have to look at the experience of others, and it's not pretty.

Amadou Diallo, Demetrius DuBose and Timothy Thomas would also agree that a disproportionate number of minorities die at the hands of police.

[geek tragedy]

131. Charges of racism in this case are highly reckless and misinformed.

The guy had a gun and was shooting up a public street. The implication is one most slanderous to the police--that they are some kinds of monsters who really don't care about the life of a little baby because she's Hispanic.

[bitchkitty]

159. And I'm saying

that you can't completely discount the poster's experience with police. I for one doubt they are monsters. But I think they screwed up with this one. A 17-month old baby is dead and it doesn't look like (to me) that they gave as much weight to her life as they gave their own. 17 months old. Did it hurt or was mercifully fast? That's all I'm looking at right now.

[geek tragedy]

162. The poster likely had no experience with these police.

And most people would probably let a hundred other innocent people die rather than killing their own child--that's not a fair standard.

[TryingToWarnYou]

15. Thats probably the most racist thing Ive read here in a while..congrats.

NT.

[TX-RAT]

27. And their off and running.

Don't know the details, but lets scream racism.

[geek tragedy]

42. Do you know the race of any of the people involved, or are you

just prejudiced against police and making shit up?

Never mind--the answer is clear.

[bleedingheart]

16. A lot of blame to go around.

First, Mr. Lemos should not have used a child as a shield...it was cowardly and pathetic. Clearly he had no plans of giving himself up to the police...otherwise he would have emerged from the house with his arms up in the air.

He wanted the police to help kill him...so he came out firing.

The police should be prepared for crazy stuff though...why was the officer shot? Was he out in the open or was Lemos a keen shot?

I agree with others that a sharpshooter should have been ready or perhaps someone should have shot him in the legs.

All around it is a great tragedy...

[The Stranger]

26. I don't think we can retreat into "enough blame to go around."

The man holding the child is not our concern. He doesn't act with the imprimatur of the people. He is not hired and paid to enforce the law. He is, apparently, a vile and despicable person (or was).

What is our concern is the police department. They are paid with the people's tax dollars to uphold and enforce the law. They receive training to deal with hostage situations.

The police made catastrophic mistakes in this situation that led to the death of a small child.

This needs to be addressed.

[geek tragedy]

46. You have it completely backwards. The police had to stop a lunatic

with a gun firing in a public area at police officers.

Police are trained to shoot to kill people shooting at them. It is highly unreasonable to demand that you simply "duck and cover" South Park style when the guy comes running at you guns blazing.

The guy was a threat to kill other officers and bystanders.

The same people who are bitching now would be bitching about "police inaction" had stray bullets from his gun killed an innocent bystander.

[The Stranger]

66. Wrong.

Apparently, they were clearing the area and were geting the neighbors out of there. This was the right thing to do.

When he fired a round (which missed), they opened up, killing the girl. They didn't save the neighbor and killed the girl.

You do the math.

[geek tragedy]

79. And what would have happened had they done nothing?

How many dead cops would be enough for you?

Or would you just let him escape and engage in a shootout where there were more innocent bystanders?

[The Stranger]

87. Spare me the infantile rhetoric.

There were no dead cops. There were no dead neighbors. There was, unfortunately, a dead innocent hostage.

That is what we are talking about here.

[geek tragedy]

91. Yes, because the choice was between dead cops and neighbors

and a dead baby, unfortunately.

Lemos put the police in a position where they had to respond with force.

[The Stranger]

112. This is the last time I am going to waste time with this, but

Lemos put the police in a position where they had to respond with force.

. . . this is EXACTLY the problem. The police should not have allowed a criminal to dictate to them the situation or force them to use violent force when it could have been avoided. They have training that allows them to dictate the terms of a confrontation, even in a hostage situation.

(Thanks for that post).

[Xithras]

121. Uh...no.

They have training that allows them to dictate the terms of a confrontation

Actually, the first thing you learn in hostage negotiation courses is that the hostage taker controls the situation, not the police. The goal of hostage negotiating is to get the criminal to change his own intent, not to dictate one to him. At any time, in any hostage situation there's aways the chance that the criminal will simply snap. There's nothing that can be done to prevent that.

I have several very good friends who are police officers, all of whom have countless nightmarish tales to tell of runins with cranked up nutjobs armed with guns and knives. Their #1 goal in those situations is to take the nutjob into custody without anyone getting killed...or failing that, to ensure that the nutjob is the only one who will see the inside of a body bag that day.

Criminals are unpredicable. Criminals with guns are unpredictable and lethal. No amount of training can undo those two facts.

[geek tragedy]

136. Well said.

There are very few options when guns in public places are involved.

[geek tragedy]

133. Cops aren't all-powerful. When a crazed gunman starts discharging

his weapon on a public street, their options are few. They can't let him go anywhere. Once he starts running at them and opening fire, there's no discretion.

[Chrisduhfur]

165. If they would have simply ran and hid

If they would have simply ran and hid like many suggest they should have done. If he would have killed the baby, and killed other people then that same people would be screaming that they didn't do enough(and rightly so)

[sojourner]

166. hi...I couldn't agree more, except with this:

"They have training that allows them to dictate the terms of a confrontation, even in a hostage situation."

They don't have that much training in dealing with situations with other than force...the concept is measured response, and all it is basically is an escalation of force.

In some areas a mental health professional rides with the cops, and has been able to de-escalate situations due to their training in dealing with the distraught and depressed, who frequently go "desperate" and act irrationally.

People in such a state, confronted with force, don't (almost can't) think until they have a chance to calm down. Having a cop screaming orders at you while hiding behind a shield and waving a big fucking gun around doesn't do anything to calm a person down.

[geek tragedy]

175. Read the LA Times article. They did bring a psychologist in.

This guy, however, was drugged out of his mind. I mean, he was using his own child as a human shield. That's not the kind of person who's going to be susceptible to psychiatric subtleties.

[sojourner]

178. check edited message above....

peace.

[sojourner]

184. oops...wrong reply.

Damn it gets hard to keep track of these things.

I do recognize that none of us second-guessing this event were there. Didn't see the LA Times article...will read it I guess for some further insight.

It was and still is a sad thing. I still think alternate methods need to be explored -- and that policemen in general ought to be far better trained than they currently are in dealing with people in distress, people on drugs, etc. The emphasis in the whole CJ system ought to focus on prevention NOT "justice" because there's no such thing except at the throne of whatever god exists. But again, there's too much money to be made under the current system. Don't see it changing in my lifetime, or my kids' or theirs, either.

[geek tragedy]

186. I agree with your thoughts on the criminal justice system.

However, cases like this lie outside of it--drugs, guns, and babies make for a tragic mix in most cases.

[bleedingheart]

93. To error is human.

Does your job require you to place your life in harm's way every day?

If so did you have all the training required for that job? In spite of all that training do you think you would act properly in all circumstances?

First who is to blame in this scenario? How about the fellow who created the situation??? Perhaps if people first asked themselves..."is this worth going to jail for or getting shot at..." the police might not have to intervene.

Second, the guy could easily have surrendered and found himself in a jail cell awaiting arraignment...

Third, what kind of person picks up a small child when he plans on shooting at police???

I bet the officer that shot and killed this fellow and that child feels sick to his stomach about the death of that child. Perhaps he could have been perfect but I am not going to say anything else without a lot more information...

[Pepperbelly]

278. sharpshooter bust him right in his damned head ...

to keep him from killing the child.

Fuck him.

[johnnie]

19. This is just a tragedy

I have never been in a position that this cop was put in, but it seems like some of you have been. We sure have a lot of experts here.
The cops were being shot at and shot back. The asshole held the child as a shield. This man was firing a 9 mm and could have killed a lot of innocent people. Don't put the blame on the cops.

[NNN0LHI]

21. This cop has to live with this the rest of his life now because...

...of this asshole. There are no happy endings to this story. This is a true tragedy all the way around.

Don

[dingaling]

28. BIG DEAL

The cop is alive, but the baby is not.

[NNN0LHI]

34. You don't need to yell...

...to emphasize your ignorance. It is pretty apparent.

Don

[LisaL]

144. I imagine it's a big deal to this cop and his family.

How cavalier of you to decide his life has less value than that of a baby.

[Vuem]

206. The big deal is that others are still alive

which is what that cop's job is to ensure.

The maniac with the baby was armed, in public and shooting. He had to die before he shot someone else.

End of story.

[Dhalgren]

23. It isn't a matter of passing judgment on these cops.

These cops were face with a choice. One or several of them decided that killing the suspect was more important than trying to save the little girl. It was a choice and they made it. They have to deal with the consequences. Just because of their position and the circumstances, it does not remove their responsibility for the decision they made. Of course the suspect has responsibility in this matter, too. But the cops were the ones who chose their own course of action. Responsibility - it is a bitch, but it cannot be avoided...

[VTMechEngr]

191. Serious Question.

Would you allow yourself to be shot to death without reaction?. Would you just let yourself get hit because your scumbag killer has a child in his arms, or would you do the human thing and try to save your ass? I expect nothing less of our police officers. The blame falls 100% on the father.

[Ilsa]

29. I'm going to give sam sarrha the benefit of the doubt.

There have been plenty of comments on DU about the media ignoring kidnapped persons of color in favor of pretty white rich girls. I think that was probably SS's intention with the quick quip. I don't think anything was intended about the criminal's race or the cops', but just a prevailing disregard for people of color, whether they are Iraqi children, etc.

What a horribly tragic situation. My guess is that the cop who made that fatal shot is beside himself (herself).

[geek tragedy]

36. Please tell me you're not blaming the cops for that.

Blame rests absolutely with the asshole using her as a shield.

[Hamsta1]

57. Last paragraph

"The man had a 9 mm handgun and a shotgun and was intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, police said."

Throw a baby in the mix and their odds don't look so good. It would've taken an extraordinary effort, not to mention incredible luck on the part of the police to bring this little girl home safe. I agree a sniper would've been the best bet, but if a guy comes running out gun blazing in one hand, baby in the other they don't have time to set up take that shot. Blame Milli Vanilli if you want, but I gotta go with Batshit Insane Asshole #1 who's gonna take the heat in the afterlife for this one.

[mikelgb]

68. i think in general

cops are too anxious to use. Of course the perp is a cretin for using his child as a shield knowing how cops tend to react to guns.

[Blue Diadem]

84. Another article about it here:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/4706691/detail.html

LOS ANGELES -- A gunman identified as 35-year-old Jose Raul Lemos and the 19-month-old daughter he allegedly used as a shield were both killed in a shootout with LAPD officers Sunday night, and a police officer was shot in the shoulder.

The shootout followed an hours-long standoff and three separate exchanges of gunfire, police said.

The standoff began at around 3:50 p.m. when officers responded to 104th Street and Avalon Boulevard in South Los Angeles after residents reported an armed man standing near an intersection with a toddler and behaving erratically and aggressively.

Lemos "appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and drugs and was quite despondent," said police Lt. Paul Vernon said. "He came out shooting randomly at the people out on the street, as well as police officers."

[geek tragedy]

86. The LA Times has a more complete account:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-shooting11jul11,1,4814296.story?coll=la-news-state

<snip>
Police said Lemos was armed with one weapon and was randomly shooting into the street. Officers said they believed that he was on drugs or intoxicated.

After Lemos fired shots in the direction of the first officer on the scene, the officer fired back but did not hit him, police said.

Lemos then retreated into an apartment building, where police said he held the girl, who was a relative, as a hostage.

Additional officers, including hostage negotiators, soon arrived at the scene, and the LAPD went on tactical alert.

Negotiations with Lemos continued for nearly two hours as members of LAPD's SWAT team communicated with him by phone. The department also used psychologists and crisis specialists and gave Lemos numerous opportunities to surrender, McDonnell said.

Just after 5 p.m., police exchanged gunfire with Lemos as they tried to give cover to a woman trapped in the standoff. She escaped safely.

About 6:20 p.m., Lemos emerged from the building with the toddler. He was holding a weapon and again firing erratically, shooting an LAPD tactical officer in the shoulder.

As other officers moved in to rescue their wounded colleague, police exchanged gunfire with Lemos. The girl also was hit.

Police said it was unclear who fired the shot that killed the girl.
<snip>

How DARE those cops try to rescue a wounded colleague and prevent this guy from shooting neighbors and passers-by.

[TX-RAT]

96. Thanks Geek

Clears up a lot.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

110. Why were "neighbors and passers-by" allowed...

anywhere near the scene? They had "nearly two hours" to secure the area.

[Swede]

117. They did the only thing they could in a horrible situation.

A despondent man under the influence and with a hostage and a gun,nothing good was going to happen without a miracle.

[sadiesworld]

181. Assuming this account is accurate...

I don't see how people can pass judgement on the police.

(wow, did I just agree with gt?...pigs flying today!)

[geek tragedy]

188. Hey, if we talk about the tax burden, health care, the environment,

women's rights, gay rights, workers' rights, and Supreme Court nominees I'm sure we'd agree more often.

[VTMechEngr]

192. AMEN!

How DARE those cops try to rescue a wounded colleague and prevent this guy from shooting neighbors and passers-by.

It is tragic, but the cops acted just as I would expect them to act. They have a right to defend their lives too.

[WhiteTara]

106. I hope the officer who was slightly injured

sees the face of that child every minute of his life. And the ones that shot, I hope they never have a night's rest again as long as they live.
:cry:

[WLKjr]

120. Oh he probably will

but I hate to play devil's advocate here. You have to ask who shot first.....


It's tragic that the little girl died but what would you do if you were getting shot at and the person shooting at you was holding a child......that's a decision I don't think anyone could make easily.

[LisaL]

122. Oh give it up. If the guy was shooting at them, what were

they supposed to do? Sounds like the guy was shooting at them while using his child as a shield. It's a horrible situation, but given the situation, I don't think they had much choice.

[Gormy Cuss]

123. Don't worry, all the cops there will see the face of that child forever.

Not a one will ever forget being part of this situation. Even if the situation was handled exactly according to their guidelines police don't relish the thought of a child dying. The lowlife who used the baby as a shield is the one who deserves the condemnation.

I dislike the "me first" training that cops get these days because while it is effective at reducing injury and death to officers it does raise the risk of bodily harm for innocents. Cop overkill is all too common. Their training helps them justify taking human life a bit too easily. I don't know how to change it, but a balance must be restored between preservation of their own lives and maintaining safety for the public.

[geek tragedy]

137. Your lack of compassion and empathy is duly noted.

God forbid you should ever be faced with such an awful situation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

146. That statement is SO ironic it isn't even funny.

I'll just stand back, let people have this post and its parent sink in, and appreciate the grandiosity of the irony.

[geek tragedy]

147. Why? Because I recognize that this was a tragedy, but that even

more innocent lives could have been lost had they not acted as they did?

Sorry, I'm not the one expressing hatred for the cops who did their job.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

149. I don't expect YOU to appreciate the irony.

I posted that for others.

[geek tragedy]

155. Sorry, I'm not the one wishing suffering on anyone.

Of course this is an awful tragedy. A child's death always is.

But that doesn't mean that it's the worst possible outcome here.

Logic and compassion are not enemies.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

161. Neither am I.

That post was out of line, yes, I just found your response ironic. Sorry for us liberals not being an unified bloc of evil leftos.

[geek tragedy]

164. So, what's your point? That post deserved a snarky response.

I grieve for the family of both the child and the husband (not their fault he was human waste) and for the cops who were forced to make a truly awful choice while trying to keep the city safe from this guy.

Cops are human beings, not gods. Maybe in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film the cop would have been able to dodge bullets, fire a single perfect shot between the gunman's eyes, and then catch the girl before she hit the pavement.

But this ain't Hollywood, and sometimes tragedy is unavoidable due to the actions of the evil and the insane.

[TankLV]

239. I don't get what you're saying - really.

Could you elaborate?

I am being serious.

[VTMechEngr]

194. I wish them good sleep.

Knowing they saved a fellow officer and stopped a violent man from hurting more people. I'm sorry, THIS LIBERAL sides with the Cops! The scumbag knew he was putting the child in danger and to keep harping it is to let him win. He did this on purpose to protect his crimes. Yes, the child is an innocent victim, but the cops have a right to live as well.

[Vuem]

213. I wish you were even slightly intelligent

Enough to understand that you're spewing bullshit.

The officer fulfilled his duty, which, at certain times, is a damned if you do/damned if you don't proposition that someone like you evidently can' be bothered to understand.

That perp needed to be shot, period.

[geek tragedy]

217. I imagine the poster regrets that the wounded officer survived.

He wasn't even the one who shot the girl, and that poster wishes torment upon torment on him.

Doesn't sound very progressive to me.

[Evergreen Emerald]

295. that is a disgusting statement.

The police officer was put in a lose/lose situation because of a horrible man. I am sickened by your response. (I am referring to bare naked liberal's comment)

Edited for clarification.

[SemperEadem]

107. I pray for that baby's mother

she must be out of her mind with grief right now.

[proud patriot]

114. Lord have mercy

:cry:

[Pawel K]

124. This is not the fault of the police

the fact that you guys would try to blame the police of this is a little sickening. The guy was firing at officers, he hit one of them. What did you want those officers to do? Sit there, die, let the guy go on a shooting spree through the entire neighborhood so they could save that baby? What happened was tragic and it was due to that asshole that used a baby as a human shield; he is 100% to blame. The officers were simply doing their job; protecting the area from that insane prick.

[LisaL]

125. It is sickening. I don't think the officers had much choice.

Of course it's horrible that poor baby died. And I wish they had been able to just kill the guy without harming the baby.

[Rich Hunt]

135. excuse me

....but do you always believe the first news reports of an event?

There are a lot of freed men in Illinois who would tell you otherwise.

I love how everyone accepts the initial reports as the unassailable truth, because the story is actually a little confusing.

But tant pis about the little baby, right?

[LisaL]

139. If you don't believe the report, then you shouldn't even discuss

the case. After all, the only information we get is from the media.
I have no idea why you wouldn't believe the report but at the same time assume that some sinister explanation would be correct at this time.

[Old Vet]

167. OK, Let me get this right......

Man runs out of house gun blazing with toddler in arms, Police watch fellow officer get shot, Citizens are hiding all over. Trapped. Police shot and kill man who just shot cop and was randomly firing at people. Sounds like there was NEVER gonna be a good way out of this one. My prayers for this child, And I'm the last one to defend cops. I don't know what I would of done, probably hesitated with that child and got killed. Terrible story.

[Chrisduhfur]

163. And what do you believe happened?

In some stories it may be very likely there is another side to the story, but I don't see what else could have possibly happened.

I doubt they were playing a game of pin the bullets in the baby.

[jahyarain]

177. je-sus wept

"cop haters"? you forgot "liberal", "culture of death", "pinko commie", etc. yes, the cops were put into a horrible situation but goddamnit this has to happen at least once a day in this gunloving country...WHY WERE THEY NOT TRAINED FOR THIS? oh, well, maybe next time when it's a white baby we can all agree

[geek tragedy]

183. Accusing every DU'er who disagrees with you of racism is contemptible.

I would wager not a single person in this thread would change their response if it was a white baby.

Except the people playing the race card.

Being trained for a situation does not guarantee a happy ending. They are trained to try to keep the guy at bay so he can surrender peacefully. This guy threatened other lives, and the police were forced to take him down.

[jahyarain]

196. i can understand how you would see that as a racist comment

but it wasn't. i was a statement about perceptions and reactions (as well as a bad joke via "a time to kill"). if they have no confidence in their training they should not be allowed anywhere near a fucking gun (personally i don't think any human should be allowed anywhere near a gun, but that's apparently just me). i have no problem with the cops taking HIM out. it was the the 17 MONTH OLD BABY i will continue to have a problem with no matter how you try to spin it. i have a daughter slightly older than that...they're not that big. HE COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT WITHOUT KILLING THE BABY. they said HOURS. give me a sniper, a triangulation, or just someone in charge who is capable of rational thought. and again, i didn't mean the final comment in my last post as racist. just trying to jar some of you awake. Peace

[geek tragedy]

202. Cool. Sorry I misinterpreted your post.

I think we have to separate what we want to be true--that there really was a way out of this--from what very well may be the reality. Very often, people are put into a situation where they do evil no matter what they do or don't do.

Let the guy kill cops and passers-by and endanger an entire neighborhood, or risk the life of the little girl?

A monstrous situation created by a monstrous criminal.

[Pawel K]

207. But what kind of training would stop this?

What could they have possibly done differently that wouldn't have killed them and possibly many more in that neighborhood?

[jahyarain]

212. if they had hours to assess the situation...

the area should have been cleared

swat should have been posted at every conceivable angle

and at least one sniper should have been posted

look, i'm not a cop-hater or any of that nonsense and i understand that is a highly stressful job (God Love them and all my thanks for their protection), but if my ignorant ass can come up with ways around this, more highly trained individuals should be able to. as i said this happens every day. the question isn't "What could they have possibly done differently...", but why were they not trained to handle such a problem

[TX-RAT]

215. OK, here's a scenario ( i hate scenario's)

Your shot and laying on the ground, the man that just shot you is now comeing at you, still shooting, while carring a baby in his arm.
What do you do.

If you had to think, it's too late. Your Dead.

[NNN0LHI]

225. You take your best shot

This cop like most normal people would prefer to have cut off his own arm rather than air out the kid. Most of us here know that. Life is shitty sometimes.

Don

[jahyarain]

227. i understand

but all of that comes after my point (as well as after the HOURS of the standoff)...

TRAINING!

for the third time, this happens everyday! why were they not trained for this? and for the fourth time, the standoff lasted HOURS. I Love you guys, but i don't think you're understanding what i'm saying

[geek tragedy]

231. Drug-crazed people with a gun in one hand and a toddler in the other

open fire on a residential street every day?

If anything, they were too hesitant to use lethal force on the guy in the first place. At the first possible moment, they should have poppen him in the skull.

[jahyarain]

245. yes, everyday

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/111riskb.html

Homicide and legal intervention is the fourth leading cause of death among 1-4 year olds (395 per year, over one a day) and that was in 1996 (i would say gun laws have been somewhat relaxed since then, hence higher rate). i couldn't say how many were "drug-crazed" and i'm not going to pretend all were law enforcement standoffs (though "legal intervention" had to have been thrown in there for a reason). but it has happened enough that law enforcement should have had a procedure in place for dealing with it. and, again those "residential streets" should have been cleared in this HOURS LONG standoff. and i'm not trying to victimize the kidnapper, his death should have been slower and more painful for what he did, he is the reason for the child's death. but we must be able to "pop him in the skull" without popping a baby in the skull.

[TX-RAT]

232. why were they not trained for this?

Nobody's trained for that.

(the standoff lasted HOURS.)
And ended in a few terrifying seconds.

You can't train for every remote possibility

[jahyarain]

249. see 245

[TankLV]

250. And of course, the proper training woud guarantee the same ideal outcome!

Every time!

[LisaL]

218. How do you know it wasn't done?

They might have had a sniper somewhere, but even a sniper needs a clean shot. If the guy with a baby keeps on moving, it might be difficult for a sniper to shoot him. And since he came out shooting, even if they had a sniper, the sniper might have not had enough time to make a shot.

[jahyarain]

228. true

hence, swat in a triangulation

[Pawel K]

235. But what if they didn't have hours?

I'm not sure on this but it sounds like it was pretty much instant and there wasn't enough time to call out swat. As far as I know if there is a guy with a gun and there is time SWAT is always called in.

All I'm saying is there is no reason for anyone to jump on the cops over this; I don't know any human that would do this on purpose.

[jahyarain]

237. look at the first sentence

"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."

and i don't believe the cops meant to kill the baby, but my "jumping on the cops over this" is my suggestion that, once again, since this DOES happen everyday, training be implemented for such a scenario. let me also reiterate i am not a cop hater. i am saying this should not and would not have happened if (given the "hours-long standoff")proper procedure had been in place

[Pawel K]

240. Oops

I should have seen that, I rush sometimes when at work. In that case SWAT should have been called out; you are right in that regard. Why they weren't called out is a good question.

[crimson333]

305. swat was there

says so right there in the article about the ordeal

and a psychologist to calm the situation

[TankLV]

252. Boy I must not be looking very well if THIS happens EVERY DAY!

Wow!

Just think. THIS happens EVERY DAY!

[TX-RAT]

330. since this DOES happen everyday,

Man attacks police with a handgun, while holding a baby.

Please provide at least one link showing where this has ever happened before.

[VTMechEngr]

187. Tragic, but cops didn't have a choice

The father was using the baby as a shield while firing on officers. The father is the only one to blame. Any human is gonna fire back if being fired upon.

[sophist]

241. That's not true

Police officers are not to fire it it endangers the life of Innocent people. They won't fire in a crowded subway station if it endangers the public.

[geek tragedy]

243. Bzzzt. Wrong.

If they have to protect themselves and the general public, they may when necessary use force that endangers the life of innocent people. As was the case here.

[sophist]

247. Let's make it personal then

Would you have shot at him while he was holding a baby? Or would you retreat?

[geek tragedy]

251. I would have shot. He was shooting at other human beings,

and was not going to stop without the use of lethal force.

The alternative--let him kill and rampage at will--was even more unacceptable.

[sophist]

253. I couldn't have.

Quite a quandary?

[geek tragedy]

254. Yes, and reason why most people aren't cut out to be cops.

Deciding to kill another human being is not a responsibility I'd want to have.

[LisaL]

257. Well, if it was between me and some baby I didn't even know...

Sorry, baby.
:cry:

[sophist]

260. Are Babies you know

Lives worth more the ones you don't. Sounds like Iraq collateral damage arguments. It was for the greater good.

[LisaL]

263. Nope. What would you do? If you had no other choice-

either you shoot the guy, and possibly kill the baby, or you die?
Which one would you pick? Yourself, or the baby?
I think it would make a difference to me if the baby was a stranger or someone I personally knew.

That's all I am saying.

[sophist]

264. I don't know the details

Sounds to me like a bunch of bad decisions were made that forced this one. Did they have their body armor on, did they find a safe place, were cops around the corner to ambush him? What kind of poor planning caused this?

[LisaL]

267. It wasn't the poor planning that caused this.

It was the a$$hole that held his baby hostage, most likely dragged out of his mind.

[Vuem]

272. Utterly irrelevant if they had their body armor on.

You don't know what you're talking about. They were forced into this situation, and did what they had to do to protect the general public.

[sophist]

273. Well

At least you know what your talking about. No need for the departmental investigation then. I will call them and tell them to nix the investigation.

[Vuem]

281. Tell me, Sgt., what, specifically would they investigate

and, more importantly, what is prodedure under these circumstances that the police are required to follow?

[sophist]

284. I don't know

Why don't you ask them since they are the ones that have opened the investigation, Private. Or whatever I am supposed to say that makes my argument more believable. You make statements as if they are undeniable truths, yet do not back them up, some of us just ask questions. But I allow you enough rope to hang yourself with, why not?

[Vuem]

286. It's SOP

You seem to think there's something nefarious afoot, when there's zero evidence of it.

You aren't making a believable argument, you're blathering nonsense.

What would you like me to back up? Standard police procedure? Firing protocol in excigent circumstances.

[sophist]

287. I see

I ask questions about the death of a little baby and I have nefarious motives. Interesting!

[sophist]

289. That would be exigent

We do have spell check here.

[FubarFly]

292. According to the child's mother, about 300 shots were fired.

Is turning a child into jelly standard police procedure? Or perhaps she is exaggerating? It would be pretty easy to find out.

But let's not ask questions, Ok? We mustn't tarnish the impeccable reputation of the LAPD.

[Vuem]

335. That's obviously not what the point was

The unspoken implication that something illegal or unwarranted was going on was what I was addressing.

Of course, every use of force/shooting/tasering/etc... must be documented and justified. That's normal, and no one, as far as I can tell, is diputing it. 300 shots? I'll trust someone else besides the mother, in this case, thanks.

We mustn't tarnish the impeccable reputation of the LAPD.

It's not possible to tarnish their rep any further. I'm speaking about police in general, and this could have happened anywhere.

[TX-RAT]

332. What kind of poor planning caused this?

When he shot one swat officer, and came out of the house trying to shot more, while holding a baby in his arm. Thats the poor planing that caused this.

[left hand man]

291. in such a chaotic situation your instinct for survival

kicks in (along with whatever training you have)and,yes, most people would shoot.It is easy to debate this now.The cops on the scene didn't have that luxury when the situation deteriorated as it did.
And yes,I have a brother in law who is a cop.And I think the police on the scene will suffer mentally for a long time to come.
My .02 worth

[candy]

297. I have a son who is a police officer and I couldn't agree with you more.

[TX-RAT]

331. So their suppose to lay there and get shot again?

[Politicub]

197. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I know -- this post was made in poor taste. I'm duly sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled posts.

[frictionlessO]

214. Thats awful, bad all the way around.

Not nearly enough info at this point t make an open and shut case out of anything. Every killing deserves an investigation, I hope the police and the man who did this are treated with a discerning eye and with compassion. I think lightly on all their relations...

[MrSlayer]

221. So tragic that this asshole killed his child like that.

He should have just killed himself but the coward had to get his baby killed too. What a scumbag. My sympathy to the officers who have to live with this awful tragedy.

[High Plains]

238. Asshole...scumbag...piece of shit

Okay, I'll concede this guy was one fucked-up person, but what's with all this Free Republic-style language?

Also, while it appears to this reader the police were justified in shooting the guy and the child's death is a horrible accident, many of us are all too well aware that police get away with murder on a regular basis. In the past week, police shot and killed two unarmed men in unrelated drug raids in this country, and similar things happen every week. A few weeks ago, it was 18-year-old Daniel Rocha in Austin, killed by a cop who dropped her Taser in a struggle and "feared for her life." These cops NEVER get convicted. Hell, they are rarely even indicted.

Perhaps that can help explain some of the skepticism and willingness to believe in trigger-happy cops expressed by people on this list.

[MrSlayer]

293. Excuse me but if you shoot at the cops, you're a scumbag.

Things just are what they are. Regardless of what happened in those other cases this dude was a coward and a scumbag who got his child killed by his selfish actions. Sure there are some bad cops out there but ninety percent of them are people just making a living and putting themselves at the service of others at the risk of their lives to do it. It's just an unappreciated job. You didn't hear about the rapist in Buffalo who was arrested today or the bank robbers in Houston who were caught in the act and apprehended or any of the thousands of crimes that were prevented or solved today by the good cops because they aren't heralded or sensationalized. I just don't like people slagging the cops anytime anything happens as if they would do things different. I'd like to see them in the shoes of an officer one day and see how things turn out. The police are not the bad guys regardless of what some people here believe.

[FubarFly]

296. You're right, of course, good cops aren't always appreciated.

But it's the bad ones I'm worried about. Here's the theory:

The more we pay attention, the less they are able to get away with shit.
If you have a public job, you should expect public scrutiny. This is true for cops, firemen, politicians, garbagemen, or what-have-you. It's how we as citizens can help minimize corruption. And IMO, our collective lethargy is one of the primary reasons our Democracy is in such a sorry state today.

In this instance a 17 month old child was gunned down and killed. And perhaps you're right, maybe it was unavoidable. But what if this death was preventable? What if these were bad cops? Isn't our duty as responsible citizens to at least ask? Can't we all agree that when an innocent life is taken, at the very least there should be an investigation?

[MrSlayer]

299. Certainly there should be an investigation.

I never said there shouldn't but there is a difference between asking for an investigation and flat out calling the officers involved malicious murderers. I know you didn't but there is a contingent of people here who do on a regular basis.

[FubarFly]

307. What I know is that newspaper articles like this one

are designed to provoke an emotional response. If your initial sympathies are with the officers, then perhaps you see this an unvoidable resolution to an impossible situation in an otherwise thankless job. If your initial sympathies are with the child, then perhaps you see this as an one more unnecessary tragedy in a long line of tragedies committed by the cold and corrupt LAPD.

While either viewpoint may be valid, the one thing I can say with certainty is unless you were there, you don't know the whole story.
These things seldom turn out to be as controversial or divisive as our exploitive media makes them out to be. Re: Terry Schiavo for another example. My real point here, as trite as it may sound, is that we should be careful before jumping to any conclusion, especially when they are so neatly laid out for us.

I don't mean to direct this at you personally, it's just that your post inspired this line of thought.

[MrSlayer]

309. Ah yes, question everything.

I can't argue with that. Let's see how it turns out.

[High Plains]

326. Okay, he's a "scumbag."

Glad we settled that. Adds a lot of meaning to the discussion.

[High Plains]

339. You also didn't hear about the two unarmed people killed

in police drug raids in Utah and North Carolina in the past week, or the thousands of similar raids against non-violent drug offenders that occur every week, or the beatings that are applied by thuggish cops and never prosecuted. Some police are the bad guys.

[sojourner]

342. They NEVER talk about that sort of thing. We're just supposed to

accept that they have "the greater good" in mind. Never mind HOW they accomplish their goals.

In a police state one just accepts that "shit happens" -- too bad, so sad................move along now, nothing to see here, nothing to discuss. "Get OVER it, be a good citizen....support the cops!"

I've talked 'til I'm blue in the face and can't make a dent. WE are seen as the "bad guys" for asking where their accountability is. Talk about fucked up. And it's going to do nothing but get worse, with the mentality of the cops and their enablers being that the cops are justified in doing whatever they do just because they SAY it's for the greater good.

Makes me think of how an abusive parent beats the hell out of the kids, slaps the wife around and then says how THEY brought it on themselves and that, really, it's for their own good. Cuz, see, if he didn't care about them, he would just let them get themselves into trouble with (fill in the blank). Besides, he's the head of the house and has all this responsibility and pressure and ---
and repug Xian thugs approve of this shit, in the name of keeping the family together, and cop enablers are of the same mentality IMO.

You might not agree with me to the same degree. But this boils my blood.

[Solar]

361. is it too much to ask for people to stay on the topic?

We are talking about this incident. If you want to complain about other events, make a new thread instead of derailing this one.

[sojourner]

363. was responding to post ahead of this one...but your point is taken., thks

[Conservativesux]

365. Consider yourself spat upon, you fascist police state supporter..

back in the day when America was still a free country, no decent peace officer would have done what this "law-enforcement" officers did.

For you to twist it in such a manner that it was anyone else but the police who killed this little child is proof postive that we are indeed living in a police state, where the cops can do no wrong.

Again, I spit on you !!!!

[Solar]

366. what were the supposed to do?

Really, how do you think the police should have ended the standoff? Be realistic.

[Conservativesux]

Just waiting for a clean head shot, anything but be responsible for

girls' death by police. How can what they did be any worse then if the perp had killed the girl? At least it would not be thier fualt.

Have patience and an opportunity would have arisen to take this guy down without killing an innocent child.

[Solar]

369. They couldn't have waited---

---because at the time of the last shootout, they were about 10 feet away! I'd like to see you stand around "waiting for a headshot" while a madman with a gun is hopping around shooting at you.

At this time there was only one option, and I can tell you it wasn't standing idle or running away.

[Conservativesux]

367. Just waiting for a clean head shot, anything but be responsible for

girls' death by police. How can what they did be any worse then if the perp had killed the girl? At least it would not be thier fualt.

Have patience and an opportunity would have arisen to take this guy down without killing an innocent child.

[Conservativesux]

Just waiting for a clean head shot, anything but be responsible for

girls' death by police. How can what they did be any worse then if the perp had killed the girl? At least it would not be thier fualt.

Have patience and an opportunity would have arisen to take this guy down without killing an innocent child.

[Conservativesux]

368. Just waiting for a clean head shot, anything but be responsible for

girls' death by police. How can what they did be any worse then if the perp had killed the girl? At least it would not be thier fualt.

Have patience and an opportunity would have arisen to take this guy down without killing an innocent child.

[Catherine Vincent]

244. These cops should have held their fire when they saw the

perp holding the baby. Sigh!

[LisaL]

255. He was shooting at them. If they held the fire, they could have

ended up dead. While I am sure you would rather personally die in that case, most people aren't that way.

[Catherine Vincent]

261. When cops are in a shoot out they are always shielded.

[slackmaster]

262. At least that's how it always happens on TV

:eyes:

[TX-RAT]

333. LMAO

[Lars39]

246. What was their contingency plan in case the guy came out holding a baby

that they knew was in the house? Thought so.

[LisaL]

256. There some situations in which good outcome is impossible.

This clearly was one of those situations.
It was either the policemen or the baby.

[Lars39]

259. No, the cops were poorly trained and out of patience.

They could have totally backed off to get a later chance at rescuing the baby.

[LisaL]

265. He already shot one of them.

How in the world can you say they could have totally backed off?
What, are they faster than the bullet?

[Lars39]

266. They are trained to do such things.

Surely their training covers the gamut of scenarios.

[LisaL]

268. I am pretty sure their training would tell them to shoot him if he

is shooting at them.

[Lars39]

269. With a hostage in tow?

[Vuem]

285. If he poses an immediate threat to the public or other officers? You bet

Some people need to be shot. Others don't.

This is a tragic example of both, forced by the one who did.

[LisaL]

288. Well, don't doubt it. They will shoot at the guy if he is shooting

at them, hostage or not.

[TX-RAT]

334. One officer wounded and down

Civilians in danger, and you'd walk away.

[geek tragedy]

258. The contingency plan for an armed man holding a toddler hostage

is to pray/hope that he doesn't start running at police gun blazing. Because once he does that, they have to stop him ASAP--and that means shooting at his head.

[FubarFly]

271. Actually, if snipers are on the scene, it's there job

to take out the perpetrator.

The officers' primary function is to keep civilians out of harm's way, and to make sure the perpetrator does not leave the cordoned area. They should be behind as much cover as is possible under the circumstances.

If the officers shot before the sniper, this could speak to gross incompetence all around. The reason snipers are deployed in the first place is to both reduce the possibility of a civilian casualty, and to reduce the officers exposure to the line of fire.

Regardless of how it actually went down, a civilian was killed, and an investigation should be mandatory to ensure that proper procedure is followed and this type of tragedy is prevented in the future.

[OKthatsIT]

270. The Officer in charge should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY!

This should have never happened.

I COMPLETELY BLAME THE POLICE!

[geek tragedy]

345. So you don't blame the drugged out animal who used his child

as a human shield?

[CarinKaryn]

274. What about their tasers?

Guy comes out the door, HOLDING A BABY, why didn't they have 2 cops on each side of the door, they shoot the guy WITH NONLETHAL TASERS, he drops the baby and his gun, situation over.

There was a SWAT team there as back up anyway.

I wonder how many times they shot him and if anyone even tried to hit him in the legs.

Seems like the cops had hours to plan and this is the result?

[sophist]

275. Tasers

Are only used against the already defenseless women and children, especially if it is a black sassy woman who won't comply. Cops bark out orders and expect complete compliance otherwise "Comply, or I shall Tase you a second time"

[sophist]

276. Just to be honest

I don't like cops. I quit liking them when they quit being peace officers who kept the peace, to law enforcement officers who harass and generally piss everyone off. Form making the drunk go home to giving someone a ticket for rolling a stop sign. Zero tolerance is fascism, no excuses.

[Solar]

311. You have no clue whatsoever

Yeah perhaps they should have snuck up behind him and used the Vulcan neck pinch to subdue him. Certainly the man could not have seen or reacted to police standing 3 feet away from him.

I wish you people would get it through your heads that there is only so much the police can do in a situation like this. Had the police have stormed the house, the baby would have been shot by the wacko. If you think moving closer to where a man has a shotgun and a pistol, you need to have you brain examined. Every inch you move forward just gives the shooter a better chance of shooting you.

And for the last time YOU CANNOT NEUTRALIZE A THREAT BY SHOOTING THEM IN THE LEGS!!! Legshots do nothing to except make you fall down. You cannot shoot to wound because the shooter will still be conscious long enough to shoot the hostage, himself or the police. Its hard enough to hit the shooter at all, especially if he has a human shield and is running around like a drugged-up spaz, which is exactly what the situation was. You cannot rationally believe that police could hit this guy "20 or more" times all at once(posted in #9). Its impossible. All that trick-shooting you saw in the ol' John Wayne movies were fake. If we were to insist that every police officer has to be able to hit a speeding 3 inch target from 50 feet away in a life or death situation, you'd have about 4 police officers in the entire nation.

Negotiations were happening at the time this idiot decided to go crazy again. Its not like the police had a countdown to when he would burst out and start shooting.

This discussion is about this incident only. I don't know why some are trying to derail this thread into "accuasations of police brutality" other than the fact you hate cops or don't know what you're talking about at all.

And for the record from the NY Times article: "Bratton said the fatal shooting was only the second time a hostage had been killed since the department formed its SWAT unit in 1967. In that time, SWAT officers have responded to 3,800 calls involving hostages or people barricaded inside buildings."

[WinkyDink]

328. ITA

"Guy comes out the door, HOLDING A BABY, why didn't they have 2 cops on each side of the door, they shoot the guy WITH NONLETHAL TASERS, he drops the baby and his gun, situation over.

There was a SWAT team there as back up anyway.

I wonder how many times they shot him and if anyone even tried to hit him in the legs.

Seems like the cops had hours to plan and this is the result?"

I completely agree with this post. Sounds like our police need better training and equipment.
We can bring down a tiger with non-lethal projectiles, but not a human?

And somehow, I didn't want to believe a cop would risk shooting a baby to save himself. I realize that's easy to write and not to experience as that policeman. Such is an ideal society.

[JVS]

359. I think tasers need to be used when closer than being shot at allows

[Name removed]

294. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[MrSlayer]

301. Well Biblestomper, heh, I happen to agree with you.

Nice name. You aren't too obvious.

[Bouncy Ball]

313. I think you're too subtle for your own good.

:rofl:

Anarchy, indeed.

[evlbstrd]

315. STOP YELLING!

[Maddy McCall]

316. "SF Anarchist"

LOL!

[Swamp Rat]

325. REALLY???

Was THAT it's screen name??? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[In_The_Wind]

317. you're nuts

[uppityperson]

320. Did you know if you push the "caps lock" button twice it gets bk to normal

UPPER CASE and lower case?

[anotherdrew]

371. LOL

[niallmac]

312. Excuse me but I am verklempt

This is a tragedy for all involved. Big tragedy for the dead of course but the officer involved will likely never be quite the same person he once was either. Unless he's a republican in which case he will likely kill again. My verklemptness derives from seeing how many DU'ers are truly upset about the death of this little girl. Over 300 posts. It's now my best reason for joining.
Well, I hate republicans too but that's not a reason. That's a moral imperative.

[really annoyed]

327. I noticed...

What, one or two people here feel sorry for the death of a baby? We weep for the dead in Iraq, but have no pity for a baby?

And I swear to GOD - NOBODY better accuse me of being a "cop hater" because of my comments. I have nothing but respect for them.

Some of you are TOO pissy around here. The best I can do is pray for all of you.

Welcome to DU, niallmac.

[niallmac]

329. Agreed

I will see I can properly post what I wrote about that very subject. thanks for the welcome.

[In_The_Wind]

314. gun control means being able to hit your mark

Why couldn't the officer have avoided killing the baby!

[Solar]

319. could you do any better?

A) we don't know how close or far away the man was from police
B) he was moving frantically and wildly
C) police were already trying to not shoot the baby
D) the police did not know the man was going to burst out of the house and make a run for it

If they could have avoided hitting the baby, they would have.

[In_The_Wind]

337. once upon a time ... Yes!

[anotherdrew]

353. 60 rounds? supressive fire not needed for one guy

why does everyone there get to shoot? Hell if everyone else is poping off you might as well get your piece dirty too.

"All right boys, everybody shoots, empty those clips..."

[anotherdrew]

356. hell, I can't tell from these reports what happened, maybe not 60?

I give up

[Skypilot 18]

318. LAPD = idiots

I have first hand knowledge of the LAPD. One of my relatives was a very high ranking officer. He has since gone on to San Bernardino where he's making a mess of things there.

These guys have no purpose being cops. They are the worst of the worst. I have had dealings with other police departments around the country and none of them approach the incompetency of the LAPD.

[Solar]

321. by all means tell us!

Since you know everything about police work, tell us exactly how every LAPD officer is an "idiot" and how they substandard compared to other police departments. You can fluff all you want, but unless you have actual realistic alternatives to how this situation could have been handled, you're just blowing hot air.

[Skypilot 18]

322. you'll never know

Until one of those asshats is a family member. They are fukkking asshats.

go find out for yourself.

[Skypilot 18]

323. and go tell your side

to the mother of the child that the LAPD murdered !

[Solar]

324. wake up

Go and tell that to the mother of every police officer you expect to die as a result of doing nothing against a violent man with a deathwish. The only thing you're doing now is just spouting nonsense.

[geek tragedy]

346. Murdered? Could you possibly engage in more

dishonest ignorance?

She was murdered by her father, if anyone.

Sorry you cop haters can't get past that.

[nini]

340. As the daughter or an LAPD homicide detective - I take exception to this

There are many crappy officers that shouldn't be in the force - I realize this. But to generalize the entire dept being corrupt is a bit much.

My dad was of the school that despised the Daryl Gates bullshit. The dept under him was disgusting. The decent officers were pissed. The guy in there now is doing a decent job and trying to straighten out the mess.

I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see the facts. Many times these facts show they are wrong and it may apply here - I just don't have enough info to decide now. (as in an autopsy of the baby is required to see which gun actually killed her). With the Rodney King thing - those officers were wrong and in my opinion not punished enough. My dad was so ashamed of that incident - it hurt good officers such as him.

Sorry your relative is an idiot, but not all officers are.

[kestrel91316]

336. Looks like once again LAPD ................

forgot to look into their bag of tricks for a nonlethal alternative, like maybe RUBBER BULLETS or flash/bang or tear gas............why do they insist on lethal force so much of the time????? Yes, I realize the guy was shooting at cops, but they HAVE alternatives. Now a baby is dead who maybe didn't have to die. And if the father had serious mental issues then it was wrong to use lethal force against him. We don't execute the mentally ill in this country.

Oh, wait.............

(edited to correct typo)

[Solar]

341. LA Times has a new article up

LA Times has a new article up (reg req'd

This took place in a car dealership building. It was a tight and confined space with multiple rooms and entrances.


"But when officers got inside, they realized that Peña, far from being disabled, had managed to retreat into the small, walled office at the front of the repair bay, and was firing at them through the walls"

"As they advanced, the officers prepared to launch a flashing device to distract Peña. Just then, a bullet from within the office struck Officer Daniel Sanchez, 39, through the shoulder"

"Peña was felled by one bullet, got up and was shot a second time."
"What remains unclear is whether the little girl was already dead when they reached the office, or whether she died with her father in the ensuing shootout, said Lt. Paul Vernon, a police spokesman."

The police thought he was injured after he started a shootout at the back of the building. Because of this, the decision was made for a SWAT team to storm the building. If he actually was wounded, he would probably kill the baby, thinking he would die. This last shootout happened entirely inside the building. A sniper could not have done anything in this situation.

Most Less-Lethal weapons work by inducing pain. This guy was hyped up on drugs and alcohol, that pretty much shuts down the pain section of your brain. At this point, the question if he had a mental issue or not is completely meaningless. He had a hostage, was shooting at police and innocent by-standers. It may have influenced Peña to become violent and start the standoff, but the drugs, alcohol and weapons took things from there.

The LAPD was doing everything possible to try to avoid hitting the girl.

They were using the SWAT team. The SWAT team were in the process of using a Less-Lethal weapon. At that instant, they were under direct fire, an officer was wounded. THe wounded officer might have been the one that was going to throw the flashbang. Peña was shot once, fell down, and got up again. The officers tried everything they possibly could to shock him, wound him or incapacitate him. They simply had no other choice but to use lethal force against the man.

It is unknown at this time who actually fired the shot that killed the baby. Peña could have shot her right before or during the final shootout inside the building. At autopsy will be performed and we will find out more information as everything is investigated.

I do mourn for the baby and for the family. This is a terrible and awful tragedy. This guy started a violent, uncontrolled rampage and the police could only do their best. If a mistake was indeed made by the police, it was an honest mistake and we can be sure that they'll learn from this.

What doesn't help is for people to just come in here and shout "baby-murdering pig!" over and over again.

[jahyarain]

348. who just came in shouting

"baby-murdering pig"? i can't speak for anyone but myself but as i have said over...and over...and over, i have nothing against cops. i greatly appreciate the job they do. i could never, ever get up every morning (or night) and do what they do. if anything good can come out of this, someone will formulate a procedure for multiple variations of child hostage-taking/kidnapping recovery that doesn't involve killing the hostage. at least 49% of Jesusgunland is supposed to be fairly intelligent. "baby-murdering pig"? jeez, dude

[kestrel91316]

350. Excuuuuuuse me! .........

Exactly when did I shout "baby-murdering pig"??? (hint: never) Please don't put words in my mouth.

I have a gripe about the trend toward excessive force on the part of LAPD. I do not claim to know everything about this case. Doesn't mean I can't express my disgust with what they have done in the past. Get a grip.

[geek tragedy]

347. They don't use non-lethal force when the perp is also using lethal force

against him.

They have to neutralize him ASAP, and a bullet to the brain is the only way to do that--especially when someone is drugged up.

[LisaL]

354. Why, yes, we do. Execute mentally ill people in this country, that is.

:eyes:

[tedzbear]

349. So now the story changes!!! Gimme a break!!!

Today I read in the Los Angeles Times that the story has changed and Mr. Lemos ran back into his office, after which the SWAT team proceeded to shower him and the girl with over 60 bullets.

I wonder why they changed their story? Their previous assertion that they only started shooting after Lemos rushed out the door was much more sympathetic. Now the question arises, "What was the big rush?" for moving in when they could have continued their stand off for another 24 hours while hostage negotiators continued to work on him.

They had him cornered in the office. He wasn't attempting to run down the street mowing down innocent bystanders!

I hope the girl's family continues to play hardball with the LAPD. They have me in their corner.

[anotherdrew]

351. how about a designated shooter who aims, instead of a firing squad?

How about some bullet proof shields for the rest of the cops? Options would be nice

[LisaL]

352. They are called snipers.

The designated shooters that aim, that is.

[anotherdrew]

355. yes why didn't they use one? Have they no no pre-planned tactics?

Or did everyone forget their training that day? This has to be considered a Failure of procedure.

[LisaL]

357. Because sniper would need a clean shot.

If sniper doesn't have a clean shot, he can just as easily kill a child.

[anotherdrew]

358. new reports seem to explain the imposibility of a sniper at the end

apparently no one told this idiot not to shoot at cops. Maybe they should put some signs up or something

[Solar]

360. there was more than one shootout

The first shootout occured outside. Pena ran into building and continued firing through the walls. LAPD arrived with back up and SWAT. The second shootout started when Pena ran outside at the back of the building. Pena went back inside afterwards. Police thought we was injured in this shootout. They assumed if the guy thought he was going to die, he would kill the baby too. Thats when the decision was made for SWAT to rush the bulding. The last shootout occured inside the building. Pena was in a small office room at this time. It was obviously impossible for a sniper to be used at this time (unless you know of anyone who can see through solid walls).

According to the LA Times articles, Pena fired about 40 shots in all, while only 11 officers returned fire over the course of the 3 shootouts. The articles did not say how many shots were fired by the police. The office room in which Pena and the baby were ultimatly killed had about 60 bullet holes but its currently unknown who was responsible for what bullet holes. There will obviously be a full ballistics study to figure this out.

The police were not responsible for every bullet hole tedzbear.

As for anotherdrew's post, bullet "proof" shields don not exist, resistant shields? Yes but no shield or vest can stop every type of bullet. The shields you see are big, bulky and heavy. In small and confined spaces , they're completly impractical to use. Often a suspect will barricade himself in with furniture and the like. Its tough enough to get over/around such barricades with the gear they have. It would be impossible to do with a giant shield while still protecting yourself with it. You can't shoot through a shield so you have to expose your weapon, no problem except you need to aim, which means you'd also be sticking your head out too. Theres always the threat of a ricochet as well.

SWAT teams do not just blast away like a "firing squad." Usually they operate in teams of 5, and the two front officers are the ones that usually shoot. Keep in mind, one officer was injured in the shootout. Also keep in mind that Pena got back up after he was shot down the first time. He was so hyped up on drugs and alcohol at this point that I doubt there was any way to stop him without killing him. Lastly, its still unsure who ultimatly shot the baby.

And to jahyarain and kestrel91316: the last comment I made was directed at Skypilot 18 and some of the other posters throughout this thread. I apoligize for not being specific enough but I assumed everyone would know who I was responding to.

[anotherdrew]

370. OK, well... sounds like the cops did the best that could be done

good for them and thanks for the info.