33 Police Officers Fire 600 Bullets into Car Knowing It Contained a Hostage

a reply to: snarky412
Gotta love this crap.

California, a state that bans it's own residence from owning most firearms, restricts ownership, infringes upon peoples rights only to have their LE involved with shooting citizens.

California, why people that value freedoms still reside within your borders is beyond me.

originally posted by: Bedlam
I would also like for LEOs to have a little more painful feedback in general when some of their rank step out of line. For example, I'd really dance in the street if they lose x percent of their funding if they SWAT the wrong house or shoot someone's dog for no particular reason. It can come out of their equitable sharing. You blow it enough, you'll forego those bonuses and APCs. Maybe you'll check up your buddy if you know you won't get a raise this year if he screws the pooch badly enough.

Far as that goes, I'd like "failure to intervene" to have some teeth. You let your buddy bludgeon or shoot someone and you get caught, you BOTH ought to be decertified or serve time. If it was a bit more personal if you let your fellow officers screw up, I bet there would be more code reds and less omerta.

What many don't realize is that in the past this "protection" service from police was provided by the Italian Mafia. On the downside, that "protection" didn't benefit hispanics and blacks, BUT it existed. Imagine if this shooting incident happened in a mafia owned town in the early 1960's and the hostage was someone from their "community", what would have happened to the trigger happy cops? I can't say what exactly, but it would be MUCH more than the current "nothing".

a reply to: seagull
Like I noted earlier when a chase gets to the point of endangering the public..I would think when shots are being fired it has become unmanagable and you call or at least back off the pursuit. This is generally what happens here and it was decided as such due to civillian deaths that have happened in the past..how hard is that to figure out?
I stand by every one of those idiots being liable. Interestingly an officer here was charged yesterday with 2nd degree murder for sniping a suspect in a standoff that happened a few years ago..and im not even sure the cop in this case deserves the charge, more details are needed but it no where near as obvious in terms of blatant disregard for the hostage and whoever else might of been hit by the over 600 fawking bullets.
For some reason im thinking a core belief im the justice system said "better to let a guiltly man go than condemn an innocent man"..maybee just a fairy tale like "serve and protect"?

originally posted by: seagull
What's to be done? Throw the cops in jail? There should be repercussions obviously. That's for a prosecutor/grand jury to decide, not the court of public opinion.

The publics job is to decide how best to prevent this from happening again.

That, and only that, is our job.

So, how do we go about this? Shall we attempt to answer this question, or continue to lynch?

We have no power, we can't even "elect" a body of people to do something about it. The police union has great influence, with prosecutors and judges backing up any and all claims they make.

Heck a small towns local government voted to dissolve the police force and they poice response was to just continue "business as usual". If that doesn't show how little power we have as citizens, I don't know what else can prove it.

antiwar.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

600 bullets from 33 people. If they were citizens they'd be locked away for life. Total hypocrisy to defend them.

a reply to: TDawgRex

That's not a bad notion.

While it wouldn't stop corruption totally, it certainly wouldn't hurt.

Not a bad idea, at all.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
600 bullets from 33 people. If they were citizens they'd be locked away for life. Total hypocrisy to defend them.

You really don't know that for sure. Cops are locked up all the time after pulling triggers. Citizens are let go all the time as well for pulling triggers.

If some of these cops are not punished, then yes, there is something rotton in Stockton. But I bet I bet some of them are punished. But all 33? I would have to see the forensics reports and bullet count per officer before I wantonly would sweep them all into jail.

Doing something like that would be akin to sweeping all people with autism into a mental institution, which is also tried quite often, yet I oppose that as well.

Kind of ironic that good law-abiding citizens can't have large capacity magazines but cops can. I guess for the same reason we're not allowed to have them, they shouldn't have them. "You can do a lot more damage with a large capacity magazine"....I was never really sure aboutthis till I saw the cops abuse it. Aren't large capacity magazines "made for the theater of war"? Don't get me wrong I'm all for the right person's having the legal right to own these, having a badge obviously doesn't make you the right person.

a reply to: Hr2burn

Considering what the people with badges do with these weapons, no they're not the right people. The majority of citizens who own these weapons are law-abiding and responsible. Are they the right people? Yeah imo.

a reply to: snarky412

To protect and serve... war is peace... ignorance is strength...

originally posted by: stormcell
33 cops. Is that the entire police department of Stockton, and regardless of the fact that there was a hostage in the car they felt obliged to shoot back at random?

That is the way it is these days... Over come any incidence with superior fire power no matter what...its like they are in Afghanistan.

Sheer idiocy and intentional or reckless disregard for life on the part of the cops and their superiors involved in this incident. The hostage's safety should have been their highest priority. Damn the money. It's replaceable. Dead hostage = irretrievable loss.

Why the high speed chase? They can track any vehicle going anywhere from the air.

This story, and so many others we've heard in recent years, makes one fear the very thought of cops coming to one's "aid" or "rescue" (using those terms euphemistically) because it appears more and more often that it often does little more than bring pain, suffering, and often death to those they are supposed to protect.

I wonder if these officers would be facing serious consequences now if the dead hostage had been a major celebrity or Senator?

a reply to: snarky412

overkill much? that means some of these guys had to be loading..thats ridiculous

a reply to: Domo1

The cops clearly f-ed up royally, but I'm just curious why you think 33 of the should be charged.

Because, if me and 32 other guys are shooting at someone and they wind up dead, you can bet your ass we're all getting charged. Ballistics may prove who fired the fatal shots, but the rest of us would get hit with attempted murder.
Why shouldn't they be held to at least the same standard?

a reply to: wastedown

Ya know New York state's supreme court ruled that the NYPD is under no obligation to protect or render assistance to citizens. This came out after police hid in a controlman's car on the subway while a fugitive (who had stabbed like 4 people to death) was stabbing a man in the adjoining car. One officer had identified the subject and upon seeing the weapon closed the control booth, hiding with his partner until the victim and a concerned fellow rider had subdued the attacker.

originally posted by: spodokomodo
I wonder if these officers would be facing serious consequences now if the dead hostage had been a major celebrity or Senator?

I've said this before too.

Do you think ANY of the civilians whom were shot and killed by LEO's had multimillion dollar Variable Executive insurance policies taken out on them? You know the kind of "Key Man" insurance policy that got paid out when Steve Jobs died or when a pro-athlete overdoses? If someone like Steve Jobs were shot by a cop, both the department and the individual cop would be rendered uninsurable, for LIFE, instantaneously.

Here is an example where the insurance company decided to pay out, despite the department refusing to do so:
www.kshb.com...

Could people perhaps get insurance companies to lobby on their behalf, indirectly, by insuring themselves with Key-Man polices? Note, this kind of policy is not the same as life insurance, the payout clauses are vastly different. To clarify further, the purpose in taking out such a policy, is not to get a large payout from the insurance company after the persons wrongful death, by cop. The purpose would be to make the insurance company get involved on the legal side, once a civilian is killed in a negligent manner by an LEO. The legal effect against Law Enforcement would be even greater, if an increasing number people shot by police also happened to be covered by Key Man Policies.

When was the last time a police department shot and killed someone covered by a $1 million+ Key Person/Executive Insurance policy? None that I know of, but there would certainly be financial consequences for doing such, should it ever occur in the near future. If it did happen, the insurer is definitely going to attempt to subrogate the damages from another insurance company. The only questionable part is, if it will be paid out by the departments insurance or the individual cops policy (home owners etc).

NO INSURANCE COMPANY ON EARTH is going to eat the cost of payout, while forgoing the subrogation process. Perhaps Key-Man insurance policies are the savior for civilians at risk of "wrongful death by LEO"?

a reply to: DAVID64

They can't comprehend that. They're currently embroiled in petty differences concerning me so that clouds all their reasoning.

I agree, if 33 citizens did this their names would be paraded around as enemies of the state. Even if all 33 officers' bullets didn't impact, 33 officers fired with an intent to harm. Ballistics will prove which gun fired the fatal shots but it will also prove all 33 officers fired with an intent to harm. The group dynamics does not excuse them. None of them figured their actions would result in any problems because the state protects them.

33 citizens would be imprisoned and possibly face the death penalty. Does it instill confidence in the system if 33 officers are allowed to continue to carry out their duties? Not one bit.