Baltimore: Black woman shot dead by police during alleged standoff while holding son

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Do all criminals deserve to die in the US? Aren't the police trained to disable at all? Surely she could have been shot in the leg or arm or wherever but not killed? I've seen some very very petty reasons for police killing some people when a disabling shot would have worked just as well. Some crimes really don't deserve a death penalty

I am assuming this is a troll post. If not how does she being shot in the leg or arm somehow disable her from shooting the gun?

And by the way if most criminals died our prisions would not be overflowing.

Do you realize someone died over a failure to appear?! That's a life!

I don't care how good you think the police officer was at shooting... They still shot to kill. I hope the lawsuit for this wrongful death pays for this child to go to law school and help others.

Every single one of the responses above my post shows why there are more people buying guns. The correct response was to walk away and send an expert to serve the worthless fta. Clearly none of these had any sense between them to make something that stupid a life ending issue.

This has to stop. The officers need better training. They need to value the people and treat them with respect rather than simply being bullies with guns.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Do all criminals deserve to die in the US? Aren't the police trained to disable at all? Surely she could have been shot in the leg or arm or wherever but not killed? I've seen some very very petty reasons for police killing some people when a disabling shot would have worked just as well. Some crimes really don't deserve a death penalty

There was a female officer that was reprimanded for not shooting to kill because the legalities of the suspect living were more costly. That's the world we live in. Or die in I should say

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

So, you think an individual firing a shot gun at Police Officers doesn't warrant a kill shot? If you manage to get her in the leg, she can still fire that weapon. That really is a situation where you don't want to take the chance of allowing her to fire that weapon again. I have to agree with the outcome here.

originally posted by: 001ggg100
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

So, you think an individual firing a shot gun at Police Officers doesn't warrant a kill shot? If you manage to get her in the leg, she can still fire that weapon. That really is a situation where you don't want to take the chance of allowing her to fire that weapon again. I have to agree with the outcome here.

I think the police fired first, and she returned fire on her property.

Which one of these were wearing protective vests? Which one of these were paid to be there? They should have served her fta another time and arrested her if that's what was required.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

I think you have a very good point. This could of been handled differently.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Do all criminals deserve to die in the US? Aren't the police trained to disable at all? Surely she could have been shot in the leg or arm or wherever but not killed? I've seen some very very petty reasons for police killing some people when a disabling shot would have worked just as well. Some crimes really don't deserve a death penalty

It isn't known whether the woman intended to shoot the child or not. To shoot her only to injure would leave her able to do precisely that. If you were the officer taking the shot would you allow that chance? I sure wouldn't.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Do all criminals deserve to die in the US? Aren't the police trained to disable at all? Surely she could have been shot in the leg or arm or wherever but not killed? I've seen some very very petty reasons for police killing some people when a disabling shot would have worked just as well. Some crimes really don't deserve a death penalty

Do all armed criminals shoot to disable the police? Have you ever been in a gunfight?
You watch too many movies. Why not try a ride along with the police instead of criticizing them. By the way, when you sign up for the ride a long, tell the watch commander you want to go to the high crime areas. And ask for a bullet proof vest. The bad folks aren't going to try to "disable" you. Who flushed the common sense around here?

It would be better to know just what was going on.

The Guardian video, appears to be in a police car with some dialogue not heard,



Video in the house, taken by the mother it seems, while a paramilitary is at what looks like the front door.

a reply to: smurfy

This made me want to cry. The missing information (sound) was most likely personal identification.

I live in MD, and I am law abiding. I would still be terrified of any interaction with law enforcement and would certainly be recording it straight to the cloud.

I don't care that this woman was wrong. It's the LEO's job to defuse not escalate public interactions. Even the after video shows unpleasant attitude from LEO.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: smurfy

This made me want to cry. The missing information (sound) was most likely personal identification.

I live in MD, and I am law abiding. I would still be terrified of any interaction with law enforcement and would certainly be recording it straight to the cloud.

I don't care that this woman was wrong. It's the LEO's job to defuse not escalate public interactions. Even the after video shows unpleasant attitude from LEO.

Is that what the first video is? someone else is looking after the boy? (it's not The Guardian report as I stated earlier..while the video caption is the same)
In edit,
This is more or less the same as The Guardian video it seems as if the police shot first after the mother as they state, said she would kill them. It is tragic, the mother would have been only eighteen or so, when the boy was born.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

She used her own child as a human shield.

I am certain during the long stand-off police repeatedly asked that she let the child leave and the evil monster refused so she could use the child as a human shield.

That's exactly how I'm seeing this.What mother would use her child as a human shield?She must have been insane.

a reply to: smurfy

That's what I took from it.

We all know we don't have the entire story. What made this woman so scared she uploaded right away? What is going on here that's being pushed to the back burner to focus of spinning this situation?

a reply to: TDawg61

That's what they say, but that's not what the video shows. The article also says a man ran out with the child.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Pointing a shotgun at police and firing while your child is present really IS one of those crimes though. Take that crap somewhere else.

a reply to: bbarkow

It certainly seems that simple. Not sure it's going to be that cut and dried with DA Mosby on the case.

no marylin mosby is gonna keep her head down, she has been exposed for the opportunist phony she is.

So if I'm reading this right, the dumb ass used her kid as a human shield, AND fired at cops? o.O

No loss there. If you're going to go full retard, don't do it in life or death situations.

those kids may have a brighter future without that mother.

no excuses here. she did all this. while her children were present with her
, she is the one with no disregard for life

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Do all criminals deserve to die in the US? Aren't the police trained to disable at all? Surely she could have been shot in the leg or arm or wherever but not killed? I've seen some very very petty reasons for police killing some people when a disabling shot would have worked just as well. Some crimes really don't deserve a death penalty

Police are trained to end a threat armed with a deadly weapon as quickly as possible. Most "expert" shooters couldn't make an extremity shot under stressful conditions at any distance past 10 feet.

The quickest way to end a threat is shooting the largest target, i.e. the torso, resulting in massive blood loss and unconsciousness. Unfortunately, this usually results in the death of the target.

Shooting for the torso also minimizes threats to innocent bystanders, as it is the largest target, and is less likely to be missed or have a bullet pass through.

Police don't "shoot to kill", they "shoot to stop the threat". Yeah, they get paid to go into a dangerous situation, but they are human, and aren't required to be shot or shot at when faced with a subject armed with a gun.

If you threaten a cop with a gun or knife, don't be surprised when you wind up dead.

Deny ignorance.