NEWS: Police Shoot a Baby Used as a Shield, page 1

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:12 PM

link

Today a man who was under the influence of alcohol and drugs took a baby hostage and both were shot and killed by police. The police say that they "exhausted" all attempts to resolve this peacefully. There were about 300 shots fired in this situation.

www.wnbc.com
During the third exchange of gunfire, around two hours after the standoff began, Lemos held his daughter as he shot at police, and officers fired back, killing Lemos and his daughter. An officer was shot in the shoulder.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa visited the shooting scene and later went to Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance to see the wounded officer and his family. The officer is expected to recover.

"We did everything we could to hold our fire," Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell said. "We showed a tremendous amount of restraint, but unfortunately the suspect's actions dictated this. ... It's a true tragedy."

An internal investigation is being conducted to determine who fired the shot that hit the girl, but McDonnell said officers were struggling with the thought that they killed an infant.

"The officers are taking it very hard," McDonnell said. "Anytime you have a baby killed, it takes its toll."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Well this shouldn't be that interesting considering that a typical drugged person and police stand off, but the police I think didn't fill out all options on this situation.

They ended up killing a child cause of some crazed person. It is a truely sad day for that family.

Related News Links:
kgmb9.com
www.guardian.co.uk
www.theage.com.au

stumason

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:21 AM

link

Thats sad, very sad. How old was she? The Police shouldn't have fired. Full stop. Containment would have been a better strategy. He would run out of bullets eventually. Then perhaps one well aimed shot. Guranteed the idiots just shot wildly back.

This bothered me though...

"Anytime you have a baby killed, it takes its toll."

Happens often then?

[edit on 12/7/05 by stumason]

ThichHeaded

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:19 AM

link

She is said to be 9 months old.. And in my original post it states that there were over 300 shots, that is going on by what the mother stated, there isnt anything confirmed as of yet.

And to the person who stated this isnt ATS news.. What exactly consists of News worthy Posts?

Anyway, this is abuse of Police if you didnt catch the story at all. They shot a baby for christ sakes..

You know last few months it was only Tazering little kids. ages 6 and 12 I believe.

djohnsto77

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:22 AM

link

Actually she was 19 months old.

What a horrible tragedy! I'm sure this will be thoroughly investigated.

ThichHeaded

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:27 AM

link

I'm sure this will be thoroughly investigated.

I bet this gets swept under a rug somewhere. Just like everything else. The police pay the mother, and all is well back in the hood.

subz

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:16 AM

link

Serve and protect eh?

I guess we'll have some one come on here and defend the shooting of this baby.

A damn tragedy and one that could of been avoided. Dont the police use sharp shooters any more? Or do the sharp shooters use machine guns now?

You can bet the police would of waited if the POTUS or other member of government was being used as a human shield. Do you think the police would just lose patience and taken them all out just because they were getting shot at?

[edit on 12/7/05 by subz]

Misfit

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:14 AM

link

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
She is said to be 9 months old.. And in my original post it states that there were over 300 shots, that is going on by what the mother stated, there isnt anything confirmed as of yet.

300 rounds is akin to a small gang war with auto-weapons.

300 rounds to a stressed mother may actually be like 50 or less rounds.
Same factor as time, when one is stressed, 30 minutes seems as 3 hours - everything is exaggerated (not of a want to, it's just a human brain function).

Just an observation.

Misift

Skibum

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:41 AM

link

Whats really sad is that all the above posts seem to put all the blame on the police.

Not one says "what kind of sick freak would use their own flesh and blood as a shield"

From what I read in the article the hostagetaker is entirely at fault here.

It is sad that a child died during this but I do not expect anyone, including police, to just allow a psycho to shoot at them at will.

The guy had shot at the police three times and had already wounded one.

Flame away.

elevatedone

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:49 AM

link

"300 shots".... thats what the mother said....

Your opening paragraph is reporting this as though its fact.

Exactly.... why not ask what the hell was wrong with the father for putting the child in that situation.....

tragic that the child was shot, I wish each and everyone of us here could spend a day or two in the shoes of a cop and see how we would react to these types of stand offs and situations....

Tinkleflower

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:10 AM

link

Originally posted by elevatedone
Exactly.... why not ask what the hell was wrong with the father for putting the child in that situation.....

I'm not sure anyone is disputing that the father is responsible here....isn't that a given?

By the same token though, yes, the police also have to share some of that blame.

Lives were lost. The police killed a toddler. The baby's father was committing an atrocious act when he used his child as a hostage....these are the facts here. And there's blame on both sides, albeit in much differing degrees.

jnkhampton

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:22 AM

link

The police were left with no choice. You can not allow someone like this to get free into the public once you have him cornered, and you can not keep him cornered if you do it from a "cpmletely safe" safe distance. So if and when this guy was shooting at them the police also had to think of the other people this guy would hurt if he got loose. If he did this to his daughter imagine the disregard for human life this guy must have.....a huge traged, but nothing ould be done to avoid it so it seems.

CAConrad0825

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:28 AM

link

Originally posted by stumason
Thats sad, very sad. How old was she? The Police shouldn't have fired. Full stop. Containment would have been a better strategy. He would run out of bullets eventually. Then perhaps one well aimed shot. Guranteed the idiots just shot wildly back.

This bothered me though...

"Anytime you have a baby killed, it takes its toll."

Happens often then?

[edit on 12/7/05 by stumason]

How do you know? You are very quick to judge the policy of the police dept. All because a child is involved does not deter the the fact that an officer was injured. They were right to shoot and the loss of life is a shame. However that is the judicial process.

Odium

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:36 AM

link

Do you not train and pay Police Sharp-shooters? So when a hostage is taken they can "take care" of the person without killing the hostage and bystanders?

To me, this seems like an awful piece of Police work. It should have never resulted in 10 shots being fired, let alone numbers in the hundreds - if that is what did happen.

Yes, the father is at fault for holding his child hostage and as a shield - yet a 19month baby is not a "large" shield. Either military or SWAT should have been able to over-come this sort of "obstacle" and remove the "threat" that the father was..

IAF101

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:40 AM

link

Whats the big deal? Apparently the father of the child was not very concerned about his child, he thought that his childs death would be better than himself, such people dont deserve to live anyway, also the child would have been miserable living wiht parents like that. So I guess what happened happened for the good!
IAF

andersonr

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:42 AM

link

Complete rubbish

If Mr Bush had been the Hostage then what ?
Would they have shoot him ... I think not...I know they wouldn't

If someone is a good enough shot they could have taken this guy out.
He shot a cop - they all got gun ho !!! it isn't rocket science

I have seen Police in the UK shoot the gun out the hand of some idiot and they were some distance away ............Maybe your forces should spend some more time up at the range ......!

Odium

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:43 AM

link

Originally posted by IAF101
Whats the big deal? Apparently the father of the child was not very concerned about his child, he thought that his childs death would be better than himself, such people dont deserve to live anyway, also the child would have been miserable living wiht parents like that. So I guess what happened happened for the good!
IAF

That's bull#, just because someone has bad parents does not mean the child would have had a bad-childhood, if he was saved. You're also judging the mother on the father, which for all we might know she could be a good parent.

Police are there to protect innocents, the child was an innocent who was not protected.

Kidfinger

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:50 AM

link

I saw an episode of cops once where a sniper shot a 6 shooter revolver out of a guys hand without so much as a torn fingernail on the man. The police and SWAT snipers should have been utilized in this situation. They had the ability and should have been given the authority to use it.

Th reason this thread is focused on the police is because the story was reporting a POLICE ACTION. The story did not say MAN GETS KID KILLED IN GUNFIGHT. The story was related to the decesions of the police involved. At least thats how I read it.

mpeake

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:54 AM

link

It is such a horrible thing. I have a 18 month old son and just feel sick about this. But I am also sick about those of you who can't get your heads out of your arses and realize that this isn't some police rampage on an innocent little girl. Did you read the article???

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."

Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man; at one point police tried to help a neighbor escape the area, and Lemos fired at police. Officers fired back.

Under police regulations, officers may only fire "when it reasonably appears necessary" to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.

We have a gunfight that lasted for hours. The man (who was clearly unable to comprehend what was going on and had no ability to restrain himslef) was shooting not only at the police, but at people on the street. The police fired back. At the last moments of the gun battle, this sick lunatic picked up his daughter and used her as a sheild. The police were not aiming at her, and I imaging that they didn't even realize that the man had picked up the girl until after it was too late. The police didn't kill this girl, her father did.

LA_Maximus

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:55 AM

link

As usual the Police are the blame.

The mother who is blaming the cops should blame her Idiot husband instead...the cops are only tyring to do their jobs and its a thankless one at that.

I live in LA and I remember how the media started the riots after the Rodney King verdict. Good guys are Bad and the Bad guys are "victims"....well this POS also shot a police officer in the shoulder.

Skibum has got it right, this SOB is the only one to blame here.

Maximu§

Azathoth

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:04 AM

link

Im sorry but there are other alternatives. One being a sniper team to respond and wait for a shot. If he would of killed the child then it would of fell on him insted of the police. Or if the suspect was in a building they could of used tear gas. At least they would of had a chance to save the child.

-Aza