It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Police Shoot a Baby Used as a Shield

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:10 PM

I have to agree with Maximus here.....and unfortunately, as long as the U.S. allows citizens to own fire-arms, there will be many innocent that are killed by them (including children).

I personally don't see why anyone needs guns.....we don't kill for our subsistence, all our meat is processed, but there will be those die-hard hunters that will disagree with me.....oh well, I better go find shelter


I dont agree with you, as for this 1 world governement thing.. The US is whats keeping it back.. cause of all of our freedoms..

Gun law being a big part of that..

I am kinda glad we have milita's around just cause of this reason.

If its because all of our meat is processed. I would rather eat a freshy killed Deer than eat a 1 lb steak anyday.. much much cleaner, and alot less crap in it that they add with the 1 lb steak.

[edit on 7/13/2005 by ThichHeaded]

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Faeryland
. . . and unfortunately, as long as the U.S. allows citizens to own fire-arms, there will be many innocent that are killed by them (including children).

For 2001, the most recent year I can find for firearms deaths, the total was 29,573. Over half of those were suicides. Of the total deaths in 2001, fully 323 of them occured during police shoot-outs.

In the same year, there were 42,443 automobile deaths. I have not yet learned how many of them were suicides, or due to confrontations with police. But I'm still googling.

Obviously, you are not focusing on guns as a public safety issue. And for some of us, the several hundred-odd pounds of meat in the freezer IS an economic issue.

Funny how Liberal gun-owners like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry always want to make it really expensive to own a gun; presumeably, only ancient honkies with Hahvad accents can be trusted with firearms. All of the Hispanic and African American hunters will be expected to feed their families tofu, in the coming Leftopia.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
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.

Who the hell cares if an officer got wounded!!They took out a 19 month old girl to get to her father!!After reading news reports of children being tased by officers this doesn't really surprise me but come on coppers don't feed us the line that you've exhausted every option..there is always one more thing you can do.Would they still have fired if the man had a cop as a hostage instead of his little girl?

And the officers having to deal with the fact that they shot and killed a toddler...good I hope they never sleep again..I hope everytime they close their eyes they see that little girl and it eats away at them until they put their guns in their mouths and end their lives!

[edit on 14-7-2005 by LDragonFire]

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by LDragonFire
They took out a 19 month old girl to get to her father!!

The guy ceased to be a father the instant he used that child as a shield. From that point he became a repulsive coward.

And the officers having to deal with the fact that they shot and killed a toddler...good I hope they never sleep again..I hope everytime they close their eyes they see that little girl and it eats away at them until they put their guns in their mouths and end their lives!

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:09 AM
Yes the father was a coward and an evil man.

However the police are supposed to be here to protect innocents, like the little girl.

The police acted out of order and were obviously imcompetant. They should be charged with manslaughter, there were many other options to try.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:14 AM
What do you expect them to do when someone starts blazing away at them with a handgun? Stand there and let him shoot round after round at them and put themselves in danger? Yes, they should have tried to protect the little girl, but the choice was to either stand there and let him blast away at them and risk more lives, or open fire and shoot back. There were a total of 60 rounds fired at final count, and not all of those came from the police.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They're being trained like that because they lost so many cops to taking personal risks to save people.

If they are unwilling to take on some personal risk to protect innocents, they should find a different job. It is unacceptable for those employed to protect us to be as much of a menace as those they are trying to defend us from.

In this particular case, I don't know if there were any other options.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:23 AM
As a son of a retired Major in the military and friend of many officers, this is not an easy subject for me to just read the headlines and spout off about. This officer is already going to be troubled by killing the father, much more the infant. However, he was doing his job and an innocent was lost. However, that it what happens when drugs and alcohol and a police stand off are involved. The cost of a human life is the same. There is no one who is worth more than the other, and when a gun is fired at you it doesn't matter what is infront of it. You see the gun. The officer should take some administrative leave but no charges. He made a mistake. A big one, but a mistake none the less. It is easy for us to say he should be lynched for his actions, but until we live everyday of the beat, please stop judging those who carry the shield. This is far from Rodney King. This is an officer trying to serve and protect everyone involved.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:34 AM
the news article posted on this thread seems to say that the perp was firing out the window of an office building, shooting at a crowded street corner and at the street full of cars whizzing by.

The life of a little girl is critical. But so are the lives of all those people being shot at.

Maybe someday YOU can be fired on, while the cops pull back and search for other options.

I hope someone plugs dragonbutt and the rest of you life-hating purvs while you're in a crosswalk. I hope you end up living in a hapless shooting gallery where no one defends YOUR life because someone MIGHT get injured in the process.

But I don't hope you commit suicide.

I just hope you grow up.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:41 AM
This is a sad and emotional topic but let's not forget this is the News Forum. It has a higher standard than the rest of the site. Please post accordingly.

Thank you.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:44 AM
dr_strangecraft, insulting people and wishing them ill only makes you seem to be young and/or foolish.

Yet again I quote the article: "He came out shooting randomly at the people out on the street, as well as police officers."

Not look out, came out.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:02 PM
I'm getting very very tired of people distorting what happened at that incident simply to allow themselves to complain about the police, so I'm going to construct a short summary of the day in question for everyone so there is no debate about this anymore. You will find from this that the child's death was the father's fault and that the LAPD are heroes for killing him and saving the lives of the rest of his family and other citizens as well.

2PM - Perp's wife calls 911 stating that he threatened to kill her, her 17 year old daughter (his stepchild) and the baby. Police arrive but don't find him.

4PM - 17 Year old daughter calls 911 stating the same thing is happening again this time at his auto dealership. LAPD dispatcher calls girl back, she picks up and the call ends abruptly. At this point police fear the worst obviously.

4:08?PM - Police arrive at the scene to find perpetrator holding the baby to prevent anyone from apprehending him. Perpetrator fires numerous rounds at police officers on the scene. The police DO NOT ATTEMPT TO KILL HIM AT THIS POINT EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE SHOT AT.

5PM - Police speak with perp on the phone for 35 MINUTES trying to convince him to save his own life and the child etc.

5:35PM - Perpetrator hangs up the phone and makes his fatal decision to continue firing out into the street.

At some point in the interim, the stepdaughter escapes. She tells police that the perpetator threatened to murder her, the baby, his wife and himself. She also states that he is not thinking rationally, is drunk and is on coc aine.

6:30PM - The final volley of gunfire takes place and perpetrator is killed by police along with the child he was holding the whole time.

Consider the following before spewing your baseless anti-police drivel:

1) The police gave this man numerous opportunities to end his struggle non violently.
2) The police were fired upon in three seperate barrages of gunfire totalling approximately 40 rounds and did not even fire back until the third volley.
3) The man's own family, who know him best, said that he was going to kill them and others and that he was irrational, insane and armed to the teeth.
4) The man was firing a weapon into the street where civilians had been walking as well and quite easily could have killed them too.
5) The police department tried to talk him out for 35 minutes before firing.
6) The perpetrator was engaging in firefights with police officers intentionally holding his own baby daughter as a shield to prevent himself from being killed and allowing him to continue to be a threat to numerous other lives.

What else would you have them do?

Read the specifics of the case for crying out loud. Until you know what actually happened on the scene you have no right to engage in trashing of the police who responded to the scene.

If you're going to set yourself up as Judge and Jury of this case, be intelligent enough to listen to the case itself before passing judgement. Try it. It's helpful.

My timeline has been constructed from a multitude of sources both on Television news and Internet news. It is easily accessible to all on CNN and other sites like it. You'll find the stories to be the same in all because the facts of this case are not disputed at all.

[edit on 7-14-2005 by Djarums]

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:11 PM
Well as a Catholic all I can do at this point is pray God watches over the soul of this little baby and maybe give her some better parents on the next round, because She sure did not deserve a POS Father and Mother like this.

As far as the police involved go, Ill pray to the Good Lord they find a way thru their pain and I hope they realize most good citizens are behind them.


posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Odium
but there have been cases in the U.K. where the Police have not shot back when someone has shot at them.

Thats pretty stupid of them.

They only return fire when they know they can hit the target or if innocent bystanders lives are on the line.

If I was a cop I'd think that I count as an innocent bystander.

If some's shooting at me, I think its up to me whether to shoot back, not anyone else, and for anyone to expect not to be shot at once they start shooting at people is ridiculous.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by subz
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?

Hah! ... Agreed.

I wish I could say more for the cops, but I guess there's not much to say.


posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:42 PM
It was a headshot, folks.

Before you pass judgement on that demented dead father please read my STBSS story Stranger than Fiction in the short stories section. I think something very similar could well have been happening here. I sure would like to hear a tape or read a complete, uncensored transcript of that 35 min. phone call between the father and the LAPD.

What if he caught his wife and the 17 year-old providing drugs to his baby girl? Would that make him despondent, do you think? Would that make him threaten the wife and older girl?

What if I had behaved similarly to this guy under similar circumstances? I would be dead right now, too. The difference is, I would never allow my son to be used as a shield, or put in the line of fire, like this poor little girl was.

The LAPD is trying to keep a semblance of peace under the most difficult of circumstances. I have had dealings with them, and they are corrupted by the very crimes they are fighting.

A head shot, folks, from a high powered weapon. To me that is not only murder, but destruction of evidence. I would have wanted to have the little girl's blood tested for opiates.

Go ahead, call me crazy, I know this sounds crazy. It is a crazy world we live in today, and desperate times demand desperate measures.

And Jesus said to the women as he carried His cross to His crucifixion, "Weep not for me, but for yourselves, and your children".

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by spamandham
Combine that with the post-9/11 police state mentality.............

I honestly was waiting to hear "drop 'em & spread 'em" ............ I damn well would have had the #t beat of of me due to it.


It's interesting to me that you say you expected it but it didn't happen. I trust that you were probably complying with what they were saying, hence there was no reason to "get rough".

The only time I have seen it get ugly, even on the new channels, is when someone resists. Seems to me that the message here is to comply.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:24 PM

Confused about the "destruction of evidence" factor; blood could have (and would have) been taken from any part of the child's body during the autopsy and would have been tested.

Could you clarify?


posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:51 PM
I'm not so sure about that. When blood is exposed to air, changes in its chemical composition take place. Unstable chemicals don't hang around for long under those conditions.

If a toxicity test was done on the little girl, and I doubt it, the results won't be available for 30 days. I could be mistaken about that, though. I've only waited for postmortem results like that once. I would be interested to know, in any event, though I would find it hard to trust any evidence handled by the LAPD in this case.

I apologize if my position has angered or upset anyone. It is entirely possible, maybe even probable, that the guy was a nutjob with a death wish and got his daughter caught in the crossfire. I know I am going against the grain here, but I must rely on my own personal experience.

May God bless and keep the soul of that little girl. May the light of reason and mercy expose the truth for all to see, and believe.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:14 PM
Thankfully air doesn't generally change/negate the presence of narcotics in the system.

Yes, it'll take awhile, unfortunately, for the results (unless there's somehow a fast-track...not outwith the realms of possibility though, now I think about it), but most legally mandated autopsies automatically include drug and alcohol screens; you only need as little as 4 ml for a drug screen, and as the heart stops pumping after death, blood taken directly from the heart is considered a good source (and it isn't contaminated by air, or anything else, unless the heart itself was exposed pre-mortem).

Also, vitreous fluid, and hair toxicology tests can be carried out; SOP usually provides for both, as well as the blood/urine samples.

My heart goes out to everyone involved here; it's a tragic situation, regardless of who was to "blame".

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in