It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
i almost cried when I read about that child. all those gunshots ringing in her ears. something like 150 fired from both sides.








posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

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.




hooray ! logic and reason live on these boards !



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
It doesn't matter WHY he was using her as a shield, if it was because they were using drugs around her, or giving her drugs, or whatever. There is just NO EXCUSE for that. You don't say "Oh, they're giving my 19 month old drugs, I better grab her and hold her while I shoot at people to protect her." Yes, it's sad that she was killed by the police, however according to the articles I've read, there was no mention of a high powered rifle. They all said a single gunshot to the head killed the little girl, and multiple gunshot wounds killed the father. The police did what they could in a very dangerous situation. If they waited any longer, it's entirely possible that someone walking down the street could and would be hit and killed, or at least injured badly.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I completely agree, and stated as much in my previous post. An article similar to the one I saw is linked below.

Whatever was behind what happened, the father is at fault for putting his daughter in the line of fire. There are no extenuating circumstances that excuse exposing one's child to life threatening injury, be it from drugs or from gunfire. All I'm saying is there may be more to it than just the father losing it, and the mother and 17 year-old daughter as well as the police need to be fully investigated. They should take a hard look at the body shop, too. All kinds of shady things happen around those places. The tape of the 35 min. phone call is crucial to any investigation. Imo, the hostage negotiator failed miserably to get hung up on and have the guy come out shooting like that. HN's are highly trained strictly to avoid that type of outcome. Where was the perimeter? Why did they allow civilian bystanders in the line of fire? A lot of questions remain to be answered. I admit I am no fan of the LAPD, and for good (not criminal) reason.

"Suzie died of a single gunshot wound to the head fired by a rifle from a police officer, according to a county coroner's report released Wednesday. Her father, Jose Pena, 34, died of multiple gunshot wounds, said coroner's spokesman Craig Harvey."

Toddler Killed By Police Bullet



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The problem with the rifle statement is that to a lot of people anything not a pistol is a rifle. The standard for SWAT units is a MP-5 9mm SMG. Not high powered by most standards. If there was a chance for a sniper to take this guy out, MOST snipers are fairly highly trained, and could have hit him without hitting her. If there WAS a sniper there that could hit him, then he wouldn't have died from multiple gunshot wounds. They would have most likely let the sniper take the shot while they covered the area.

I agree that there should be an intense investigation, but the monday morning quarterbacking and jumping to conclusions is enough to drive you crazy.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
You are right. I considered after I posted that it might not have been an AR-15 as I first assumed. We need to let the proper authorities do their investigation and abide by the outcome.

I have had several bad experiences at the hands of the LAPD, involving both myself and loved ones. There was never an arrest made, but they used heavy-handed tactics I didn't approve of in the least.

On the other hand, I watched the North Hollywood bank robbery shoot-out unfold live on TV from beginning to end, so to some extent I can understand why they do things the way they do. I just don't want them doing it to me, and I hate to see innocent children killed like this.

Again, my apologies to anyone offended by my posts.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Cops don't go in to save baby. Guy shoots baby. Cops bad.

Cops try to save baby. Baby gets shot. Cops bad.

Cops get shot. Doing their job. That's what they get paid for.

Everyone makes it OK. Family needs to face that this guy is a waste of skin.

I'm no cop fan, I've got my stories, buy I've never used an infant as a shield while trying to shoot at my daughter. That's a bit out of line and generally not a wise thing to do.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
It is not OK, and no one is trying to say it is.

There is no such thing as a waste of skin.

When people step outside of the parameters of rational, acceptable behavior, bad things happen. Especially when guns, drugs, and the LAPD are involved.

End of story. Peace. Out.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marid Audran

Originally posted by Misfit
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.

Misfit


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.


Not until I understood your statement did I see how my statement would be read with your assumption first [which would be a correct first assumption, given the scenario] ............ "drop 'em & spread 'em" meaning that the shake-down was so intense before going to cells, that I felt like the moment of an impending proctology exam was due. My jist was that, post 9/11, even going to jail for ignorant charges (not saying I did not break a written law) has become far more intense than it ever has been, even after adding the time-concept of harder crimals = harder jail. I mean, I wasn't going to Fulsom, it was city freekin' jail.

Sorry about the mis-lead.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If there was a chance for a sniper to take this guy out, MOST snipers are fairly highly trained, and could have hit him without hitting her. If there WAS a sniper there that could hit him, then he wouldn't have died from multiple gunshot wounds. They would have most likely let the sniper take the shot while they covered the area.


Re-posting this info for clarification, as the assumption is that the cops did nothing but send a multi-volley of rounds without regard to the baby.


quote: CNN Article
Bratton said the fatal shooting was only the second time a hostage had been killed since the department formed its SWAT team in 1967. In that time, SWAT officers have responded to 3,800 calls involving hostages or people barricaded inside buildings.


This statment is not to say that SWAT has taken 3,800 bad guys. But, one with any logical thought process can surmise how many shots, of 3,800 situations, they have had to take.

2 hostages killed in 38 years of practice. Yep, I agree, it IS the cops that are ALWAYS the bad guys.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Biker with a lot of discriminated dealings on the receiving end. I've been arrested with "by the book proceedings" of just cause; I've been put thru 30 minutes of BS for the making the same illegal turn my Dad did once, of which, he got he ticket and left; and I have been taken to the ground by several simply because I was a Biker 'near' a crime scene (finding out later in the news, at the time of crime the known suspect was some 6'+ 5000lb blak dude wearing rap clothes - me an average sized white Biker in leather).

I am not justifying the actions of all cops ...... I AM saying, I have been dealt with and arrested by some damn fine cops with more scuples and integrity than many people could ever dream of possessing. All this I say just to point out that even tho most of my dealings have been negative with the law due to stereotyping, it's just damn ignorant to pass judgement when the damn incident just took place, and NONE of you were there, NONE of you know what exactly what happened, NONE of you are in the investigation, NONE of you know a damn thing other than the fact that it happened.

#t goes both ways ......
.... not all cops are bad
.... not all cops are good

Get a grip, take a Valium or 13 - but jeez people, quit playing jury judge and executioner when all you know is what has been printed. Glad you people don't try to be judges, we're screwed up enuff un the judicial system as it is.

Misfit

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Misfit]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Well, according to CNN.com the man fired roughly 40 shots, and the police (11 total) fired nearly 90. If you do the math they each averaged 8 shots a piece. and we're to believe that only a couple of them were able to hit their target, it should've only taken one single shot to bring the man down. With that many officers, there is no way the man could've been firing at all of them at once, I don't u nderstand why one of them wasn't able to take a 1-3 seconds to get a steady shot on the man. I think whoever fired the lethal shot should be charged with manslaughter, and that all of them present should be sent back to the academy to re-learn their jobs.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by evilgenyus
Well, according to CNN.com the man fired roughly 40 shots, and the police (11 total) fired nearly 90.


As one mentioned earlier in the post - unless a person has BEEN in a fire-fight, not see it or hear it or read about it - but BE in it ........... comprehension of the actions is un-obtainable.

Yes ......... been there done that. It is NOTHING like one would think, nothing at all. You can attempt to psychologically prepare yourself before hand, but once you are in it - reality is altered.

Again, without having ever been involved in the scenario of a fire-fight - judgement is moot.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
to Icarus Rising: I agree that the "waste of skin" thing is an ugly thing to say in general.

I just get sick of people (not you or even most here...seems we're mostly on the same page) who second guess such matters when it is so simple.

This guy (drug addict, mentally ill, possessed, etc.) put a baby in the middle of a firefight in which the baby was shot as a result of his actions. The guy was one sick murderer whichever way you cut it. That baby might have lived another 90 years and he snuffed that life out. No question about it.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Family needs to face that this guy is a waste of skin.


Didn't catch that line until you re-posted about it.

Question at ya, if you have read many of my posts, or do read just for clarification ........ would you believe that I am a waste of skin?

If you can't see where I am going with this, there is a legit easoning to it [no fire extingiusher needed, heh]

Misfit



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   


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


That's really the jist of this, isn't it?




The police did what they could in a very dangerous situation. If they waited any longer, it's entirely possible that someone walking down the street could and would be hit and killed, or at least injured badly.


Anybody STILL walking around in an area with over 100 shots fired probably is worthy of a Darwin award (and likely awarded post-mortem)....




There is no such thing as a waste of skin.


Not true. I'd certainly argue that anyone using a human shield (especially an infant) would qualify....



Well, according to CNN.com the man fired roughly 40 shots, and the police (11 total) fired nearly 90. If you do the math they each averaged 8 shots a piece. and we're to believe that only a couple of them were able to hit their target, it should've only taken one single shot to bring the man down. With that many officers, there is no way the man could've been firing at all of them at once, I don't u nderstand why one of them wasn't able to take a 1-3 seconds to get a steady shot on the man. I think whoever fired the lethal shot should be charged with manslaughter, and that all of them present should be sent back to the academy to re-learn their jobs.


Indeed, where the hell did these guys learn to shoot?



As one mentioned earlier in the post - unless a person has BEEN in a fire-fight, not see it or hear it or read about it - but BE in it ........... comprehension of the actions is un-obtainable.

Yes ......... been there done that. It is NOTHING like one would think, nothing at all. You can attempt to psychologically prepare yourself before hand, but once you are in it - reality is altered.

Again, without having ever been involved in the scenario of a fire-fight - judgement is moot.


Yes, but their training is supposed to remove, or at least counter the normal psychological response. Officers are taught to rely on their training in a shooting situation. From appearances, an officer went down, and instead of doing the right thing (such as getting two guys to blow his legs out from under him, and waiting for the SWAT snipers to erase the waste of skin), they seemed to have opened fire ala OK Corral style....



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Misfit -
I've come across some of your posts outside this thread. I didn't notice anything especially out of the ordinary (for this website).

I first heard "waste of skin" from a doctor friend. In the ER he was familiar with in Chicago, some cops were so disrespectful regarding people in pain and thus disrespectful to the ER staff who try to HELP people in pain, they would sometimes refer to cops as "wastes of skin."

I don't understand your fire-extinguisher question.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Again, police officers are trained to shoot center mass. You hit center mass target goes down and doesn't get up. You shoot the legs, target lies there shooting back, reloading and shooting back more. How do we even know a sniper HAD a shot? The initial description I heard of the room was a windowless back office. I've seen some of those autoshop offices. if they HAVE windows, you usually can't see out them, which means no shot for the sniper. Police snipers don't shoot unless they KNOW the target, and they can confirm that the target is the bad guy.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
2nd Hand Thoughts

After reading this last post of yours, I see that I was reading about the skin thing in the wrong context. I read it as, the drug addict w/ head probs was a waste of skin. My question to you was towards "am I a waste of skin", being that I was a drug addict w/ some serious mental probs, but never did I do anything as this guy. End result, not all drug addicts w/ mental probs are of this term [were my context right].

Fire extinguisher, heh - was accompanying my last comment, about where I am going with my post to you, that it was not a lead-in for me to start flaming you for anything, hence no need for an extenguisher, cause that was not my intent. Just being a subversive Misfit, lol.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Misfit, I'm recovering as well, self-medication gone horribly wrong for a diagnosed condition. Regardless, I rarely use that saying and only in instances like this or the London bombings or Dahmer, etc.


afterthought: I was just listing some things for people who feel the need to find out where the guy "went wrong." I wasn't implying that everyone with one of those problems was a potential murderer.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
I wasn't implying that everyone with one of those problems was a potential murderer.



That's where I was going with first post to ya.

Sounds like we are good to go


Misfit




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join