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

a reply to: TDawgRex

I'd be willing to bet a fair number of those shots were out of AR-15s with 30 rounders. Still completely unacceptable.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Completely agree though I don't think murder charges would stick, especially not for the guys that didn't hit the hostage.

I hope that something actually comes out of this tragedy. Clearly procedure in this case was either lacking effectiveness or completely ignored.

a reply to: Domo1

I don't think they'd stick either. Not because it's wrong but because they won't be held up to the same level of law as citizens. If citizens did this they'd be locked up.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

You might be surprised. If you have a CPL and are justifiably shooting at someone they can't charge you for hitting another person (as I recall).

a reply to: Domo1

Tell me about it. But 33 citizens firing 600 rounds would result in prosecution.

let them get away no

do they really have the only pd in the nation without a chopper

maby i will look into it

a reply to: TDawgRex

33 cops + 600 rounds is one to two magazines per cop fired down range, at close range. Totally unacceptable.

The first time I saw the total shots fired, I was like WTF? How? Why?

It's still hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that out of 33 guys, not one had the sense or decency to say "STOP!!"
What did they do, only stop because they ran out of ammo????

I hope the community will rally around the family and demand more to be done there to prevent something like this happening again
And more training for these imbeciles
[not meant to be an insult to all LEO, just these particular ones from the story]

There is something else to consider, Misty Holt-Singh was MUCH better off fighting with her captors, no matter how dangerous, than she was "waiting for the police to come" instead. Either way she could have been shot, but in the scenario where she fights back she had a FAR better chance of survival than in a hail of 600 bullets fired into a confined space.

But the woman was shot 10 times. We don't know if it was one cop or 10 who accidentally shot her. It certainly wasn't all 33.

If a group of people are committing a crime and one of them kills a person. all the in the group can be charge with the killing. Laws made to convict citizens should also convict cops.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

You might be surprised. If you have a CPL and are justifiably shooting at someone they can't charge you for hitting another person (as I recall).

isnt that why they introduced the collateral damage law?....essentially gives them a license to kill,an d anyone who gets hurt in the process is bad luck and the liability gets put straight on to the suspect being chased by police....it is no wonder they are so careless there is no culpability for them

But the California felony-murder rule changes all that. It allows a defendant to face murder charges...and possibly a murder conviction...even if the prosecutor cannot show that s/he acted with malice, as long as s/he killed someone in connection with the intentional commission of a felony.

Some examples of incidents that could lead to California murder charges under the felony-murder rule include:

Two defendants, one of them armed with a gun, commit a robbery of a convenience store. The defendant holding the gun accidentally fires it, and the bullet bounces off the ceiling and hits a store clerk, killing her. Both defendants (even the one not holding the gun) may be charged with murder under the felony-murder rule

www.shouselaw.com...

a reply to: roadgravel

This is what I'm saying. They're above the laws they enforce and they shouldn't be. Citizens would have the book thrown at them (and more) if they did anything close to this.

www.cnn.com...

yep they had choppers in the air that day falowing

the robers apear my interpitation to be shooting hostages and tossing them out probly saying stop falowing or they all die

or they shot them as the jumped out

also says they where all gang members

so my take we have a violent gang members robing a bank and shooting people if u try to stop them

the hostages where probly going to die anyway is my take on it

the cops where in the wrong blaitantaly but most likaly they will get sued thats about it

one thing that may be a positive is it sends a message to the gangs rob a bank in this manner we will kill u and taking hostages dosent help any ... maby next time thell skip the extra weight and only take the money

You can't win. These cops will be free to return to work.

Maybe the family could win a lawsuit, that is their best bet.

I think this goes back to negotiating with terrorists/hostage takers. We don't do that. So collateral damage,
while not desired, is not avoided either. Basically it is in the contingency plan. The cops knew there was a hostage, yet, that doesn't matter when suspects are shooting a gun at you.

I hope I never get taken hostage.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: TDawgRex

So now you're trying to rile me up in this thread? Nice try, this is the only post of yours in this thread that I'll answer because anything else will be falling into your trap.

Curses! Foiled again!

Why would I try to rile you up? You seem perfectly capable of doing it to yourself, by yourself. I can only give applause at such talent. Truly impressive.


But what exactly would you, if you could charge these 33 officers with? I already know what I would would charge some of them with, but not all. Justify the reason that you would charge all 33 officers, not based upon opinion and feelings, but rather the actual law.

a reply to: nrd101

Agreed I think they'll be back on the force because they don't have to follow the law. It's ridiculous.

originally posted by: markovian
so my take we have a violent gang members robing a bank and shooting people if u try to stop them

the hostages where probly going to die anyway is my take on it

So the public takeaway from all this should be "fight for your own life" because Law Enforcement is CLEARLY saying, "From here on out civilians will need to look out for their own safety interests because sworn Law Enforcement personnel will not and can not do such, when on duty".

originally posted by: nrd101
I think this goes back to negotiating with terrorists/hostage takers. We don't do that. So collateral damage,
while not desired, is not avoided either. Basically it is in the contingency plan. The cops knew there was a hostage, yet, that doesn't matter when suspects are shooting a gun at you.

Everyone her seems to be reaffirming that there is absolutely NO REASON for a civilian bystander to EVER comply with any requests made by Law Enforcement because they will make no effort to keep a bystander out of harms way, ESPECIALLY, if you can end up dead either way. So again live & dies by the motto "fight for your own life".

IDIOCRACY - straight out of the movie. Mental-case cops open up a can of whoop-ass on a car.

Again, cops like these ARE the real terrorists.

One day, Joe Public is going to give them all a collective bitch-slap, and a well deserved one at that.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Reminds me of Judge Dredd. No trial, just execution

a reply to: roadgravel

as long as s/he killed someone in connection with the intentional commission of a felony.

There's the problem with that.