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

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Bedlam
Considering the duration of the encounter I have no idea how you're going to charge anyone. If they find one of the cops bullets they can't prove when or why he fired it. I don't think charging everyone is fair (or legal). I think this was a complete clusterf_.

Well, if it was fired at all, with a hostage in the car, I'd say you meet the bar for reckless endangerment.

If it gets down to this sort of thing as an argument, it's yet another case for RFID chipping the cops, rigging the firearms to record who the shooter was, and put cameras on that they can't tamper with. It's sort of an indictment of the cops and the prosecution if they can say "Oh, it was fired but you can't prove it was me, or what I was shooting at, or for, or when, so no prosecution, sorry, not yours", when in the opposite situation, say I open up with my sidearm as a permit holder, if it's been discharged at all, and I hit a bystander, I'll be tried for manslaughter or endangerment. Same sort of arguments, but when it's a citizen, they don't hold water, and when it's a cop, they are teflon and nothing sticks.

So, IMHO, if cops are prone to this, and evidence shows they are, and no amount of "you were there and your piece was fired" is relevant to the DA, then I'd say some sort of automatic accountability in the form of recording devices is in order.

a reply to: Domo1

You and me both. This is really morbid but I wonder if he used her as a shield.

That's what they claim, surprised she wasn't shot more, not meaning to be insensitive
But that was a lot of fire power in that video and it looked like it was mainly from the cops, not sure tho

Oh and hey, I want to commend you on being so polite and receptive to all the differing points of view in this thread. You've been a class act.

Aww, now you're going to make me blush......thanks

originally posted by: Domo1

Lighting up the car like that was ridiculous.

And, we'll never know, but I highly suspect from my own time in the saddle (military) that some of this shoot 'em until you're out stuff is because they position themselves badly around the vehicle/situation and open up...and they're shooting at each other.

They hear the near misses, and think the guy in the vehicle is shooting, so they shoot MORE, and the guy that's stupidly on the other side hears MORE near misses, so HE opens up more, and on it goes until they are out of rounds.

At least that would be SOME rationale for wild firing that you seem to see in these situations.

eta: if it's generally going to be open season on hostage situations like this, they ought to get some Mk19's, one per city should do, and just put one or two shells into the car and get it over with. It would save time. And a Mk19 is ALWAYS appropriate.

"Sorry, sir, your wife happened to be in the car when our lives were threatened not to go home at the end of the shift. I have her remains here in this shoebox"

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: snarky412

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

No it's ok if their life is at stake. Two clips can go in less than a minute and it's ok to engage people who shoot you with AKs. BUT if there is hostage or even chance that there is one not a single bullet should fly period. You fallow at a distance, use chopper if available but never get close and shoot when there is risk to an hostage/bystander, never. To me this looks like the one in charge didn't take appropriate mesure to hold off his troops. It sad and my prayers goes to family.

OK.

Here's the story so far:

A trio of crooks take a hostage. High speed chase ensues shots fired in the process. Car is stopped. More shots fired, lots more. Hostage killed in the process by a barrage of bullets from police firearms.

The cops [snipped] this one up. Of that there is no doubt. Whether or not there were mitigating circumstances is moot. Fact is: They screwed up.

Now then.

What's to be done? Throw the cops in jail? There should be repercussions obviously. That's for a prosecutor/grand jury to decide, not the court of public opinion.

The publics job is to decide how best to prevent this from happening again.

That, and only that, is our job.

So, how do we go about this? Shall we attempt to answer this question, or continue to lynch?

So, I guess when the government tells you: "terrorists hate your freedom and want to kill you so we have to take away your rights so that all can be safe"....this is exactly what they are referring to.
99.999999% of us on this blue marble will live are entire lives and only ever see a terrorist in a news clip but your chances of being injured or killed by police as they "protect" you from all these "nasty criminals" are odds that not even a Vegas bookie will accept bets on.
These are not police.
These are murderers.
This is what real criminals looks like and this is how real criminals act.
Just because they wear a blue costume or get to dress up like they are kicking down doors in Falujah or hide behind a badge does not and will never make these actions right or just.
Take a stand or get used to it.
Those are your only two choices.

-Peace-

a reply to: seagull

I hush

originally posted by: Domo1
Has this video been posted? Just got home and don't recall seeing it. Really bad.

Yea, it was posted a couple pages back.

It definitely shows the cops in a bad light. Total lack of fire control, no professionalism whatsoever, not to mention no self control. As others have said, some of those officers should be charged with reckless endangerment, or criminally negligent manslaughter, and the shift leaders should be fired for pure incompetence.

a reply to: Domo1

No reason to hush...

What's needed is ideas. What's to be done?

If we, as citizens, don't solve it, who will?

originally posted by: seagull

What's to be done? Throw the cops in jail? There should be repercussions obviously. That's for a prosecutor/grand jury to decide, not the court of public opinion.

From my point of view, based on my observations, and totally IMHO, what will likely happen is...nothing.

There will be high fiving, and congratulations, and they will investigate themselves, discover they acted appropriately in every way, and the DA will nol pros if it even gets to that. He/she will simply refuse to act, and cite the conclusions of IA, and that will be that, except for maybe some federal civil suit in which the taxpayers will foot the bill for any adverse ruling. Not one cent will come from the police personally or collectively. The end.

The system is VERY invested in shielding cops from bad decisions. The usual statement, and I'm sure it'll come up here eventually, will be something along the line of "It seemed right at the moment" or "You can't Monday morning quarterback them". Sure you can. If they make consistently bad decisions, it IS time to call them on it. I have never been able to understand this argument, and people buy it as if it made sense. Sure, you decided that unloading several mags into the car with the hostage in it was a good idea. And you had that idea under fire, on the spot. And the problem is, it was a BAD idea. If you make that sort of decision, it's NOT ok to shake your hand and let you go on making similarly bad decisions because it seemed right to you at the time.

But that's how it'll be waved away. Because you can ALWAYS cover anything you do by claiming that. "Oh, I saw something and you know, on the spot, in the heat of action, I thought his hand was a sidearm, so I unloaded on him" "I thought I saw rage on his face after punching him in the nose, so, you know I wanted to go home at the end of my shift, so I put a round through his head". "That 7 year old girl looked awful tough, and she made a fast move, maybe she had a grenade, so I capped her. You can't judge me after the fact" All you got to do is make some half-convincing excuse that you misperceived what was going on, and that you felt it would be safer to just cut loose, and voila! all the repercussions go away. Whereas, if I tried that in court, I'd be laughed at.

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: weirdguy
Because they were firing into a stopped vehicle, a lot. But the cops wouldn't do something like that and loose control would they?

There were plenty of shots fired during the chase as well. I'm not defending the cops in this case and I don't think others are either. This incident could have been, but wasn't handled properly.

I have always made it known that I have a beef with LEO's that don't have proper fire control. Emptying multiple magazines into a stopped vehicle makes absolutely no sense. Where were the shift supervisors and other police leadership during all this? Aren't they the ones who are supposed to make decisions as to who is the designated shooters in cases like this?

I'd also like to see the crime scene drawings of where each car was parked. I'm thinking that cops were just missing other cops while blazing away. I heard at least three near misses in that vid you posted.

When this first went down in June/July, I could have sworn I saw an article stating two cops were hit by friendly fire. One in the ankle if I recall correctly. Now I can't find a link for the life of me. I'll keep looking though.

a reply to: Bedlam

Your examples are not that far fetched in many communities, but not all. More and more cops are being fired or even going to prison these days specifically because their actions are caught on film.

Many more cops actually want to wear cameras as well as it helps them defend themselves against baseless accusations.

The suspects reportedly fired over 100 rounds at officers during the 55 mile incident. This is what happens when you fire repeatedly at cops. They lose control of the situation and stop the vehicle at all costs. I bet a large amount of them were thinking "Oh your firing at a cop are you?!?!".

This is not an easy situation to say the least.

Just thought I would bring an angle to this I haven't seen addressed yet.

Not to be Capt. Obvious here, but does anyone find it odd that the cops have (by lack of discipline) have rules of engagement that even our military doesn't have?

So, our enemies then have more protection by the UCMJ then WE do as citizens.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Bedlam

Your examples are not that far fetched in many communities, but not all. More and more cops are being fired or even going to prison these days specifically because their actions are caught on film.

Here in Bakersfield, not too many months ago, a bunch of BPD basically committed two home invasions to steal the phones of people who recorded them killing a Hispanic guy. Warrantless, without exigence, they broke in the doors of the people recording them and stole the phones. And miraculously, after the fact, it was discovered the phones were erased. And you want to know what the DA did about that? Ask. Please. Can you guess?

Many more cops actually want to wear cameras as well as it helps them defend themselves against baseless accusations.

I think they should. But I also think there ought to be the added proviso that if you somehow come out without a recording, you can't testify without the judge reminding the jury prior to each statement that you are assumed to be lying in the eyes of the court. Or, hey, you know, you get decertified on the spot, no inquiry, no question, just fired and decertified right there if you come in at the end of the day with a blank recorder. There HAS to be some sort of dire draconian penalty for "oopsie" in the case of police. I hate to say that but it's true, based on cities where they DO have recorders. They'll flip it off in a second. So you only get the recordings that support the cop's point of view, and if it's time for a tune up, all the recorders "fail". You know it's true.

originally posted by: schadenfreude
So, our enemies then have more protection by the UCMJ then WE do as citizens.

Amen, brother. I lost my good conduct, and a chunk of pay to one pissed off moment for which I gladly took NJP over what I might have gotten. Although in a cop-like moment, my buddies would have whistled and walked away if the blue hats hadn't found the guy immediately after.

Que lastima.

a reply to: Bedlam

I support my local PD, but it's a small town and most everybody knows them by name and visa-versa. That alone makes for a good police force most times.

But the Cleveland PD/Cuyahoga County Sheriffs Office leave a lot to be desired. They are as corrupt as any other big city force from all the IA investigations going on. I'm sure you remember this story. You'd think the investigation would be over by now, but it isn't. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any cop who breaks into my home unannounced when I haven't done anything wrong had better murder me, because I damn well will kill them, just like I would anybody else. (I wonder who will catch the differences in that sentence?)

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Bedlam

I support my local PD, but it's a small town and most everybody knows them by name and visa-versa. That alone makes for a good police force most times.

I think most of all what I DON'T support is police unions. I don't support police investigating themselves. I support accountability. I support oversight that doesn't have a conflict of interest. That pretty much lets out LEOs investigating themselves and the local prosecutor, and unfortunately, that's the only oversight there is. If the DA isn't convinced he's going to be chucked next election, or the mayor, then nothing at all happens when cops misbehave, because one of the tenets of US jurisprudence is that the prosecutor can freely choose not to prosecute, with no recourse to force them to. Since the successful performance of the prosecutor depends on the police, they won't prosecute unless it's so absolutely blatant that there is no choice. And even then, they may not.

I would really like for there to be a LEO oversight with teeth. One that is tasked with nothing but putting cops on the street sans badge, or in prison. A commission that cops would really crap their pants to encounter, because they could be decertified on the spot, unions be damned, local politics be damned, without a care about the decision of IA. I'd like cops to be worried that the next guy they pull over and abuse could just grin, flip a badge and say "You are no longer an officer", and them have no recourse but to go back to the precinct and turn in their badge and sidearm. I bet you that if your average cop understands that the very next person they meet might just have the power to put them in the Walmart as a greeter, they would temper their responses quite a bit. Some snarks are boojums, you see.

I would also like for LEOs to have a little more painful feedback in general when some of their rank step out of line. For example, I'd really dance in the street if they lose x percent of their funding if they SWAT the wrong house or shoot someone's dog for no particular reason. It can come out of their equitable sharing. You blow it enough, you'll forego those bonuses and APCs. Maybe you'll check up your buddy if you know you won't get a raise this year if he screws the pooch badly enough.

Far as that goes, I'd like "failure to intervene" to have some teeth. You let your buddy bludgeon or shoot someone and you get caught, you BOTH ought to be decertified or serve time. If it was a bit more personal if you let your fellow officers screw up, I bet there would be more code reds and less omerta.

She became collateral damage. The one thing I've never quite understood with high speed chases is why we do them in the first place. There is a good chance with our technology these days that these guys would have been caught anyways.

a reply to: Bedlam

Some very good ideas there. I also think that any type of LEO should have term limits so to speak. A LEO can only be in one area for a minimum of let's say 5 years before they must go to another state. Not the next town over, but a totally different state.

Most corrupt cops are veterans of the force and know who's who.

I like the IA idea with teeth, but that also has the odds of going corrupt as well.