I was taking their mindset and assumptions as a given. I'm willing to stipulate that they reasonably believed it was an active shooter situation and that he was dodging for cover/concealment.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Teen girl shot dead by Los Angeles police firing at suspect in clothing store
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
SKumar
NES Member
I haven't read the other responses in this thread yet, so I'm unaware of the popular opinion here. I watched the full 35 min video. It's sad that an innocent bystander lost her life, but it wasn't intentional. The officer fired 3 shots from the rifle, which I cannot say is excessive (especially considering the concealment). To me, it looks like good policing from the LAPD. I wouldn't want to run into a department store with bleeding victims and you're told there's a guy with a gun somewhere.
Should there be charges for firearm negligence, or manslaughter? It's a tough call. The way I look at it, is ACTUAL policing was done, and with good intent. I didn't see any havok wreaking and rights trampling for the sake of the gang mentality. I saw a mentally ill scumbag that was attacking innocent shoppers, police were called, they ended it with 3 shots. I don't think any of those officers were looking forward to that call.
Again, I'm unaware of the popular opinion on this. Flame me away if I'm wrong.
Should there be charges for firearm negligence, or manslaughter? It's a tough call. The way I look at it, is ACTUAL policing was done, and with good intent. I didn't see any havok wreaking and rights trampling for the sake of the gang mentality. I saw a mentally ill scumbag that was attacking innocent shoppers, police were called, they ended it with 3 shots. I don't think any of those officers were looking forward to that call.
Again, I'm unaware of the popular opinion on this. Flame me away if I'm wrong.
A cop responding to a call of deranged person with a gun shooting people sees him over a bloody woman and shoots him, yes, it was justified. If it were a bystander who shot the suspect, justified.
It’s very sad an innocent girl was killed but that is not a crime since the shooting of the suspect was justified. It’s a tragic accident.
Not over, well away from and backing yet further away while surrounded by the police. Even if we say they thought he had a gun, he was not aiming anything at anybody and should have at least been given a standard "Drop the gun, put your hands up, get on the ground, etc." before officer dick just opens fire in a place he should reasonably know might have other innocent people around and behind said suspect.
Since when is coming around the corner on a guy who has fired no shots, is not coming at you or anyone else, and you are not sure has any weapon much less a gun and simply opening up on him ever going to be the right call for anyone in the US? You have this shoot in iraq in a dark hallway in a home you just kicked the door on, I get it and I could see the reasoning. This is not that situation, and the cop is 100% at fault. He put himself in the situation while even the other cops were telling him "Slow down, hold on, etc." ignoring them and simply getting himself on the scoreboard, with no thought to the consequences.
I agree with all of that, but I see the liability in this case as civil in nature rather than criminal. It means the city will be writing a big check.
ErnstStavro
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 197
- Likes
- 195
I was wondering something similiar. Was the cop sure he was the suspect? If I was rendering aid to; or just near; someone covered in blood am I going to be shot? If you find yourself in a situation be sure to continuously yell out FRIENDLY and hope for the best.
That psychopath was just waiting around to cause a problem, that poor woman; who was not paying attention; got the brunt of it. I guess carry always, you never know.
Yeah, the solution here was for the woman who got assaulted to have been carrying, to have maintained her situational awareness, and to have blown the guy's head off.
Of course, there's probably a better-than-average chance the cops would have simply shot her, instead...
Well, to your point. My training was 'stimulus' based. In this case if the guy was swinging a padlock on a chain or whatever it was, it wouldn't be a full send situation. There is no 'stimulus'. This is me sitting here behind a keyboard, strictly talking the fundamentals.
I was pretty select about who I worked with when I had the chance. If they were carrying a shotty, we had the discussion on how it was loaded. Never know when I might pick it up. Random 'person in uniform' showing up with a shotgun always concerned me.
When I carried it, I loaded 2 slugs and 3 buck, in that order. Figured the buck for anything in the open, slugs if they got behind a car door or a cactus. Instead of a tactical ammo change, just push the buck out, and aim in with the slugs. I'm no superhero, I know how much I shake in bad situations, there is some advantage to just point and shoot with a foot wide cone of pain. Edit: Keep in mind, I worked remote desert and/or deep woods most of my career.
It's pretty sad, my agency still trains shotgun, it's 3 or 4 days, 4 hour blocks at the academy. Pretty much never touch them again for actual training purposes. I'm of the school that I'm responsible for every piece of lead. If I have ZERO control of where that lead goes, I want nothing to do with it unless it's already hit the fan and it's messy before I even show up.
From training with Virtua 350 degree simulators that really get you into the 'game'. If I ever use a weapon in plain clothes, best thing to do is prone out and secure the gun. I've seen dozens of digital off duty cops killed in one crazy scenario we had. Badge out, prominently displayed, 'boom'.
Before I started posting on NES, that would have surprised me. But not anymore.
Honestly, when these threads arise about "what would you do if..." and my solution is usually GTFO, a huge part of the reason I have that mindset is because I'd never really trust responding LEOs not to shoot me even if I'm doing the right thing.
AHM
NES Member
I'm just now starting to think that if I ever stop an attack kinetically
in some public place where it seems imprudent to leave the property
before the police arrive; I'm not gonna feel a strong obligation to
stay anywhere near the scene of the shooting itself.
Holing up in the rest room would be a bad idea.
But taking a seat over in the shoe department or luncheonette
where responding officers have decent sight lines;
with my hands studiously away from my pockets
might be a happy compromise.
That's why I'm glad I don't have a badge anymore. While it isn't written in stone that I would have had to do something in a 'bad' situation, the lack of action 'could' lead me into a, hell, I forget what it's called, but a non-disciplinary hearing for suitability. My agency played fast and loose with the whole 'off duty/on duty' crap.
Now, it's get my family out. If I save the day getting my family out, more the better. I'll say here and now I wouldn't go back in, but I wouldn't put it past me. Sitting and listening to people die just isn't in my blood.
The call was shots fired. Who cares if the guy wasn’t going towards the cop. The call was for a person shooting, at 12 ft distance and a belief the person has a gun, the suspects movement isn’t relevant unless the suspect was going to the ground or putting his hands up.
You mean those things they did not ask him to do before blowing him away? A suspect backing up not clearly holding a weapon is not an immediate deadly threat no matter what the call says. Perhaps if the officer wasn't so set on getting up to the front and letting a few rounds go you would have an arrest and not 2 deaths.
I get that you have it stuck in your head that cops can do anything they want as long as they have been told a situation is dangerous, I just don't get why. Why are they not held to any standard because someone who is often wrong or lying (Witnesses relayed through dispatch) told them a thing and when they got there the situation was different?
So you have no response, cool. Your posts are very clear about your feelings here. The cop did nothing wrong, that guy was surely a deadly threat half a second into seeing him and it was a good shoot with no reservations. You're wrong, but that's fine we all have a right to our opinions.
Why was it that he pushed everyone out of the way, over the protests of other cops, to get into the fight? Why did he open fire off the bat with no thought whatsoever about the situation? How is it reasonable that he never made a single verbal command to try solving the situation before opening fire?
You have answered none of this simply claiming it was a good shoot, maybe if you have different thoughts on cops you should explain a bit.
I did expect some verbal commands before firing, so I'm not saying what the officer did was right, but I don't like this "backing up" description of his movement. When he saw the officer, possibly by the time the officer even saw him, he had moved his left foot to the rear in a long stance. His left hand was concealed behind whatever he was holding. From this position he immediately pivoted to his left and attempted to move laterally to the officer to cover/concealment behind the endcap, or possibly just to flee. It would not have been reasonable for the officer to perceive this apparently tactical move as "backing up". Once behind concealment/cover, he could have brought the supposed gun to bear.
Pretty good analysis here.
View: https://youtu.be/LiqkappbE3Q
You don’t like the law, contact the legislature to amend it. I clearly said before if the person firing the 3 shots were a cop or bystander, the shots were justified based on these circumstances. I honestly don’t care if this person were a cop or not, it was a justified shooting. What matters is what the cop in this case believed in that instance, not what someone at a keyboard believes days later with no stree from the situation and knowing other facts the people on scene didn’t
The prosecution in Kenosha charged Rittenhouse with aggregated assault on Ritchie McGiness because he was in the background behind rosenbaum when Rittenhouse shot rosenbaum. He was not guilty of that charge because he was justified in shooting rosenbaum. It’s tragic the girl was shot but that is only relevant if the shooting wasn’t justified.
Response is to an active shooter and the encounter is 12-15 feet distance, hands are not visible and you act as though he had so much time to issue commands and not shoot. The person was not stationary, they were not moving as if they would follow commands and surrender.
It’s really easy to Monday morning quarterback this from the comfort of your chair without a suspected shooter 12 feet from you.
Legally it’s a justified shoot, I’m not wrong, you don’t understand the law.
AHM
NES Member
And yet the suspect's hands were not clearly empty.
And yet the suspect was still armed with the bike lock.
We've been told in this thread that there's a tactical doctrine
that an available officer armed with rifle/shotgun leads the contingent.
Precisely where is the evidence of cops protesting him trying to get in front?
Do you not hear the repeated calls to slow down, wait, etc? One article said that he was told these sorts of things "Dozens" of times. He was being told to calm down, and ignored it. How can we explain not bothering to issue even a single command?
It's real easy for you to claim it's justified while ignoring all the evidence right in front of you. He had plenty of time to yell "Stop" or "Hands up" or "Get on the ground" before opening fire. The fact he was moving is immaterial, he was surrounded. with other cops moving to his rear he had nowhere to go. Regardless of whether he thought, subjectively, that he would follow a command he still should have tried. Why are we going straight to shooting a guy you don't know has a weapon who is not moving aggressively without any attempt at not shooting with an unknown backstop?
AHM
NES Member
etc ::= speed up
You mean after they moved aside to let him in front?
If I had a nickle for every time someone graciously steps aside
and invites me with my one item to go ahead of them
on the supermarket express check-out lane,
and then expresses displeasure for me taking them up on the offer
by telling me to slow down and wait...
The initial caller clearly informs the 911 dispatcher that the guy is using a bike lock to hit people and has no knives or guns and the dispatcher correctly relays that information to police. It is also relayed to police that there are customers hiding in the store. This is then confused by another dispatcher who has gotten second hand information from someone who's not even in the store that there is someone shooting.
The first four cops on scene appeared to be formulating a plan, were assessing the situation, and were aware there could be other bystanders or victims in the area they need to clear before taking action. Then Officer rifleman pushes his way past 6 cops, is told "He's hidden behind to the right, near the fitting rooms, the fitting rooms!" Another says "Slow it down partner, slow down partner." Some yells "slow down slow down slow down slow down!" Another yet yells "slow it down, slow it down!" Then finally someone yells "hold up hold up Jones, hold up, hold up!"
I counted Officer Jones be told twice the suspect was near the fitting rooms, and 12 times to slow down or hold up, just prior to him shooting and killing an innocent bystander. He ignored all of that.
So if the call is for someone hitting people with a bike lock, and then another comes in that it's a shooting, and you show up, and nobody is shooting but you do see someone swinging a bike lock, you can disregard what you are observing that aligns with the first report and open fire because the second report said there's a shooting? No need to bother worrying about any innocent bystanders, despite being told people are hiding in the store, and that the suspect is near the dressing rooms? Even though 9 other cops are there, none of whom fired any shots, and several telling you to slow down and hold up, killing an innocent bystander is acceptable?
If that's the case, then we are all better off without any police even showing up. I mean, presumably you want to the police to protect or prevent the criminal from hurting or killing people, so getting the police to do it for him is counterproductive.
Contrast to the Potter case, he knew he was shooting, and made a conscious decision to ignore the risk of hitting a bystander to shoot at someone who retreating from the victim. He made a conscious decision to ignore the other officer telling him to hold up. That's reckless and negligent.
The first four cops on scene appeared to be formulating a plan, were assessing the situation, and were aware there could be other bystanders or victims in the area they need to clear before taking action. Then Officer rifleman pushes his way past 6 cops, is told "He's hidden behind to the right, near the fitting rooms, the fitting rooms!" Another says "Slow it down partner, slow down partner." Some yells "slow down slow down slow down slow down!" Another yet yells "slow it down, slow it down!" Then finally someone yells "hold up hold up Jones, hold up, hold up!"
I counted Officer Jones be told twice the suspect was near the fitting rooms, and 12 times to slow down or hold up, just prior to him shooting and killing an innocent bystander. He ignored all of that.
So if the call is for someone hitting people with a bike lock, and then another comes in that it's a shooting, and you show up, and nobody is shooting but you do see someone swinging a bike lock, you can disregard what you are observing that aligns with the first report and open fire because the second report said there's a shooting? No need to bother worrying about any innocent bystanders, despite being told people are hiding in the store, and that the suspect is near the dressing rooms? Even though 9 other cops are there, none of whom fired any shots, and several telling you to slow down and hold up, killing an innocent bystander is acceptable?
If that's the case, then we are all better off without any police even showing up. I mean, presumably you want to the police to protect or prevent the criminal from hurting or killing people, so getting the police to do it for him is counterproductive.
Contrast to the Potter case, he knew he was shooting, and made a conscious decision to ignore the risk of hitting a bystander to shoot at someone who retreating from the victim. He made a conscious decision to ignore the other officer telling him to hold up. That's reckless and negligent.
AHM
NES Member
Any chance they were concerned that making a beeline towards the obvious victim
risked getting flanked by a gunman? That they didn't savor barging past multiple aisles
without peeking around the corner of each to check them for an ambush?
(Any chance they were obsessing over maintaining the pristine size and shape of their "diamond"?)
I ran across an interesting article this evening; dig it:
Police Action vs. Reaction: The Shoot-First Fallacy
Police must take action when they believe a suspect is armed. That doesn’t mean they need to shoot, but action is faster than reaction.
www.lexipol.com
Similar threads
