Police justify collateral damage in killing both suspect and innocent hostage

I could never imagine being in a situation where someone is using a human shield for a bothered robbery, and I think the cop should be investigated, its just a shame how lax we are with repeat offenders but at least they killed the bastard and I hope he burns in hell for putting this poor woman's family through this.
 
Obnoxious OP aside, given the cop's situation, he didn't really have any other option. How he got himself in that situation in the first place, though, is the problem. Pretty sure he knew the criminal was armed and had a hostage, but chose to engage the problem by himself anyway.

Article seems to only focus on the "split second" decision, and never asks how it got to that point. Not a lot of information to go off here.
 
I blame the hostage taker the most in this situation, but cops are trained to stay calm under pressure. If this guy can't do it, he should find another line of work.

I couldn't do it.
 
This isn't really an instance of where you can "charge it to the game". How the fuck do you run up on someone and fire eight shots at a guy who has a hostage? You got the bad guy? Great. You also killed the hostage you dumbass.

Collateral damage is sometimes an unfortunate circumstance of a police chase, dropping a bomb, etc. but a hostage situation?
 
And if the guy would have shot the cop because he hesitated, and his partner returned fire and killed the girl anyway you guys would still be complaining.

This is a no win situation, stop looking for the woulda coulda shoulda winning scenario.

That being said 8 shots was a little much too.
 
I won't entirely re-hash my debate with Knoell regarding his lack of understanding for how law enforcement works, but it's not the movies. You don't shoot 8 times, shooting the gun out of 7 bad guy's hands, and planting one in the forehead of the guy holding a hostage. When you have decided to use lethal force, and your decision kills an innocent person, your title of "public servant" needs to be seriously questioned.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I won't entirely re-hash my debate with Knoell regarding his lack of understanding for how law enforcement works, but it's not the movies. You don't shoot 8 times, shooting the gun out of 7 bad guy's hands, and planting one in the forehead of the guy holding a hostage. When you have decided to use lethal force, and your decision kills an innocent person, your title of "public servant" needs to be seriously questioned.[/QUOTE]

When did I ever say anything remotely like this?

I think I said the exact opposite that there wasn't a winning situation to this.

So what is your solution?

A. Police back off, and maybe the guy lets the hostage go and takes off. Maybe he shoots the hostage and goes. Maybe a negotiator gets him to let her go.

B. Police stand there, while someone is pointing a life threatening weapon at them, not entirely sure if one time he will pull the trigger.

The police officer hardly can be blamed for protecting himself, his options were limited. You are absolutely right, this isn't the movies, the police officer didn't shoot the guy in the head, he shot 8 times. Which armchair quarterbacks like us will assume that is a lot.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions?lite

Patrol officers confronted with a hostage situation are taught to keep their distance if possible, set up a perimeter and wait for negotiators and SWAT teams to arrive.
Click to expand...

Experts agreed that once the cops were inside and saw there was a hostage, their options were severely limited.
Click to expand...


Here is a decent article you can read. The problem sounds more and more that the police officers did not have enough information prior to entering and not that the police officer had to use lethal force.


Warning: sarcastic gun control remarks below. Click at your own risk.
Oh and I don't understand how the criminal had a gun. He has a record and it is against the law in NY for a criminal of his sort to have a gun. I can't believe he didn't obey the law that says he can't have a gun. He must be a criminal or something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You kept trying to justify the cops that were shooting at a car of innocents because police thought maybe a bad guy was in it. You painted it as: hey, what else is a trained law enforcement officer supposed to do? Wait until they are potentially in harm's way? Hell nah! Shoot first, ask questions last. I paraphrase, of course.

Under situation A and B, the police don't shoot and kill the hostage, so I'd take either one over the path they chose.


"Officers are trained to fire as many shots as necessary," Key said. "And you can fire eight rounds in less than two seconds."

Which armchair quarterbacks like us will assume that is a lot.
Click to expand...

That's my point. You don't realize that 8 rounds isn't much, because you aren't all that familiar with law enforcement and LEO shootings, while still holding opinions on the topic that are apparently ill informed. When I suggested that, as your reason for defending the guys that shot up a car in the other thread, you kept insisting that any trained officer should be expected to do the same.

I'm not speaking out of my ass here. I have some experience with the subject matter.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You kept trying to justify the cops that were shooting at a car of innocents because police thought maybe a bad guy was in it. You painted it as: hey, what else is a trained law enforcement officer supposed to do? Wait until they are potentially in harm's way? Hell nah! Shoot first, ask questions last. I paraphrase, of course.

Under situation A and B, the police don't shoot and kill the hostage, so I'd take either one over the path they chose.


"Officers are trained to fire as many shots as necessary," Key said. "And you can fire eight rounds in less than two seconds."



That's my point. You don't realize that 8 rounds isn't much, because you aren't all that familiar with law enforcement and LEO shootings, while still holding opinions on the topic that are apparently ill informed. When I suggested that, as your reason for defending the guys that shot up a car in the other thread, you kept insisting that any trained officer should be expected to do the same.

I'm not speaking out of my ass here. I have some experience with the subject matter.[/QUOTE]

You are speaking out of your ass.

When you have decided to use lethal force, and your decision kills an innocent person, your title of "public servant" needs to be seriously questioned.
Click to expand...

Not to mention you are claiming that the police had better options. Hindsight is 20/20, armchair quarterbacking, etc etc etc.

Pair them together and you are pretty much saying the police officer didn't do his job correctly. To me, that isn't a person speaking with experience on the issue, that is someone who thinks these things are like the movies.

Also please quote where I said anything about the police shooting the van. I am fairly certain I watched that topic from afar, and did not post anything on it.
 
[quote name='Knoell'] Not to mention you are claiming that the police had better options. Hindsight is 20/20, armchair quarterbacking, etc etc etc.[/QUOTE]

Better options than shooting a hostage in the head? Yes, I am suggesting that there are better options than doing that.

Pair them together and you are pretty much saying the police officer didn't do his job correctly. To me, that isn't a person speaking with experience on the issue, that is someone who thinks these things are like the movies.
Click to expand...

The article you linked states that normally they would get specialists with more range time on site, and hostage negotiators. The cop on site didn't allow for either to happen. So yes, the officer did not do his job correctly for shooting a hostage dead. This is one of the viewpoints in the article.

Also please quote where I said anything about the police shooting the van. I am fairly certain I watched that topic from afar, and did not post anything on it.
Click to expand...

This one I must sincerely apologize for. You are 100% correct. I got you and dafoomie mixed up in this thread: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338015&page=4

I'm completely wrong, and apologize. The gist of both you and dafoomie's position being, the cops thought they were in danger so they shot at innocent people, as justification. My position is that they have a dangerous job. If they think the appropriate action is to potentially kill innocent people, apparently they are the same people who advise Obama on his drone policy.

But once again, you're right, you and I did not have that conversation in the thread above, it was dafoomie I was thinking about. I was wrong.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Better options than shooting a hostage in the head? Yes, I am suggesting that there are better options than doing that.



The article you linked states that normally they would get specialists with more range time on site, and hostage negotiators. The cop on site didn't allow for either to happen. So yes, the officer did not do his job correctly for shooting a hostage dead. This is one of the viewpoints in the article.



This one I must sincerely apologize for. You are 100% correct. I got you and dafoomie mixed up in this thread: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338015&page=4

I'm completely wrong, and apologize. The gist of both you and dafoomie's position being, the cops thought they were in danger so they shot at innocent people, as justification. My position is that they have a dangerous job. If they think the appropriate action is to potentially kill innocent people, apparently they are the same people who advise Obama on his drone policy.

But once again, you're right, you and I did not have that conversation in the thread above, it was dafoomie I was thinking about. I was wrong.[/QUOTE]

1. There is that hindsight is 20/20 again. Cops do not sign up to have guns pointed at them. Do they know that may be a part of their job? Yes, but they are in no way comfortable or at ease with a gun being aimed at them.

2. The article also states that it is unclear if the officer was aware of a hostage situation and like you said policy dictates they bring in a specialist. But the story as it is now is that he wasn't aware, and experts agree his options were limited when he entered the place. You can ask them what they mean by "limited". Is it unadvisable to back away from an armed man with a hostage and wait outside? I don't know. All I know is what they say.

3. The cops who fired on the van were in a completely different situation. It is unfair to compare the two situations. It is also unfair to claim this is an escalation of police violence against innocents (aimed at the crazy op). Like you said this isn't the movies, sometimes bad things happen to good people. Hopefully some good can come from such a terrible thing. But it should be clear that the guy robbing the house is 100% responsible for what happened.

The police officer who shot the woman isn't an evil person. He isn't trigger happy. He will have to live with this for the rest of his life, and I am sure he feels the weight of it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']1. There is that hindsight is 20/20 again. Cops do not sign up to have guns pointed at them. Do they know that may be a part of their job? Yes, but they are in no way comfortable or at ease with a gun being aimed at them.

2. The article also states that it is unclear if the officer was aware of a hostage situation and like you said policy dictates they bring in a specialist. But the story as it is now is that he wasn't aware, and experts agree his options were limited when he entered the place. You can ask them what they mean by "limited". Is it unadvisable to back away from an armed man with a hostage and wait outside? I don't know. All I know is what they say.

3. The cops who fired on the van were in a completely different situation. It is unfair to compare the two situations. It is also unfair to claim this is an escalation of police violence against innocents (aimed at the crazy op). Like you said this isn't the movies, sometimes bad things happen to good people. Hopefully some good can come from such a terrible thing. But it should be clear that the guy robbing the house is 100% responsible for what happened.

The police officer who shot the woman isn't an evil person. He isn't trigger happy. He will have to live with this for the rest of his life, and I am sure he feels the weight of it.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with most of what you said, I still do believe that he needs to be at least reprimanded. He made a wrong decision, and it did cost someone their life, even if you made a mistake at a normal job, you would be reprimanded. Let's be honest though, isn't armchair quarterbacking pretty much what this whole forum is about? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top