boobiemiles Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 This is a true tragedy. In this case do you think the police need to use deadly force, or should they just shoot the guy in the knee cap. I hate to see children kille. My wishes go out to the police officers too. This is a hard one to live with. Killing a perp is one thing, killing a baby is another story. L.A. Police Kill Gunman, Child in Shootout By ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago LOS ANGELES - A toddler was shot and killed when her father used her as a shield in a gunbattle with police following an hours-long standoff, officials said. The man also died and an officer was wounded. The man killed Sunday night after an hours-long standoff was identified as Jose Raul Lemos, and the girl, about 17 months old, was his daughter, police said. The officer, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the shoulder and was expected to recover. "He was using the baby as a shield," Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell said. "We showed a tremendous amount of restraint, but unfortunately the suspect's actions dictated this," he said. "It's a true tragedy." The child's mother, Lorena Lopez, said she pleaded with officers to hold their fire. "He had problems with depression, his business was not doing well," Lopez told KNBC-TV. "I told them that he needed help, he needs a psychologist, but please don't shoot. They didn't understand, and the police fired, like, 300 shots." It was unclear who fired the shot that hit the girl, but officers were struggling with the thought that they killed a baby, McDonnell said. "The officers are taking it very hard," he said. "Anytime you have a baby killed, it takes its toll." The standoff began at around 3:50 p.m. when officers responded to an area in South Los Angeles west of Watts after residents reported an armed man standing near an intersection with a toddler and behaving erratically and aggressively. There were three exchanges of gunfire between police and Lemos, who was about 35, McDonnell told reporters. In the final exchange, at around 6:20 p.m., Lemos held the girl as he shot. "We did everything we could to hold our fire," McDonnell said. At one point, Lemos retreated into an apartment building, where police said he held the girl hostage. Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man; when they at one point attempted to help a neighbor escape the area, he fired at them and they fired back, McDonnell said. Under police regulations, officers may only fire "when it reasonably appears necessary" to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury. The man had a 9 mm handgun and a shotgun and was intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, police said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 They have no snipers on the swat team in LA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Destino They have no snipers on the swat team in LA? I agree! WTF??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 People need to stop believing what they see on Cop shows on TV. In a gun battle, it is completely unrealistic to believe a police officer can be so accurate as to shoot a guy just in the knees. In Hollywood, that's a charming fnatasy, but it has little or no correlation to real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Riggo-toni People need to stop believing what they see on Cop shows on TV. In a gun battle, it is completely unrealistic to believe a police officer can be so accurate as to shoot a guy just in the knees. In Hollywood, that's a charming fnatasy, but it has little or no correlation to real life. If the SWAT team was there, I disagree with you. Granted, if these were just uniformed cops with their pistols drawn, then you are correct. However, SWAT usually have more sophisticated weaponry at their disposal. With a rifle, a knee shot shouldn't be that difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingtiger1013 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I was wondering about the sniper also, but the article said he was in an apartment building. Probably no shot for the sniper. Sounds like the a$$hole came out shooting and they had to take him out with the best available to them at that time. His wife said 300 rounds. I hope not. If so, they really need some more training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingtiger1013 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by herrmag If the SWAT team was there, I disagree with you. Granted, if these were just uniformed cops with their pistols drawn, then you are correct. However, SWAT usually have more sophisticated weaponry at their disposal. With a rifle, a knee shot shouldn't be that difficult. Police don’t shoot to wound, they shoot to kill. Killing the perpetrator eliminates the threat. Otherwise, don’t shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by flyingtiger1013 Police don’t shoot to wound, they shoot to kill. Killing the perpetrator eliminates the threat. Otherwise, don’t shoot. They also don't shoot to kill children. SWAT is called in for the simple fact that they handle "special" situations. I'm not blaming the police, but 300 shots fired at one man?????? COME ON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by herrmag They also don't shoot to kill children. SWAT is called in for the simple fact that they handle "special" situations. I'm not blaming the police, but 300 shots fired at one man?????? COME ON! I agree, no excuse. I understand that real life situations are not tv-like, still I have to believe that this could have been handled more intelligently.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYFootballGIANTS Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I seriously doubt the policed fired 300 shots. I'm sure it was just an exaggeration by the mother. However, because it was a standoff for most of the time, I am wondering why a SWAT sniper didn't try to take him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 The tragedy wouldn't have happened if the piece of human debris didn't take drugs, shoot at cops and use a baby as a shield. Obey the law, don't take life too serious and wow no tragic death from a hail of bullets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Normally, I'd come out on teh other side but 1) HE USED THE BABY AS A SHIELD 2)They only fired when he fired on them trying to get a NEIGHBOR out of the area. Other people should not have to die to 'perhaps' protect a man's baby that he chose to use as a shield. It's sad and it's terrible but I wouldn't let it eat at me, if I were a cop. Remember, they had a duty to protect the life of the man they were trying to extricate. Maybe not legally, but morally. Forget their own risk, they could not let some innocent get capped because they didn't have the stones to shoot the guy aiming at him. And I'd have to see the timeline to know if SWAT was a possibility. BTW, even snipers can still miss, esp if this guy was moving around a lot. But flyingtiger is right--you do not shoot in the knee cap. You shoot for center of mass and the head. Gunshots do not do what movies show. A man can withstand several rounds, even from large calibers, if they do not strike the Central Nervous System. Many people have suffered injury or death after shooting a person in defense because that person did NOT stop. I'm thinking of Barrett Robbins as one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 The police have a thankless job. They are underpaid, their lives are on the line every day and they are constantly put into situations where they must pull the trigger and then afterwards, people constantly second guess them, call them racists or what ever else. We are lucky ANYONE is willing to be a police officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I thank my neighbors everytime I see them going to and coming from work. We were taught two to the body one to the head and no I didn't see the warning shot or shoot em in the knee stuff. Heck if they did shoot him in the knee the way the legal system is they probably would ve been sued for maiming a mentally disabled minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by NavyDave The tragedy wouldn't have happened if the piece of human debris didn't take drugs, shoot at cops and use a baby as a shield. Obey the law, don't take life too serious and wow no tragic death from a hail of bullets Finally, somebody recognizes the real person at fault here. It's terrible that the baby was killed, but is that the fault of the police? Kudos Code for your statement. A lot of people hate law enforcement today, but this world would be an even worse place if there were no cops. In a perfect world, everybody would behave, there wouldn't be any evil people, and cops wouldn't be needed...but that isn't the world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller Finally, somebody recognizes the real person at fault here. It's terrible that the baby was killed, but is that the fault of the police? I think everyone knows who is at fault that wasn't even an issue here. My thinking was 'could this have been prevented' and the first question to pop into my head was why didn't a sniper take this freak out. I certainly didn't mean for that to be taken as faulting the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama The police have a thankless job. They are underpaid, their lives are on the line every day and they are constantly put into situations where they must pull the trigger and then afterwards, people constantly second guess them, call them racists or what ever else. We are lucky ANYONE is willing to be a police officer. I've never bought into the notion that cops deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's in the best interest of society to do everything it can to combat corruption, and one of those things is looking real close at law enforcement at all times. I do think the laws need to be made crystal clear to the public that if a cop says do something "or I'll taze/shoot you" and you ignore him that he is in his rights to make good on his threat. No complaints later. I appreciate what they do but I have to act in my best interest not theirs, and having the public keep a close eye on cops even if it sucks, is in my best interest. Wearing a badge doesn't make you a honest good person. I know more then my share of cops that are racists, that are violent, and that love the notion of hurting some body. In that way they are no different at all then the general population, some are great people, most aren't but they aren't bad either....but some are bad. I just wish we watched prison gaurds as closely as we do cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by NavyDave Heck if they did shoot him in the knee the way the legal system is they probably would ve been sued for maiming a mentally disabled minority. :laugh: He probably would have won the lawsuit as well. Lawsuits are ridiculous these days, as are the jury members who judge them. It started with that damn cup of coffee and its spiralled way out of control! I had a friend who was a cop in Arizona, and he also told me that they only shoot as a last resort, and they aim for center mass. If you shoot a guy in the knee cap, he can still shoot back at you; and a lot of times he will. If it comes down to shooting a suspect, you've got to take him out. Its unfortunate that a baby was involved, but if the lives of other civillians and police officers were in danger, what's gotta be done has gotta be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Destino I've never bought into any of this crap that cops deserve the benefit of the doubt. Why? It's in the best interest of society to do everything it can to combat corruption, and one of those things is looking real close at law enforcement at all times. I do think the laws need to be made crystal clear to the public that if a cop says do something "or I'll taze/shoot you" and you ignore him that he is in his rights to make good on his threat. No complaints later. I appreciate what they do but I have to act in my best interest not theirs, and having the public keep a close eye on cops even if it sucks, is in my best interest. I think cops deserve the benefit of the doubt simply because they are there and I'm not. They know what the situation was, and all I have is a news report to base my opinion on. Its a life or death situation, and they made a split-second decision. Think about it this way; if you carried a concealed weapon and a guy started shooting at you while using his toddler as a shield, what would you do? Quick, you only have half a second to decide before his next shot might hit you! The SWAT sniper is a great idea, but 1) he may not have had a shot, and 2) they might not have been there yet. It was Los Angeles after all, a city in which gang members severely outnumber police officers. The closest SWAT team may have been engaged elsewhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by jrockster77 I think cops deserve the benefit of the doubt simply because they are there and I'm not. They know what the situation was, and all I have is a news report to base my opinion on. Its a life or death situation, and they made a split-second decision. Think about it this way; if you carried a concealed weapon and a guy started shooting at you while using his toddler as a shield, what would you do? The SWAT sniper is a great idea, but 1) he may not have had a shot, and 2) they might not have been there yet. It was Los Angeles after all, a city in which gang members severely outnumber police officers. The closest SWAT team may have been engaged elsewhere.... I agree with you, I don't think the cops did anything wrong. Perhaps it will be found that something better could have been done but that doesn't mean what was done was wrong. I've just had way too many bad experiences to think that just becasue you're a cop I should assume you are a good person. As far as I'm concerned cops are just as likely to be good or bad people as anyone else without a criminal record is. Just go down to DC some nights and watch the bouncers selling e to club goers. Then when your buddy gets into a fight you'll find out that many of them are cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 They said swat was there, they didnt mention a sniper in the swat unit but I bet there was one. From what I read, it sounds like it all happend too fast for the sniper to get the green light. It sounds like they were negotiating with him for 2 1/2 hours, then he caught an extraction team pulling a neighbor out charged at them shooting and then the cops with a shot took one to protect the extraction team and civilians. Ya its sad a baby had to die, but since that guy charged an extraction team chances where the baby was gonna die sooner or later. After all they had 2 1/2 hours to snipe him, they were obviously trying to talk him down and he demonstrated that he was gonna snap eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I will add that your opinions are based on an article written by the media. I doubt the police have released much information or their side of the story. To say a sniper should or should not shoot does not describe the situation or the rules of engagement of the sniper. I guarantee the rules of engagement of a police sniper are different than that of the regular SWAT or police personnel. Also, it sounds like this guy gave the police no choice. If he comes out shooting bullets at the police, what are they supposed to do? If he is moving and holding a child in his arms that is a difficult target to hit. One last point, this guy could also have been of the mindset that he wanted to commit suicide by cop. He just didn't care. Also, the situation lasted a couple of hours. That is a long standoff. The 300 shots comment from the wife could mean anything. The wife perhaps should have thought what she could have done better and helped her husband instead of blaming the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by dreamingwolf They said swat was there, they didnt mention a sniper in the swat unit but I bet there was one. It actually said that the police called in a SWAT team, but did not mention whether it had arrived or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by boobiemiles Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man; when they at one point attempted to help a neighbor escape the area, he fired at them and they fired back, McDonnell said. This sounds like they did call in the SWAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller Finally, somebody recognizes the real person at fault here. It's terrible that the baby was killed, but is that the fault of the police? Kudos Code for your statement. A lot of people hate law enforcement today, but this world would be an even worse place if there were no cops. In a perfect world, everybody would behave, there wouldn't be any evil people, and cops wouldn't be needed...but that isn't the world we live in. Who the he!! said it was the police's fault? Please don't put words in other's mouths, especially when concerning an incident like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.