Police Kill Armed Man, Hostage in Fla.


PDA






Gunsnrovers
October 7, 2005, 07:50 PM
Police Kill Armed Man, Hostage in Fla.
October 07, 2005 5:46 PM EDT
TAMPA, Fla. - Police officers shot and killed a man and the woman he was holding hostage early Friday after he fired a sawed-off shotgun at them, police said.

Tampa police Chief Stephen Hogue said the officers had been forced to return fire to defend themselves.

"It developed very quickly, and the suspect forced the issue by coming out of the room with the hostage and shooting at police," Hogue said at a news conference.

Officers saw the armed man and the hostage inside a room at the Luxury Motel, police spokesman Laura McElroy said. They heard two gunshots, and minutes later, the man came out of the room with the woman.

"He has the woman in a headlock with the gun pointed at her head," McElroy said. "He spots an officer to his right, levels the shotgun at the officer and fires at the officer."

Officers shot at Gary T. Brewer, killing him and wounding 33-year-old Tracy Mary Wood, McElroy said. Wood died at a hospital hours later.

Police are still trying to determine how many times Brewer, 45, was shot. He had more than 10 bullet wounds, but some might be exit wounds, Hogue said. The woman was shot "several times," he said.

Hogue called the woman's death tragic, "tantamount to a police officer getting killed."

The four officers, all veterans with at least 10 years experience, were put on administrative leave pending an investigation. None was injured.

The SWAT team and a hostage negotiator had been called but hadn't arrived by the time the shooting started, Hogue said.

Shortly before the shootings, Brewer had held another woman, his girlfriend, hostage at her condominium for more than seven hours beginning late Thursday, McElroy said. She broke away and called police, but Brewer fled before officers arrived. The girlfriend told police he had used crack cocaine throughout the night.

Investigators were still trying to determine how Brewer knew Wood, who had lived with her boyfriend at the $35-a-night Luxury Motel for several years.

The first gunshots inside the motel room hit the woman's mixed-breed dog, which later died.


http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20051007/4345f2c0_3421_1334520051007-1014359723

If you enjoyed reading about "Police Kill Armed Man, Hostage in Fla." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mpthole
October 7, 2005, 08:07 PM
Obviously tragic... and the story brings more questions than answers.

$35-a-night Luxury Motel Can you say oxymoron!?

MN_Strelok
October 7, 2005, 09:36 PM
Here's a timeline (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/07/Hillsborough/Hostage_shooting_time.shtml), FWIW.


Hostage shooting timeline

A synposis of the events leading to Friday's shooting, according to Tampa police officials:

By Times Staff Writer
Published October 7, 2005

9 p.m. Thursday: Gary T. Brewer is armed with a sawed-off semi-automatic shotgun inside the Grand Key condominium, 4207 S. Dale Mabry Highway, Apt. 6307, that he shares with girlfriend, Cynthia G. Chin. He keeps Chin there for several hours. Police later find crack cocaine in the apartment, and they say he was on a drug binge.

4:30 a.m. Friday: Chin escapes the apartment and takes refuge with neighbor Anthony Jackson, who calls police. Another Grand Key resident calls police after he hears screaming and sees Brewer with a gun.

5:18 a.m.: Police go to the Luxury Motel, 4608 E Hillsborough Ave., after William Beamon calls 911 from the Citgo gas station across the street to report that a man he knows as Brewer is holding his girlfriend, Tracy Wood, hostage in Room 11.

5:37 a.m.: Officers knock on the motel room door, trying to make contact with Brewer.

5:38 a.m.: Officers call for the SWAT team.

5:42 a.m.: Officers hear shots fired inside the motel room. They later learn Brewer shot Beamon's dog, Mia.

5:43 a.m.: Brewer walks outside with a gun pointed at Wood's head. He fires once at an officer hiding behind a trash can. Four officers fire several times at Brewer. Brewer and Wood are hit. Brewer dies at the scene. Wood dies later at Tampa General Hospital.


Six minutes from PD arrival to the guy walking outside. Crappy situation all the way around.

cropcirclewalker
October 7, 2005, 10:17 PM
I can see the flames coming, but this is a real problem to me.

The cop's body armor MUST have been better than the hostage's.

When they take the oath to protect and serve are they paying attention? Maybe it's like, shallow?

How far does "officer safety" go? Can they shoot their employers? An innocent? Multiple times?

What if the bg was carrying an infant?

LAR-15
October 7, 2005, 10:21 PM
Cops were put in a bad situation.

I'm sure this will haunt them till they die. :(

LAR-15
October 7, 2005, 10:23 PM
I can see the flames coming, but this is a real problem to me.


We don't live in a perfect world and not every shot goes on target.

When your being shot at, it makes things different.

cropcirclewalker
October 7, 2005, 10:26 PM
What would've Roy Rogers done?

MN_Strelok
October 7, 2005, 10:48 PM
When they take the oath to protect and serve are they paying attention?

They may have failed to protect the hostage, but the guy didn't get a chance to hurt anyone else. And frankly, if someone shoots at me, I'm shooting back. I won't fault anyone else for doing the same.

If you want to blame someone, I think you can safely blame the guy who took two hostages then came out shooting.

beerslurpy
October 7, 2005, 11:02 PM
It wasnt far from here, so I heard about it. Its sad but I dont really blame the cops for shooting at the guy who was blasting at them with a shottie.

TexasRifleman
October 7, 2005, 11:28 PM
Its sad but I dont really blame the cops for shooting at the guy who was blasting at them with a shottie.

Unless it was your wife the guy was holding at gun point. Bad business yes, but there are lots of things to look into here before pronouncing the cops in this one heroes.

Gewehr98
October 7, 2005, 11:29 PM
Where the first rule of the engagement was to "shoot the hostage"?

Sindawe
October 7, 2005, 11:41 PM
First off, its a damn crying shame that the hostage died. The blame for that lies sole with the hostage taker. May he roast eternal for his sins. :fire: Hogue called the woman's death tragic, "tantamount to a police officer getting killed." This really bugs me. I don't know about anybody else, but in situations like this, the hostages life takes precedence over that of a police officer. Cops go into the work KNOWING what the risks and dangers are. Hostages are FORCED into the situation.Where the first rule of the engagement was to "shoot the hostage"? Speed is where I first heard it. Dennis Hopper as the crazed bomber (ex cop), Keanu Reeves as the hero cop, Sandra Bullack as the perky romantic interest driving the bus with a bomb on it.

beerslurpy
October 7, 2005, 11:44 PM
We dont know all the details yet.

I have to admit it is weird that SWAT showed up and didnt bring any rifles capable of taking a head shot at under 50 yards. You would think a modern SWAT team would have at least one bolt action rifle or ar15 handy for hostage situations or badguys wearing armor. I thought hostage situations were the whole point of having SWAT teams?

JohnKSa
October 7, 2005, 11:55 PM
I doubt SWAT was there. The article states they didn't arrive and the chonology shows that they would have had only about 5 minutes to make it there after they were called and before the shooting started.

Tough situation.

IMO, in a hostage situation you need to pick an approach and then play like you actually MEAN it.

In this case, since they called for SWAT, IMO, they should have backed off to a safe distance and waited. By crowding the door, they had no option but to shoot back when the guy came out shooting.

David W. Gay
October 8, 2005, 12:41 AM
Hogue called the woman's death tragic, "tantamount to a police officer getting killed." I found that line rather repugnant. While tantamount basically means equal to, the statement subtly implies that an officer's death would have been more tragic.

Just another example of how some people think that they are more tantamount than others.

Carry on...

Nimitz
October 8, 2005, 01:13 AM
this happened 15 minutes away from my dads house...VERY bad neighborhood over there.

I cant believe some of the replies im reading...actually they dont shock me at all.

someone said "what point was SWAT w/o a bolt action rifle" SWAT wasn't there...btw TPD SWAT is very capable my godfather is part of it.

anyway with
Hogue called the woman's death tragic, "tantamount to a police officer getting killed."

Equivalent in effect or value = tantamount

so whats the big deal with what Mr. Houge said? he said that the womes death was equal to a police officer being killed which in the publics eye is different than just another person...

you have to admit reading in the paper a LEO was killed compared to Joe blow is a bit different.

to everyone involved...I wuldnt want to be in their shoes thats for sure, my prayers go out to them.

Chad

c_yeager
October 8, 2005, 01:44 AM
I guess its going to come down to the details. Its hard to say at this point.

I do have to say that if this was one of those situations in which an inordinate quantity of ammunition was expended with little of it finding its mark then it was irresponsible shooting. Its one thing to play spray-and-pray in an alley, a whole 'nuther thing with hostages. Anything other than that and it seems like it was more than likely unavoidable.

El Rojo
October 8, 2005, 01:57 AM
I just love the theory going around here lately that cops take an oath to protect and serve and they are expected to sacrifice their lives for the public. Hell all of us as citizens really take an oath to protect the Constitution and all it stands for? I don't see how a cops salary of $30 to $60K a year can even possibly compare to this oath, so really, we should all be willing to enforce that oath. I mean cops are supposedly no higher than a regular citizen according to the majority of the people who bring up this ridiculous 'willing to give all" line. So if we expect cops to give their lives to protect and serve, we should expect everyone to give their lives for the people. So if you are a CCW holder, you should be willing to take a bullet for a complete stranger. No more lame excuses of "I only protect my family and I am not a cop". No sir. You don't have a CCW? No problem, you are just like everyone else, take a bullet for society. Better yet, letís turn this around. Why should this poor hostage that got shot be any different? Why shouldn't she be willing to take a bullet for a cop's life? Cops are no different than anyone else. Citizens are no different than cops. So why the double standard? The woman should have been willing to take a bullet for society just as much as the cop should have been willing to take a bullet for society.

Sorry, but the attitude that cops should be expected to take a bullet is ludicrous. Unless you can honestly say you are willing to take a bullet as a regular citizen, you have no right to think a cop should take a bullet for anyone. Even then, go ahead and be my guest and take a bullet for a stranger. No piss ant $40K a year is worth that.

Don't get me wrong. I would take action if I had to and if I died, so be it. But I would never willingly throw myself in front of a bullet as a sacrificial lamb. My kids need a father just as much as her kids need a mother or my wife needs a husband just as much as her husband needs a wife. Just because I might wear a badge doesn't make us any different, as many of you so aptly like to point out so many times, but turn around and contradict yourself in situations like these.

To protect and serve. Not to die and sacrifice. Then again, you are right, not to kill and maim either. Sometimes bad things happen. There are no winners here.

c_yeager
October 8, 2005, 02:46 AM
I just love the theory going around here lately that cops take an oath to protect and serve and they are expected to sacrifice their lives for the public.

i think most of the people here would be content to just be left alone. The fact is that the hostage would not have been any worse off if the police had stayed at home that day. I dont think its unreasonable to expect that our police refrain from victimizing the citizenry on a regular basis.

I am not asking for someone to sacrifice their life. I would ask that if "rescuing" me involves shooting me multiple times that i would rather they didnt bother ;)

El Rojo
October 8, 2005, 12:41 PM
I guess that is a good point. Just leave the guy with the shotgun to your head to his own will for you. :uhoh:

gc70
October 8, 2005, 01:43 PM
I try not to -react- to stories like this, but after El Rojo's rousing defense of the police, I just cant' help myself.

Police tactical control of the situation was lousy.

I am assuming that the police were dispersed and behind cover while waiting for SWAT to arrive - if not, shame on them.

Shots are heard inside the room, then the gunman emerges and takes a shot at one of the cops. At that point, the cop who was shot at should have taken full advantage of cover and the other three should have been looking for a clean shot at the gunman. In short, the police should have maintained control of the tactical situation.

Instead, it sounds like the gunman's first shot at a cop was taken by the cops as an instant license to immediately unload in the gunman's direction, without regard for the hostage. The cops could have exercised control over their response, but they just reacted and started shooting. In short, the cops let the gunman dictate the tactical situation.

Don't get me wrong; I am in no way advocating a cop "taking a bullet" for a civilian. But I do expect cops to be prepared (i.e. wearing their armor) and act intelligently (get behind cover when someone is shooting at them) rather than just shooting indiscriminately when they feel endangered.

cropcirclewalker
October 8, 2005, 01:57 PM
I just love the theory going around here lately that cops take an oath to protect and serve and they are expected to sacrifice their lives for the public. Hell all of us as citizens really take an oath to protect the Constitution and all it stands for? I don't see how a cops salary of $30 to $60K a year can even possibly compare to this oath, so really, we should all be willing to enforce that oath. I mean cops are supposedly no higher than a regular citizen according to the majority of the people who bring up this ridiculous 'willing to give all" line. So if we expect cops to give their lives to protect and serve, we should expect everyone to give their lives for the people. he made me sad.

I hope he is not a cop because if he is, he just flunked my essay test on "What is the meaning of to protect and serve?"

When I took my oath I was fully aware that I may have to take a bullet for my fellow citizens. All of us who served in the military are and were.

My next question is.....Would he take a bullet for his partner?

That may shine some light on whether he is an elitist or a, well.....you decide.

Hypnogator
October 8, 2005, 06:06 PM
Once the shooting starts, the officers really have no choice but to stop it as quickly as possible.

If worst comes to worst, the hostage is far less likely to be killed by officers' fire than from a contact gunshot wound to the head. Still doesn't mean it won't happen. Damn shame! :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

gc70
October 8, 2005, 06:25 PM
Once the shooting starts, the officers really have no choice but to stop it as quickly as possible. Really? So the first shot fired is the signal to blast away? Do you give that advice in your Officer Hostage training scenario?

El Rojo
October 8, 2005, 09:17 PM
Wow GC70, you sure know a lot about the locations of the hostage, bad guy, and cops from just reading this story. I read the same story and now where did it say the cops had good cover and could just wait until the shooting stopped. In fact, it didn't say anything about cover at all, so to assume they could find some, well, would be an assumption.

We can armchair quarterback this all we want, but we weren't there. Does this suck? Yes. I guess the cops should have just thrown down their guns and took a bullet for the team. That is the only way this could have been avoided. Or the other answer is to not respond to the call and just let it sort itself out. Those seem to be the two most sought out answers.

If you are a cop and to protect and serve means you are willing to take a bullet for society in general, I respect that. That is a personal decision you have to make. If you are not willing to take a bullet for me as a mere civilian, I respect that too. No cop should be expected to take hits to their body armor as a means of protecting an innocent life. That is absurd.

Sistema1927
October 8, 2005, 09:30 PM
I don't think the statement that the hostages' death was "tantamount to a police officer being killed" was about the relative worth of her life vis a vis that of an officer.

Instead, I think that this was an expression that the officers' reactions to this tragedy would be similar to those experienced following a line-of-duty death.

The criminal was the guilty party, but these officers are going to be dealing with their own guilt for some time to come. To them, they failed in their mission to "serve and protect", and there will be those who never recover from this horrible tragedy.

Shootcraps
October 8, 2005, 11:04 PM
From that info, those cops should be indicted for manslaughter. There's no way in this world you can justify their killing the hostage. :banghead:

When the dude came out and they saw him with the gun to the hostage's head, they should have taken cover and waited until someone had a clean shot at the BG.

Hypnogator
October 8, 2005, 11:17 PM
Really? So the first shot fired is the signal to blast away? Do you give that advice in your Officer Hostage training scenario?
Yes it is. Once the bad guy starts shooting at responding officers, it becomes an "active shooter" situation. The hostage has the best chance if officers immediately take out the shooter. Unfortunately, this can't always be done without risk to the hostage. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people. I know that sounds rather cold, but what are the officers to do? Wait until the shooter kills one or more of them, then kills the hostage, to boot? Once the subject starts shooting, the odds of negotiating an end to the standoff go up astronomically. And yes, I used to teach hostage negotiations.

VARifleman
October 8, 2005, 11:30 PM
Which movie was that...
Where the first rule of the engagement was to "shoot the hostage"?
Soldier.

Lupinus
October 8, 2005, 11:37 PM
I live just up the road from tampa, I hope im never taken hostage around here.

They hsould have backed off or aimed before unloading. What if it was a kid? A baby? What if a round missed and hit the same?

They should have backed off or not gotten so close in the first place as to instigate him, that is no way I have ever heard of how you deal with a hostage situation.

And lastly no, I don't expect a cop to nessisarily jump infront of a bullet for me. But I do expect him to be willing to take some risk. You are an officer, risk is part of the job if you can't deal with having to put yourself at risk to insure the safty of others then you shouldn't be a cop anymore then you should be a soldier if you arn't prepared to go to war.

It wasn't a good situation, but the police could have handled it better and placed their shot's better.

gc70
October 9, 2005, 12:58 AM
Wow GC70, you sure know a lot about the locations of the hostage, bad guy, and cops from just reading this story. I read the same story and now where did it say the cops had good cover and could just wait until the shooting stopped. In fact, it didn't say anything about cover at all, so to assume they could find some, well, would be an assumption.Gee, El Rojo, I did not say that I knew anything about the location of the police. I did say that:I am assuming that the police were dispersed and behind cover while waiting for SWAT to arrive - if not, shame on them.Assuming that the police took a good tactical position is substantially more polite than, for instance, assuming that they were milling around in front of the door and were surprised by the gunman. Sorry, El Rojo, but I'm giving the police the entire benefit of the assumption about their tactical position. However, with any decent tactical position, the police had some options between blasting away and shooting the hostage and your "take a bullet for a civilian" kick.

The hostage has the best chance if officers immediately take out the shooter.Hypnogator, I do not disagree with the general concept, unless "immediately take out the shooter" means wantonly shooting through the hostage to hit the shooter. Again, is that what you teach in your Officer Hostage scenario and is it well-received by the officers you train?

I am simply stunned by the responses that point to a single shot toward the police as justifying apparently unlimited police response, without regard to collateral damage.

Lupinus
October 9, 2005, 01:05 AM
Yes I to would agree that shooting the hostage taker is best.

IF you have a clear shot. If Im a hostage it doesn't help me any if you put a few bullet's into me. Shoot him if you have a clear shot, if not back off untill someone with a scoped rifle can put a bullet in his head.

Grey54956
October 9, 2005, 09:25 AM
I seem to recall a story similar to this a month or two ago. The hostage in that one was a toddler. Gunman pointed his gun at cops, and the cops fired 30-40 rounds, killing the gunman and toddler. Once again, the "safety of the officers" was quoted as an excuse for why the toddler died. Once again, the thin blue line circled up the wagons.

I am waiting for the day when three or four gunmen have a bank lobby full of hostages, so we drop a bomb on the bank and kill them all "for the safety of the officers."

Officers should learn to make proper use of cover and timing. What's he going to do, stuff her in a car, then they have a clean shot. Does she struggle and break away, clean shot. Does he shoot her first, clean shot. Get into cover, don't make yourself a target, and wait for the opportunity to make the clean shot.

The line about "officer safety" is complete BS. Everytime the cops gun down a hostage, shoot someone with a cellphone or wallet in their hand, or shoot in an uncertain situation, the thin blue line circles the wagons and yelps "officer safety". How long before the cops start shooting CCW holders in traffic stops because of "officer safety"? How about this one: how long before they take your guns because of "officer safety"?

Tell me it ain't so.

Don Gwinn
October 9, 2005, 09:46 AM
Lots of assumptions are being made here from almost no information. You know these things:


BG took a hostage.
Cops arrived on scene.
Almost immediately, BG emerges with hostage.
Immediately, from what we know, he fires a shotgun at the nearest officer.
One or more officers return fire.
Both the BG and the hostage are killed.


That's what we were told in the article. Even parts of that may be untrue. All we really know is who's dead and who's not.


I will say the whole grandiose debate over whether a police officer should take a bullet for a citizen or society in general is really irrelevant to this case. If the police on scene had all decided to let that first officer get shot, how exactly would that have saved the hostage? It wouldn't. They didn't know ahead of time whether she'd be hurt if they fired. They knew she could be, and they made the best decision they could. It may have been right (and tragic) or wrong (and tragic.) We couldn't possibly know just by reading this article.

If anything, the fault is going to be the fact that they approached that door. But we don't know why they did it. Maybe it was a tactical mistake (nobody here would ever make one of those, of course) or maybe it wasn't. The article doesn't mention, for instance, gunshots and screams from inside the room. Does that mean there weren't any?
It doesn't mean anything, just like most of what you read in the paper.

Lupinus
October 9, 2005, 10:33 AM
I will say the whole grandiose debate over whether a police officer should take a bullet for a citizen or society in general is really irrelevant to this case.
Actually it is very relivent. Part of your job as a police officer is putting yourself into dangerous situation's in order to protect people. No one is saying stand in the middle of the street and make yourself as big a target as possible. But last I checked taking cover work's pretty well. Unless the guy is pumping round after round at you and you are taking casulties there is no reason to drop him. Hell take cover let the idiot fire at you and give her a chance to break away giving you a clean shot. But that's ok god forbid an officer put himself in danger and wait for a clean shot.

Chris Rhines
October 9, 2005, 11:10 AM
Despite the best attempts of the apologists to obfuscate the situation, there's really not much more that we need to know. A police officer shot and killed an innocent party. I don't care what the circumstances were - shooting a good guy is NEVER acceptable.

We all make mistakes, but a mistake that results in the death of an innocent party cannot be allowed to be repeated.

- Chris

Shootcraps
October 9, 2005, 04:29 PM
I don't care what the circumstances were - shooting a good guy is NEVER acceptable.


Isn't that how it works in the training scenarios? You shoot a good guy and you fail the course.

MN_Strelok
October 9, 2005, 06:42 PM
I hate to rain on speculation, but there's a tiny bit more actual information:


Police Not To Blame In Shooting, Man Says
By CHRIS ECHEGARAY cechegaray@tampatrib.com

Published: Oct 9, 2005


TAMPA - Willie Beamon was recovering, he said, his voice quivering Saturday as he stood in the doorway of his bungalow-style motel room on East Hillsborough Avenue.

A day after Tampa police killed the man who held Beamon and his girlfriend, Tracy Wood, hostage, the motel manager sat in his room watching college football, Rutgers against West Virginia.

Beamon tried not to relive being held hostage by a man high on crack and waving a loaded shotgun. He tried to suppress thoughts that he could have been the bystander to die with the gunman Friday morning. He tried not to think about his girlfriend, Tracy Wood, dying so violently.

He knew the gunman, Gary Brewer, 45, of Tampa.

Police said Brewer came looking for Beamon after first holding his own girlfriend, Cynthia Chin, hostage in her South Dale Mabry Highway condo for seven hours. Brewer apparently thought Beamon had been intimate with Chin.

Chin escaped by running to a neighbor's apartment about 4:30 a.m. and called 911. Brewer drove his Toyota pickup to the Luxury Motel, where he is accused of forcing Wood into Room 11 and putting a gun to Beamon's head.

When Brewer stopped his threats long enough to take a hit from a crack pipe, Beamon darted across the street and called police.

When officers arrived, they knocked on the door and heard two shots. Brewer had shot Beamon's dog, which later died, police said. He then dragged Wood outside, holding her against him, and fired at an officer hiding behind a trash can.

Four officers returned fire; Brewer had at least 10 bullet wounds.

Wood also was shot and taken to a hospital, where she later died. She was 33.

The four officers remained on paid administrative leave Saturday, pending an investigation, as per department policy.

Beamon didn't blame the police. They had to act, he said, because the scene was out of control.

Words did not come to him easily Saturday.

"Something happened ... and I've never been in a situation like that before," Beamon said. "I got out, others got out and I was hoping that she'd get out. But she didn't."

Outside Room 11, there was no police tape, no noise, no signs a deadly shootout took place at the Luxury Motel. There was just the afternoon rain and the whizzing of cars on Hillsborough Avenue.

A woman who identified herself as the motel owner shooed away reporters. "What's done is done," she said. "Go away."

Things also were quiet at the Valrico mobile home where the victim's 29-year-old brother, Marty Wood, lives with his family on Silver Lane.

He was not home, according to the women who answered the door holding two small children.


Please note:
1) The shooting took place outdoors. The above article implies that the shooting's location was next to a busy street.
2) The officer who took fire was apparently taking cover.
3) The BG was hit 10 times and died at the scene. We don't know how many hits the hostage took, but she was still alive when she reached the hospital.

Now, to address some of the off-the-wall assumptions and statements we're seeing in this thread:

When I took my oath I was fully aware that I may have to take a bullet for my fellow citizens.

The cop's body armor MUST have been better than the hostage's.

I don't know about anybody else, but in situations like this, the hostages life takes precedence over that of a police officer.

So, you're saying the officers should have let this guy blaze away in public? And since they're wearing body armor and took an oath, it's okay if they take a 12-gauge slug?

The fact is that the hostage would not have been any worse off if the police had stayed at home that day.

How about everyone else in the neighborhood?

In this case, since they called for SWAT, IMO, they should have backed off to a safe distance and waited. By crowding the door, they had no option but to shoot back when the guy came out shooting.

When the dude came out and they saw him with the gun to the hostage's head, they should have taken cover and waited until someone had a clean shot at the BG.

They should have backed off or not gotten so close in the first place as to instigate him, that is no way I have ever heard of how you deal with a hostage situation.

Is it safe to assume that you guys wholeheartedly concur with the PD tactics applied at Columbine? None of you had any complaints about the responding officers securing the area and waiting for SWAT?

Unless the guy is pumping round after round at you and you are taking casulties there is no reason to drop him.

So the police can't shoot back until one of them is on the pavement? Seems a little harsh...

I am assuming that the police were dispersed and behind cover while waiting for SWAT to arrive - if not, shame on them.

Assuming that the police took a good tactical position is substantially more polite than, for instance, assuming that they were milling around in front of the door and were surprised by the gunman

The article above states that at least one officer was already under cover. It seems odd that the BG would shoot at an officer that was hiding if others were exposed... But then the guy was on crack. See why I don't like assumptions? ;)

Should they have let the guy leave the area? Is it better to have a shootout in a parking lot, or in someone's back yard?

Sorry for the long post, but I'm a little shocked by some of the things that have been said on this thread.

benewton
October 9, 2005, 07:15 PM
"If you are a cop and to protect and serve means you are willing to take a bullet for society in general, I respect that. That is a personal decision you have to make. If you are not willing to take a bullet for me as a mere civilian, I respect that too. No cop should be expected to take hits to their body armor as a means of protecting an innocent life. That is absurd."


Sarcasm, I hope, lest things be beyond all possibility of repair.

Double Naught Spy
October 9, 2005, 08:09 PM
I am simply stunned by the responses that point to a single shot toward the police as justifying apparently unlimited police response, without regard to collateral damage.

So, you're saying the officers should have let this guy blaze away in public? And since they're wearing body armor and took an oath, it's okay if they take a 12-gauge slug?

The police had EVERY right to return fire against the bad guy. I have no qualms with that. If fact, they had every right so long as the guy remained a threat. I don't care how many shots it takes to get the job done. That isn't a relevant factor, but the job must be done properly.

The police had NO right to hit the hostage, much less to hit the hostage several times as was reported in the earlier article. Regardless of the threat to themselves and regardless to the threat to the other people out on the street (just how busy was this busy street at 5:30 in the morning?), they don't get to shoot those not threatening their lives or not threatening the lives of others.

They either should not have shot or shot in some manner that would have assured that the hostage would not have been hit. Up above, it was queried where it was said that the first rule of engagement was to shoot the hostage. Of course, that is based in fiction. As near as I can tell, there is no rule anywhere that says police must return fire. While the ultimage goal may be to stop the threat, nowhere is it said that the threat must be stopped with gunfire.

I am just guessing here, but if the bad guy had the hostage in a traditional headlock, then the hostage would have be below shoulder level on the bad guy. Due to the threat of through and through potentially harming the hostage, not to mention errant rounds directly striking the hostage that were intented for the COM of the bad guy, the aim point onthe bad guy should not have been anywhere below the shoulders. The hostage is NOT a suitable backstop.

It is a trajedy. No doubt. It is a trajedy that when the officers did determine they needed to return fire that they did not have the training, decision skill, shooting skill, and mindset to know when to take proper and appropriate shots.

And before I get flamed, yes, I do know that it was a highly stressful situation and that less than optimal and not every cop on the street is prepared to handle that sort of situation and that is why SWAT gets called in. I fully understand and agree. Even so, training should have been sufficient that each cop know when and where it is appropriate to pull the trigger.

Is it safe to assume that you guys wholeheartedly concur with the PD tactics applied at Columbine? None of you had any complaints about the responding officers securing the area and waiting for SWAT?

Um well, let's see. I can't find any record of the responding police shooting the kids at Columbine. The first responding LEOs basically did what their training told them to do in that situation. It was later determined that what was SOP was in error for that sort of active shooter situation. In Florida, the cops shot the hostage. That was not part of their training, to shoot hostages. Of course, the situations were completely different and direct comparisons are difficult to make. The bottom line is that you, any shooter, is responsible for the rounds you fire and whatever they impact.

cropcirclewalker
October 9, 2005, 08:56 PM
Now, to address some of the off-the-wall assumptions and statements we're seeing in this thread:
Quote:
When I took my oath I was fully aware that I may have to take a bullet for my fellow citizens. You may, in some misguided way, think what I said was an assumption and you would be dead nuts wrong.

Quote:
The cop's body armor MUST have been better than the hostage's. Yes, I admit an assumption. Am I wrong? Some states have laws prohibiting private citizens from purchasing body armor. Perhaps a review of those laws would be in order.

Quote:
I don't know about anybody else, but in situations like this, the hostages life takes precedence over that of a police officer. Not my statement.

So, you're saying the officers should have let this guy blaze away in public? And since they're wearing body armor and took an oath, it's okay if they take a 12-gauge slug? Do I sense an assumption? Where did it call out 12 guage slugs? All I remember reading about was a sawed off semi shot gun. Do you know things not in evidence or are you making them up?

I look forward to the link about the slugs and I am further curious as to how many hits the hostage took.

Finally......Would the cops have opened up on the bg if the hostage was one of theirs? Maybe try for a head shot?

I do not expect an honest answer so nevermind. Just like above somebody was unwilling to answer the question if they would take a bullet for their partner (even wearing armor).

Sad, sad.

MN_Strelok
October 9, 2005, 08:56 PM
Thanks for the reply, DNS.

The questions I asked weren't entirely rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested in the POV that the cops screwed up. However, up until now I couldn't decide whether you guys had a serious opinion, or this was just one of those kneejerk all cops are evil/all cops are superior threads.

I think I see where you're coming from. I don't entirely agree, but there isn't enough information about this particular event to be very dogmatic one way or the other. (I agree that it should never happen, but I also recognize that there is a point where the hostage is less important than other potential victims. I'm not sure where to draw that line though: City street at 0530? Crowded high school? Passenger jet full of people?)

And I realize Columbine isn't a 1:1 comparison, but I brought it up because I recall the local PD being castigated for not being aggressive enough. My opinion - which I know you're dying to hear - is that there is no right tactic for every situation. You (PD, CCW, EMS, etc.) train based on averages, and hope not to encounter any noteworthy exceptions to that law.

While I'm talking about training: How do you think the cops should better prepare for things like this? I think training involving moving targets would be especially useful. I know enough about the government, however, to know that they hate investing in people. They'd much rather buy the latest whiz-bang less-lethal gadget and then hold a press conference...

MN_Strelok
October 9, 2005, 09:04 PM
You may, in some misguided way, think what I said was an assumption and you would be dead nuts wrong.

No, that would be one of the statements.

Do I sense an assumption? Where did it call out 12 guage slugs? All I remember reading about was a sawed off semi shot gun. Do you know things not in evidence or are you making them up?

I'm not making things up, and I never said he did have slugs. It was a what-if scenario. For all the cops on the scene knew, he had slugs.

Yes, I admit an assumption. Am I wrong? Some states have laws prohibiting private citizens from purchasing body armor. Perhaps a review of those laws would be in order.

This goes along with what I said above. The point I intended to make is that body armor against a shotgun is a dicey proposition. I apologize if that wasn't clear enough the first time around.

cropcirclewalker
October 9, 2005, 10:08 PM
My pappy was stealing watermelons way back in the 30s and he told me about taking a blast from a farmers shotgun. He said it hurt, taking out those little pellets.

My father in Law was hunting pheasants once with a guy who shot at a pheasant flushing between the two of them. He turned his body away and took the shot into his coat. No Problemo. Yes. it was in the fall.

The point I intended to make is that body armor against a shotgun is a dicey proposition. I guess the shotguns of the 30s were a lot less powerful than they are today. Even sawed off.

Maybe somebody who knows could tell us what the effective killing range of a sawed off shotgun would be.

With a slug, like you suggest he was using, and shooting from the hip, which sounds like the bg was doing (pointed at the hostages head, then leveled at the cop who was behind the trash can, sawed off, not even a bead on the barrell to use as a sight, I guess if I was a cop I would hope for a slug, not a bunch of 7 or 7 1/2, which is probably what they sell the most of at wally world.

Yes, I can understand how a guy from Illinois would not recognize the lethality of a sawed off at like 30 yards (which would be minimal).

You should have stolen more watermelons when you were a kid. :p

Double Naught Spy
October 9, 2005, 10:23 PM
My opinion - which I know you're dying to hear - is that there is no right tactic for every situation.

This is very true. Under stress, the idea is that the trained professions should revert back to their training. It is always hoped that training will provide the professionals with the ability to behave or respond in an appropriate manner, especially when faced with something outside of their experience. Columbine was a great example. None of the first responders had dealt with anything like that or had any real training for it. It was a very intense, high stress situation and the first responders reverted to their basics, a type of tactic we now know to be inaedequate.

Simple one-on-one hostage situations are much more common although the parameters of the situation most definitely vary by individual situation. While none of the officers present had ever been in that one situation previously (semantics), they probably did have some hostage situation training. They also should have had gun training and had been well schooled on when you should pull the trigger and when you should not.

LEOs are supposed to be professionals and I am sure the ones in question were professionals. Part of their training is to deal with life and death situations and to try to resolve such situations as best as possible. As part of their profession, they weild lethal weapons that they know they may have to use in a crisis. As such, we, the general public, count on them to weild those weapons appropriately and it is the professionals that often know best just what sort of impact said weapons can have. They know that as part of their job that they may have to bring such weapons into a conflict and use them. They know that there are risks involved with using lethal and less lethal weapons and that as a result of their actions, they may have to answer for their actions to a review board, civil court, or criminal court. It sucks, but that is the reality of their jobs. Officers involved in such events may be quite noble in their efforts, but that doesn't necessarily make is any more or less okay to shoot the wrong person. Regardless of the situation, you don't get to shoot the wrong people. If you don't have a proper shot, you don't take it because you may shoot the wrong person.

This goes along with what I said above. The point I intended to make is that body armor against a shotgun is a dicey proposition. I apologize if that wasn't clear enough the first time around.

I don't know about it being dicey. If the rounds hit the body armor, even a lowly IIA vest will stop 00 buckshot effectively. A IIIA vest, the highest rated soft armor, will stop 12 ga. slugs. The wearer will undoubtedly suffer blunt force trauma under the vest, but no penetration.

In the shooting, it was reported that the guy was shooting a sawed off shotgun. If he was shooting slugs, then they were not getting up to full velocity and depending on how short the shotgun was, may have been at a hugely reduced velocity. If shooting birdshot or buckshot, the shortened barrel would open up the pattern quite a bit and the shot be traveling at a reduced velocity. What is dicey is for the slugs and shot that miss the vest.

artherd
October 10, 2005, 12:53 AM
This is just a real shame all around.

1) How come the officers couldn't make good headshots on this clown with their issue arms? MORE TRAINING!

2) Where the heck were the officer's M4s with ACOGs?

(And where is mine? Cops need these precision weapons that will REDUCE colatoral damage, and as such so do the people at large.)

artherd
October 10, 2005, 12:56 AM
Yes, I can understand how a guy from Illinois would not recognize the lethality of a sawed off at like 30 yards (which would be minimal).

Are you insane? How about this, you go stand at 30 yards, and I will fire a load of #7. Any takers? Didn't think so!

Ryder
October 10, 2005, 01:44 AM
Been there done that artherd. Wasn't sawed off but the BBs still bounced off. You left out the important part. Your opponant gets to be armed with a handgun. Still want to play? Different story at 30 feet, but you said yards. Number 7 have very little momentum for penetration and they are moving so slow I actually had time to turn my head away from the sound of the incoming pellets.

I don't think the cops should have to take a bullet (or even lots of little ones) but they shouldn't pray and spray in such a situation. If they are such lousy marksmen that they can't hit a head sized target with every shot at the ranges this had to of occured then they shouldn't be cops.

Hypnogator
October 10, 2005, 02:16 AM
Hypnogator, I do not disagree with the general concept, unless "immediately take out the shooter" means wantonly shooting through the hostage to hit the shooter. Again, is that what you teach in your Officer Hostage scenario and is it well-received by the officers you train?
Hmmm. I don't recall ever having advocated "wantonly shooting through the hostage to hit the shooter." The officers undoubtedly were shooting at the perp, and the hostage got hit by accident. We have no info on how many rounds hit the hostage, or where she was hit, other than it was obviously in a fatal location. This is similar to the California incident recently where a gunman and child were killed by police because the gunman was shooting at them, using his child for a shield. When you're in a public area, there is risk to bystanders from the gunman's fire, even if the police don't shoot back. From the public safety standpoint, the quicker they can terminate the shooter's life-threatening actions, the better.

I don't care what the circumstances were - shooting a good guy is NEVER acceptable.
Never? OK, you're an armed LEO on a commercial flight. A middle-eastern male suddenly jumps up and seizes a pilot who has come out to use the restroom. He waves a gun around, and begins dragging the pilot back towards the flight deck. He is almost completely concealed behind the pilot. Do you shoot through the pilot to take him out? I would. I'd hate to, but I would. The consequences of not shooting would be unthinkable.

One last thought. This is cold, but it's true: I can always explain why the bad guy shot the hostage. I can never explain why I shot the hostage. The "safest" course of action -- for your career -- in this type of hostage situation is to do nothing. But your terminating the threat immediately is often the only chance the hostage has of surviving the situation, once the hostage taker has begun shooting.

cropcirclewalker
October 10, 2005, 10:54 AM
The questions about the lethality of the sawed off brings me to the question........

So How Badly was the cop who got fired at hurt?

They forgot to mention that. Did he have lots of little pellets or one big slug.

I yam assuming that he must have been close enough (like maybe 30 feet) to be deadly in order to get the response he got. They tell me it's hard to miss with a sawed off shotgun.

How badly was the cop injured? :confused:

TheEgg
October 10, 2005, 01:01 PM
Hogue called the woman's death tragic, "tantamount to a police officer getting killed."

This is a really stupid statement, even if you put the best spin on it. Hogue would do well if he clarified it.

The fact that the BG had 10 or more holes in him and the hostage had "multiple wounds" sure makes it sound like panic fire from the officers, rather than a calculated use of deadly force. Since I was not there, hard to tell, but these facts would make me look at the situation very closely.

MechAg94
October 10, 2005, 01:21 PM
I have some questions:
What sort of distances were involved here?
How many total shots were fired by the police officers?

If the distances were long, they could have aimed at the guy's head and still fired all over the place. In that case, some cheap 30/30 lever guns would have been much better weapons than issue pistols in that case. Lever guns would be cheap to put in every car as well. AR15's would work, but cost much more.

I am curious about total number of rounds for one reason: Did the officers make slow careful shots or did they just start blasting until their magazines were empty? I am not really interested in proving guilt on the part of the LEO's with this question, just curous what they did, how they did it, and why as well as how they were trained.

Would a non-lethal bean bag shotgun have been effective in this case? At the very least to allow the hostage to get free of the guy.

TheOtherOne
October 10, 2005, 03:18 PM
What if it was a similar situation and the police had either not been called or not yet shown up and a concerned neighbor heard the first gunshot and decides to rush outside with his own weapon and suddenly finds himself in the same predicament? The man with the hostage and a shotgun fires at him so he returns fire and ends up killing the hostage taker and sadly the hostage too.

If that happened I'm fairly certain you would be reading an article about a local citizen being charged by authorities with manslaughter (at the very least). Of course, the reporter would also throw in a nice diatribe about how Florida's Shoot First law is creating a wild west atmosphere.

Thank goodness that didn't happen and instead the response came from first-class citizens who do not have to follow the same laws and are allowed to shoot back when fired upon regardless of the situation.

Shootcraps
October 10, 2005, 05:24 PM
+1.

Chris Rhines
October 10, 2005, 07:56 PM
Never? I said, "Never." I meant never. I don't recall mentioning any qualifications.

OK, you're an armed LEO on a commercial flight. A middle-eastern male suddenly jumps up and seizes a pilot who has come out to use the restroom. He waves a gun around, and begins dragging the pilot back towards the flight deck. He is almost completely concealed behind the pilot. Do you shoot through the pilot to take him out? No. Of course not. What you are proposing is tantamount to committing murder to save your own life, and the life of some number of third parties. No.

I might try to shoot past the hostage and disable the hijacker. If I accidentally struck the hostage, I would fully expect to be prosecuted for either assault or murder.

- Chris

El Rojo
October 11, 2005, 12:53 AM
What you are proposing is tantamount to committing murder to save your own life, and the life of some number of third parties. So then would it be wrong for the Air Force to shoot down a hijacked plane that is heading for urban America? Is it better for that plane of 183 passengers to run into a building holding thousands? Don't pilots or flight attendants know by taking the job that they might have to give up their life in order to "protect and serve" their passengers?

So many inconsistencies.

Also, I grow tired of the same old "If this had happened to a CCW holder or neighbor" routine. Can anyone site any kind of source that shows where a CCW holder tried to save someone, killed or maimed someone innocent, and was successfully prosecuted for it? I hear that example used all the time, but I have never seen an actual case. Can someone cite a case where a law abiding citizen "sprayed and prayed" and was prosecuted for it afterwards. I hear of this mythical event all the time as justification for eliminating some "double standard". Yet I have never been presented with evidence that would prove this possibility is not anecdotal or of such rarity that it is a non-factor in such discussions. I would assume that as much as I hear it mentioned, some of you here would be able to provide a plethora of examples to prove your point that such a double standard exists.

DRZinn
October 11, 2005, 03:26 AM
What you are proposing is tantamount to committing murder to save your own life, and the life of some number of third parties. No.No, it isn't. If you do nothing, everyone will die, including the hostage. If you shoot through the hostage, maybe he'll be the only innocent to die.

Chris Rhines
October 11, 2005, 07:49 AM
So then would it be wrong for the Air Force to shoot down a hijacked plane that is heading for urban America? Very much wrong.

I had always thought that "the ends justify the means" was no longer a generally held concept in morality. Guess I was wrong.

Don't pilots or flight attendants know by taking the job that they might have to give up their life in order to "protect and serve" their passengers? No more so than police officers know that they may have to die protecting and serving the public. Speaking of inconsistencies...

No, it isn't. If you do nothing, everyone will die, including the hostage. If you shoot through the hostage, maybe he'll be the only innocent to die. By shooting through the hostage you are killing a person who is no threat to you, hence outside the umbrella of self-defense. That is murder. The fact that he's being used as a human shield by the real threat is irrelevant.

- Chris

MechAg94
October 11, 2005, 09:21 AM
I had always thought that "the ends justify the means" was no longer a generally held concept in morality. Guess I was wrong.
Oh, people (especially politicians) let the ends justify the means all the time. :)

I don't think that is a case of the ends justifying the means. It is a matter of saving inocent life and making a decision on how best to do that. I don't know if I would call the means justified, just the best of a set of poor choices. I do assume that you have no other options but to shoot the plane down. If I were on a plane, I would hope they would give us time to attempt to take action, but I have no problem with shooting it down rather than let concern for my life lead to the death of countless others.

I think the main thing to me is that you do have an obligation to attempt to preserve the life the hostage. You should be competent enough to make a head shot at short range. At longer ranges, you have to consider if there is a way to get in closer or stall. I don't think the first response should be to blast away. You are almost guaranteeing a dead hostage with that approach.

If you are not an LEO and dealing with a hostage situation, I don't think you have the right to gun down hostages to get to the criminal. At least, I doubt the courts would help you much if you did.

El Rojo
October 11, 2005, 09:37 AM
Chris Rhines, I only asked questions, I gave no comment. You have to answer those question for yourself. If you expect flight attendents to have to take a bullet, then your statement of taking a life is murder is inconsistent. You can't have it both ways. Those questions are for you to figure out and if you read them again, I take zero position either way.

Unless you answer the questions as yes, yes, no, you are not being consistent. Or you could answer the questions no, no, yes too I suppose. Either way, if I understand you correctly, since the ends don't justify the means, really what we should do is not interfere with fate by any means. If a plane has been hijacked, let it run into a building. If a person is taken hostage with the intent of causing more harm, we have no right to try and stop it for fear of interfering at a risk of losing innocent life. Would you also advocate that the police should not respond to these incidents because the risk is too great that the mean does not justify the end? I am just trying to understand your position.

Or maybe it is more of a gray world. Sure they can respond and do what they have to do, but if they gun down an innocent, they lose their protections even if it potentially saved more lives, including their own? You know I guess I could accept that. The cops tried hard not to shoot the hostage, but they did, so tough luck, we tried hard not to fire you or prosecute you. Sometimes bad things happen. I can accept that.

DRZinn
October 11, 2005, 09:41 AM
By shooting through the hostage you are killing a person who is no threat to you, hence outside the umbrella of self-defense. That is murder. The fact that he's being used as a human shield by the real threat is irrelevant.So, let me make sure I have this straight. You think it would be better to do nothing and let the terrorist crash the pane into its intended target, killing thousands, including the hostage, than to shoot one innocent hostage and take back the plane?

Byron Quick
October 11, 2005, 11:33 AM
It's a shame that these policemen didn't have rifles.

I'd be interested in seeing how many folks here could hit a grapefruit and never miss from behind the concealment (not cover) of a trash can while taking fire from a shotgun. I can consistently make head shots with a pistol on a paper target. Somehow, I think my accuracy might degrade under fire. Maybe the ironmen here would maintain their world class accuracy.

Chris,

Friend, I certainly hope that none of us is ever taken hostage. I sincerely hope that no one ever is in that situation. If you were taken hostage and the hostage taker was shooting at me...I'd take cover if possible. However, in the airplane and cockpit scenario, I'd shoot through you to prevent the hijacking of the plane, the deaths of all the passengers and crew not to mention thousands on the ground. If the situation was reversed and I'm the hostage on the airliner and you're the guy who's only way to kill the terrorist is to shoot through me...do it.

Oh, almost forgot. The Wally World's around here must be better stocked with varieties of shotgun shells than the ones some of you patronize. Mine sells stuff like buckshot, slugs, and BB shotshells. Don't think you'll nonchalantly turn and take those on your coat.

And I've seen the patterns of OO buck shot with a sawed off shotgun. If the range was thirty feet and my supposed cover was a trash can, I'd be in fear of my life. I'm no super marksman but at thirty feet with a sawed off shotgun and buckshot, I'll hit what I'm shooting at-the lack of sights won't matter.

cropcirclewalker
October 11, 2005, 12:01 PM
The cops tried hard not to shoot the hostage,. Assuming a fact not in evidence.

This airliner scenario is not analagous to the situation.

The bg had one hostage,

one sawed off, which had just been discharged two times (did he saw off the magazine too? how many rounds can one get into a sawed off semi)

Then he went and discharged his sawed off again. That's three.

and, since we have heard no information about injuries sustained by the fired on cop, was at a distance where he was only lethal to the hostage.

Or the fired on cop had sufficient cover.

Or the SLUG just fell out the end of the shortened barrell or was unable to penetrate the trash can.

Or he was at a closer range and so drugged up and so bad a shot that he could not hit anybody anyway.

I know there was little time to evaluate all these risks and many in the LEO community have just probably been trained to empty their magazines "to remove the threat"

My two questions, one of which can be answered by somebody local with more access to local information is....
1) How bad was the cop injured?

Any cop can answer this one...
2) What if it was your partner in the headlock?

Byron Quick
October 11, 2005, 12:18 PM
Different shotguns have varying magazine capacities. My Brownings hold five. I am unaware of any automatic shotguns that have less than that unless plugged for bird hunting.

cropcirclewalker,

You seem to think that whether the officer was wounded or how badly has some relevance. (Oh! I've only taken flesh wounds...I'd better hold my fire until I receive a life threatening wound! :rolleyes: ) Are you asserting that if the BG has missed three times that the officer should have held his fire and let the BG fire at least two more times? If so, that is a ridiculous position to take. The only trash bins I've ever seen that constitute cover from buckshot or slugs are the dumpster type of trash containers. Hardly what I would describe as a trash can. On the other hand, who knows what reporters will write? Many of them appear to be nearly illiterate.

and, since we have heard no information about injuries sustained by the fired on cop, was at a distance where he was only lethal to the hostage.

Or the fired on cop had sufficient cover.

Or the SLUG just fell out the end of the shortened barrell or was unable to penetrate the trash can.

Or he was at a closer range and so drugged up and so bad a shot that he could not hit anybody anyway.


There's the possibility that you conveniently left out also: that the shooter had simply missed three times and was adjusting his fire closer with each shot. Of course, that possibility justifies the cop being in fear of his life and justifies firing for anyone, even a cop.

By the way, buckshot is effective out to forty yards or so and can be lethal further...it's just not as accurate. A friend of mine has killed a buck with a slug at ninety yards. I personally consider that to be a lucky shot that I would not take shooting slugs but the buck was DRT. JShirley, another of the moderators here, took a retired bullet resistant vest and covered a railroad tie with it. Then he shot it with a 12 guage slug. The slug didn't penetrate the vest but it penetrated the railroad tie with the vest wrapped around it. Several inches deep.

The reason I posted the previous is that you seem to lack experience with the capabilities of shotguns. The weapon is more dangerous than you seem to believe.

cropcirclewalker
October 11, 2005, 12:36 PM
Mr. Quick, my apologies. I thought everyone here must have read the initial story. There were 2 shots fired inside the motel room when the bg killed the hostages dog.

He only leveled at the cop once and the cop sought cover behind a trash can.

My concerns about his injuries is that it would help us to know at what distance he was from the sawed off. He couldn't have been at handshake or spit-in-your -eye distance or the cop would not have had time to seek cover.

I thought everyone would know that as a pistol loses its accuracy as the distance increases, a sawed off loses its lethality.

Subsequently as the distance increases for the pistol, it is obvious that the danger to the hostage increases.

edited.
Yes, I am unfamiliar with semi auto shotguns and especially sawed offs. I have an Ivers Johnson Champion (30" full choke fued gun) and a Mossberg Pump. I know if I sawed off the pump, the shells would fall out the tubular mag.

Someone stated above that a slug out of a sawed off hasn't much power and fer sure has no accuracy. Perhaps somebody knows. I include that into my questions.

Byron Quick
October 11, 2005, 01:02 PM
Mr. Quick, my apologies. I thought everyone here must have read the initial story. There were 2 shots fired inside the motel room when the bg killed the hostages dog.

Sure, I read that. However, I refrained from making the possibly fatal assumption that the BG did not immediately top off his magazine. Takes about five seconds at the most. I refrain from making assumptions when I cannot see what is happening.

A sawed off automatic would only be a single shot if the magazine tube was sawn off. On my Light Twelve you could remove about half of the barrel without touching the magazine tube. The magazine tubes on many pumps are longer than the ones on most automatics.

Accuracy degradation of the slug in a smoothbore sawed off shotgun could be a reasonable factor. And it could be another possibly fatal assumption. How? By assuming that the sawed off shotgun does not have a barrel rifled for slugs. Such a gun would still be accurate enough with slugs if the barrel was shortened correctly.

Bottom line: It's a shame they didn't have rifles available. I don't think there's many people who can consistenly make head shots while never missing and hitting something they didn't want to hit using a pistol while under fire.

Also, we don't know what cover or concealment was or was not available. Considering a typical trash can to be cover from buckshot or slugs is ridiculous. Try it. I have owned one trash can in my life that might constitute cover from buckshot. It was heavy galvanized steel and weighed about four times as much as an ordinary trash can. Even it would not stop a slug.

a sawed off loses its lethality.

Not as much as you seem to believe with slugs or buckshot. I could be at a distance where I know I couldn't make a headshot with a pistol under ideal conditions and I'd still be within the lethal zone of a sawed off shotgun firing buckshot or slugs. Once again, I've seen penetration from such weapons at varying distances. Most trashcans would not be cover at forty yards from buckshot much less slugs.

cropcirclewalker
October 11, 2005, 01:27 PM
Yes, thank you Mr. Quick. When you said Not as much as you seem to believe with slugs or buckshot. I get the feeling that you may have much more experience with sawed off shotguns than I.

I only stated that lethality goes down as distance increases. I do not know what the lethal range is and apparently you do.

That is why I would like to know the distances involved and the extent of the injuries sustained by the cop.

Many questions seem to grow out of this mess.

If the bg was 40 yards away from the cops, the killing of the hostage was not justified.

If the bg was spit-in-your-eye close enough then

1) How bad was the cop hurt?
2) How did they managed to hit the hostage several times?

TheOtherOne
October 11, 2005, 02:13 PM
I hear that example used all the time, but I have never seen an actual case. Can someone cite a case where a law abiding citizen "sprayed and prayed" and was prosecuted for it afterwards.http://tinypic.com/ei13xh.gif Maybe a good samaritan just hasn't yet killed an innocent bystander. I don't hear too many people who believe that they would be able to get away with it, but maybe so?

Anyways, if it is widely taught in the law enforcement world that you must return fire on a hostage taker who has a hostage wrapped around him then I do not want the police to show up if I ever find myself in a hostage situation. If the cops come, then not only do I have to worry about my captor killing me but I have to worry about him shooting at the police and the police killing me.

Hmmm.... I keep finding more and more situations where I would just prefer that the government would leave me alone. I'm perfectly capable of screwing things up myself. I don't need any help! :)

svtruth
October 11, 2005, 02:35 PM
I'm a new, 6-8 mos, shooter but if I were outside the lethal range of the shotgun, I think I would wait for him to run out of ammo. If inside, I can fire accurately enough to attempt a head shot on BG, away from hostage.
Don't the poloce there get trained on the four rules?
Yes, yes, stress. That, I understand, is why they get training.

1911_sfca
October 11, 2005, 03:47 PM
Wow, you guys sound like a bunch of liberals. You should move out here to **********; the victim-blaming socialists would just LOVE you.. especially with all the "blame the cops" attitude. We all know that sawed off shotguns aren't lethal anyway, and cops should always be perfect shots.

gc70
October 11, 2005, 05:31 PM
The details in the news stories are too sketchy for me to draw a firm conclusion on whether this was a "good" shoot, with unfortunate consequences, or a "bad" shoot, with unfortunate consequences.

Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the tendency of responses to support the two ends of the spectrum of action - either advocating that the cops totally cower and let the BG shoot at them or justifying the cops for blasting away as soon as the BG took a shot.

I strongly suspect that the best course of action in this type of situation is rarely at either extreme.

Byron Quick
October 12, 2005, 12:27 AM
The best course of action would be to equip police with weapons capable of dealing with hostage takers while lowering the probability of collateral damage.
AR15. Or even as mentioned before, a Winchester 94 .30-30.

There isn't a best course when faced with this situation when armed only with service pistols. You've got a choice between poor, bad, and none.

Supposedly, Wyatt Earp never took cover in any gunfights. He just calmly advanced, taking careful aim, and firing deliberately. He was never wounded. His demeanour and actions reportedly shook his opponents up to the point that they couldn't shoot straight.

Dunno if I believe that. Even if I do believe it, I've got a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Earp was damned lucky in the marksmanship of his opponents. I don't expect the cops to be Wyatt Earp.

Equipped as they were equipped, under the circumstances as we know them, I wouldn't be surprised to see news of a dead hostage and a wounded kidnapper.

twency
October 12, 2005, 02:45 AM
If I'm the hostage in a situation like this, and you have the opportunity/necessity to return fire on the hostage-taker, I hope you shoot at the hostage-taker. Please do your best not to hit me thank-you-very-much, but if you do happen to hit me, it's not your fault. The blame for my injury or death lies entirely with the bad guy who started the situation.

-twency

jashobeam
October 12, 2005, 05:18 AM
While I cannot say that I expect any LEO to take a bullet for his fellow man, I will say that I do expect EVERYONE to not risk shooting an innocent person in order to save his own life. Am I asking too much? In the way that I am envisioning the scenario having happened, it just seems like the officers valued their lives over the life of the hostage.

Finally......Would the cops have opened up on the bg if the hostage was one of theirs?
I think that this is a very good and important question to ask. It seems to me like they panicked and used poor judgement.

I would like to hear a first-hand account of the situation in order to find out how close the cops initially were to the BG and if they were trapped or pinned down by some sort of enclosure. IF they were not trapped, and depending on the initial distance, then my question is why they didn't simply run away.

My endeavor is not to cop-bash, but to critically examine occurrences such as these so that we can condition ourselves to be better prepared/programed/trained to act/react correctly should we find ourselves in a similar situation.

Byron Quick
October 12, 2005, 05:43 AM
jashobeam,

Hope no one uses you as a shield while they shoot at me. Barring absolute cover and an absolutely safe route of retreat; I'll be returning fire. I'll try my damnedest not to hit you but as I said earlier, getting shot at will probably degrade my accuracy potential. Hopefully, I'll have a clear line to reach my truck carbine or had the foresight to bring it with me.

Why didn't they run away? One very simple explanation is in line with the few facts that we have. The police had heard two shotgun blasts from within the apartment as they approached. The police had no way of knowing that a dog had been shot instead of a person. So they run away to avoid the possibility of shooting the hostage. And then the next day the headlined story goes something like this: Wounded hostage bleeds to death in apartment after police run!!! Woman hostage sodomized with a shotgun by alleged kidnapper after being abandoned by police. Before he pulled the trigger!! After hearing shots fired in a hostage situation, they could take cover but they couldn't leave. Ask a cop what his department hostage policy is. If you don't like it then ask the department's administration.

Some of the what-ifs and coulda-woulda-shouldas here have dropped right over the edge into la-la land.

Tell you what: if I'm taken hostage...yeah, free me if you can possibly do so. But, hell or high water, kill the walking pile of feces that took me hostage.

El Rojo
October 12, 2005, 09:32 AM
You know, I never thought about it, but what sense does it make for a cop to take a bullet rather than the hostage? If you are a hostage and the bad guy shoots and disables the cop, what is to stop the bad guy from then killing you? I mean, basically what we are advocating is that in the name of honor and glory, that more people die for our sense of "right".

Bad things happen. I say do a thorough investigation. See if you can figure out who made the errant shots and fire them. Yeah that is tough for the cop, but it was also tough for the hostage. I see nothing wrong with expecting bad breaks for the cop since I accept bad breaks from the hostage. We don't need to go overboard and send them to prison. That doesn't make any sense either. Why add one more person to our list of tax payer sponsored inmates when they were just trying to do their job in the first place?

However, I see absolutely no point in a cop dieing just because they are supposed to "protect and serve". If a cop dies to save more lives, that is noble. If a cop dies to save one person, really what has been accomplished?

I don't mind taking risks in order to protect people. However, I will not throw my life away when it doesn't gain anything for anyone. Still, we don't have enough information here to properly judge this situation. Even if one or two of the cops had died, would the hostage still have made it out alive? We don't know that.

TheOtherOne
October 12, 2005, 10:19 AM
IF they were not trapped, and depending on the initial distance, then my question is why they didn't simply run awayThat seems to be the official advice that your average Joe citizen would get from the police department. You see it on the news and read it in the papers all the time. It's hard to count the number of times you hear the mantra from police that "the victim did the right thing by not taking the law into their own hands". Even if a victim was being shot at I doubt you'll see many CLEO's lining up to get on the news an explain why they should of returned fire instead of ducked and ran away. You would think, at least in a situation where an innocent person is likely to be killed, they would be able to take their own advice.

It's true that none of us know the entire situation so we really aren't in any position to be judging and I'm sure the police didn't have much time to think about their reaction but still it's hard to argue that the hostage would not have been better off if the cops wouldn't have showed up that day. It's hard to get much worse than dead. At the very worst for that hostage all things would have been equal.

El Rojo
October 12, 2005, 11:25 AM
It's true that none of us know the entire situation so we really aren't in any position to be judging and I'm sure the police didn't have much time to think about their reaction but still it's hard to argue that the hostage would not have been better off if the cops wouldn't have showed up that day. It's hard to get much worse than dead. At the very worst for that hostage all things would have been equal.So is it the police's fault she died or the man who took her hostage and put her in that position to begin with? Should we just let the criminal element do whatever they want whenever they want at the risk of someone might be harmed by the police? Letís not forget who really started this whole thing. It was the guy who took her hostage and shot at the cops. Period. He is the real cause of this and to sit here and try to argue the cops shouldn't have shown up is ridiculous. You had better odds of convincing me they should have ran away and sought cover before you can convince me that cops should just let the criminal element in society do as they please. Face reality, the cops are going to show up. Face reality, the cops should show up because that is what we pay them to do, stop criminals or arrest them after the fact.

Yeah someone screwed up and hit the hostage. Focus on that. To insinuate there is no blame on the one person who really started this by saying the hostage would have been better off at the complete mercy of that animal is ludicrous.

Derby FALs
October 12, 2005, 11:43 AM
Keep that train of thought and it will soon be SOP to shoot the hostage first. It's the hostage taker's fault after all...
:neener:

cropcirclewalker
October 12, 2005, 11:56 AM
I read the original story again.The four officers, all veterans with at least 10 years experience, were put on administrative leave pending an investigation. None was injured. Answered my own question.

I now only have to wonder how far away were the officers and if they would have returned fire if the hostage had not just been perceived as a 'prole'.

TheOtherOne
October 12, 2005, 12:44 PM
So is it the police's fault she died or the man who took her hostage and put her in that position to begin with?Obviously if the guy had not taken her hostage and shot at the cops then the cops wouldn't have killed her. I'm not sure how many degrees of separation are required before blame is allowed to shift.

El Rojo
October 12, 2005, 01:31 PM
True, the cops shooting her is the cop's fault. Find out who shot her, fire them. I have no problems with that. However, I find it a waste of time to say, "If the cops wouldn't have shown up, she couldn't have been worse off." I would imagine rape and torture could be worse off.

jashobeam
October 12, 2005, 02:19 PM
Why didn't they run away? One very simple explanation is in line with the few facts that we have. The police had heard two shotgun blasts from within the apartment as they approached. The police had no way of knowing that a dog had been shot instead of a person. So they run away to avoid the possibility of shooting the hostage. And then the next day the headlined story goes something like this: Wounded hostage bleeds to death in apartment after police run!!!

I didn't mean that the police should have run away when they heard shots fired. I was wondering if the police may have had the chance to run away from the gunman after he came out of the apartment and fired upon them. I also did not mean that the cops should run away and go home and wait to find out what happened by reading the next day's newspaper; I meant that they should have run and sought sufficient cover from which to observe or negotiate with or stall the BG long enough for SWAT to arrive.

Also, after going to bed thinking about the situation, I wonder if we'll find out that the hostage was hit by ONE officer only, instead of two or three. Someone perhaps joined in the shooting when he did not have a clear shot and did not check his background.

Master Blaster
October 12, 2005, 02:24 PM
Obviously the guy had a belt fed shotgun, its not like he would run out after 5 rounds or less and would have to reload or anything????

jashobeam
October 12, 2005, 03:07 PM
The problem may have occured when the officers approached the apartment after hearing shots fired. Regardless of what they assumed had been shot at, maybe they should not have approached but sought cover and addressed the guy with a bullhorn or loudspeaker.

I hope I don't get ridiculed for what I just suggested, since it seems to make the most sense to me. Since when is anyone taught to charge forward in any situation when shots are fired? Even in lone gunman/suicide situations where no hostage exists, cops set up a perimeter or whatever but don't go rushing in without a well-thought plan. Do they? Weren't these officers informed from the onset that it was a hostage situation? Were they going to knock on the door?

I know they were trying to help. It seems that the cops kind of set themselves up to be in a situation where they were forced to make a bad decision. They were like ducks in a barrel. I still wonder if retreat was an option at this point, though.

Byron, if I am ever taken hostage do not come charging in to rescue me and in so doing deliberately put yourself in a situation where you will feel compelled to shoot through me to save your own life.

Shouldn't there be something in our minds or hearts that prevents us, even at the risk of our own lives, from risking killing innocent people? Is it lack of compassion, selfishness, self-importance, or cowardice that overrides our value of the right to life of others?

Then again, it may have simply been a bad shot.

jashobeam
October 12, 2005, 03:08 PM
master blaster

+1

Byron Quick
October 12, 2005, 05:31 PM
Tell you what: several here seem to think that birdshot is no big deal. OK, put on the coat that turned them before. Set up a grapefruit to represent a brain 10 yards away. Then have a shotgunner firing buckshot off the line to the grapefruit. Put a large piece of poster paper up immediately behind the grapefruit to track stray rounds. Get an ordinary trash can as 'cover.' Now while firing at the grapefruit from your 'cover,' avoid being hit by the birdshot. See what it does to your accuracy.

Sure must be some great shot with nerves of steel here.

cropcirclewalker
October 12, 2005, 06:17 PM
Mr. Quick.
The four officers, all veterans with at least 10 years experience, were put on administrative leave pending an investigation. None was injured. Other than hitting the hostage too, several times, I guess they were pretty good shots. :(

Tell me again where the grapefruit was?

El Rojo
October 12, 2005, 06:24 PM
Actually, it sounds like the cops were pretty decent shots. They had 10 hits on the bad guy between four of them. Even if they shot 15 rounds each, that is far above par compared to the Los Angeles County Sherrif's Department when they lit up that guy in the car with 120 rounds and only got 5 hits (one hit was on their own too). If you count the hits on the hostage too, they didn't do too bad.

Then again, I would imagine any hit on the hostage would automatically give you a zero.

Lucky
October 12, 2005, 08:39 PM
I think that maybe too many people have been influence by Hollywood propaganda.

Police officers are not super, even though they may be tempted to pretend they are, to get the babes. If I could get away with pretending to be super I'd probably do it too. So you can't fault them for playing their super-ness up.

And hostage takers aren't going to be rational. They might have watched a few movies and figured that they know what's up. They're probably tired and drunk or high.

And the hostage, they have to accept ultimate responsibility for their lives. They are, once you get past all the rhetoric, responsible to themselves. You can say 'it was his fault, he shot me' and legally you are right, but in the cold hard light of reality combat doesn't recognize right and wrong. Only success and failure.

So if yo're taken hostage you have to realize that you have dangerous amateurs on all sides that are a treat to your existence! It's not a pretty picture, but you're living in a modern-day jungle, and jungle laws are in place.

BTW one time in Winnipeg, decades ago, a bank robber thought he had a brilliant plan. He strapped a big bomb to himself, ALA Hollywood, and planned that the police would surround the bank. So after he's loaded up as much money as he can carry he exits the bank, and proceeds to try to explain that he has a bomb and they should not shoot him. In theory it was a good plan, and in a Hollywood movie it probably would have worked. But in reality he got blown up and money scattered everywhere.

Lol. DO NOT EXPECT HOLLYWOOD MOVIE TO COME TRUE. FORGET ANY LEARNING ASPECT, YOU CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM THEM!! (I made this mistake, maybe the only slightly realistic aspect is some, very few car chases and crashes. The gunfights are clearly not realistic, the pick-up lines do not really work with girls, and IRL if you try to deliver a dramatic monologue people do not appreciate it.

Lol. "I have a bomb! If you shoot - " BOOOM

(Except the ending of Resevoir Dogs, that seems pretty realistic, where they try to carjack a lady)

Byron Quick
October 13, 2005, 09:07 AM
Tell me again where the grapefruit was?

The grapefruit represents an effective head shot. One in the CNS in the head.

You put "None were injured" in bold letters. So? I never claimed that their marksmanship was degraded by their wounds. I stated that being shot at would degrade most folks' marksmanship.

Maybe I'm dense. Is your position that the police should have held their fire until one of them was injured or killed?

Ryder
October 14, 2005, 05:48 AM
No doubt that incoming fire could affect one's aim Byron but only one officer was "shot at". Scenario - BG has his back to you as he tries to kill someone else. What do you do? Ping! Or were they all hiding behind the same trash can? ;)

How'd he miss the cop anyway? He got a little dog with one shot. What a strange thing. All my close encounters with bullets result in descriptions of where the bullets went, what they hit, how close they missed me by, the damage they did, even what they sounded like. Where are those details in this story? Is it possible the BG fired a warning shot into the air?

Sad for the lady but I too think it is possible for a hostage to bear some of responsibillity. This crack fiend was an aquaintance of hers? She hung around all night long and watched him smoke the stuff? Those are some really bad choices!

gunsmith
October 14, 2005, 06:07 AM
when I go to the range I routinely make long distance head shots ...
I have a SP 101 in .357 mag..my secret? crimson trace!!

I am glad though I've never had to use it in a situation like that though.
I can't fault the cops on this shoot.

I bet that guy won't be taking anymore hostages

cropcirclewalker
October 14, 2005, 11:59 AM
Maybe I'm dense. Is your position that the police should have held their fire until one of them was injured or killed? Maybe I'm dense. I am aparently laboring under the misconception that the police were called to this event to try to resolve a hostage crisis.

If I am correct in my conception, then this event was a complete utter failure.

I keep emboldening the fact that none of the officers was injured as an indication, to me anyway, that the bg was either so drugged as to be incompetent with the sawed off semi, so far away from the officers that the lethality of the sos was greatly minimized (and increasing the danger to the hostage of being hit with a stray round) or both.

Maybe the cops opened up before the bg even leveled the sos. Maybe the sos went off due to death contractions of the bg.

As a citizen, I do not measure the effectiveness of LE by how many cops return from a hostage situation with no injuries. Maybe LE does.

I measure their effectiveness by how many hostages get released.

Remember the old saw.....It's better that 100 guilty go free than one innocent get convicted? Maybe LE cannot see that it is better that 100 bgs get away than 1 innocent hostage get killed. Maybe they cannot see it.

Maybe they measure their effectiveness by how many bgs go down, regardless of the collateral damage to the proles.

Double Naught Spy
October 14, 2005, 04:18 PM
The hostage situation was resolved. The bad guy was killed and the hostage was alive at the end of the situation. She just died later, but died a free woman...as if that matters. It was resolved.

In a hostage situation, the role of the police is not simply to rescue the hostages, but to preclude the bad guy(s) from getting away and to preclude others from getting injured or killed. The hostage was lost and apparently was lost specifically due to police gunfire. That is very bad, but the bad guy was stopped, the event ended, and no others became involved or were harmed in any way. So many aspects of the situation were resolved very well. One aspect turned out terrible.

I am sure nobody wanted the hostage to die, except maybe the kidnapper when the opportunity was right. There would have been no intent on behalf of the cops to shoot the hostage. As noted above, they need to determine who was involved in shooting the hostage and that person(s) be fired, then I would add that the person(s) needs to be arrested for manslaughter.

It sucks, but that is one of the risks of the job and the use of lethal force.

MN_Strelok
October 14, 2005, 06:27 PM
A few more details are available in this article (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/14/Hillsborough/Hostage_crises__If_ti.shtml). I won't post the whole thing, since it's mostly redundant, but the new information is below:

Brewer, 45, had a sawed-off shotgun in one hand. He held Tracy Wood in a headlock with his other arm, police Chief Steve Hogue said last week. He turned to his right and fired once at Sgt. John Preyer, who was crouched behind a blue plastic trash can.

A plastic trash can. That's definitely concealment, not cover. Let's hear it for journalists who don't know there's a difference.

The Hillsborough Medical Examiner has not completed autopsy reports on Brewer and Wood. But office manager Dick Bailey said Thursday that examiners concluded Brewer, 45, died from "multiple gunshot wounds" to the torso, which perforated his lungs, spleen, liver, stomach, bowel, kidney and groin.

Wood, 33, died at Tampa General Hospital a few hours after the shooting from a single gunshot wound to the torso that perforated her lung, liver, kidney and bowel, Bailey said. That conclusion does not rule out other, non-lethal, gunshot wounds, he said.

cropcirclewalker
October 14, 2005, 07:24 PM
Doesn't look to me like they were trying for head shots.

El Rojo
October 14, 2005, 09:02 PM
How could you possibly know from that article what part of the bad guy was exposed and what was not in order to even begin to question if they should have taken head shots or not? Can we end the speculation yet? :barf:

gc70
October 14, 2005, 09:13 PM
Doesn't look to me like they were trying for head shots.Can we end the speculation yet?
By all means, we should end the speculation. Just because the reported shots were mid- to lower-torso hits says absolutely nothing about where the cops were aiming.

Derby FALs
October 14, 2005, 11:09 PM
By all means, we should end the speculation. Just because the reported shots were mid- to lower-torso hits says absolutely nothing about where the cops were aiming.

MUHAHAHA!

cropcirclewalker
October 15, 2005, 01:09 AM
How could you possibly know from that article what part of the bad guy was exposed and what was not in order to even begin to question if they should have taken head shots or not? Can we end the speculation yet? You are probably right, Mr. El Rojo.

It was foolish of me to reasonably expect the LEOs to be even semi-skilled at pistol shooting.

It is further entirely reasonable to expect Wood, 33, died at Tampa General Hospital a few hours after the shooting from a single gunshot wound to the torso that perforated her lung, liver, kidney and bowel, Bailey said. That conclusion does not rule out other, non-lethal, gunshot wounds, he said. that the wounds inflicted as previously described could have happened to the victim (read hostage) if she was lying on the ground in front of the fallen bg, who may have been twitching and thus still a threat while the cops still had a few bullets in their magazines who tried for a head shot through the hostage.:barf:

The only good thing that I read in the new, updated article was that there was no indication anywhere that the police did any high speed tactical reloading.

See? Even in dark clouds, there may be a silver lining.

El Rojo
October 15, 2005, 01:55 AM
This thread is done. Absent of the true tactical facts, you are so quick to have it all figured out. You have no clue where these cops were positioned, what was or was not exposed, nothing. Despite me pointing out that you don't know where they were positioned so it would be foolish to assume a head shot would be appropriate here, you still stick to your all knowing position. "It was foolish of me to reasonably expect the LEOs to be even semi-skilled at pistol shooting." Again, you don't know how many shots they made, how many hit, or what they were aiming at. All you know is they hit the hostage so they are any number of things wrong. So why even bother arguing with you. Your mind is made up. Reminds me of other liberal positions where looking at the facts means nothing and emotion means everything. "It is further entirely reasonable to expect". Again, more speculation and grandoise claims. Don't wait for the facts to come out. You must have obviously been there, tells us more. :barf:

I dare you not to post anymore speculation before we get another good news article. I double dare you. :neener:

gc70
October 15, 2005, 12:21 PM
Absent of the true tactical facts, you are so quick to have it all figured out.It seems your statement also applies to you, El Rojo.I just love the theory going around here lately that cops take an oath to protect and serve and they are expected to sacrifice their lives for the public.Sorry, but the attitude that cops should be expected to take a bullet is ludicrous.But I would never willingly throw myself in front of a bullet as a sacrificial lamb.To protect and serve. Not to die and sacrifice.In post #18 of this thread, YOU introduced the specter of "a cop taking a bullet for a civilian" as a bar to criticism of the police actions. Then you procede to declare that your philosophical position can only be reputed by hard facts to the contrary.

"Asbsent of the true tactical facts," every opinion expressed in this thread is just as valid (and only as valid) as its supporting logic.

El Rojo
October 15, 2005, 12:53 PM
No you interpreted my comments above to comments on this tactical situation. My comments are merely a reaction to an initial common theme as stated in post #4 The cop's body armor MUST have been better than the hostage's.

When they take the oath to protect and serve are they paying attention? Maybe it's like, shallow?Cropcirclewalker implies that police officers should be willing to take a bullet as their duty to protect and serve since they have better body armor. The comments of mine you quoted are in direct relation to this idea that cropcirclewalker started and have nothing to do with this tactical situation.

If you want go back to post #s 60 and 76 you will see that I said dismiss and if you chose prosecute the cop who fired the errant shots that struck the hostage. In fact, I don't know if I have commented on the tactical aspects of this situation at all. I choose to wait and get the entire scoop before I decide to armchair quarterback a situation.

Arguing theory of what should happen to cops that "accidently" shoot a hostage is most certainly different than armchair quarterbacking a situation that you don't have complete knowledge and information about. Many comments have come out criticizing the police for the tactics they took here, but all of those comments come absent of any real facts about shooter positions, mindsets, and results. Sure we know the woman died, but the information related to her death is sketchy at best.

I thought we tried to carefully analyze shooting situations and results here on the High Road. I guess I was mistaken. We don't know how many shots hit the woman, we don't know how many officers of the four were responsible for those shots, we don't have comments from the officers on their intended shot placement, we don't have much of anything. I could speculate that three of the four officers put 10 rounds square into the bad guy and one officer screwed up bad and ruined it for everyone just as easy as cropcirclewalker speculated that the wounds are indicative of the woman being shot while on the ground. However, what is the point until we really know what happened?

All this speculation leads to is thinly veiled rhetoric aimed at placing law enforcement into a negative light because of personal conceptions of anger and mistrust due to previous experiences with law enforcement. That is all it is. I am not buying it and I am calling the LEO hating armchair warriors on it. Someone needs to be accountable for this woman losing her life. I will agree with you on that. However, it is only the officer(s) that shot the hostage and not the entire profession.

pax
October 15, 2005, 01:17 PM
Someone needs to be accountable for this woman losing her life. I will agree with you on that. However, it is only the officer(s) that shot the hostage and not the entire profession.
Good words on which to end the thread, because here we are back at "Us VS Them" again and this thread is just spinning in circles now.

If more information comes out about this one, feel free to open a new thread.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Police Kill Armed Man, Hostage in Fla." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!