Deputies Apologize for L.A. Shooting

[svtruth]

Tactical Question

First, I have no LE or tactical training, but given the low hit rate in this event (and Amadou Diallo in NYC a few yrs back) Wouldn't it make sense to hold your fire while your fellow officers are spraying and praying so you could provide fire while they were reloading, or just take the time to aim and hit the target?
Do any agencies have such a policy?

 

[Justin]

As far as 4 hits out of 120 shots, between 10 officers where were a shotgun with slugs or a rifle? Back at the office?

They had been loaned out to the Colorado Springs Police Department so that they could take down a couple of bison.

 

[P-32]

Nice to see that some of you think we live in a black and white world. I wasn't there and not part of the incident and can't say who did right or wrong.

Sometimes we have mere seconds to act on something. The judges get weeks or months to figure out if what was done was right or wrong after getting ALL the facts.

It kills me that several of you are so quick to condemn the officers after seeing a short video. It's almost like the guy at the gas station who slammed the black kid down on the trunk of the car......I don't know about you but if someone grabbed me by the junk, I would be putting forth some effort to stop that too.

 

[El Rojo]

In this incident, yes, people need to be fired, all the way up to the training officer.

Considering most departments only send their officers to the range every year or maybe bi-yearly, I don't see how you could blame the training officer. Let the blame go where it belongs instead of trying to use a big brush to go after everyone.

If this was a citizen that did this, we would be hearing the cries from the ANTI's for decades.

If a citizen did what? Tried to stop a guy in a fleeing Suburban? Again, this is hardly a situation where you can equate the actions of a law abiding citizen and law enforcement. How many situations have there been where a law abiding citizen was about to be run over in a vehicle and shot at the guy instead of diving out of the way and finding cover? How many times has a law abiding citizen followed a fleeing suspect around with a couple of his friends and then blocked the suspect in and then had to shoot at them? You are comparing apples to oranges again.

Now say a law abiding citizen did have a reason to shoot at a vehicle coming towards him or her. What are the odds that there would be 9 other law abiding citizens nearby that would join the shoot? Probably very slim. So lets just assume I open up on an approaching vehicle with my Glock 22. I let fly 15 rounds and get 1 hit if that. What law did I break? Tell me. If I hit someone else in the background, then I see your point. If I don't, then what law am I going to be charged with? The only reason this case is sensational is because there were 10 of them shooting for a grand total of 120 shots. How many citizens situations happen where a group shoots 120 rounds? This wouldn't happen to a citizen so it is a mute point trying to argue that if it did, the citizen would be in hot water.

Again, I think there is too much rhetoric going on about the law abiding citizen vs. the police in these threads. Treat each case individually. If the cops screw up and spray lead, stick to your point that they should be held accountable. Don't cloud the issue by crying about how a citizen would be in hot water over this, but the cops aren't. Again, law abiding citizens are quite often NOT in this situation, so it is really an absurd comparision. Stick to the issue, hold law enforcement accountable.

 

[Vernal45]

I let fly 15 rounds and get 1 hit if that. What law did I break?

Reckless Endangerment. YOU would be charged.

Nice to see that some of you think we live in a black and white world. I wasn't there and not part of the incident and can't say who did right or wrong.

Does not take a rocket sceintist to figure out that the police screwed up. To top it off with a cherry, the man in the SUV has not been charged, no crime. If you shoot, without care for your backstop, you are begging to be slammed. If you watched that video, and cant say what was done right or wrong, please seek some firearms training before you decide to carry

 

[rock jock]

I wasn't there and not part of the incident and can't say who did right or wrong.

When someone ignores tactics so basic that they more appropriately fall into the category of common sense, that's wrong.

 

[centac]

JC on a crutch!!!!!!

In the last three "accidental" shootings in my county involving civilians not one was charged, including a case that resulted in death, and including a case where the buckethead across the hollow shot my, yes my house while "unloading" in his singlewide. That is zero charges, none, nada, zip, zero.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but dont subject the rest of us to your reality. Maybe any twit who lets one fly negligently winds up bustin' rocks were you live, but not on the rest of the planet.

"Reckless Endangerment" is shooting into the air on New Years Eve, not missing during a gunfight. There is a big freakin difference. Watch a video of Saddam shooting his mauser at speech - that's reckless endangerment. Watch a video of the cops in the middle of a fight trying desperately to stop a bad guy - thats' not.

You would REALLY benefit from a ride-along. It all looks so simple from the outside, but when you are in the middle of it your perspective changes.

 

[Vernal45]

that's reckless endangerment. Watch a video of the cops in the middle of a fight trying desperately to stop a bad guy - thats' not.

If he was a bad guy, why has he not been charged?
I would think reckless endangerment is when you are shooting, not knowing your back stop is houses in the neighborhood and your fellow officers.

You would REALLY benefit from a ride-along. It all looks so simple from the outside, but when you are in the middle of it your perspective changes.

Had 10 years of "paid ride alongs" so go troll somewhere else on that one. YOU really dont understand reckless endangerment do you? I suggest you look it up.

But hey, keep on high fiving yourself that the cops did this one right, if you believe it with all your heart, who cares if you are wrong.

 

[jdberger]

OK...I posted the durn thing and I can't find the video. can someone please provide me a link?

 

[rock jock]

who cares if you are wrong

I woulds suspect hte people of that county do, a great deal.

 

[El Rojo]

Well, the point here is not to take anyone's word for anything, so lets look up some PRK code that specifically deals with this issue.

246.3. Except as otherwise authorized by law, any person who
willfully discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner which
could result in injury or death to a person is guilty of a public
offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

Ok, there is your negligent discharge code. Problem is it says "except as otherwise authorized by law". What does that mean exactly? I am authorized to use lethal force on someone according to PC 197, so is that my authorization that exempts me from 246.3? So go ahead and make the case against a CCW holder or an officer for negligent discharge when they felt their life was in danger. State some specific PRK penal code while you are at it. My defense is I was authorized by law since I had a fear for my life. "Reckless Endangerment. YOU would be charged." Make your case prosecutor.

If he was a bad guy, why has he not been charged?

He hasn't been charged yet. He did admit to using crack and driving around the neighborhood for hours. So these attempts to make him look like an innocent guy who was just shot full of holes are not justified. Do the sheriffs have to charge him immediately? No. Does it really matter if he had a gun or not? Not when he is driving a Suburban towards officers.

Nevermind on the above paragraph, I just found this. "The sheriff's department on Wednesday presented its case against Hayes to county prosecutors, recommending that he be charged with three counts of assault with a deadly weapon." Looks like he was charged afterall. Ooops. So much for the innocent bystander being targeted by corrupt and inept police theory eh?

 

[Vernal45]

At first it appeared that an innocent was targeted. Now that part is cleared up. I had not heard any more on the driver of the SUV. However, it does not negate the fact that the officers recklessly endangered the neighborhood, and fellow officers during their group brain fart.

Poor training, poor, poor training. And yes, they need to be held responsible, an apology does not cut it.

except as otherwise authorized by law"

Again, you have your head up....in the clouds. Just because it says "except as otherwise authorized by law", does not give an officer immunity, so that he can shoot anything, anywhere and not have to be responsible for his actions. If you are advocating just that, I worry about your ideas.

 

[El Rojo]

Again, you have your head up....in the clouds. Just because it says "except as otherwise authorized by law", does not give an officer immunity, so that he can shoot anything, anywhere and not have to be responsible for his actions. If you are advocating just that, I worry about your ideas.

Ah, the always classic personal attack. Don't try and make your case, just make comments about my rationality. You are the only one who has claimed that an officer has immunity. I brought up the "except as otherwise authorized by law". Is it possible that an officer or even a citizen is exempt from PC 246.3 when defending their lives? I would imagine it is possible based off of 197. Did you refute that? Of course not. It is easier to attack me and put words in my mouth.

Again, you are the prosecutor Vernal45, make your case. You have the video of these officers. What laws are you going to use to prosecute these officers? I gave you a start with PC 246.3. Now you just have to make sure they are not covered by the "except as otherwise authorized by law". Come on Vernal, you claimed a law abiding citizen would be charged under this too. Make your case prosecutor. Or is it easier to just insult me and say what you interpret to be true and using sensationism to promote your agenda? You made the claim that I as a civilian would be charged for firing 15 times and hitting once. I submit to you the "except as otherwise authorized by law" section of 246.3 and as my rationale I use PC 197 which gives me the right to defend myself when I have a reasonable fear for my life. You are the prosecutor. Make your case stick and send me to jail. You made the claim, now back it up with facts and not personal attacks.

Welcome to the High Road where you have to put up or shut up and your personal attacks aren't welcome.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Of course a group of civilians are going to get in trouble over something like this because...

Where are the non-civilians in this discussion?

 

[4570Rick]

SoCal Cops, on average, go to the range four times a year and fire 50 to 75 rounds to qualify.
These ten officers fired 120 rounds between them.
They hit the perp four times, a fellow officer once, and three appartments. (where did the other 112 rounds go?)
The fault is not 100% the officers.
Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put officers, so poorly trained, on the streets with loaded guns and instructions to deal with the miscreants of the community?

 

[hcker2000]

I always thought the instant you resisted arrest you could be shot if the officer felt that he couldn't get you under controle? I also have heard that if you shoot a shot as an officer it is to kill the person and no just disable them.

If the guy would have just pulled over when they asked him to then it wouldn't have happened.

I saw the tape on the news the other morning as I work night shift and I saw the one guy shoot threw the suv and hit an officer on the other side.

When they started shooting the guy had just ramed a cop car (slowly) and was siting there. It wasn't even a moving target and they only hit him 4 out of 120 times? I have shot two hand guns (high point and a ww2 revolver that was as loud as my sks) and honestly I can not see how they couldent have hit him more. I supose the impact resistent front glass could have stoped some of the rounds but I would not count on it.

I'm sure the police chife craped his pants when he saw all his men start shooting.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think these officers need to be required to carry their gun like Barney Fife did...

A revolver, unloaded, with one bullet in their shirt pocket.

The world would be a safer place.

Also, I wonder if the department talked things over with a lawyer before apologizing and offering to pay with double damages... It looks like this case will be a trial lawyers wet dream. The defense has all but admitted responsibility up front!

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

"The deputies are undergoing counseling and will return to work, Baca said."

They don't need counseling, they need coaching and range time.

 

[kaferhaus]

Just more keystone cops.... that can't shoot straight either.

Another un-justified police shooting added to the hundreds of others in California and elsewhere around the country.

Part of the problem is improper training and most of the problem is hiring people who have no business making such decisions.

Yep it's a pretty thankless job. That doesn't excuse incompetence.

120 rounds flying through a residential neighborhood.... when the "suspect" isn't even armed????

Give me a break.... I have no sympathy for these brain dead bozos on steroids.

I'd like to see everyone of them that fired their weapon have their credentials revoked. The guy who either ordered the shoot or fired first (which likely set the rest of the mind numb robots to shooting) should be criminaly prosecuted.

Flame away, I can take it!

 

[centac]

"Another un-justified police shooting added to the hundreds of others in California and elsewhere around the country."

I'm not sure that there are "hundreds" of improper shootings in this country. There are no police shootings that are'nt subject to public and legal scrutiny, and the number that turn out to be unjustified seem to be smaller by far than than those ruled proper.

Likewise, this shooting appears to be justifiable, just horribly conducted, for which an apology has been made and generous compensation offered.

 

[kaferhaus]

I'm not sure that there are "hundreds" of improper shootings in this country. There are no police shootings that are'nt subject to public and legal scrutiny, and the number that turn out to be unjustified seem to be smaller by far than than those ruled proper.

The problem with that is that you have the fox watching the hen house. I, and many other people have little faith in cops ruling that other cops acted "appropriately". In that mix you have the DAs who only in extreme cases will not come down on the side of the police..... oftentimes is the same with judges, they're all on the same "side" of the judicial system.

Florida is another state that seems to have more than it's share of dubious shootings of unarmed "suspects".

To me the rules of when an officer can shoot are way too dependent upon the individual officers "judgement" which when under an adrelaline rush is suspect at best.... just look at all the "beatings" over nothing more than a driver who refused to stop while commiting no more than a traffice violation... all the innnocents killed as the result of high speed chases that were for nothing more than misdemeanors or other non-violent minor crimes just because some cop's ego wouldn't let him pull off the chase once it became dangerous... a whole family was killed here recently over a gas station "drive off"... some guy stole $15.00 worth of gas and a deputy sheriff ended up killing 4 people...

 

[Old Dog]

Hmm ... I'm still waiting for Vernal45's response to El Rojo ... perhaps he's in the law library doing his reseach?

In that mix you have the DAs who only in extreme cases will not come down on the side of the police..... oftentimes is the same with judges, they're all on the same "side" of the judicial system.

On what do you base this statement? Just how many officer-involved shootings have you personally researched? Where is your documentation?

I'd submit that Centac is right on, and that in the vast majority of police shooting cases, there is ample citizen review and reasonable adjudication in the justice system of the shootings ... with the intense media exposure these days, public sentiment often drives departmental, city government, shooting board and grand jury responses to police shootings.

 

[3rdpig]

I tend to be a supporter of my local police, but there's no way I could support or defend this shooting. Justifiable? Maybe, but certainly not an appropriate method to catch someone operating a motor vehicle under the influence. And to shoot one of your own? Can you say "shamed to a point where thry can't show their faces in public"? I can.

If this is the way they're trained then more of the same training or range time won't help. They need proper training and enough practice to know that in a stressful situation they'll perform as trained. And if they can't or won't get the training then they need to leave this type of work to someone that can, or have their firearms replaced with something non lethal until they prove they're capable of using the firearm in a proper manner..

The police also need to drop the "protect and serve" business, their job is to investigate crimes and catch criminals, not protect citizens, and certainly not serve them. On the first point the SCOTUS has decided that police have no duty to protect individuals and on the second point when was the last time you asked a cop for help...and got it? Face it people, it's not their job to protect or serve you. Realize that and accepting the rest gets a lot easier. This isn't the 1950's and we don't live in Mayberry, the role of the police has changed since then and our perception of their role needs to change as well.

 

[centac]

"This isn't the 1950's and we don't live in Mayberry"

The fifties were'nt that great and Mayberry never existed.

Maybe people need to divest themselves of stereotypes and realize that policing is a complex endevour where little is cut and dried. If the bulk of a person's knowledge about modern American policing comes from the errornet and COPS, well, you know the saying about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

 

[Vernal45]

Again, my response is, its reckless endangerment. IF you watched that video, and can honestly say that the cops did not recklessly endanger the neighborhood, their brothers officers and anyone else that might have been in the area, you need to cut down on the wacky weed.

The shooting followed a brief pursuit. Some deputies thought Hayes, who was driving a sport utility vehicle, had shot two deputies while others thought he was trying to ram them, sheriff's officials said.

Thought, thought. So judgement was in error. You either know, or you dont know. However you cut this, it was neglience, plain and simple. Will they be charged? NO, I doubt it. Since one law for us, another for them.