Deputies Apologize for L.A. Shooting

[Vernal45]

CBS 11 | cbs11tv.com
California Police Shooting Investigated

* 120 Rounds Were Fired At Suspect’s Vehicle
* Wounded Suspect Apparently Unarmed

May 10, 2005 10:04 am US/Central

Authorities promised a full investigation Tuesday into why deputies riddled a sport utility vehicle and a Compton neighborhood with 120 bullets after the driver led them on a chase, wounding an unarmed driver and possibly striking a deputy.

“The question is: Did they have to fire as many rounds as they did?†Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca told NBC’s “Today.â€

The driver, identified as 44-year-old Winston Hayes, had four gunshot wounds and was hospitalized in stable condition Tuesday morning, the Sheriff’s Department said.

A deputy was knocked down and bruised when a bullet struck his protective vest during Monday’s confrontation. His identity was not immediately released.

“We’re not sure how the deputy was injured but it could be from friendly fire,†Baca said Monday.

The sheriff told “Today†that the deputies fired 120 rounds.

Deputies had received a shots-fired call early Monday in a neighborhood of Compton where there has been a rise in gang-related shootings. A white SUV had been identified as being involved, Baca said.

When deputies tried to stop Hayes’ white Chevrolet Tahoe, he led them on a 12-minute chase at speeds of up to 35 mph, Baca said. Patrol cars tried to box in the SUV, but it drove onto a lawn and then backed into the street toward three deputies, authorities said.

An amateur videotape captured 10 deputies unleashing a fusillade against the unmoving SUV. The vehicle then rolled slowly forward and struck the back of a patrol car.

Trina Hays, 42, said she threw herself onto her lawn when the shooting erupted 20 feet away.

“This is crazy, really, really crazy,†she told the Times. “They didn’t have any concern for anybody’s life, including their own. That’s why their own police officer got hit.â€

Bullets smashed through windows and hit the walls of at least five homes, the newspaper said.

No weapon was found in Hayes’ vehicle but a dozen shell casings were found near the spot where the chase began, Baca said.

Hayes was expected to be booked for investigation of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer.

The sheriff said the shooting would be investigated by the department and the county district attorney’s office. Investigators will try to determine whether some deputies opened fire because they mistook a colleague’s friendly fire for an attacker’s.

Hayes told deputies that he had used crack cocaine and had driven around the neighborhood for hours before deputies tried to stop him, Baca said.


http://cbs11tv.com/localnews/topstories_story_130110350.html

 

[centac]

I think that this'll be futile but anyway-

Officers's actions are evaluated based on what they reasonably believed at the time of the incident. These officers were acting in good faith on information they had been provided. They could'nt possible know anything for certain, nor can anyone who is required to use force in any given situation.

Be careful what you wish for - are you going to require anyone who fires a weapon in self defense to "know" for certain, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that their life is in danger? Or will you allow that deadly force encounters are fluid, dynamic events that require split second analysis and decision making based on ambiguous data that may be difficult to intepret and may be subject to different conclusions by different people?

Clearly you have your opinion which it appears you will stick to like a limpet. I dont know what happened at your agency that caused you to leave or be let go, but this bitterness is disturbing.

 

[Vernal45]

Be careful what you wish for - are you going to require anyone who fires a weapon in self defense to "know" for certain, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that their life is in danger?

Isnt that the way it is supposed to be.

 

[Biker]

"..a 12 minute chase at speeds up tp 35 mph..."?
This is sounding stranger all the time.
Biker

 

[centac]

So by your logic if someone is pointing a gun, or a Suburban, at you , firing is improper because you cannot be certain they'll shoot. After all they may not fire, they may miss, they may do something else. If you are gonna require certainty that's what you are asking for.

Or, you can allow a reasonable perception of deadly threat evidenced by a displayed weapon, an ability to use it, and intent demonstrated by the gun point to enable the victim to fire.

:banghead:

 

[kaferhaus]

So by your logic if someone is pointing a gun, or a Suburban, at you , firing is improper because you cannot be certain they'll shoot. After all they may not fire, they may miss, they may do something else. If you are gonna require certainty that's what you are asking for.

I haven't read where anyone has said that... at the time of the shooting the suspect was unarmed.... the "suburban" only struck the cruiser
AFTER multiple dolts fired into it wounding the driver...

AND most cases I've seen where an officer was "assaulted" by a vehicle, THE OFFICER placed himself in front of or directly behind the suspects vehicle... and even more stupid they usually get between the suspect vehicle and their own....

It's almost like they're begging the suspect give them a reason to shoot.... to me, that's poor police work and poor service to the community... there's never a need for an officer to put himself in that position... he can shoot the suspect just as well from the side of the vehicle without putting himself in a stupid reckless position.

Shooting anyone before you're absolutely certain he's armed or he's in the process of harming innocent bystanders is in my opinion BS.

I don't give a rats behind what some dolt LEO claims he "believed" at the time, this is just a license to lie after the fact. And we all know cops never lie!

If this had happened on a pitch black dark night and the suspect was seen with a weapon or even something that "appeared" to be a weapon (another great opportunity to fabricate your own "truth"). I'd be much less cynical.

But in broad daylight in a residential neighborhood.... BS

 

[centac]

"Shooting anyone before you're absolutely certain he's armed or he's in the process of harming innocent bystanders is in my opinion BS.

I don't give a rats behind what some dolt LEO claims he "believed" at the time, this is just a license to lie after the fact. And we all know cops never lie!"

So somebody points a gun at you, you dump him, and it turns out to be an airsoft painted over, doom on you, huh? Shoulda been certain it was a real gun first, maybe catch a few rounds with your face just to be "certain."

Your second point speaks for itself.


:banghead:

and again

:banghead:

and once more, cause it feels good when ya stop

:banghead:

 

[Vernal45]

So somebody points a gun at you, you dump him, and it turns out to be an airsoft painted over, doom on you, huh? Shoulda been certain it was a real gun first, maybe catch a few rounds with your face just to be "certain."

Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Toy gun, looks real, cant blame the cop for defending himself. That line of thought does not apply here. Cops defending themselves does not apply here. The point I have made is the cops in this incident really screwed up, endangered themselves, and the people in that neighborhood.

I have no problem with cops defending themselves. IN this incident, I have no problem with the cops defending themselves if a threat was there. HOWEVER, the way the defended themselves was way, way wrong.

 

[dolanp]

All I can say is: If a resident were to defend themselves and fired that many stray rounds into the surrounding area we'd have the media and everyone up in arms about how this person should be hung out to dry and self-defense is a horrible idea and yada yada yada. These deputies should not get off with a slap on the wrist. They recklessly endangered a lot of people, shot one of their own, and didn't even kill the UNARMED criminal with their 120 shots.

Ridiculous double standards.

 

[richyoung]

Sorry, but if we as a society want them to go out and arrest dangerous people, there has to be two sets of laws. There is no getting around it. You can't just have one set of laws and have your normal everyday citizen going out and about and arresting anyone they think is a dangerous felon.

UH, for most of history, the primary duty of arrest and detainment, ESPECIALLY for felonies, is born by the ordinary citizen - either temporarily deputized, or not - as in a "citizen's arrest". The modern urban police force is a relatively new innovation. Most states still allow, if not require, a citizen who "reasonably suspects" another of commiting a felony to hold him and either summon a sworn peace officer or to deliver him "expidiciously" to same. To illustrate this point, answer the following questions:

1. Who ended the careers of the "James Gang", and what color of law where they operating under?
2. Why did old-style teller cages in banks have solid tops? What was kept up there, who were hired as tellers, and what were they expected to do in the event of a robbery attempt?
3. A police officer outside of his sworm jurisdiction, (and NOT in the course of a "hot pursuit" out of same) observers what he beleives to be a felony, and makes an arrest. What authority does he detain the suspect under?
4. A man in Texas hears a noise in his driveway in the middle of the night. He sees a shadowy figure stealing his rims and tires, for the third time this year. A confrontation ensues, and the apparrant tire thief, who turns out to be 14 years old, is shot to death. What happens to the shooter?

 

[kaferhaus]

CENTAC:

You've taken every point anyone has made and taken it out of context...

If you'd like to live in a police state where the "authorities" can do no wrong and their "judgement" is all that's required to take a life, endanger innocent bystanders and damage their property in the process then you're welcome to do so.

it takes a special type of person to make a good LEO. They're obviously not hiring many of them, and damn sure not training them properly..

The biggest issue I have with many police forces is their attitude... they're the "brothers in blue" and we the citizens are "turds".

My brother retired early from the State Police because the training of new recruits had evolved into teaching cadets that it's "us against everyone else".. They're even "coached" by veteran officers on how to "elevate" an offense so the "turd" does more time....and they get more credit.

They sometimes intentionally cause a situation to become more than it needed to be... that's get em credit for a "felony" arrest instead of a simple "fleeing to elude" misdemeanor.

You wanna make Sergeant? A pile of misdemeanor arrests don't look near as good as you being Johnny on the spot felony crime buster.

And shooting a "perp" gets you a lot of respect in the locker room...

You wanna take things out of context.... I'll match you step for step.

Many good cops are quitting, taking early retirements... and this kind of stupid publicity isn't gonna help retention any..

There are good LEOs all across the country, but they're increasingly rare.

 

[Vernal45]

Many good cops are quitting, taking early retirements... and this kind of stupid publicity isn't gonna help retention any..

Bravo! Well said. Exactly what I have been saying all along.

 

[Yooper]

Unless there was an earthquake, I think the real problem is 4 hits out of 120 shots. The possibility always exists for for a missed shot to hit something beyond the target and this is the real complaint. Either don't allow the cops to shoot in an urban setting, or force them to qualify on a regular basis.

 

[Justin]

Put a fork in it.

This one's done.