People Call PD, then complain..

Status
Not open for further replies.
there are plenty of examples of unarmed cops dealing with knives or using thier baton to deal with it

Happy: I guarantee you those officers dealt with knives unarmed and with batons, because they for some reason couldn't use their guns. If they could have used their guns they would have.

I hate seeing stories like this. I've seen several lately. They all had to do with mentally disturbed teens or teens high on drugs. They are unfortunate events, but the police being called to the scene are left with no choice but to use deadly force.
 
At first I was going to say they should have tasered her first, but then I saw that they did do that.

She had a knife, dangerous enough to potentially kill somebody, and demonstrated a willingness to use it.

I would have liked to have seen them use pepper spray even though it would have hit the baby (so long as we can rule out that doing such wouldn't potentially kill the baby or cause significant harm other than temporary pain).... however considering the circumstances I doubt that would have worked either.

but ultimately as much as I don't like the outcome of this story at all, I can see that it was a really bad situation with very little potential for a happy outcome.

Moral of the story seems to be "don't do drugs"

sad... so very sad.
 
People involving the system upset with the result?
Happens all the time in domestic situations. Spouse/parent calls police because they want the police to give them some additional authority in thier family issues, and then the police or the law does not end up working out as the person intended. They then complain about how the system deals with thier family issues.
In many places the local authorities encourage this relationship because it gives them authority above and beyond what would otherwise be viable or legal. A parent for example working with probation gives the law what is essentialy an inside witness against criminal individuals. They make the parent or spouse believe they have the best interest of the individual in mind, but in reality thier prime concern is holding the individual accountable for anything possible. So they encourage pressing charges in any and all situations, and are going to try to gain a foothold in any household they can.

I have known familes with children who have had similar problems to eachother, and usualy the one that got the law involved earlier turned out worse.
I know one who had a son that was a little bit of a pothead, missed school on occasion and had parents that tried to work with him, eventualy he got a decent job and moved out and has been successful last I heard.
Another with a kid who had a violent temper and would punch holes in a wall or door on occasion, who was very successful in school and a star athlete who had parents work with him and he eventualy went on to college and has done well.
Another family with the same type of kid called the police and was encouraged to get him on probation to give the parents additional leverage in situations. This got him a record, and caused him to go from a kid with an occasional problem, that did well otherwise and had good people in thier life, to one making friends in juvenile detention facilities and surrounded by gang members and other criminals within the system. Now they have grown to be a real problem and there is not much hope for them anymore.

So in general involving the system in family affairs is a stupid solution. If you need police in a marriage for example to keep the peace, then what you really need is to move on in life.
With children it is more of a judgement call because you cannot just move on. However in all cases once the law is involved the quality of life for all involved will go downhill.
If you think making someone under your roof a felon, or even just having them get probation for a misdemeanor is not going to effect your privacy and lower your quality of life then you are wrong. Someone in a household with such a person has almost the same level of scrutiny and infringement as the person actualy in trouble.

The system however encourages it because it gives more freedom to law enforcement in general. Any household with even a single individual on some sort of probation/parole etc no longer requires a warrant or the same level of legal restraint to deal with. So the more households the better in the eyes of the law.
Just like everything it is also a career and a "business" in that it employs more and more people who promote its use. Just as lawyers promote the use of lawsuits, many peace officers (police, probation, parole, corrections, etc) promote the use of the correctional system.

Police are for dangerous situations, this particular case seems to qualify. Once one calls in the system however thier say in matters no longer counts. She involved police with her daughter, what happens after that point is not in her control. The system is not an entity that cares for the people involved, it is a big machine and oils its own wheels. Invite it into your home at your own peril. I say anyone that would require you to invite it into your home should no longer be in your home.

I am reminded of a recent case not long ago of some hmong kid that fired a shot into the ceiling when the parents said he could not use the car. They called the police who snuck in and shot him dead as he was armed and dangerous. That event was memorable because of the amount of shots fired to put him down, it was a lot. The parents in that case were all upset that the police did not deal with thier precious kid the way they wanted when they called the police on a 'man with a gun', who has shown a willingness to use it. The police care mainly about going home that night, and are not going to take the precautions a love one might feel could be taken first. That amount of risk is not acceptable to them.
 
definatly could have ended better.

didnt need to shoot the woman. if your close enough to get cut im sure your close enough to land a solid right hook. some times brute force is whats called for

It's a shame you weren't there to handle it better.
 
One less crack head single mom out on the streets.

Yes, that's not very high road, but there are just folks out there that just want to injure or kill innocent lives. Glad those Hawthorne cops did their sworn duty.
 
Great commentary Zoog: I quoted it so many can read it.

Zoogster -
People involving the system upset with the result?
Happens all the time in domestic situations. Spouse/parent calls police because they want the police to give them some additional authority in thier family issues, and then the police or the law does not end up working out as the person intended. They then complain about how the system deals with thier family issues.
In many places the local authorities encourage this relationship because it gives them authority above and beyond what would otherwise be viable or legal. A parent for example working with probation gives the law what is essentialy an inside witness against criminal individuals. They make the parent or spouse believe they have the best interest of the individual in mind, but in reality thier prime concern is holding the individual accountable for anything possible. So they encourage pressing charges in any and all situations, and are going to try to gain a foothold in any household they can.

I have known familes with children who have had similar problems to eachother, and usualy the one that got the law involved earlier turned out worse.
I know one who had a son that was a little bit of a pothead, missed school on occasion and had parents that tried to work with him, eventualy he got a decent job and moved out and has been successful last I heard.
Another with a kid who had a violent temper and would punch holes in a wall or door on occasion, who was very successful in school and a star athlete who had parents work with him and he eventualy went on to college and has done well.
Another family with the same type of kid called the police and was encouraged to get him on probation to give the parents additional leverage in situations. This got him a record, and caused him to go from a kid with an occasional problem, that did well otherwise and had good people in thier life, to one making friends in juvenile detention facilities and surrounded by gang members and other criminals within the system. Now they have grown to be a real problem and there is not much hope for them anymore.

So in general involving the system in family affairs is a stupid solution. If you need police in a marriage for example to keep the peace, then what you really need is to move on in life.
With children it is more of a judgement call because you cannot just move on. However in all cases once the law is involved the quality of life for all involved will go downhill.
If you think making someone under your roof a felon, or even just having them get probation for a misdemeanor is not going to effect your privacy and lower your quality of life then you are wrong. Someone in a household with such a person has almost the same level of scrutiny and infringement as the person actualy in trouble.

The system however encourages it because it gives more freedom to law enforcement in general. Any household with even a single individual on some sort of probation/parole etc no longer requires a warrant or the same level of legal restraint to deal with. So the more households the better in the eyes of the law.
Just like everything it is also a career and a "business" in that it employs more and more people who promote its use. Just as lawyers promote the use of lawsuits, many peace officers (police, probation, parole, corrections, etc) promote the use of the correctional system.

Police are for dangerous situations, this particular case seems to qualify. Once one calls in the system however thier say in matters no longer counts. She involved police with her daughter, what happens after that point is not in her control. The system is not an entity that cares for the people involved, it is a big machine and oils its own wheels. Invite it into your home at your own peril. I say anyone that would require you to invite it into your home should no longer be in your home.

I am reminded of a recent case not long ago of some hmong kid that fired a shot into the ceiling when the parents said he could not use the car. They called the police who snuck in and shot him dead as he was armed and dangerous. That event was memorable because of the amount of shots fired to put him down, it was a lot. The parents in that case were all upset that the police did not deal with thier precious kid the way they wanted when they called the police on a 'man with a gun', who has shown a willingness to use it. The police care mainly about going home that night, and are not going to take the precautions a love one might feel could be taken first. That amount of risk is not acceptable to them.
 
She threatened to kill a baby, harmed the child and harmed the cops. She paid for her actions with her life. Sad, but it had to be done to protect the child. If they hadn't shot her, it would likely have turned out worse. That child would probably be dead, and so, likely, would be the mom. Sometimes you have to pick the choice that sucks the least.
 
I think the police officers handled the situation correctly. It's unfortunate that police officers come under such a great deal of scrutiny for performing their duties.
 
I'm a cop. It will be seven years in October.I've experienced my share of fights, using tasers, being pepper sprayed by other officers (incidentally) then having to wrestle with suspects, pointing my handgun and shotgun at suspects, having knives and firearms pointed at me, and so on.

The standard rule is anyone within 21 feet of you with an edged weapon is a very real and deadly threat. That woman not only had an edged weapon within 21 feet of the officers, but was holding a hostage who she had just cut. That situation was way beyond fighting a Saturday night drunk at the local watering hole. Which in itself is pretty dammed dangerous.

In my opinion they actually placed the baby in greaterdanger by using their tasers. But they did that because of folks like Hoppy. Those officers acted to save a life. That woman had escalated the situation to that point. It's called the Use of Force Continium.

You have to see a victim of a edged weapon attack to believe it. The carnage is unreal. Don't believe me? Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Persians, the Islamic Calphites and the Mongols did not have firearms and they killed millions with swords, spears, arrows and knives.

Dammed if you, dammed if you don't. Grandma will try to sue. Hopefully she won't get anything, but she propbaly will get that kid. Wow. Look at the great job she did with her daughter.:banghead:

Hoppy are you an instigator or perhaps are unaware of how fast somebody with a knife can attack? If she had killed that child those officers would really be getting roasted right now.
 
No its good that they come under scrutiny. If they didn't, then one has to remember that they ARE human too... (even if for some reason people don't remember that they are even w/ the scrutiny) unchecked power sucks for those that don't have it :) Most cops i've met have been pretty damn good people. And even those will say ya there is that (insert explicative here) every now and again...

Hell, cops did better than me, if that had been my kid, i don't own a taser... (dot dot dot)

Have to agree with Zoog... people also forget that the cops are doing their JOB... aka.. just like accounting or computer work or janitorial ect... the difference being they could get killed/injured for doing it... how many of you would feel sorry for the spreadsheet if the accountant mangled it... hehe not apples and apples i know... but thats the whole (theoretical) point :)
 
being an armed threat should not warrent being shot on site. i understand the officers approach. he wanted to get that baby to safety ASAP. and maybe in this situation it was the best approach. but it should not be blindly accepted that if you have a knife. or even if you cut a cop for making a reach should you be shot. theres too many ways this could have ended better
What a rediculous statement. The first sentence alone should cause you to voluntarily put on the dunce hat and go sit in the corner. :D I sincerely hope that was just a poor choice of words. A real armed threat to my life can and will be met with deadly force and the law supports me in that. I can only assume you think "armed threat" is some nebulous term that means something less than what I think it means.
 
Officers did what was right, and now hoppy, my father is a LEO he just told me that in training they showed him a film of a knife fighter who can kill you within 10 to 20 FEET and not throwing it either just a charge. a person on drugs with a knife is the biggest threat you can possibly have, if I was the officer I might have shot sooner.
 
ok everyone

they already made the dumb move of getting to close. what im saying. is they were already close. instead of grabing the baby they should have justs knocked her in the face.
 
I see stuff like this all the time where I live. It usually is followed by a news report in which the criminals relatives say "my baby didn't do no wrong and didn't hurt nobody" as video tape shows the criminal shooting it out with police, breaking into a store, and their long arrest record. This should also be noted to those who want to carry a taser instead of a gun. Non lethal weapons are just that, non lethal, and it should be noted that a knife is a very deadly weapon. The officers waited until they were hurt before they shot, that is the only thing I would do differently.
 
didnt need to shoot the woman. if your close enough to get cut im sure your close enough to land a solid right hook. some times brute force is whats called for

Yeah. Well...If ya ever face a wired-up hophead with a blade, lemme know how that works for ya. It didn't work well for me, and I've got the scars to prove it...and I was pretty well accomplished in boxing at the time, having fought in organized amateur competition for over three years. 65 stitches before I was able to "win" the fight.
 
hoppy? fight much? ever fight someone who was high? real life is very different than the movies and even more different than ones imagination
 
So...instead of waiting for someone else to make an asinine, simple-minded comment you've decide to pre-emptively issue your own.

Attack the idea, not the poster... that's not appropriate for this forum.

IMHO The police in this instance did the best they could. Those who are familiar with my posting record know I'm no fan of the P.D. in general, but in this case, I don't see how one could ask for much more.

The officers used the less-than-lethal force available to them, willingly put themselves in harms way ( and were harmed for their trouble) in order to resolve the threat to the child without taking a life. When those steps failed they employed deadly force.

Nobody wants an encounter to end that way, but it really is about a textbook example of how to do it if you have to do it. They tried everything, then made the decision between the life of an innocent and the life of an aggressor.
 
ok anyone else got something to say while its still piss on hoppy time? anything at all. insults about my mother? question of my manhood? at this point i really dont care.

i try to say reachign for the knife/baby was a bad idea. and would been better off trying to take the person down. yall piss on me

i try to explain. more pissing

i even suggest that because some one died, it was not the best that could ahve came out of it, little optimistic, maybe idealistic thinking. the yellow stream continues
 
Whoa! Easy there, Hoppy!

I thought you said you were ready for the "10,000 angry replys about police making it home at night. and how we should always blindly obey the police at all times. ( the latter coming from a bunch of people who will also have "from my cold dead hands!" and the like in thier sigs)"

:D
 
im not worked up. i just accept that iv apearently lost respect in this thread, and wont attempt to argue my points anymore. thats all.
 
Hi Hoppy,

I have not "lost respect" for you or your posts. I just believe you are very very wrong in this instance. Disagreement is not disrespect that I'm aware of.

Now, let me see if I have your point right...

You are not happy with the loss of life- neither am I but I don't really see the officers in question had any other choice.

You believe the officers should have continued with brute force even though their earlier attempts had not only fail but resulted in injury to themselves and the hostage. I believe such an act would have eventually resulted in the death of the infant.

I really am at a loss to what else the officers could have done to subdue the suspect without putting the child in even greater risk. A risk I believe was unacceptable after the first attempt at brute strength. Since I'm here to learn other veiwpoints what was the alternative that wouldn't have created that greater risk I feel justified the shooting?

Selena
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top