Police Kill Armed Man, Hostage in Fla.

[Sistema1927]

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]

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]

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]

Which movie was that...
Where the first rule of the engagement was to "shoot the hostage"?

Soldier.

 

[Lupinus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [email protected]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?