 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2005Investigation Vowed in L.A. Shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 LOS ANGELES May 10, 2005 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. ... > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 > > LOS ANGELES May 10, 2005 - 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 in the article was "why did they fire 120 times"??? The real investgation should be "why are LA cops such suck a.s shots?" They only hit the guy 4 times. 3.33%!!! > The question in the article was "why did they fire 120 times"??? > > The real investgation should be "why are LA cops such suck a.s shots?" > They only hit the guy 4 times. 3.33%!!! Those weren't the only hits though. (you made the mistake of assuming the cops were actually firing all 120 rounds at the guy who was hit 4 imes) -Dave > > The question in the article was "why did they fire 120 times"??? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cops were actually firing all 120 rounds at the guy who was hit 4 > imes) -Dave What, prey tell, do you think they were shooting at? >> Those weren't the only hits though. (you made the mistake of > assuming the >> cops were actually firing all 120 rounds at the guy who was hit 4 >> imes) -Dave > > What, prey tell, do you think they were shooting at? Well what did they hit? :) -Dave >>> Those weren't the only hits though. (you made the mistake of >> assuming the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well what did they hit? :) -Dave People's houses,cars,walls.....whatever was inline with their gun barrel.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> Those weren't the only hits though. (you made the mistake of >>> assuming the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > People's houses,cars,walls.....whatever was inline with their gun barrel. EXACTLY!!! Now you get it. :) -Dave > >>>> Those weren't the only hits though. (you made the mistake of > >>> assuming the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > EXACTLY!!! Now you get it. :) -Dave What I get is that they're lousy shots. >>> Those weren't the only hits though. (you made the mistake of >> assuming the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Well what did they hit? :) Each other? ;) SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > >>> Those weren't the only hits though. (you made the mistake of > >> assuming the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Each other? ;) Pity about the bulletproof vest. Killing one of their own might have actually taught them something. SignatureCheers, Bev *********************************************** "A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki >> LOS ANGELES May 10, 2005 - 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 in the article was "why did they fire 120 times"??? > > The real investgation should be "why are LA cops such suck a.s shots?" > They only hit the guy 4 times. 3.33%!!! No, the real question should be "why aren't all those a.shole cops in jail?" They must think they're ATF agents. Public complaint bureaus aren't enough. Ordinary people need the right to prosecute this sort of thing. I wonder how many bystanders had their property shot up as a result of these bozos. >> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The question in the article was "why did they fire 120 times"??? They suspect that some police mistook other officer's fire for suspect fire and it sustained itself for awhile. > The real investgation should be "why are LA cops such suck a.s shots?" Because they rarely fire their weapons,especially under duress. > They only hit the guy 4 times. 3.33%!!! SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > The real investgation should be "why are LA cops such suck a.s shots?" > > Because they rarely fire their weapons,especially under duress. And if you think about how nobody has a problem with cops who rarely practice shooting their weapons carry all the time, vs. the private avid shooter, who I would put up against any cop any day, and the controversy of CCW. >> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The real investgation should be "why are LA cops such suck a.s shots?" >They only hit the guy 4 times. 3.33%!!! And they didn't even kill the guy! No wonder that one deputy was screaming at the cameraman to "get outta here" - he was totally embarrassed! :) SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 > > LOS ANGELES May 10, 2005 - 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. > > ... Um, f.cking DUH? the cops got a shots fired call and when they attempted to pull over a vehicle fitting the description of the perp's vehicle the driver ran for it. Good for the cops I say, although some remedial target practice might be in order. Does this REALLY require an investigation? Run from the cops, get shot. Not rocket science. nate > Run from the cops, get shot. Maybe in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany (or in Texas). Cops are not supposed to shoot at fleeing suspects. >> Run from the cops, get shot. > > Maybe in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany (or in Texas). Cops are not > supposed to > shoot at fleeing suspects. If they're obviously fleeing (and in this case it sounds like they were, not just "driving to a safe location) why the hell not? My only question is why it took so many rounds to stop them. Geez, why don't we take away the officers' guns and just issue them bullhorns so they can politely ask drivers to pull over. Given that the cops thought they were responding to a "shots fired" call I don't have any problem at all with what they did, other than their piss poor aim. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>> Run from the cops, get shot. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > take away the officers' guns and just issue them bullhorns so they can > politely ask drivers to pull over. Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or the public's) is at risk. Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back maybe OK in a police state, but not in a civilized country > Given that the cops thought they were responding to a "shots fired" call > I don't have any problem at all with what they did, Nonsense. > Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or > the public's) is at risk. A 4,000 lb vehicle careening down a highway is a lethal projectile; a serious public risk. Use ALL force necessary to terminate it. >>Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or >>the public's) is at risk. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Use ALL force necessary to terminate it. And the said vehicle with a dead driver behind the wheel is less of a risk? >>> Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their >>> or the public's) is at risk. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And the said vehicle with a dead driver behind the > wheel is less of a risk? One with a harpoon through the rear window is. >> Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or >> the public's) is at risk. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Use ALL force necessary to terminate it. Shooting the driver of a careening vehicle does not make the situation safer. -- New service to compete with paypal Get $25 pre-registration bonus by following this link www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u >>> Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or >>> the public's) is at risk. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > following this link > www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u Better a .50BMG round thru the engine block.The vehicle will stop quickly. Just don't do it in the middle of a neighborhood.(same goes for shootouts) (BTW,that's what USCoastGuard is doing for fast drug smuggling boats offshore.If they can hit a speedboat's engine on the seas with a single .50BMG round,then a SUV's should be much easier on solid land.) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or > > the public's) is at risk. > > A 4,000 lb vehicle careening down a highway is a lethal projectile; a > serious public risk. He wasn't careening down a highway, he was driving around a residential neighborhood (one where he was known) at speeds UP TO 35 mph. When the cops blocked him he drove up onto a lawn and backed up. The guy is guilty of stupidity, but I don't think he was a danger to anybody. > Use ALL force necessary to terminate it. Surely you remember the cops shooting thw homeless old lady who brandished a screwdriver at them. Yeah, of course the bitch deserved it. SignatureCheers, Bev *********************************************** "A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki >>>> Run from the cops, get shot. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > state, > but not in a civilized country A presumed armed suspect fleeing from police isn't a risk? >> Given that the cops thought they were responding to a "shots fired" >> call I don't have any problem at all with what they did, > > Nonsense. Nonsense is when the pansy a.ses take over and stop treating criminals like criminals. Yes, I'm very outspoken when pointing out the shortcomings of cops and their habits of running roughshod over civil rights, but the worst these cops might be guilty of is slightly poor judgement (if in fact there is reason to believe that they didn't see the fleeing driver as a safety risk - but we don't have the info to make that statement) and definitely poor aim. Nailing them to the cross for this one is only going to make the criminals bolder. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > A presumed armed suspect fleeing from police isn't a risk? How is a *presumed* armed suspect (in other words, the suspect had not fired at anyone) fleeing from the police a life-threating risk? > Nonsense is when the pansy a.ses take over and stop treating criminals > like criminals. Simply fleeing from the cops is a crime (resisting arrest), but not one that allows them to open fire. > shortcomings of cops and their habits of running roughshod over civil > rights, but the worst these cops might be guilty of is slightly poor > judgement (if in fact there is reason to believe that they didn't see > the fleeing driver as a safety risk - but we don't have the info to make > that statement) and definitely poor aim. Did they fire at the cops? No. Did they aim their SUV at the cops? No. They were simply fleeing. No reason to open fire IMO. Be glad that you were not a resident of the neighborhood these idiots shot up. > Nailing them to the cross for > this one is only going to make the criminals bolder. > Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or the public's) > is at risk.Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back maybe OK in a police state, > but not in a civilized country That's why the story said the vehicle was moving towards the officers. Remember, a motor vehicle is deadly weapon when used against cops. Used against other citizens it's just a tragic accident. >> Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or the public's) >> is at risk.Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back maybe OK in a police state, >> but not in a civilized country > >That's why the story said the vehicle was moving towards the officers. The video (which I also saw on the WGN News at 9 last night) clearly shows this. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ >>> Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or the public's) >>> is at risk.Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back maybe OK in a police state, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The video (which I also saw on the WGN News at 9 last night) clearly > shows this. My comment still stands. If you or I opened fire with a gun on someone driving at us, we'd be the ones in jail. >>>>Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or the public's) >>>>is at risk.Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back maybe OK in a police state, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My comment still stands. If you or I opened fire with a gun on someone > driving at us, we'd be the ones in jail. That's wrong too, if there's clear intent on the part of the driver to cause harm. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>Cops are allowed to use lethal force only when life or limb (their or the public's) >>>>>is at risk.Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back maybe OK in a police state, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >That's wrong too, if there's clear intent on the part of the driver to >cause harm. Now come back to the real world. Next time you *think* someone is driving toward you go ahead and shoot them and see what happens. -- New service to compete with paypal Get $25 pre-registration bonus by following this link www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u >>That's wrong too, if there's clear intent on the part of the driver to >>cause harm. > > Now come back to the real world. Next time you *think* someone is > driving toward you go ahead and shoot them and see what happens. I don't dispute someone driving at these cops to scatter them. I have had people drive at me while I am bicycling simply to bully me off the road or just for their own laughs. In each case they put my life in danger much like I the article indicated the cops were in danger. But there is a double standard. Drive at a cop to get him to move out of the way, and it's an attack with deadly weapon that can be responded with deadly force. When someone crosses the double yellow drives right at me when I am on a bicycle and we are the only two vehicles around, it's just an 'accident'. When someone decides to try and push me off the road when I am riding it's just 'ignorance'. I'm supposed to just 'let them do it'. To back down and not think anything of it. If I carried a firearm and opened fire in response to these, I would go to jail. The drivers in these cases want the cops to scatter and get out of thier way, not to kill them. Same when someone on the road decides to brush pass a bicyclist or give a bicyclist a scare. They usually don't intend to kill, just push their way through without regard to safety. The cops don't feel they should just let them do it, but the rest of us are supposed to. >> My comment still stands. If you or I opened fire with a gun on someone >> driving at us, we'd be the ones in jail. > That's wrong too, if there's clear intent on the part of the driver to > cause harm. I don't really have a problem with cops using fire arms to protect themselves from someone using a car as a weapon. I just wish they would consider it weapon when used on regular citizens. >> My comment still stands. If you or I opened fire with a gun on someone >> driving at us, we'd be the ones in jail. > >That's wrong too, if there's clear intent on the part of the driver to >cause harm. No, Brent is correct. You might be acquitted after your trial, but you'd definitely be in jail while you waited. SignatureLife is short - drive fast! http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ > If they're obviously fleeing (and in this case it sounds like they were, > not just "driving to a safe location) why the hell not? My only > question is why it took so many rounds to stop them. Geez, why don't we > take away the officers' guns and just issue them bullhorns so they can > politely ask drivers to pull over. There are perfectly good tactics for stopping a suspect like that which don't endanger bystanders nearly as much. The obvious one here would be to surround him with cop vehicles, which then gradually stop. Maybe a few parked cars get crunched in the process, but nobody gets shot. What a bunch of Barney Fifes. > > If they're obviously fleeing (and in this case it sounds like they were, > > not just "driving to a safe location) why the hell not? My only [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What a bunch of Barney Fifes. Unfortunately, forcing a vehicle to stop by use of barricades has been ruled 'deadly force' by the courts. The cops have to always leave an out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Not sure about your suggested technique of 'rolling roadblock'. Harry K >> > If they're obviously fleeing (and in this case it sounds like they > were, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Unfortunately, forcing a vehicle to stop by use of barricades has been > ruled 'deadly force' by the courts. Do you have a cite for this? > The cops have to always leave an > out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Why? Maybe to let others depart the stop zone before the suspect arrives? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >> > If they're obviously fleeing (and in this case it sounds like they > > were, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > at > kua.net Nope, no cite. I was curious having seen it somewhere and also having heard it being applied while listening to the scanner. Asked the question in a BS session with county deputies. They confirmed that yes, the (IIRC) supreme court ruled that a total road block is use of deadly force. I certainly don't agree with it. Looks to me like a fleeing subject crashing into a clearly visible roadblock is only committing suicide by cop. Harry K >> There are perfectly good tactics for stopping a suspect like that >> which don't endanger bystanders nearly as much. The obvious one here [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> What a bunch of Barney Fifes. > Unfortunately, forcing a vehicle to stop by use of barricades has been > ruled 'deadly force' by the courts. The cops have to always leave an > out when setting up barricades to stop a speeding car. Not sure about > your suggested technique of 'rolling roadblock'. And shooting at the car 200+ times isn't? Clearly the decision to use deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. > >> There are perfectly good tactics for stopping a suspect like that > >> which don't endanger bystanders nearly as much. The obvious one here [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it > without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. At the time of the shooting there was no 'fleeing vehicle' thus no need for a roadblock or time to set one up. From what I saw it looked like he was pretty well boxed in anyhow. I did a quick and dirty google on roadblocks this morning. Didn't find any discussing leaving an opening but several equating roadblock=lethal force. Harry K > >> There are perfectly good tactics for stopping a suspect like that > >> which don't endanger bystanders nearly as much. The obvious one here [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it > without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. At the time of the shooting there was no 'fleeing vehicle' thus no need for a roadblock or time to set one up. From what I saw it looked like he was pretty well boxed in anyhow. I did a quick and dirty google on roadblocks this morning. Didn't find any discussing leaving an opening but several equating roadblock=lethal force. Harry K > >> There are perfectly good tactics for stopping a suspect like that > >> which don't endanger bystanders nearly as much. The obvious one here [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > deadly force had already been made. We're just discussing how to do it > without needlessly endangering bystanders. This isn't rocket science. In the instant discussion there was no 'fleeing vehicle'(at the time of the shooting) thus no need for a roadblock of any kind nor even time to set one up. I did a quick and dirty google on use of road block this morning. Found several that equated a roadblock with lethal force but couldn't find any discussing leaving an opening. Harry K >> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >attempted to pull over a vehicle fitting the description of the perp's >vehicle the driver ran for it. Except he had no gun and had fired no shots and they did NOT have a positive ID. Firing on him was NOT warranted anymore then they would fire on a car that speed away when they stopped if for a traffic ticket. > Good for the cops I say, although some >remedial target practice might be in order. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >nate -- New service to compete with paypal Get $25 pre-registration bonus by following this link www.greenzap.com/25smackers4u >>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > fire on a car that speed away when they stopped if for a traffic > ticket. He was not "speeding away",he was trying to ram police in front of him. Clear justification for shooting him. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > >>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 > >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > He was not "speeding away",he was trying to ram police in front of him. > Clear justification for shooting him. Did you even read the article? "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." Yeah, it's perfectly obvious that a guy backing up is going to hit ramming speed Real Soon Now. Photo caption: "Los Angeles County Sheriff Commander Lee Baca takes questions from the media about a videotaped deputy shooting in Compton, during a news conference Monday, May 9, 2005, at the Sheriffs headquarters in Los Angeles. A high speed chase ended Monday in a barrage of gunfire that injured two men, including a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who may have been caught in the crossfire of other deputies." "High speed chase"? Give me a break. Maybe on foot or on a bicycle, but it probably wasn't even worth a speeding ticket. The guy sounds dumb and disoriented, but not violent. The local cops used to be respectable. Not any more. SignatureCheers, Bev *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* It is just a bicycle. It is not dedication and bugs in your teeth and dust and rain and mud. It is not madness and harmony and glory and rhythm. It is not muscle and flesh and sweat and lycra and wind. It is just a bicycle. -- Bianchi *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* > including a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who may have been caught in > the crossfire of other deputies." *May* have been? What other explanations are they trying to push? Did the suspect just happen to have one slug with him and throw it really hard at the deputy? > > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > vehicle the driver ran for it. Good for the cops I say, although some > remedial target practice might be in order. I don't think 35 mph qualifies as running for it, especially when you drive around in circles. The guy had a previous drug history and was apparently wearing headphones -- stupid, but not nasty enough to merit a death penalty. > Does this REALLY require an investigation? Run from the cops, get > shot. Not rocket science. I don't think they're allowed to shoot someone just for running away. They might band together and agree that they saw the guy with a gun, but if they don't do that I think they'd be in deep sh.t. 120 shots, many nearly hitting residents in their homes, and only 4 wounded him? That's gotta be a pretty high level of incompetence of SOME sort. SignatureCheers, Bev *********************************************** "A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki >>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > around in circles. The guy had a previous drug history and was apparently > wearing headphones -- stupid, but not nasty enough to merit a death penalty. When you "end" the chase by backing into (or attempting to) the cops, extreme measures are IMHO warranted. Ditto for any other action that seems likely to put cops or any non-involved parties at risk. >>Does this REALLY require an investigation? Run from the cops, get >>shot. Not rocket science. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 120 shots, many nearly hitting residents in their homes, and only 4 wounded > him? That's gotta be a pretty high level of incompetence of SOME sort. Yeah, I'll agree with that. Shouldn't have taken that many shots. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 > > LOS ANGELES May 10, 2005 - Authorities promised a full investigation I would attend the award ceremony. They should run a video every hour on every TV channel promoting it as their "New high speed chase policy". >> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They should run a video every hour on every TV channel promoting it as > their "New high speed chase policy". That's why a helicopter with a .223 minigun pointing DOWN would be better;the misses would go into pavement and not people's homes and autos. Like "Blue Thunder"! ;-) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They should run a video every hour on every TV channel promoting it as > their "New high speed chase policy". Or use a helo with a sniper to put a .50BMG round thru the engine block.That would look really good on the evening news! (Except that Barrett MFG.is not dealing with California LEO's anymore due to their new law against .50BMG sniper rifles.A great guy!) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > (Except that Barrett MFG.is not dealing with California LEO's anymore due > to their new law against .50BMG sniper rifles.A great guy!) You sure? Isnt the Barret a favorite of Arnold's in his action movies? >http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=744016 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >... Is this as opposed to the half-assed investigations they usually do? It is their marksmanship that is the real question. Four hits out of 120 shots fired. They did, however manage to riddle a second floor apartment with bullets. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.