Using a baby as a shield - glad that he died!!

[MrBishop]

L.A. Police Kill Gunman, Child in Shootout

By ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago



A toddler was shot and killed when her father used her as a shield in a gunbattle with police following an hours-long standoff, officials said. The man also died and an officer was wounded.

The man killed Sunday night after an hours-long standoff was identified as Jose Raul Lemos, and the girl, about 17 months old, was his daughter, police said. The officer, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the shoulder and was expected to recover.

"He was using the baby as a shield," Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell said.

"We showed a tremendous amount of restraint, but unfortunately the suspect's actions dictated this," he said. "It's a true tragedy."

The child's mother, Lorena Lopez, said she pleaded with officers to hold their fire.

"He had problems with depression, his business was not doing well," Lopez told KNBC-TV. "I told them that he needed help, he needs a psychologist, but please don't shoot. They didn't understand, and the police fired, like, 300 shots."

It was unclear who fired the shot that hit the girl, but officers were struggling with the thought that they killed a baby, McDonnell said.

"The officers are taking it very hard," he said. "Anytime you have a baby killed, it takes its toll."

Source

300 shots to take down one man??!? Where were the bloody snipers?
Fuckin' free for all shootout and a kid dies for lack of control.

 

[Winky]

The kid got what it deserved.
Being born in to the world to those two.
Din have a future anyway...

300 rounds, I think the news is quoting the wackjob
Mom, not reality. Besides there isn’t a limit on the
number of rounds you can fire in a firefight is there?

 

[MrBishop]

Besides there isn’t a limit on the
number of rounds you can fire in a firefight is there?

usual policy is to stop firing shortly after the guy is dead... 5 minutes, I think. Anything else is overkill.

 

[unclehobart]

I think theres a wee bit of hyperbole going on with the suggestion of 300 shots being fired. There probably wasn't more than 50 shots.

 

[MrBishop]

I think theres a wee bit of hyperbole going on with the suggestion of 300 shots being fired. There probably wasn't more than 50 shots.

Still...with snipers its one shot, one kill. Hell, even without snipers... wait for the head shot or clear shot and take it...not the situation where every cop around is 'taking the shot' to the point where they don't know who hit, who missed and who hit the kid.

The "fire at will" ideology is as responsible for killing the kid as the asswipe who used her as a shield.

 

[HomeLAN]

Hell, even without snipers... wait for the head shot or clear shot and take it...not the situation where every cop around is 'taking the shot' to the point where they don't know who hit, who missed and who hit the kid.

The "fire at will" ideology is as responsible for killing the kid as the asswipe who used her as a shield.

That's pretty easy to say as a Monday morning quarterback. Try it again while you're getting shot at and the guy next to you goes down with a hit to the shoulder.

 

[Professur]

At one point, Lemos retreated into an apartment building, where police said he held the girl hostage.

Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man; when they at one point attempted to help a neighbor escape the area, he fired at them and they fired back, McDonnell said.

Under police regulations, officers may only fire "when it reasonably appears necessary" to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.

The man had a 9 mm handgun and a shotgun and was intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, police said.

.

I find it curious that you neglected to post this part of the article. The part where it mentions that SWAT was there. Therefore the snipers were there. And the part that mentions that he fired at them as they "attempted to help a neighbor escape the area". Therefore they fired, not just to take him out, but to defend one innocent that they could save. Also, that he was on drugs. Perhaps you've heard of something called PCP? I'm sure you have. Funny little drug. Completely disassociates the mind and body. People on it have taken 50 rounds, and still walked. Wanna know why? No shock. Most gunshot "stops" don't occur from wound damage, but from shock. That's why there was a big uproar when the military went from .45 to the 9mm. Smaller bullet means less shock. Well guys out on drugs tend to be buffered against shock.

Oh, and in the entire article, the only mention of how many shots were fired was from the mother of a dead child. Great source. Odd that they neglected to find an official source, eh? Nor to mention how many round the druggy fired. Nor to mention how many bullets were fired by the police after the last shot by said druggy. In fact, I don't see where, in that article, it says that the bullet that killed the child was of police origin. I do see where it says that they don't know who fired the bullet that killed her.

It's a 'sensational' story. Devoid of actual facts, and fully worthy of the Enquirer. As is your post.

 

[MrBishop]

I find it curious that you neglected to post this part of the article. The part where it mentions that SWAT was there. Therefore the snipers were there. And the part that mentions that he fired at them as they "attempted to help a neighbor escape the area". Therefore they fired, not just to take him out, but to defend one innocent that they could save. Also, that he was on drugs. Perhaps you've heard of something called PCP? I'm sure you have. Funny little drug. Completely disassociates the mind and body. People on it have taken 50 rounds, and still walked. Wanna know why? No shock. Most gunshot "stops" don't occur from wound damage, but from shock. That's why there was a big uproar when the military went from .45 to the 9mm. Smaller bullet means less shock. Well guys out on drugs tend to be buffered against shock.

Oh, and in the entire article, the only mention of how many shots were fired was from the mother of a dead child. Great source. Odd that they neglected to find an official source, eh? Nor to mention how many round the druggy fired. Nor to mention how many bullets were fired by the police after the last shot by said druggy. In fact, I don't see where, in that article, it says that the bullet that killed the child was of police origin. I do see where it says that they don't know who fired the bullet that killed her.

It's a 'sensational' story. Devoid of actual facts, and fully worthy of the Enquirer. As is your post.

1) I rarely post the entire article...I grab a chunk, quote it, put a source and let those interested read the rest. I don't scrutinize where to cut off the article...I tend to grab 1/3 to 1/2 and go with that.
2) Snipers don't come down from their roost to help save someone...they follow the target or sweep the area for new targets. Period. Someone(s) didn't let the snipers do their job.
3) Who mentioned PCP? For all we know, he was on pot. Who's making assumptions now?
4) The number of shots isn't released yet...may never be.
5) The event happened 45 mins prior to my posting it. Anyone really surprised by the lack of details? Get the news on fast is par for the course for newsmen...fill in the blanks reporting. Welcome to the world of internet reporting.
6) Its not devoid of facts..its devoid of details. Hostage taking - fact, use of a child as a shield - fact, father and daughter both shot, both dead - fact. Makes for boring news.

Details to follow.

 

[Professur]

1) I rarely post the entire article...I grab a chunk, quote it, put a source and let those interested read the rest. I don't scrutinize where to cut off the article...I tend to grab 1/3 to 1/2 and go with that.

Yeah, right.

2) Snipers don't come down from their roost to help save someone...they follow the target or sweep the area for new targets. Period. Someone(s) didn't let the snipers do their job.

following an hours-long standoff

Plenty of time.

3) Who mentioned PCP? For all we know, he was on pot. Who's making assumptions now?

Who mentioned PCP? I mentioned PCP. Did I say that's what he was on? Nope. If you should ever actually finish reading what I posted, instead of jumping onto the bits that say what you want then to (just like you did with the article) you'd read my conclusion : Drugs buffer the system. PCP is simply a convenient one to use as an example.

4) The number of shots isn't released yet...may never be.

300 shots to take down one man??!? Where were the bloody snipers?

Then why are you quoting a figure you accept as unaccurate?

5) The event happened 45 mins prior to my posting it. Anyone really surprised by the lack of details? Get the news on fast is par for the course for newsmen...fill in the blanks reporting. Welcome to the world of internet reporting.

No, the event happened Saturday night. You article was posted 45 minutes prior to your posting it. You do know it's Monday, doncha?

6) Its not devoid of facts..its devoid of details. Hostage taking - fact, use of a child as a shield - fact, father and daughter both shot, both dead - fact. Makes for boring news.

Details to follow.

It's sensational. Point Finale!

 

[MrBishop]

Yeah, right.

Yeah..right.

Plenty of time.

for what? For the snipers to abandon their roosts?

Who mentioned PCP? I mentioned PCP. Did I say that's what he was on? Nope. If you should ever actually finish reading what I posted, instead of jumping onto the bits that say what you want then to (just like you did with the article) you'd read my conclusion : Drugs buffer the system. PCP is simply a convenient one to use as an example.

Yes you did mention PCP...got it out of thin air.

Also, that he was on drugs. Perhaps you've heard of something called PCP? I'm sure you have. Funny little drug. Completely disassociates the mind and body. People on it have taken 50 rounds, and still walked.

You were trying to make a point out of stating that PCP dissasociates people from the shock of being shot...ok. So...what you're saying is that the police should assume that he's on PCP and pump 51 rounds into him just in case? Or did you just post that with no particular point in mind? You did have a point right?

Then why are you quoting a figure you accept as unaccurate?

Its the only figure available. and if it was just one or two shots fired, I doubt that she would've said 300 shots. I also doubt that there'd be a doubt as to which officer or perp shot the kid. If it had been the perp who shot the kid they'd be right out with it. "It wasn't a shot from the police" or "The perp shot his daughter before firing on the cops"

It's sensational. Point Finale!

Most news is.

 

[Professur]

It always amazes me that no matter how tall the person, the point can still go sailing off overhead, completely unnoticed.

Goodbye.

 

[MrBishop]

It always amazes me that no matter how tall the person, the point can still go sailing off overhead, completely unnoticed.

Goodbye.

You argue like the 'stereotypical woman'.
"If you don't know what's wrong...I certainly won't tell you."

or your arguments are so vague that its not meant to be gotten.
or you weren't planning on arguing the point, just attacking me yet again.

then you go and hide behind the ignore button or something.

Make a clear point and be prepared to defend it.

 

[Winky]

300 rounds
Heck they were showing restraint!
And perfect fire control.
That's a scratch more than the combat load of a typical
American combat soldier.
Zero innocent by-standers hit?
No 'collateral damage'.
Heck they shoulda called in an indirect fire support mission
or ordered a precision guided munitions airstrike!!!


prolly was less than fidy rounds

I make it a hobby to count the number of rounds
when I hear shots in my hood.

Heard seven rapped off in rapid succession last night.

 

[Professur]

You argue like the 'stereotypical woman'.
"If you don't know what's wrong...I certainly won't tell you."

or your arguments are so vague that its not meant to be gotten.
or you weren't planning on arguing the point, just attacking me yet again.

then you go and hide behind the ignore button or something.

Make a clear point and be prepared to defend it.

Read that again, and take a good look back at yourself, sunshine. I could use my personal information about you to turn this around and beat you over the head with, but I'm a bigger man than that. My arguments weren't vague. and if you didn't read them the first time, I'll not waste my time repeating the obvious. As for arguing with you, or attacking you ... Son I never attack an unarmed man. Get your wits about you, and then call me. As for the ignore button .... I don't hide behind it. I hide you behind it, for your own protection.

And back you go. See you next month. Maybe.

 

[Winky]

You argue like a 'stereotypical woman'.

 

[freako104]

Cops are supposed to protect life as much as they can. This was way too much. They shouldnt have shot since it could have endangered the child. I feel terrible for her parents

 

[Winky]

Yeah,
just because he was holdin' a babee
it gave him license to shoot as much as he wants

 

[MrBishop]

Yeah,
just because he was holdin' a babee
it gave him license to shoot as much as he wants

Nope...but a .308 through the head would've been quicker and maybe the kid would still be around.

 

[MrBishop]

As for the ignore button .... I don't hide behind it. I hide you behind it, for your own protection.

And back you go. See you next month. Maybe.

Yeah...1 month of peace.

 

[MrBishop]

That's pretty easy to say as a Monday morning quarterback. Try it again while you're getting shot at and the guy next to you goes down with a hit to the shoulder.

Its all planning... the cop shouldn't have been hit. Right now, we don't know when he was hit (if it was during the rescue attempt or some other time).
They exchanged fire on several occasions.
They knew that he was armed
They knew where he was
They had plenty of time to 'plan' it and put their people (including the SWAT team) in the right places.

Autopsies will determine whether the bullet that killed the toddler was fired by police or her father. Police spokesman Kevin Maiberger said 11 officers fired during the standoff, but it was not immediately known how many shots they took

Don't know if that was over the length of the stand off and multiple shootouts or not. The article is updated here

The Chief is almost echoing you, HL

"You aren't going to stand there with somebody shooting at you," Bratton said. "The person responsible for any loss of life ... was the individual who held his child out as a shield and continued to shoot."

You know...I hope that its shown that the father shot the girl, and it doesn't fall onto the head of some cop doing his job... but I don't think that the odds are there. SNAFU.