Investigation Vowed in L.A. Shooting

On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:41:20 -0400, MidnightDad > wrote:

>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.
>
>...

Is this as opposed to the half-assed investigations they usually do?

Nate Nagel wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>> N8N wrote:
>>
>>> 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.


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.

"Larry Bud" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> MidnightDad wrote:
>> 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"???

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 ass shots?"

Because they rarely fire their weapons,especially under duress.

> They only hit the guy 4 times. 3.33%!!!
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Ted B." > wrote in
eenews.net:

>>> 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
>
>

People's houses,cars,walls.....whatever was inline with their gun barrel.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"JohnH" > wrote in
:

> MidnightDad wrote:
>> 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".
>
>
>

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"! ;-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"JohnH" > wrote in
:

> MidnightDad wrote:
>> 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".
>
>

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!)

--
Jim 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.

Use ALL force necessary to terminate it.

223rem wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> 223rem wrote:
>>
>>> N8N wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>
>
> 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

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 asses 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

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

JohnH wrote:
>>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.

And the said vehicle with a dead driver behind the
wheel is less of a risk?

Nate Nagel wrote:

> 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 asses 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.