Man uses daughter as shield during gunfight - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Grasshopper Green · 07-11-2005, 07:00 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/la.....ap/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- 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."

The standoff began at around 3:50 p.m. when officers responded to an area in South Los Angeles west of Watts after residents reported an armed man standing near an intersection with a toddler and behaving erratically and aggressively.

There were three exchanges of gunfire between police and Lemos, who was about 35, McDonnell told reporters. In the final exchange, at around 6:20 p.m., Lemos held the girl as he shot.

"We did everything we could to hold our fire," McDonnell said.

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 just read this. That makes me sick that someone could use their child as protection while shooting at police. I've had problems with depression myself, but I still couldn't see myself using my son in such a way. I wonder how much he really was firing at the police to make them feel they had no choice but to shoot back. Any thoughts from the policemen on this board about this? Any other thoughts?

streak_56 · 07-11-2005, 07:06 AM

From what I can read about the story, it seems that they acted responsibly, but maybe they should've thought twice when he used his child as a hostage. I think for dramatic effect, the story included the wifes story. Personally, with my own experiences with depression, I have been pushed over the edge with it and I have never used anyone as a sheild, much less put anyone into harm. I think the police have done the right thing, and I feel sorry for Ms.Lemos.

Grasshopper Green · 07-11-2005, 07:12 AM

Just for clarification...I don't blame the police one bit. I'm sure they acted responsibly and were by the book, I'm just curious as to how much a policeman would have to take before firing in a situation like this.

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 07:14 AM

This is a fucking disgrace.

The fact that this guy used his daughter as a shield is almost beyond comprehension. As implied by the story, I'm inclined to believe that there was a bit of mental instability involved. How else could we reconcile such abhorent behaviour?

However, there is NO EXCUSE for police to open fire on someone in these circumstances. Whilst I don't necessarily believe the figure of "300 shots fired", what on Earth were these people thinking when they fired at this man and his hostage?

Mr Mephisto

pan6467 · 07-11-2005, 07:16 AM

I never could feel sorry for a "man" who uses a child as a shield.

However, I have to ask how endangered these officers felt that they had to just blow the baby away to get to the man.

I'm sure there is more to the story than what is just above, but my feeling on just from what I have read...... the officers were overzealous and could have called in negotiators or had a SWAT team wait for the right moment to put a bullet in his brain.

I'm sure the man couldn't hold the child over his head and chest forever.

In all it sounds like a difficult situation that noone would ever want to be in, nor would anyone truly know how they would react until it happened.

I feel for the officers who fired and aren't sure which one's bullets hit the child. They may have nightmares the rest of their lives.

flat5 · 07-11-2005, 07:21 AM

Don't the police have other tools to disable a man than bullets?

They had three hours to work this out.

Bill O'Rights · 07-11-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

However, there is NO EXCUSE for police to open fire on someone in these circumstances.

I reluctantly disagree. There IS an excuse, and it still sucks dog shit. The article specificaly states that "In the final exchange, at around 6:20 p.m., Lemos held the girl as he shot." Jose Lemos HAD to be neutralized. Period. He was firing (I will assume) at the responding officers. If not, then he was firing randomly, placing innocent civilians at risk. Either way, he had to be taken out. Nor do I want to hear any "Rambonian" tactics, such as "tackling" him down to the ground. This is the real world we're talking about.
Ideally, there are three points on a human head, that a trained sniper/marksman can hit, that will instantaneously kill a suspect, with no chance of reflexive action. The chance at obtaining a clear shot at any of these point, after being given "the green light" is slim, at best.
No...the police did exactly what they HAD to do. Which is one of the reasons I am no longer numbered among them.

feelgood · 07-11-2005, 07:31 AM

They had SWAT too, doesn't SWAT have sharpshooter? Especially ones that could've shot him in the leg and thus, immobilize him?

Jinn · 07-11-2005, 07:33 AM

I feel bad that the man used his child as a shield, but that does NOT mean the police acted irresponsibly.

Quote:

I wonder how much he really was firing at the police to make them feel they had no choice but to shoot back.

HOW MUCH? Have you ever been shot at? I do not mean to sound harsh, but one bullet is enough to kill any person. Is there really a number you're comfortable saying would have been appropriate? "Once a man shoots at a police officer 5 times, they may return fire.."

I truly wish that the child had not be killed, but there was seems to be nothing the police officers could have done. You'd have to be irrational to believe they didn't try to coax the man out non-violently, but if he comes out shooting -- I don't care what he's holding -- he is trying to kill someone. Yes, if he's shooting, he's trying to murder a police officer. If an officer was shot, how many more could have been shot or killed if they had not returned fire?

Grasshopper Green · 07-11-2005, 07:42 AM

No, I've never been shot at, and seeing as the standoff had been going for hours before they took him out, that is why I questioned taking him out at the point they did. As I clarified, I DO NOT blame the police. What I'm trying to understand is the thought process that went through their mind as they shot at a man with a baby in their hands. Obviously, they aren't going to treat a situation such as this the same as they would if there was just one person involved.

Jinn · 07-11-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

They had SWAT too, doesn't SWAT have sharpshooter? Especially ones that could've shot him in the leg and thus, immobilize him?

Not every SWAT team has a marksman, and not every call to SWAT teams requires the marksman be present. Unlike what movies show us, most of what SWAT does is help evacuate the nearby areas and make sure that there as few civilian casualties as possible. When they ARE used, they're normally for building penetration. In the case that the suspect comes outside, they're really no more than high-quality (well-trained) police officers.

clavus · 07-11-2005, 09:26 AM

Not a lot of thought went into this. Babies make lousy shields, even obese American babies.

Psycho Dad · 07-11-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flat5

Don't the police have other tools to disable a man than bullets?

Tasers. I saw one used across the street from me a while back. While I was sceptical of the amount that my small town city government spent on them at first, I was sold after seeing one in use. Given that the situation was put down without anyone in the neighborhood getting hurt or any property damage I can see their use now.

However the guy they used the taser on only had a knife. This situation with the guns and the little girl is likely quite different. One would have to think that most any nonlethal option that would have worked on the father would have been lethal to a small girl.

And FWIW, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the police officers here. It was the father not the police who put the girl at risk. It is a shame that it had to end like this.

snowy · 07-11-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

And FWIW, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the police officers here. It was the father not the police who put the girl at risk. It is a shame that it had to end like this.

Exactly--the father is at fault here.

Good police make every attempt to avoid shooting at a suspect. They will do everything in their power not to use their gun. Given the cirumstances, they did the best they could do.

Janey · 07-11-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I reluctantly disagree. There IS an excuse, and it still sucks dog shit. The article specificaly states that "In the final exchange, at around 6:20 p.m., Lemos held the girl as he shot." Jose Lemos HAD to be neutralized. Period. He was firing (I will assume) at the responding officers. If not, then he was firing randomly, placing innocent civilians at risk. Either way, he had to be taken out. Nor do I want to hear any "Rambonian" tactics, such as "tackling" him down to the ground. This is the real world we're talking about.
Ideally, there are three points on a human head, that a trained sniper/marksman can hit, that will instantaneously kill a suspect, with no chance of reflexive action. The chance at obtaining a clear shot at any of these point, after being given "the green light" is slim, at best.
No...the police did exactly what they HAD to do. Which is one of the reasons I am no longer numbered among them.

i would think that after all that time from when the exchange had begun, the police had the area secured. There should not have been any innocent civilians at risk. given the potential (and final) outcome, all the police had to do was to wait him out. Nope, I think they were overzealous. All they had to do was to put him under seige. At some point he would have run out of bullets, and it had already been a few hours.

Jinn · 07-11-2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Tasers. I saw one used across the street from me a while back. While I was sceptical of the amount that my small town city government spent on them at first, I was sold after seeing one in use. Given that the situation was put down without anyone in the neighborhood getting hurt or any property damage I can see their use now.

They're amazing! I've seen them used too, and at the Police Academy you have to be shot with the 5-second setting of the gun before being certified to use it as an officer. Talk about having a taste of your own medicine. They're incredibly powerful and have been shown to work in many situations where subduing someone is incredibly important. There was a case here where a mentally handicapped citizen charged a police officer with a knife. In ordinary circumstances, his only reaction would be to drawn down and shoot the man. However, with a taser he was able to stop him dead in his tracks without injuring him (aside from the teeny burn marks from the hooks).

That said.. I know the jurisdiction that I live in prohibits using a taser-gun when a suspect presents a firearm. This makes sense to me.. you dont want a dead officer and a suspect with two guns. In this situation, I think using a taser gun would have not only been reckless but put more officers in danger.

fhqwhgads · 07-11-2005, 09:58 AM

I wish that police work was like the movies... where a lone hostage negotiator can make a guy stand in front of the window, and then the sharpshooter, with his hat backwards and a toothpick in his mouth, downs the guy with the single shot. Then the plain clothes female detective would run in and wrap the baby in her shirt, and hand it over to the weeping mother....

In a perfect world, the bad guy dies, the good guys get rescued, and the heros go drink a beer. Unfortunately, we live in a world where someone who is high on drugs, intoxicated, exchanging fire with officers, decides to use his own baby daughter as a shield.

What options do the police have? Tasers? Tasers are only effective at close distance. When dealing with an armed subject, close distance is the last place that you want to be. Snipers? Snipers need a clear shot... even glass can deflect the path of a round. A subject barricaded in an apartment makes a poor sniper target. Hostage negotiators? I am a hostage negotiator, and we do the best that we can in situations like this. When a subject is high, and drunk, and in the frame of mind that would lead him to believe that using his daughter as a shield is a good idea, talking him out of it is a next to impossible task.

The officers were doing their job, putting their lives in the line of fire in order to attempt to rescue a neighbor. Is anyone suggesting that they should have continued to take active fire without trying to neutralize the threat? Should they have continued to allow the suspect to shoot at them without putting him down? How many police would have had to been shot before people would have said "Ok, now they should fire back?"

My prayers are with the officers, and the mother of the child.

Ripsaw · 07-11-2005, 10:01 AM

re: Tazers.
Remember the trick in high school where you passed voltage through people holding hands to light up a light bulb? Electricity travels through people real well. Tazer the guy holding a baby, and you tazer the baby. Hope your CPR lessons went well.

re: Shots to the leg to imobilize.
Movie fairy tale. If his major blood vessels were unaffected he has quite a bit of time to move about, probably hop around on the other leg for a while.

re: Those that wanted the police to do their jobs better.
Join the force. Come back and tell us how easy it is.

fhqwhgads · 07-11-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janey

i would think that after all that time from when the exchange had begun, the police had the area secured. There should not have been any innocent civilians at risk. given the potential (and final) outcome, all the police had to do was to wait him out. Nope, I think they were overzealous. All they had to do was to put him under seige. At some point he would have run out of bullets, and it had already been a few hours.

If the police "wait him out", and he decides to shoot the baby, then the police are criticized for not taking action sooner.

Elphaba · 07-11-2005, 10:02 AM

I'm almost tempted to think that this was a "suicide by cop" because he was obviously trying to provoke a confrontation. But why would he take his daughter with him? How very, very sad.

shakran · 07-11-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feelgood

They had SWAT too, doesn't SWAT have sharpshooter? Especially ones that could've shot him in the leg and thus, immobilize him?

So if your leg doesn't work, that prevents you from firing a weapon? Unless you're in the habit of pulling the trigger with your toe, I don't think so.

There was a case back a few years in Minneapolis where a guy with a machete was gunned down by cops. I was against the cops in that case becasue they were all far back from him, no one was near him, so there wasn't an immediate threat to anyone's life. There was no need to shoot to kill in that scenario.

In this case, the guy's got a gun, he's firing it at people, you gotta take the shot. And since pistols aren't super accurate on a good day (and get even more inaccurate when you're scared shitless and your adrenaline's flowing and your hands are shaking, as tends to happen to cops when people are shooting at them) it's entirely plausible that the girl would be hit.

Daniel_ · 07-11-2005, 10:07 AM

Maybe if they armed the police with .22s they would have fewer fatalities?

All I know is that in the UK about the ONLY armed response you get is a trained marksman with a riffle. Seems that less people get shot in the UK.

Hmmmm - wonder if that's anything to do with there not being guns on sale at ASDA (WalMart UK)?

kutulu · 07-11-2005, 10:17 AM

I have no problem criticizing cops for what are, IMO, wrongful shootings. I don't think they did anything wrong here. All lives are held equal. The fact that it was a toddler that died is no more of a tragedy than an officer losing his life. Take all the precautions you can to avoid a firefight but once the suspect opens fire, take him out.

joecool · 07-11-2005, 10:23 AM

I love the people on this thread who will sit back and willing let others protect there lives and freedom to be Americans and questions those very people's judgment when its there asses on the line. JinnKai[I] had it right, when they said 1 bullet is enough. I applaud the Police for waiting 3 hours to make the horrific decision that the lives of everyone else outweighed the hostages.

fhqwhgads · 07-11-2005, 10:24 AM

I had to read three different news stories on this incident before I learned that an officer was also shot and wounded during the exchange of gunfire...

officer.com

Janey · 07-11-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhqwhgads

If the police "wait him out", and he decides to shoot the baby, then the police are criticized for not taking action sooner.

yup... it's a no win situation which is why i said " given the potential (and final) outcome" they had very little to lose

Minx · 07-11-2005, 12:11 PM

My first reaction to this story (other than the obvious horror that anyone would actually use their own child to shield themselves) is that the police must have not had any other choice to eventually resort to this tragic end.

My heart goes out to the police officers involved who now have to deal with this for the rest of their lives, as well as to the poor Mother who lost her child in such a horrible way.

It's a sad sick world we live in.

Vincentt · 07-11-2005, 01:26 PM

"wait it out?!?!" are you crazy?

One person already got shot, how many more have to get hit before you can take him out?

Bullets can travel long distances, there is no way to keep everyone safe from a mad man firing randomly.

Note: the police didn't barge into a room and shoot him either. He must have been outside firing at police! A totally aggressive move.

Maybe the police should have just all gone home, maybe he would have gotten bored with trying to kill people and put his gun down...

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joecool

I love the people on this thread who will sit back and willing let others protect there lives and freedom to be Americans and questions those very people's judgment when its there asses on the line. JinnKai[I] had it right, when they said 1 bullet is enough. I applaud the Police for waiting 3 hours to make the horrific decision that the lives of everyone else outweighed the hostages.

I'm not American.

And neither are all TFPers...

Mr Mephisto

Jinn · 07-11-2005, 03:00 PM

Since you pulled the "I'm not American" card:

Quote:

I love the people on this thread who will sit back and willing let others protect there lives and freedom to be Americans and questions those very people's judgment when its there asses on the line.

Are you letting others protect your freedom to be American?

No -- so it didn't apply to you anyway. We're still allowed to say Americans when it actually applies to us.

Lead543 · 07-11-2005, 03:15 PM

This sorta ties into the value of a baby's life vs. an adult's life thread.

If this guy was depressed and under the influence chances are his judgement wasn't very good.

It's sad that the police had to shoot at him, what's worse is this man was cowardly enough to hide behind his infant daughter.

It's one of those things, if he hadn't been shot who knows how many officers/civilians would've died. They shot an as a result an innocent child was killed. It's a lose-lose situation.

Mephisto2 · 07-11-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

...it didn't apply to you anyway. We're still allowed to say Americans when it actually applies to us.

Reread the post and my response to it. My comment stands.

And then, sit down and relax a bit. You seem a bit touchy.

Mr Mephisto

kangaeru · 07-11-2005, 03:38 PM

If a man is walking up to a cop car with a baby in front of him, letting off rounds at cops, they have to fire back. What are you going to do? Wait for a bullet to bite your partner in the eyes before the son of a bitch deserves to be shot at? The reason the poor baby died is entirely the fault of the father, not the police.

It's tragic, but you can't blame the police for defending their own lives, which, sorry, is worth just as much as that baby's. Life is life is life--to say because one is 17 months old and the other is 37 years old, the 37 year old should sit there in mortal danger...well I suppose some of you say you would rather die, but who knows what you would do when it comes down to it and you're staring at what could be the last 10 seconds of your existence on this planet. I for one know I would do the exact same thing the cops did and light the mother fucker up....it would take it's toll on me emotionally to have to do that though. But I would do it.

qtpye4u84 · 07-11-2005, 04:01 PM

Thats sad. They should of waited tell they had a clear shot, but I guess they did what they had to do.

raeanna74 · 07-11-2005, 04:03 PM

One thing I never noticed being brought up is this - The mother claimed that the father was mentally disturbed and depressed and that he needed help. Why was she allowing him access to the child. I know women who are in abusive situations tend to stay in hopes of helping the man. This is just one more example of why a woman should not stick around when a man is acting like this. NO I don't believe there were no indicators prior to this of controlling, or violent behavior. Most people don't go from decent, everyday working man, to violent, insane danger to society and their own children.

Now - I do not intend to blame the mother. I'm sure these kind of thoughts are going through her head as well. I won't blame the police for attempting to stop this man in the way that they did. It is sad in every way. I place the major portion of blame on the father. I am not sad that this danger to family and society is gone from our world.

cj2112 · 07-11-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A toddler girl was shot and killed when her intoxicated father used her as a shield during a fiery gunbattle with police following a standoff that lasted three hours, authorities said.

Police Chief William Bratton said Monday that his officers were well within department policy when they shot car wash owner Jose Raul Lemos on Sunday. Lemos also was killed; an officer was shot in the shoulder but was expected to recover.

''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.''

The 19-month-old 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.''

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.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the officers were only trying to protect themselves and the public.

''My heart is out to a grieving mother who's lost her child. My heart is also out to those officers who put their lives on the line,'' Villaraigosa said. ''Not a one of them went into that situation with the intent to hurt anyone. They were doing their jobs.''

The standoff started when officers were called to an intersection in South Los Angeles west of Watts where Lemos was behaving erratically and aggressively.

He fired at the officers and ran inside a fenced area that included his apartment and his car wash and detailing business. He had a 9 mm handgun and a shotgun and was intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, police said.

Police called in a SWAT team and tried to talk to the man. At one point, as officers helped a neighbor escape, he fired at them and they fired back, police said.

LINK

Quote:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A toddler who was killed in a gunbattle between a suspect and police was being used by the man as a shield, officials said. The suspect 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 related to him, 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.

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

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

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

The standoff began at around 3:50 p.m. when officers responded to an area in South Los Angeles west of Watts after residents reported an armed man standing near an intersection with a toddler and behaving erratically and aggressively.

There were three exchanges of gunfire between police and Lemos, who was about 35, McDonnell told reporters. In the final exchange, at around 6:20 p.m., Lemos held the girl as he shot.

''We did everything we could to hold our fire,'' McDonnell said.

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.

LINK

At this point, we're not even sure whether it was a bullet from an police officers gun or a bullet from the fathers gun that killed the child. What we do know is that an officer was shot, that the police had three exchanges of gunfire with this guy, that the guy was unstable, and that the officers acted in accordance with LAPD policy and the law.
As far as less lethal options, keep in mind that you have to get within tazer range with this guy firing real bulletts at you in order to taze him, and when you taze him, all his muscles contract (including his trigger finger), he immediately falls to the ground (while holding the baby in his arms), and you also taze the baby. If you use a bean bag round fired from a shotgun, you run the risk of injuring the baby, and not hitting the suspect. If you intentionally shoot him in the leg, you not only violate department policies and likely lose your job, but all you have accomplished is pissing the suspect off. Getting shot in the leg does not magically immobilize a person.The police acted appropriatley in this situation, they did exactly what they were trained to do. As horrifying as it is to me that this little child was tragically murdered, she was not murdered by the police, she was murdered by her own father.

lindalove · 07-12-2005, 02:25 AM

I don't think anyone has said/implied that the police shouldn't have shot back at the man.. but surely they could have shot him in the leg or even the arm to basically shoot the gun out of his hand.. instead of shooting the child?

Nisses · 07-12-2005, 03:08 AM

linda: read cj's post again, the one just above yours...

As for shoot the gun out of his hand, I'm guessing for cowboys that works, but for a policeman with a handgun, against a drunk waving his gun around, it would be a bit harder.

They did what they had to do.

period

YKK · 07-12-2005, 06:18 AM

This may be an argument from personal incredulity.

Cops will not try to shoot a gun from somebody's hand because of the improbability of actually hitting what you are trying to hit. I don't think the police were AIMING at the child. A MAN IS A TERRORIST WHEN HE IS HOLDING HOSTAGES AND FIRING BULLETS AT POLICE OFFICERS. From what I hear America has a policy regarding non-negotiation with terrorists, and they have that policy for a good reason. On this scale the policy applies in a less drastic form as negotiation is certainly possible if only to "talk him down" though I seriously doubt a man HOLDING HIS OWN DAUGHTER HOSTAGE cares about some asshole trying to talk to him about putting the gun down.

I am extremely liberal and am ashamed of liberalism and what it does to soften people to the point where they criticize police for shooting at someone who is shooting at them. I would shoot at him as well. I have my own daughter to worry about and will protect her (by remaining alive) before I protect the child of someone who is shooting at me.

**goes to shower the filth of stupidness away**

f6twister · 07-12-2005, 08:49 AM

Some of the handling suggestions posted here prove that TV & movies truly give people a warped understanding of reality. Tasers or bean bags? At best they work withing a few feet of the user and while I can only speak for the cops I know, brining a taser or bean bag up against a guy with bullets is not a good option. Shoot him in the leg or hand? Even the best sharp shooter can't guarantee a hit on a target as small as a hand. Neither shot would stop the threat anyway. Wait it out? Wait for what? The guy to feel remorse & give up? Reload? Kill the baby (which may have happened anyway)? Shoot more cops? fhqwhgads had it right. The cops wait & he kills the baby, they get blamed also. How could they have won?

For those of you who think the cops should have handled it differently, please post your idea and how you would accomplish it.

07-11-2005, 07:00 AM	#1 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	Man uses daughter as shield during gunfight http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/la.....ap/index.html LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- 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." The standoff began at around 3:50 p.m. when officers responded to an area in South Los Angeles west of Watts after residents reported an armed man standing near an intersection with a toddler and behaving erratically and aggressively. There were three exchanges of gunfire between police and Lemos, who was about 35, McDonnell told reporters. In the final exchange, at around 6:20 p.m., Lemos held the girl as he shot. "We did everything we could to hold our fire," McDonnell said. 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 just read this. That makes me sick that someone could use their child as protection while shooting at police. I've had problems with depression myself, but I still couldn't see myself using my son in such a way. I wonder how much he really was firing at the police to make them feel they had no choice but to shoot back. Any thoughts from the policemen on this board about this? Any other thoughts? __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

07-11-2005, 07:12 AM	#3 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	Just for clarification...I don't blame the police one bit. I'm sure they acted responsibly and were by the book, I'm just curious as to how much a policeman would have to take before firing in a situation like this. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

07-11-2005, 07:16 AM	#5 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I never could feel sorry for a "man" who uses a child as a shield. However, I have to ask how endangered these officers felt that they had to just blow the baby away to get to the man. I'm sure there is more to the story than what is just above, but my feeling on just from what I have read...... the officers were overzealous and could have called in negotiators or had a SWAT team wait for the right moment to put a bullet in his brain. I'm sure the man couldn't hold the child over his head and chest forever. In all it sounds like a difficult situation that noone would ever want to be in, nor would anyone truly know how they would react until it happened. I feel for the officers who fired and aren't sure which one's bullets hit the child. They may have nightmares the rest of their lives. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-11-2005, 07:31 AM	#8 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	They had SWAT too, doesn't SWAT have sharpshooter? Especially ones that could've shot him in the leg and thus, immobilize him? __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

07-11-2005, 07:42 AM	#10 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	No, I've never been shot at, and seeing as the standoff had been going for hours before they took him out, that is why I questioned taking him out at the point they did. As I clarified, I DO NOT blame the police. What I'm trying to understand is the thought process that went through their mind as they shot at a man with a baby in their hands. Obviously, they aren't going to treat a situation such as this the same as they would if there was just one person involved. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

07-11-2005, 07:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
streak_56 who ever said streaking was a bad thing? Location: Calgary	From what I can read about the story, it seems that they acted responsibly, but maybe they should've thought twice when he used his child as a hostage. I think for dramatic effect, the story included the wifes story. Personally, with my own experiences with depression, I have been pushed over the edge with it and I have never used anyone as a sheild, much less put anyone into harm. I think the police have done the right thing, and I feel sorry for Ms.Lemos.

07-11-2005, 07:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	This is a fucking disgrace. The fact that this guy used his daughter as a shield is almost beyond comprehension. As implied by the story, I'm inclined to believe that there was a bit of mental instability involved. How else could we reconcile such abhorent behaviour? However, there is NO EXCUSE for police to open fire on someone in these circumstances. Whilst I don't necessarily believe the figure of "300 shots fired", what on Earth were these people thinking when they fired at this man and his hostage? Mr Mephisto

07-11-2005, 07:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	Don't the police have other tools to disable a man than bullets? They had three hours to work this out.

07-11-2005, 09:26 AM	#12 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	Not a lot of thought went into this. Babies make lousy shields, even obese American babies. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

07-11-2005, 09:58 AM	#17 (permalink)
fhqwhgads Junkie	I wish that police work was like the movies... where a lone hostage negotiator can make a guy stand in front of the window, and then the sharpshooter, with his hat backwards and a toothpick in his mouth, downs the guy with the single shot. Then the plain clothes female detective would run in and wrap the baby in her shirt, and hand it over to the weeping mother.... In a perfect world, the bad guy dies, the good guys get rescued, and the heros go drink a beer. Unfortunately, we live in a world where someone who is high on drugs, intoxicated, exchanging fire with officers, decides to use his own baby daughter as a shield. What options do the police have? Tasers? Tasers are only effective at close distance. When dealing with an armed subject, close distance is the last place that you want to be. Snipers? Snipers need a clear shot... even glass can deflect the path of a round. A subject barricaded in an apartment makes a poor sniper target. Hostage negotiators? I am a hostage negotiator, and we do the best that we can in situations like this. When a subject is high, and drunk, and in the frame of mind that would lead him to believe that using his daughter as a shield is a good idea, talking him out of it is a next to impossible task. The officers were doing their job, putting their lives in the line of fire in order to attempt to rescue a neighbor. Is anyone suggesting that they should have continued to take active fire without trying to neutralize the threat? Should they have continued to allow the suspect to shoot at them without putting him down? How many police would have had to been shot before people would have said "Ok, now they should fire back?" My prayers are with the officers, and the mother of the child.

07-11-2005, 10:01 AM	#18 (permalink)
Ripsaw Chef in Training	re: Tazers. Remember the trick in high school where you passed voltage through people holding hands to light up a light bulb? Electricity travels through people real well. Tazer the guy holding a baby, and you tazer the baby. Hope your CPR lessons went well. re: Shots to the leg to imobilize. Movie fairy tale. If his major blood vessels were unaffected he has quite a bit of time to move about, probably hop around on the other leg for a while. re: Those that wanted the police to do their jobs better. Join the force. Come back and tell us how easy it is. __________________ "We are supposed to be masters of space, but we cant even line up our shoes?" One life, one chance, one opportunity.

07-11-2005, 10:02 AM	#20 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I'm almost tempted to think that this was a "suicide by cop" because he was obviously trying to provoke a confrontation. But why would he take his daughter with him? How very, very sad.

07-11-2005, 10:07 AM	#22 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	Maybe if they armed the police with .22s they would have fewer fatalities? All I know is that in the UK about the ONLY armed response you get is a trained marksman with a riffle. Seems that less people get shot in the UK. Hmmmm - wonder if that's anything to do with there not being guns on sale at ASDA (WalMart UK)? __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

07-11-2005, 10:17 AM	#23 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I have no problem criticizing cops for what are, IMO, wrongful shootings. I don't think they did anything wrong here. All lives are held equal. The fact that it was a toddler that died is no more of a tragedy than an officer losing his life. Take all the precautions you can to avoid a firefight but once the suspect opens fire, take him out.

07-11-2005, 10:23 AM	#24 (permalink)
joecool Upright	I love the people on this thread who will sit back and willing let others protect there lives and freedom to be Americans and questions those very people's judgment when its there asses on the line. JinnKai[I] had it right, when they said 1 bullet is enough. I applaud the Police for waiting 3 hours to make the horrific decision that the lives of everyone else outweighed the hostages.

07-11-2005, 10:24 AM	#25 (permalink)
fhqwhgads Junkie	I had to read three different news stories on this incident before I learned that an officer was also shot and wounded during the exchange of gunfire... officer.com

07-11-2005, 12:11 PM	#27 (permalink)
Minx Junkie Location: Up yonder	My first reaction to this story (other than the obvious horror that anyone would actually use their own child to shield themselves) is that the police must have not had any other choice to eventually resort to this tragic end. My heart goes out to the police officers involved who now have to deal with this for the rest of their lives, as well as to the poor Mother who lost her child in such a horrible way. It's a sad sick world we live in. __________________ You've been a naughty boy....go to my room!

07-11-2005, 01:26 PM	#28 (permalink)
Vincentt Addict Location: Tokyo, Japan	"wait it out?!?!" are you crazy? One person already got shot, how many more have to get hit before you can take him out? Bullets can travel long distances, there is no way to keep everyone safe from a mad man firing randomly. Note: the police didn't barge into a room and shoot him either. He must have been outside firing at police! A totally aggressive move. Maybe the police should have just all gone home, maybe he would have gotten bored with trying to kill people and put his gun down... __________________ .

07-11-2005, 03:15 PM	#31 (permalink)
Lead543 Registered User Location: Calgary	This sorta ties into the value of a baby's life vs. an adult's life thread. If this guy was depressed and under the influence chances are his judgement wasn't very good. It's sad that the police had to shoot at him, what's worse is this man was cowardly enough to hide behind his infant daughter. It's one of those things, if he hadn't been shot who knows how many officers/civilians would've died. They shot an as a result an innocent child was killed. It's a lose-lose situation.

07-11-2005, 03:38 PM	#33 (permalink)
kangaeru Crazy Location: on the road to where I want to be...	If a man is walking up to a cop car with a baby in front of him, letting off rounds at cops, they have to fire back. What are you going to do? Wait for a bullet to bite your partner in the eyes before the son of a bitch deserves to be shot at? The reason the poor baby died is entirely the fault of the father, not the police. It's tragic, but you can't blame the police for defending their own lives, which, sorry, is worth just as much as that baby's. Life is life is life--to say because one is 17 months old and the other is 37 years old, the 37 year old should sit there in mortal danger...well I suppose some of you say you would rather die, but who knows what you would do when it comes down to it and you're staring at what could be the last 10 seconds of your existence on this planet. I for one know I would do the exact same thing the cops did and light the mother fucker up....it would take it's toll on me emotionally to have to do that though. But I would do it. __________________ Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

07-11-2005, 04:01 PM	#34 (permalink)
qtpye4u84 Flavor+noodles Location: oregon	Thats sad. They should of waited tell they had a clear shot, but I guess they did what they had to do. __________________ The QTpie

07-11-2005, 04:03 PM	#35 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	One thing I never noticed being brought up is this - The mother claimed that the father was mentally disturbed and depressed and that he needed help. Why was she allowing him access to the child. I know women who are in abusive situations tend to stay in hopes of helping the man. This is just one more example of why a woman should not stick around when a man is acting like this. NO I don't believe there were no indicators prior to this of controlling, or violent behavior. Most people don't go from decent, everyday working man, to violent, insane danger to society and their own children. Now - I do not intend to blame the mother. I'm sure these kind of thoughts are going through her head as well. I won't blame the police for attempting to stop this man in the way that they did. It is sad in every way. I place the major portion of blame on the father. I am not sad that this danger to family and society is gone from our world. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

07-12-2005, 02:25 AM	#37 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	I don't think anyone has said/implied that the police shouldn't have shot back at the man.. but surely they could have shot him in the leg or even the arm to basically shoot the gun out of his hand.. instead of shooting the child?

07-12-2005, 03:08 AM	#38 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	linda: read cj's post again, the one just above yours... As for shoot the gun out of his hand, I'm guessing for cowboys that works, but for a policeman with a handgun, against a drunk waving his gun around, it would be a bit harder. They did what they had to do. period __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

07-12-2005, 06:18 AM	#39 (permalink)
YKK Crazy Location: Toronto, ONT	This may be an argument from personal incredulity. Cops will not try to shoot a gun from somebody's hand because of the improbability of actually hitting what you are trying to hit. I don't think the police were AIMING at the child. A MAN IS A TERRORIST WHEN HE IS HOLDING HOSTAGES AND FIRING BULLETS AT POLICE OFFICERS. From what I hear America has a policy regarding non-negotiation with terrorists, and they have that policy for a good reason. On this scale the policy applies in a less drastic form as negotiation is certainly possible if only to "talk him down" though I seriously doubt a man HOLDING HIS OWN DAUGHTER HOSTAGE cares about some asshole trying to talk to him about putting the gun down. I am extremely liberal and am ashamed of liberalism and what it does to soften people to the point where they criticize police for shooting at someone who is shooting at them. I would shoot at him as well. I have my own daughter to worry about and will protect her (by remaining alive) before I protect the child of someone who is shooting at me. goes to shower the filth of stupidness away __________________ We're all black sheep and we know it.. So don't fsck it up for the rest. -- Sick of It All; Yours Truly

07-12-2005, 08:49 AM	#40 (permalink)
f6twister Addict	Some of the handling suggestions posted here prove that TV & movies truly give people a warped understanding of reality. Tasers or bean bags? At best they work withing a few feet of the user and while I can only speak for the cops I know, brining a taser or bean bag up against a guy with bullets is not a good option. Shoot him in the leg or hand? Even the best sharp shooter can't guarantee a hit on a target as small as a hand. Neither shot would stop the threat anyway. Wait it out? Wait for what? The guy to feel remorse & give up? Reload? Kill the baby (which may have happened anyway)? Shoot more cops? fhqwhgads had it right. The cops wait & he kills the baby, they get blamed also. How could they have won? For those of you who think the cops should have handled it differently, please post your idea and how you would accomplish it. __________________ A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin