33 Police Officers Fire 600 Bullets into Car Knowing It Contained a Hostage

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Why 33?

a reply to: Domo1

but by the police- 33 of them, who fired 600 rounds into the vehicle despite knowledge that it contained a hostage. Read more at thefreethoughtproject.com...

Straight from the article. Nice try.

And the ultimate question is.....

Who is at fault?

How many, if not all officers, will be investigated for this tragedy?
ETA: Of the 10 shots that actually hit her....

Who in the hell was in charge of this fiasco?

Will anyone get fired or will this just get swept under the rug


Hope the family's lawyer is like a pitbull and doesn't let go until they get the answers they need and someone is held responsible

Not to mention serious training for these guys so this will never happen again and effect an innocent family

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

But the woman was shot 10 times. We don't know if it was one cop or 10 who accidentally shot her. It certainly wasn't all 33. So why should 33 be charged with murder? At the most 10 could be charged with something if we could trace every bullet back to it's "owner". MAYBE involuntary manslaughter charges.

The cops clearly f-ed up royally, but I'm just curious why you think 33 of the should be charged.

a reply to: Domo1

Sorry I refuse to get in a debate with you as I know the police are ready to pounce on any post I make in regards to their crimes.

originally posted by: roadgravel

Does everyone remember the days when everything was done to save hostages?

Getting to fight bad guys is more important then protecting citizens.

Being as we are 'expendable', I guess we get tossed into the bad guy area which means there's a 50/50 chance of survival for those of us that get caught up in the crossfire, as is what happened with this Lady

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I'm not trying to debate you. I'm genuinely curious. What police are ready to pounce on you?

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
Be careful, we have pro-police posters operating on the site today. No matter how many stars they give eachother it's all a show. S + F.

As well as others who hate any type of authority. Also a echo chamber...but wait for it, some of us "Pro" people may surprise you in this thread.

a reply to: TDawgRex

So now you're trying to rile me up in this thread? Nice try, this is the only post of yours in this thread that I'll answer because anything else will be falling into your trap.

originally posted by: Domo1
We don't know if it was one cop or 10 who accidentally shot her. It certainly wasn't all 33. So why should 33 be charged with murder? At the most 10 could be charged with something if we could trace every bullet back to it's "owner". MAYBE involuntary manslaughter charges.

The cops clearly f-ed up royally, but I'm just curious why you think 33 of the should be charged.

Doesn't matter the "rules of engagement" have been defined, Law Enforcement is CLEARLY saying, "From here on out civilians will need to look out for their own safety interests because sworn Law Enforcement personnel will not and can not do such, when on duty".

Frankly, based on the MANY recent stories of police encounters with the general public, there is absolutely NO REASON for a civilian bystander to EVER comply with any requests made by Law Enforcement because they will make no effort to keep a bystander out of harms way. ESPECIALLY if you can end up dead either way.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

But the woman was shot 10 times. We don't know if it was one cop or 10 who accidentally shot her. It certainly wasn't all 33. So why should 33 be charged with murder? At the most 10 could be charged with something if we could trace every bullet back to it's "owner". MAYBE involuntary manslaughter charges.

The cops clearly f-ed up royally, but I'm just curious why you think 33 of the should be charged.

Actually, this is a good point you brought up
Technically you're correct

Yes, 33 cops were 'negligent' ....that's an understatement, I know


However, only 10 shots out of the 600 hit her
So these are the main ones that need to focused on since one or more of these bullets is responsible for her death ...

Did it come from one officer or multiple officers
Bet it was multiple but now they have to prove which ones

If this happened in July, surely by now they have the forensic ballistic results in by now [not sure if that is worded correctly]

a reply to: snarky412

Only 10 may have hit but 600 were fired with an intent to hit.

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: snarky412

Any wonder why the City of Stockton went bankrupt? Bueller? Bueller??

A) cost of ammo went up.

B) numerous lawsuits stemming from badge heavy cops that have 'short cox' disease.

C) The City mgr. is 'double dipping'.

D) All of the above

Do You think You can guess? The clue is: "This never stops"

Actually, none of the above. It was the Police pension that bankrupted the city. To a lesser extent, firemen too. Also Vallejo CA , where 80% of the general fund went to police. There are many more that allocate 50-80% of general funds to police and their pension.

I say defund them. Don't need them. The cost is too damn high. Sure they'll mill around for awhile afterward consoling each other and plotting their revenge, but they'll eventually leave. That's a day I hope will come soon.

600 rounds...my god....did the cops get confused and think this was the final scene from "butch cassidy and the sundance kid" ?

since the cops have a law that allows for a suspect to be charged with collateral damage should the same law not apply to the cops themselves ?

a reply to: snarky412

Technically you're correct

The best kind of correct (I miss Futurama)

If this happened in July, surely by now they have the forensic ballistic results in by now [not sure if that is worded correctly]

Looks right to me. Depending on where she was shot and what actually killed her it's going to be hard to charge all (possible) 10 with anything even if they can match up the bullets.

This whole thing is an unimaginable cluster f.

I really wish there was a timeline and a breakdown of when shots were fired, out of what kind of weapon, where the shooters were positioned etc.

I never know what to think in cases like this. Obviously shooting at the car 600+ times is idiotic. I think you could argue chasing these guys was too. But on the flip side if you just let people go when they kidnap someone you are going to see a huge increase in kidnappings. I think this would have been a good time for a roadblock/spike strips. Also a sniper.

Really heartbreaking what happened to this woman and her family. I think the surviving kidnapper should be charged with her death as well as whoever fired the fatal round(s).

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

0 were fired with intent to hit her though.

originally posted by: boohoo

originally posted by: Domo1
We don't know if it was one cop or 10 who accidentally shot her. It certainly wasn't all 33. So why should 33 be charged with murder? At the most 10 could be charged with something if we could trace every bullet back to it's "owner". MAYBE involuntary manslaughter charges.

The cops clearly f-ed up royally, but I'm just curious why you think 33 of the should be charged.

Doesn't matter the "rules of engagement" have been defined, Law Enforcement is CLEARLY saying, "From here on out civilians will need to look out for their own safety interests because sworn Law Enforcement personnel will not and can not do such, when on duty".

Frankly, based on the MANY recent stories of police encounters with the general public, there is absolutely NO REASON for a civilian bystander to EVER comply with any requests made by Law Enforcement because they will make no effort to keep a bystander out of harms way. ESPECIALLY if you can end up dead either way.

Here are the rules: Run from cops, they will beat you until their egos are put right. Injure or assault bacon and you get executed. Civilians won't stop the blood lust. I thought everyone knew.

a reply to: snarky412

I think we are in agreement here that the Police, pretty much across the country need to be retrained something fierce. I think that a LEO should have a revolver rather than a SIG or Glock or some other high-capacity magazine type weapon. Revolvers teach fire control.

I do think that some of these officers should be charged after forensics tests have been done and they have truly identified the officers that fired the shots.

The rest need to be put on unpaid leave until they can demonstrate that they can actually control their emotions in a high stress environment. Do Psych evals on them, make them meter maids, or drive a desk.

33 cops + 600 rounds is one to two magazines per cop fired down range, at close range. Totally unacceptable.

A revolver has 5 to 6 rounds per weapon and are slower to reload. But even if these cops had revolvers they would have still fired 165 to 198 rounds, which to me is still totally unacceptable.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: snarky412

Only 10 may have hit but 600 were fired with an intent to hit.

Oh I'm not disputing that fact, but Domo did bring up a good technical point, one that I didn't think about until now

The only ones that can be held for this Lady's death are the ones that actually hit her, so an investigation needs to be done to see which guns the bullets came from and hold these officer[s] responsible for killing her

The others need some kind of disciplinary action as well, but not for murder charges

But above all, who ever was in charge should carry most of the burden for allowing his officers to act like it's the Wild West, where they had little to no care for the hostage involved

a reply to: Domo1

Regardless they were fired with an intent. 600 is definitely overkill and is totally unjustified.