4 police shoot and kill violent felon ---- and his girlfriend

originally posted by: opethPA
Except for the fact that the criminal fired on them first and so they had reason to believe he would do it again..

How about this..the criminal caused the situation and if he didn't want his innocent girl friend shot then maybe the right move isn't shooting at Police as they approach your car..

Nah..cops fault all the way..

He's in a car, the car isn't moving. They can barricade him in. He has limited food, water, and ammunition. Even if his car can get out spike strips can stop the car, and if those fail he has limited gas. The criminal is in a horrible tactical position with no ability to improve it. All it would have taken is some restraint rather than a desire to be an action hero.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: TOYBEAR
a reply to: Greven

Shame none of them were fatally/critically wounded in
the process.

So, it's a shame non of the cops were killed but it's not a shame that the criminal caused this situation?
Normal ATS PC junk...never the criminals fault always the cops..

Not at all - the criminal can be skinned alive and dismembered for all I care.
It's the usual police apologist stance to always coddle their behavior.
They acted rashly and instigated a bad situation into a tragedy.
"Their badges mean they're good".

-Toy the Bear

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
- How do you know that they didn't have a clear line of sight on the suspect? I mean, he opened fire on them, so he must have had a clear line of sight, right? Or was he indiscriminately firing as well?

The fact that someone else got killed is proof they didn't have a clear line of fire.

- You still haven't told me how you know that the LEOs made no attempt to save the passenger after she was shot

You don't shoot in the direction of an innocent bystander and then get credit for trying to save them by bringing an ambulance. If the police were trying to save her, they wouldn't have shot at the guy in the car unless he was about to pull the trigger and kill her.

- You have outright stated that the shooting of the girlfriend was an accident--how do you know this? Is there evidence that she did nothing that could be perceived as aggressive by the LEOs during that high-adrenaline 15 seconds of gunfire?

How aggressive could she be? She was in a car and wasn't reported to have a weapon. What was she going to do, spit on an officer?

- And how do you know that they "indiscriminately" fired into the vehicle? We know that it's claimed that they didn't know the child was in the car, but you have no proof that the female wasn't acting aggressively as well.

She didn't have a weapon, she clearly wasn't a threat.

originally posted by: TOYBEAR

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: TOYBEAR
a reply to: Greven

Shame none of them were fatally/critically wounded in
the process.

So, it's a shame non of the cops were killed but it's not a shame that the criminal caused this situation?
Normal ATS PC junk...never the criminals fault always the cops..

Not at all - the criminal can be skinned alive and dismembered for all I care.
It's the usual police apologist to always coddle their behavior.
The acted rashly and instigated a bad situation into a tragedy.
"Their badges mean they're good".

-Toy the Bear

Yah..how dare they do their job..
How dare they feel threatened when a criminal shoots at them.
As a matter of fact if the criminal would have killed one of them it wouldn't have matter because they have badges..and don't have families...

You want to blame the cops..Ill blame the criminal..

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: opethPA
Except for the fact that the criminal fired on them first and so they had reason to believe he would do it again..

How about this..the criminal caused the situation and if he didn't want his innocent girl friend shot then maybe the right move isn't shooting at Police as they approach your car..

Nah..cops fault all the way..

He's in a car, the car isn't moving. They can barricade him in. He has limited food, water, and ammunition. Even if his car can get out spike strips can stop the car, and if those fail he has limited gas. The criminal is in a horrible tactical position with no ability to improve it. All it would have taken is some restraint rather than a desire to be an action hero.

All it would have taken is the criminal not firing at the police..
Again..its a horrible situation that the girl friend died..maybe the criminal shouldn't have caused the situation then.

a reply to: Aazadan

Careful now. You're starting to talk out of both sides of your mouth....

So they should've backed off when he began shooting and treated it as a hostage situation...

But then they should have reapproached his vehicle so they could box him in, despite the FACT that he just took multiple shots at them and showed a complete disregard for the well-being of the two people in the car with him.

Summary: if a guy with potential hostages shoots at you, run away but then run back up to him a little later on and hope he doesn't shoot at you again so you can block his car in. If he does shoot at you again, run away some more. Repeat as many times as necessary till he runs out of ammo, kills the people in the car, drives off while you're running away, or you successfully block his vehicle in.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
FACT: he is, according to Virginia law, 100% liable for her death.

FACT: Facts are fun. Especially when they're actual facts and not just an opinion based on ignorance of actual law.

Which you have cited... where, exactly?

Give me a statute that backs your conclusion.

a reply to: Greven

Virginia Code 18.2-33. Do you need me to offer resources to explain the legalese as well?

originally posted by: Greven
It is fortunate that her son did not pay the same price she did, at least. They knew he was violent. They knew he had attacked police before. They still decided to approach him while there were other, innocent individuals there.

Define fortune, please. We can only hope that now this child has lost his mother (and presumably his father) that there are other family members that can take him and raise him and not be a ward of the child abusive state.

And while he's being raised by that family member he will continually be told the story and shown the newspaper articles about how the over zealous, militarized police killed his mother. In 15-20 years he will be killing cops. If he's a ward of the state he might be worse depending on who he gets for a foster family. (Of course, I'm assuming the USA still exists in 15-20.)

originally posted by: Shamrock6Summary: if a guy with potential hostages shoots at you, run away but then run back up to him a little later on and hope he doesn't shoot at you again so you can block his car in. If he does shoot at you again, run away some more. Repeat as many times as necessary till he runs out of ammo, kills the people in the car, drives off while you're running away, or you successfully block his vehicle in.

I didn't say approach him, I said box him in. The police have armored APC's to say nothing of their regular cruisers. Block the street and where is he going to drive to? If that's deemed too expensive lay spike strips across the road so he loses his tires if he drives anywhere, that will stop his car in a hurry.

Once you do this, you force his only way out to be on foot and on foot he's not going to be able to carry two hostages with him.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven

Virginia Code 18.2-33. Do you need me to offer resources to explain the legalese as well?

§ 18.2-33. Felony homicide defined; punishment.

The killing of one accidentally, contrary to the intention of the parties, while in the prosecution of some felonious act other than those specified in §§ 18.2-31 and 18.2-32, is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five years nor more than forty years.

So, you want to apply this law - made to punish a perpetrator of a crime who kills or is an accomplice of someone who kills someone - to a more broad interpretation. You wouldn't be the first:

Kody Roach, 23, is facing charges of carrying a concealed firearm and second-degree felony murder in the death of 22-year-old Maria Godinez.

Roach was shot several times and Godinez was killed by a stray bullet from the gun of Orlando police Officer Eduardo Sanguino, who has since been cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

That trial hasn't made it finished just yet, so far as I can tell.

Such laws are made to dissuade and punish criminal activity more broadly; typically, this is applied to accomplices of a principal in the first degree of a killing. It encompasses a few other things: a voluntary act and intent to commit felony (the man shooting at the cops), someone is killed, the killing wouldn't have happened without the act, the killing was foreseeable, the killing must be closely connected.

What you are trying to do is make the dead felon the accomplice to the police. That seems overly broad to me. Are we not taught to not point a gun at anything we don't intend to destroy? Are we not responsible for our actions?

Well, I guess police aren't:

The officer who escorted Steele to her home reportedly tried to break up the altercation, and while he was attempting to intervene, the family’s dog reportedly approached. The officer allegedly felt threatened by the dog and pulled out his gun to shoot it. As he fired shots at the dog, one of the bullets reportedly hit the 34-year-old mother in the chest . . . [she died]

“The dog startled the officer. The officer began shooting at the dog. The officer was still shooting when he fell down in the snow”

Would you also apply said law to the shooting of John Crawford? A bystander died there, as well.

originally posted by: Aazadan
The fact that someone else got killed is proof they didn't have a clear line of fire.

No, it's proof of one of three things: that accidents can happen; that the officers had no regard for her life if she were innocent of any aggressive actions, or; that she did something to make the officers think that she was a danger to them and they felt that deadly force was necessary.

You don't shoot in the direction of an innocent bystander and then get credit for trying to save them by bringing an ambulance. If the police were trying to save her, they wouldn't have shot at the guy in the car unless he was about to pull the trigger and kill her.

So, then, you're just making up the assumption that they did nothing to save her based on your ill-conceived opinion that these officers killed her with nothing but malicious intent. Got it.

How aggressive could she be? She was in a car and wasn't reported to have a weapon. What was she going to do, spit on an officer?

You don't have to be intentionally aggressive in order to be perceived as being aggressive during a 15-second shootout where we have zero video evidence of what she was doing during those 15 minutes. There are myriad things that she could have done that could have been perceived as being aggressive. Again, the fact that you made this comment is an indicator of your ignorance and lack of training in situations like these where someone else (the boyfriend) puts you in a life-or-death situation.

Are you seriously--with a straight face--implying that the only two possible scenarios here are that she was either only a passive, perfectly innocent victim of police brutality or had to have a gun and be shooting it in order to be considered aggressive or dangerous to the officers or the general public around them? Is that really what you're claiming?

She didn't have a weapon, she clearly wasn't a threat.

Clearly--because of all of the visual evidence that we have, plus the fact that you were there and witnessed it all go down.

Clearly.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Aazadan

Summary: if a guy with potential hostages shoots at you, run away but then run back up to him a little later on and hope he doesn't shoot at you again so you can block his car in. If he does shoot at you again, run away some more. Repeat as many times as necessary till he runs out of ammo, kills the people in the car, drives off while you're running away, or you successfully block his vehicle in.

Ha...yes, that's exactly what he seems to be claiming. It's tough to discuss this with Aazadan, as he seems to be woefully ignorant as to how to act in these types of situations.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven
Virginia Code 18.2-33. Do you need me to offer resources to explain the legalese as well?

My legal experience tells me that this will not apply to the thug who started shooting at police, although I've never been a lawyer (thankfully), so don't know for sure. This seems as though it would only apply if a bullet from said thug's gun was what struck his girlfriend and killed her.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I didn't say approach him, I said box him in. The police have armored APC's to say nothing of their regular cruisers. Block the street and where is he going to drive to? If that's deemed too expensive lay spike strips across the road so he loses his tires if he drives anywhere, that will stop his car in a hurry.

Once you do this, you force his only way out to be on foot and on foot he's not going to be able to carry two hostages with him.

What you just suggested would only escalate the fight-or-flight response in this individual, and we already know that flight was not his choice. Why would you want to escalate things?

Keep in mind, all of this went down in 15 seconds. What you're discussing wouldn't have been feasible at all for what type of operation they were doing, nor would you have everything in place without them knowing. At the time the officers approached, he had done nothing to warrant the scope of operation that you are suggesting.

Again, you're arm-chair quarterbacking with 20/20 hindsight in your favor--that's not how the real world happens in the present tense. There's always going to be something that could have been done differently, but again, you're still putting all the blame on the LEOs and removing any blame from the criminal. When you form your argument based off of an incorrect foundation like this, it's easy to be so far off the mark with your comments.

You should quit before you get farther off the mark.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The police were following him for 30 seconds and moved in to apprehend him in a parking lot. They approached him while he was still in the car and they don't seem to have made any moves to protect themselves against an armed and dangerous felon.

They could have handled it much better.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Liquesence

Not in Virginia. If, during the commission of a felony, you cause death or grevious bodily injury on another person, you are held responsible for that death. It's not a first degree murder charge and I don't think you can be given the death penalty for it, but you can absolutely be convicted of a second degree murder.

I said as much.

The blame for this woman's death lies 100% at the hands of her boyfriend. He showed an extreme disregard for her safety and the child's safety. Her death is absolutely tragic. Those of you talking about "if it was my mom" are leaving out one key element: what if your mom was shot because your dad opened fire on a bunch of cops? Dad gets off free on that? I know I would be pretty pissed at my dad for putting my mom in jeopardy in such a manner.

I never said as much. As far as the "mother" scenario and what was left out, the original example didn't include that, therefore I was responding directly to what the example illustrated.

Cops shouldn't have returned fire? Okay, so now the guy is in a car with two hostages. Terrific plan.

Hey now, I'm not disagreeing with you. And I NEVER said the cop shouldn't have returned fire.

Calm down.