Cops sued by bystanders caught in crossfire

[RatFace]

It was absolutely negligent for the police to wound nine bystanders rather than wait until it was safe to fire while keeping the suspect in sight.

The dude turned towards the cops and raised his weapon! So I guess the cops should have waited until the guy shot someone else?

[Valerie]

The dude turned towards the cops and raised his weapon! So I guess the cops should have waited until the guy shot someone else?

Nope. They shouldn't have shot nine other people.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

You usually see cops on shows remark they wait to take down fugitives away from crowded places. Because the fear is people will get hurt . You usually see it on those true cop shows discuss when they do go after someone.

[Donald M.]

The dude turned towards the cops and raised his weapon! So I guess the cops should have waited until the guy shot someone else?

They didn't need to, they took care of that themselves.

[the4thpip]

If only more people in the crowd had packed heat to defend themselves against the cops.

[Chiasm]

So the guy raises his gun and starts firing and then the cops get sued for not shooting him when they had the chance. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

So the guy raises his gun and starts firing and then the cops get sued for not shooting him when they had the chance. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

You may wanna read the link , they aren't getting sued for that. They are getting sued for firing dangerously into a crowd and wounding several people in the crossfire.

[Spike-X]

You may wanna read the link , they aren't getting sued for that. They are getting sued for firing dangerously into a crowd and wounding several people in the crossfire.

No, he's saying he thinks that's what would've happened if the cops hadn't opened fire on the guy.

[Iangould]

You're right. It was impolite of the criminal not to allow the police the time and place to get a safe shot.

Has it occurred to you that given his profession Slam might have some greater insight into this issue than you?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

No, he's saying he thinks that's what would've happened if the cops hadn't opened fire on the guy.

Ok didn't realize that. Why do people play this "what if " game ? I saw it when the guy shot the people in a theater. "What if some people were armed in there ?!" Like that makes a bit of difference to what we saw happen.

[Chiasm]

You may wanna read the link , they aren't getting sued for that. They are getting sued for firing dangerously into a crowd and wounding several people in the crossfire.

Most of the "stray bullets" that hit bystanders were actually fragments of bullets after they impacted on concrete. That can still hurt you for sure, one of my coworkers actually had to have surgery to remove a bullet fragment that came back at him after he shot a steel plate at 20 yards, but to listen to the media you would think that every person hit was directly shot.

And the what if game is important because the whole nature of the lawsuit is playing a what if game . . . . "what if the cops had just waited to shoot the guy later." We can't say for 100% certain what he would have done but based on his behavior up to that point where he was indiscriminately shooting people we can probably say he would have kept shooting especially since he'd raised his gun again.

Its unfortunate that people got hurt but no one else got killed. I don't think we could say that if the cops hadn't fired upon him.

[Chiasm]

Has it occurred to you that given his profession Slam might have some greater insight into this issue than you?

You might consider your own words. I happen to a police officer (Slam can verify as he and I have talked before, not in real life, but about our jobs) so yeah I think I kind of know what I'm talking about when it comes to in these type of situations especially given I've been in two of them now in my career and have had someone shooting at me before. I can't say 100% that these cops did things right but I will say that I think they had a horrible situation with an active gunman and that they handled it about as well as possible.

[Puma]

California police are advised, and usually follow the advice, to not pursue a fleeing suspect in a vehicle if they perceive that the chase could endanger public lives; I would hope the same rule of thumb applies to shooting in a crowded area, unless there is a real and direct, immediate threat to life and safety one should not fire into a crowd.

[Iangould]

You might consider your own words. I happen to a police officer (Slam can verify as he and I have talked before, not in real life, but about our jobs) so yeah I think I kind of know what I'm talking about when it comes to in these type of situations especially given I've been in two of them now in my career and have had someone shooting at me before. I can't say 100% that these cops did things right but I will say that I think they had a horrible situation with an active gunman and that they handled it about as well as possible.

Fair enough and I wasn't aware of that.

However you might want to note that my comment wasn't directed to you.

Edite to add: also, I wasn't saying "Slam is a prosecutor so he must be right. I was saying "Slam is a prosecutor so maybe you should think seriously about what he has to say."

[FalconX2000]

If the criminal was just trying to run away, yes, the cops had no business firing in a crowd.

The criminal raised his gun towards the cops. I really don't see how you can expect said cops to *not* take him down.


Now, if the cops were wrong to confront to a suspect they believed to be armed in a crowded area, that's another matter. But I don't see how you can blame anyone for shooting to save their own lives, let alone the lives of those around them.