LAPD Shoot Two Innocent Citizens Driving Vehicle Similar to Suspect - Polidicks

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511528]The police were completely justified[/QUOTE] um the threats of a madman do not warrant the police shooting a suspect vehicle (a shit tonne) before they've even worked out whether the occupants are even the same fucking gender as the guy they're hunting they're cops. they're paid to be in the line of duty. the line of duty is dangerous. if they shoot innocent civilians as a mistake because they're scared then they shouldn't be cops, or at least not cops with fucking guns [editline]8th February 2013[/editline] "too bad for the drivers" wow seriously. yeh too bad you went about your normal daily life! unlucky! hope you're not emotionally and/or physically scarred for the rest of your life because you were [i]shot a whole bunch[/i] by some guys who should not be cops!

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39511554]um the threats of a madman do not warrant the police shooting a suspect vehicle (a shit tonne) before they've even worked out whether the occupants are even the same fucking gender as the guy they're hunting they're cops. they're paid to be in the line of duty. the line of duty is dangerous. if they shoot innocent civilians as a mistake because they're scared then they shouldn't be cops, or at least not cops with fucking guns[/QUOTE] The truck was superficially the exact same as his, the police aren't going to let him get the first shot off. The safety of the officer comes above that of a civilian in an emergency situation, and with someone like him out there it [i]is[/i] an emergency situation. They must have been pretty sure already that he was in that truck to fire, anyway.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511674]The truck was superficially the exact same as his, the police aren't going to let him get the first shot off.[/quote] ah yes a car driving normally down the road that is somewhat similar to the suspects car. at what point does it look like two unarmed women driving normally are going to open fire? fair enough if they were speeding and driving erratically or something (well not fair enough at all because that isn't a reason to shoot) but wow [quote]The safety of the officer comes above that of a civilian in an emergency situation[/QUOTE] what? police officers exist for the safety of civilians. so when there's the chance of a cop killer being in the area, police officers are just allowed to shoot civilians? unarmed civilians? because they're at danger of being shot? wtf

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511674]The truck was superficially the exact same as his, the police aren't going to let him get the first shot off. The safety of the officer comes above that of a civilian in an emergency situation, and with someone like him out there it [i]is[/i] an emergency situation. They must have been pretty sure already that he was in that truck to fire, anyway.[/QUOTE] They have the plate numbers for his truck, they had no excuse not to run them first.

"excuse me maam, we're very sorry for shooting you but you see we're at risk of being shot by someone in a similar car to yours. excuse me now while i go home and receive my pay-cheque for protecting civilians"

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39511705]ah yes a car driving normally down the road that is somewhat similar to the suspects car. at what point does it look like two unarmed women driving normally are going to open fire? fair enough if they were speeding and driving erratically or something (well not fair enough at all because that isn't a reason to shoot) but wow what? police officers exist for the safety of civilians. so when there's the chance of a cop killer being in the area, police officers are just allowed to shoot civilians? unarmed civilians? because they're at danger of being shot? wtf[/QUOTE] It's literally taught that the safety of an officer comes first in any situation, if they're dead or incapacitated how [i]are[/i] they going to protect the civilians? There are times when civilians making rash actions have gotten them shot and killed in split seconds, or times where officers were killed or shot or wounded because they were hesitant. Even then in that situation if it had been the suspect, it would have taken under a moment for him to get into the position required to fire at the officers.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511782]There are times when civilians making rash actions have gotten them shot and killed in split seconds, or times where officers were killed or shot or wounded because they were hesitant.[/QUOTE] except this is two women driving down the road who were shot at numerous times by officers clearly not hesitant. it's a combination of the exact opposites of the scenarios you're describing in which mistakes would be okay [quote]it would have taken under a moment for him to get into the position required to fire at the officers.[/quote] yes in literally a split moment (my favourite measurement of time) the super soldier ex-navy killer could have stopped his moving vehicle, withdrew a weapon, and fired, before the super jumpy cops could put as many rounds in him as they did to these innocent women's vehicle

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39511819]except this is two women driving down the road who were shot at numerous times by officers clearly not hesitant. it's a combination of the exact opposites of the scenarios you're describing in which mistakes would be okay yes in literally a split moment (my favourite measurement of time) the super soldier ex-navy killer could have stopped his moving vehicle, withdrew a weapon, and fired, before the super jumpy cops could put as many rounds in him as they did to these innocent women's vehicle[/QUOTE] He wouldn't have had to stop to just lift up a pistol or rifle, shoulder it or aim it through the driver-side window or towards the back window, and fire. It would certainly be inaccurate, but that would pose even more of a risk to anyone nearby. The police supposedly were coming up from behind. Maybe the women in the truck did something that the police mistook as hostile, or they didn't think they had the time to run the licence plates.

From reading his manifesto and listening to news reports, he seemed like a nice guy. Im hearing now on the news that his neighbors recalled him as being nice, and a former police explorer. Only to have shit kicked in his face, and finally crack. Like my brother said " This guy has been waiting since 09 ( when he was fired) and his firing was finalized last year. Hes probably been planning this shit for years." Hopefully it stops, but if it doesn't this is gonna be some heavy shit.

Seriously, these cops need to lose their jobs and get criminally charged. They clearly blasted the living shit out of that truck without even bothering to find out the occupants were DELIVERING PAPERS. The LAPD are corrupt cowboys who should have their guns taken away, maybe they'll do their jobs better if they have to enforce the law UK-style.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511674]The truck was superficially the exact same as his, the police aren't going to let him get the first shot off. [B]The safety of the officer comes above that of a civilian in an emergency situation[/B], and with someone like him out there it [i]is[/i] an emergency situation. They must have been pretty sure already that he was in that truck to fire, anyway.[/QUOTE] say whaaat [editline]8th February 2013[/editline] the police had his plates, they should have run them before they started shooting

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511528]The police were completely justified, Too bad for the drivers, but they can't take any risks and a peaceful resolution is out of the question.[/QUOTE] haha yeah, the police can shoot recklessly with impunity. Those officers were retards and they should lose their jobs right away, not that its going to happen.

They're just lucky they didn't kill anyone, but if they had of tried to pull him over he already said he would try to kill them. I think the collision may have been justified, but the bullets were wayyyy over the top. Should have tried to tail them and just checked the plates.

Suspect vehicle was a Nissan Titan and they shot at a Toyota Tacoma. How terrible.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dHkZjQx.jpg[/IMG] Here's the car. Edit: Oh fuck it was already posted....

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511901]or they didn't think they had the time to run the licence plates.[/QUOTE] they [i]always[/i] have time to run the plates or at least discern whether the target is aggressive/threatening or not because the ROE for police is not "shoot at someone who think might be driving a similar vehicle to a suspect". these guys fucked up bad and that's the end of it

[QUOTE=mastermaul;39510534].50 BMG rifles are illegal in California. Owning Class III weapons has nothing to do with Law Enforcement employment, any citizen who's legally able to purchase firearms (IE, not a felon) can buy one after paying a $200 tax stamp to the ATF and in the specific case of California acquiring a special permit as administered under the "California Dangerous Weapons Control Law", though since the California DOJ is the sole decider of who is issued this permit and has an anti-gun political bias these are not normally issued to anyone. He doesn't have MANPAD systems, he's full of shit basically.[/QUOTE] He procured a bunch of a suppressors and SBR's and other Class III and NFA weaponry back when he was in the LAPD and still had connections with the Navy and could just have them shipped directly to him. He basically used his police and military credentials to get weapons shipped to him when he was still on the force. The weapons that he's using now, to my knowledge, are the same weapons he's had since before he was fired. It has nothing to do with the $200 tax stamp and NFA registration that civilians have to go through to procure these weapons.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39518619]He procured a bunch of a suppressors and SBR's and other Class III and NFA weaponry back when he was in the LAPD and when he was in the Navy and could just have them shipped directly to him. He basically used his police and military credentials to get weapons shipped to him when he was still on the force. The weapons that he's using now, to my knowledge, are the same weapons he's had since before he was fired. It has nothing to do with the $200 tax stamp and NFA registration that civilians have to go through to procure these weapons.[/QUOTE] Do you have proof? You're going off the word of the same man who says he has anti-air weaponry. Lowly police officers can't just magically procure whatever weapons they please through the mail. They don't have NFA exemptions at all. The only way he'd have any weapons pertaining to his service would be if he stole them from a police armory.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39509044]because two innocent people are in the hospital after being shot by LAPD officers[/QUOTE] Ah, yes, and that instantly means that the officers who shot are in the wrong? The text in the OP, and the following, is the sum of the text relating to that particular incident from the news articles posted here. [quote]Two women who were shot by Los Angeles police in Torrance early Thursday during a massive manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer were delivering newspapers, sources said. The women, shot in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue, were taken to area hospitals, Torrance police Lt. Devin Chase said. They were not identified. One was shot in the hand and the other in the back, according to Jesse Escochea, who captured video of the victims being treated. It was not immediately known what newspapers the women were delivering. After the shooting, the blue pickup was riddled with bullet holes and what appeared to be newspapers lay in the street alongside.[/quote] No where have I seen mention of what exactly happened, nor does it say anywhere that they are "innocent" (partly because they can't, and partly because they don't know I would think). But no, it's easier to just assume the officers involved were in the wrong, because hey, all cops are bad, right? Also, just to be clear, I'm not this guy: [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511528]The police were completely justified, Too bad for the drivers, but they can't take any risks and a peaceful resolution is out of the question.[/QUOTE] Because, being shooting two people because you were worried someone in a vehicle is going to shoot you because of what someone else said (or rather posted) on the Internet isn't justifiable. I'm not on either parties side (the persons shot or the officers who shot them) simply because I don't believe the two blurbs from new articles is enough to make a judgement regarding who's at fault.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;39518735]Do you have proof? You're going off the word of the same man who says he has anti-air weaponry. Lowly police officers can't just magically procure whatever weapons they please through the mail. They don't have NFA exemptions at all. The only way he'd have any weapons pertaining to his service would be if he stole them from a police armory.[/QUOTE] [quote= His Memo]Unfortunately, are you aware that I obtained class III weapons (suppressors) without a background check thru NICS or DROS completely LEGALLY several times? I was able to use a trust account that I created on quicken will maker and a $10 notary charge at a mailbox etc. to obtain them legally. Granted, I am not a felon, nor have a DV misdemeanor conviction or active TRO against me on a NCIC file. I can buy any firearm I want, but should I be able to purchase these class III weapons (SBR’s, and suppressors) without a background check and just a $10 notary signature on a quicken will maker program? The answer is NO. I’m not even a resident of the state i purchased them in. Lock n Load just wanted money so they allow you to purchase class III weapons with just a notarized trust, military ID. Shame on you, Lock n Load.[/quote] Not like we really have any other sources, anyway. If this is true, he got them in another state, using his rank to get them. I'm not sure if I believe him, but it makes about as much sense as him stealing them from an armory in 2009 (the last time he would've had access to an armory). He also bought a bunch of them legally from gunstores and whatnot. Because people tend to trust cops with guns :v:

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39511528]The police were completely justified, [/QUOTE] I dont think they were. I think that, especially in this situation, you need 100% ID on someone before you go around shooting at them - even with that information you quoted.

Oh right, this happened about three minutes walking distance from where I lived (posted this in the other thread as well) Funny thing is about one or two streets over (less than 200 meters away), another officer rammed a black pickup truck, then opened fire soon afterwards; the occupant of the vehicle wasn't hurt but it's kinda odd how the officer opened fire right after disabling the vehicle This happened on Flager Ln., Torrance CA, and the blue truck incident happened on Linda Dr. about two streets east of Flager Ln.

Who was the forum member that said only cops should have AR-15s, because they are trained in properly using them? Because these guys misidentified a Toyota Tacoma being driven by two women for a Nissan Frontier driven by a black male, filled it full of holes without warning, and still didn't even manage to kill the target.

I guessing they shot the truck with a shotgun, based on the amount of holes and how the occupants of the vehicle were not critically injured Either way though, the news chopper hovering around the house since 6AM was fucking annoying

[QUOTE=DaMastez;39518904]Ah, yes, and that instantly means that the officers who shot are in the wrong? The text in the OP, and the following, is the sum of the text relating to that particular incident from the news articles posted here. [/QUOTE] Yes, they are in the wrong. These are [I]police officers[/I], not civilians. The moment you put on that uniform and wear that badge means you're going to be held to a higher standard of scrutiny than your average Joe.

They are wrong. They failed to follow proper protocol and procedure. They let panic take over rather than training. Yes. They should be punished. A lot of the local crazies have been running around screaming we live in a police state and we should go to war with the police over this incident. Yep! That'll help the situation so much! [/sarcasm]

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39519217]Yes, they are in the wrong. These are [I]police officers[/I], not civilians. The moment you put on that uniform and wear that badge means you're going to be held to a higher standard of scrutiny than your average Joe.[/QUOTE] So, you were there? You [u]know[/u] what happened? I'm not saying they shouldn't be accountable, I'm simply saying from what little information I've seen regarding what happened, there isn't nearly enough to go off of and say for sure what events let up to the officers shooting the occupants of the vehicle (and thus if they were in the wrong or not). The title may say "LAPD Shoot Two Innocent Citizens Driving Vehicle Similar to Suspect", this is SH after all, but no were in the news article does it even use the word innocent because, I would assume, the police haven't finished their investigation and as such the news doesn't know what exactly happened either. Should innocent until proven guilty not apply to everyone equally, regardless of what standard they are held to? [QUOTE=HkSniper;39519437]They are wrong. They failed to follow proper protocol and procedure. They let panic take over rather than training. Yes. They should be punished. A lot of the local crazies have been running around screaming we live in a police state and we should go to war with the police over this incident. Yep! That'll help the situation so much! [/sarcasm][/QUOTE] Again, you know "They failed to follow proper protocol and procedure. " how exactly? If you have a source, would you mind sharing (that's not sarcasm, I would actually like to know what really happened)? I know at first glance it's easy to just say "the police were in the wrong, just another example of how they have too much power and overstep their bounds" and that might very well be true, but at this point, I honestly haven't seen any proof one way or the other.

What if this is part of this guy's game? Maybe he was hoping this sort of thing would happen to add fuel to his fire.

[QUOTE=rilez;39508024][URL]http://www.heavy.com/regions/2013/02/christopher-jordan-dorner-lapd-manifesto-monica-quan/[/URL] Very interesting article about the suspect, if anyone wants more info [editline]7th February 2013[/editline] He talks a lot about how the LAPD has gone to shit recently... and this news story doesn't really help their case.[/QUOTE] the most hilarious part about this absolutely awfully written article is the picture of the M4. when you hover over it, it says "undefined," but a button leading you to share the article on facebook or twitter pops up. the guy might be a nut, i'm not disputing that, it's not my business unless i get some facts (none of which are presented here, and as for the way he words his manifesto? anyone in a similar position would do the same, he's been cornered like an animal). but when cops are shooting people because they are driving cars, something a suspect was reported to be doing? those cops are just as bad. they've changed the game already. it's not a manhunt anymore, it's a full on street war. this guy is probably going to be the next rodney king after this "bureaucratic error." they kicked him out of the force for no good reason, they should connect the dots before saying the puzzle is complete. i'm not gonna go out and say the cops who did this deserve to be shot too or that they deserve whatever's coming to them but good lord LAPD get your shit together before more innocent people are killed in the midst of this bullshit

[quote]Bullets peppered cars, homes and triggered the alarm on one vehicle that was struck, said Alan Sidio, who lives behind the home where officers were firing.[/quote] What the fuck. It's probably pure luck that no bystander was hit. I hope these idiots see some serious jail time.