Whose fault is that baby's death in LA?

It caused massive controversy on another thread, so I figured I'd get some raw numbers

Michael Moore? Hillary?

normally a source for jocularity round these parts.

bastards!

:sarcasm:

The only one I have seen is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4070177&mesg_id=4070177
and there is no debate.

If they had sharpshooters positioned properly, they would have had one at an appropriate angle to take the lunatic out without harming the child. She would have been dropped most likely, but not shot.

The asshole that used the kid as a shield is scum and carries most of the responsibility, but had the PD handled it better they could have taken the guy out without harming the child.

Cops are human too, and you have to look at the situation. The moral error of the cop is so tiny next to the moral error of that guy that I can't say "both" in good conscience.

was a long standoff before the guy came out, there was plenty of time to get sharpshooters in position from numerous angles.

If he had come running out as soon as police arrived on the scene and started firing, I'd agree with you, but there was too much time for them to organize.

Like I said, he deserves most of the blame, but the police are guilty of poor planning at the least and extremely poor judgment at most.

She knew he was drunk and had weapons.. She got out, but left her baby behind. There had to be an opportunity sometime during the stand off for her to have gotten him to give her the baby..

She lived with the guy..she had to have known what to say to him..Conversely, if the was THAT dangerous , why was she staying with him and endangering herself and her baby..

The guy using the baby as a "no gunfire" shield fully expected the cops to avoid shooting the baby(and rightfully so, I think). He thought the cops would respect the child's life enough to not shoot. I don't see where the guy was using the child as actual/physical "armor" to protect himself from taking damage from bullets.

Maybe he was insane? If so, is he more responsible than those we train (poorly perhaps) and entrust with public safety?

Remember when our peace activist/anti-iraq invasion activists went to Iraq with the intent of preventing weapons fire from our authorities?
They were possibly naive, but they didn't ultimately bomb baghdad. And if they got killed during shock and awe, would we blame them or the bombers?

I'm not asserting that the guy was equal to our anti-invasion activists . I don't know

All that said, can't they learn how to aim for the knees? (Maybe he dropped the child after a successful shot to the knees, and a subsequent shot hit the child.)

Ultimately, I think we need more evidence about what actually happened.
But for now, I'm comfortable putting some hard questions to our law enforcers.

someone point a semi-automatic handgun at you, with the intention of discharging that weapon and causing you serious or mortal harm? Do you think that if placed in that position, you'd have the presence of mind to "aim for the knees"? (BTW, do you think that, in that flash of an instant, you'd even be able to recognize that the item in the perps' hands was a baby?).

Do you think that it would have been more prudent to "shoot for the knees," and perhaps allow the perp to continue firing his weapon from the ground, even after being incapacitated? Would you want to be responsible were the perp kill or maim another officer or some innocent bystander, as he shot his handgun from the ground?

Perhaps the officers should have aimed for the perp's trigger finger so he just couldn't fire a gun? Can't they learn how to aim for the trigger fingers? Perhaps you've seen a few too many Clint Eastwood movies.

is "that" babies name !

snip--
Both the girl, Susie Lopez, and her father, Jose Raul Pena, were killed as Pena dueled with police on Sunday. One officer was wounded.

snip--

The girl'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.''

snip--
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Police-Shooting.html?

the days when you called the cops to get help for a mentally ill family member are over. used to be they would help get the person calmed down and take 'em to psych ward.

increasingly, such a phone call is rewarded with either the arrest or killing of the "helpee"...

Then why didn't he receive it? Is there a record of him getting treatment?

he gotten depressed. A fact of depression is that in men it often manifests in outbursts of anger - (perhaps a socialized response to the "strong man" myth?). It takes a lot of time to get through to a despondent person. AND a lot of skill. The current LE approach is built on threat and coersion, and can be ineffective if they trigger "reactance" (a feeling of being "controlled" by others leads to a rebellious acting out, just to assure self of being "free agent" able to act independently).

I've seen enough of theses stories (sometimes from the insider's perspective) to know there is always more to the story than is reported.

I can't claim to know all the facts...and shouldn't make that inference here. But just as the media (and at least half of the population) is pro-Bush, they are pro-cops and pro-punishment of "bad guys". So I would read the papers with the same degree of skepticism as I do when reading about the gov't.

I don't mean to suggest that I'm not in favor of punishment where it is warranted. But, disproportionately in our society it is visited on the common person and completely eluded by the well-connected (except when they want to "send a message" as with Martha Stewart).

But if this society really cared about justice, they would focus their efforts on prevention and rehabilitation (the superior efficacy of which are well documented by research).

As a country we have been shirking our responsibility to do something about it for a long time now. Our prisons are de-facto mental institutions with a zero percent rate of recovery and the cancer is spreading fast.

I've defused dangerous domestic disturbances before. It's not that hard, you offer a sincere hand of friendship, let the agitated person know they're heard and their concerns and feelings are valid.

You don't confront them with violence and threat of incarceration, that's just stupid and dangerous.

Once you defuse, you get the family members HELP! You don't incarcerate the breadwinner/mom/dad untill other more humane options are exausted.

they learn zip about human behavior. And it CAN take some doing when the individual is very agitated...takes time to allow "calming" once the "threat" is removed -- but in the presence of most cops that can't happen because THEY perceive the distressed person as a threat, and thus have their counter-threat in place just in case.

According to some here.
Not only are the officers suppose to be psychologist ( got to be able to recognize depression), there suppose to be doctors (gotta be able to tell the difference between alcohol and diabetes), they also need to be Marriage counsels, lawyers, judges, oh and animal control. Plus they suppose to have practiced every know scenario that could possibly happen in there career.

Around here the job pays 32,000 a year, YOU WANT IT?

Not a direct shot at you just a rant, sorry.

officers/agencies can't be blamed for the whole thing. society at large demands easy answers. right now the pendulum has swung widely to "law and order" -- from "prevention and rehabilitation". people want their "pound of flesh" from the evil-doers who make them afraid. but they do not want to face the reasons surrounding crime...stats that show bad economy leads to more crime, and criminalizing drug use has created its own self-perpetuating nightmare.

but, as to the requirements for the job...yeah, it would be an outstanding thing if a minimum requirement of psychology and drug education were established; say a total of 12 units.

no body twists their arms to make them sign on......to protect the public is their professed logic...and WE are the public. we don't want ANYBODY killing our babies, our family members who need help and can't get it bc of cuts in mental health funding - not even our public servants.

to reiterate something I said yesterday...to whom much is given (power of life and death decisions), much is required (skill, integrity, accountability) -- if that's too much then it's simple, don't take up that line of work.

peace.

the baby is at fault

Sounds like a Terminator move using a baby as a human shield.

Didn't you get the FoxNews memo?

He is to blame and no one else. What a silly question.

Isn't that why SWAT teams were invented (by the LAPD)?