Police Fire At Hostage & Use Human Shields

[Ifreann]

NYT

Following an armed robbery of a jewellery store, during which the robbers and shopkeeper exchanged fire and it is unclear if anything was actually stolen, the robbers hijacked a UPS truck in an attempt to escape. Police pursued the truck onto a nearby highway where it was caught in traffic. The ensuing shoot-out was caught on camera by a news chopper. Officers can be seen out of their vehicles firing on the UPS truck, in which driver Frank Ordoñez was being held hostage, while taking cover behind occupied vehicles on the road. Ordoñez, his identity confirmed by his family, not the police, was killed in the shoot-out, though as far as I am aware it is not yet known whether he was killed by the police or the robbers. One other person was also killed, as were the two robbers. Miramar PD tweeted and later deleted confirmation that there had been no law enforcement fatalities.

This is a horrifying example of the reckless militarisation of law enforcement in the US and of a disregard for human life and public safety that we can only hope is criminal. Police officers are being taught that they are warriors whose duty is to kill evildoers, sheepdogs who must kill the wolves to protect the sheep, and being given military equipment without anything like military training. Any number of current and former US soldiers have commented that the rules of engagement they operate under in active warzones are more restrictive than what cops seemingly operate under in the US. It is a war crime to take cover behind civilians, but here are cops doing exactly that, and firing at people who have a hostage, and firing when there are bystanders behind their targets. And for what? Some jewels? The robbers might not have even taken anything. The cops might have killed an innocent person, a victim of these criminals, and certainly endangered all the nearby drivers, seemingly just so they could kill the bad guys.

How is America going to deal with this threat they face from their own law enforcement officers? My position remains, as it has long been, that the police should be disarmed. Ordinary cops do not need guns. Situations requiring an armed response can be handled by dedicated firearms units. Such units would have strictly limited duties and could thus receive highly specialised training. But what say you, leavened and unleavened masses of NSG?

[Agend]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms. Fear is what morality and the law are upheld by, take away their arms and no one will listen to the government, much less follow the laws.

[Gig em Aggies]

NYT

Following an armed robbery of a jewellery store, during which the robbers and shopkeeper exchanged fire and it is unclear if anything was actually stolen, the robbers hijacked a UPS truck in an attempt to escape. Police pursued the truck onto a nearby highway where it was caught in traffic. The ensuing shoot-out was caught on camera by a news chopper. Officers can be seen out of their vehicles firing on the UPS truck, in which driver Frank Ordoñez was being held hostage, while taking cover behind occupied vehicles on the road. Ordoñez, his identity confirmed by his family, not the police, was killed in the shoot-out, though as far as I am aware it is not yet known whether he was killed by the police or the robbers. One other person was also killed, as were the two robbers. Miramar PD tweeted and later deleted confirmation that there had been no law enforcement fatalities.

This is a horrifying example of the reckless militarisation of law enforcement in the US and of a disregard for human life and public safety that we can only hope is criminal. Police officers are being taught that they are warriors whose duty is to kill evildoers, sheepdogs who must kill the wolves to protect the sheep, and being given military equipment without anything like military training. Any number of current and former US soldiers have commented that the rules of engagement they operate under in active warzones are more restrictive than what cops seemingly operate under in the US. It is a war crime to take cover behind civilians, but here are cops doing exactly that, and firing at people who have a hostage, and firing when there are bystanders behind their targets. And for what? Some jewels? The robbers might not have even taken anything. The cops might have killed an innocent person, a victim of these criminals, and certainly endangered all the nearby drivers, seemingly just so they could kill the bad guys.

How is America going to deal with this threat they face from their own law enforcement officers? My position remains, as it has long been, that the police should be disarmed. Ordinary cops do not need guns. Situations requiring an armed response can be handled by dedicated firearms units. Such units would have strictly limited duties and could thus receive highly specialised training. But what say you, leavened and unleavened masses of NSG?

so lets play a game say your in the LAPD and you roll up on to drugged up bank robbers wearing homemade head to toe body armor toting ak-47s and hk91's and they start firing at you are you just gonna sit there and let them kill you because you think police shouldn't be armed. instead of solving the problem you would be helping it get worse by disarming police. plus even the LAPD swat had a hard time during the North Hollywood Shootout and the SLA shootout in 74 hell the FBI had a difficult time during Waco what im trying to say is your idea is stupid. What happens if an armed gunman walks into your home and takes them hostage and you too far away are you gonna call your non-existent un armed police?

[Chernoslavia]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms.

I like how he uses this one incident to demonize all police officers and call for their disarmament. Clearly he's never been in a Detroit style neighborhood.

[Gig em Aggies]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms.

I like how he uses this one incident to demonize all police officers and call for their disarmament. Clearly he's never been in a Detroit style neighborhood.

or LA in the 70's, 80's or 90's when police had to deal with a lot worse

[Chernoslavia]

NYT

Following an armed robbery of a jewellery store, during which the robbers and shopkeeper exchanged fire and it is unclear if anything was actually stolen, the robbers hijacked a UPS truck in an attempt to escape. Police pursued the truck onto a nearby highway where it was caught in traffic. The ensuing shoot-out was caught on camera by a news chopper. Officers can be seen out of their vehicles firing on the UPS truck, in which driver Frank Ordoñez was being held hostage, while taking cover behind occupied vehicles on the road. Ordoñez, his identity confirmed by his family, not the police, was killed in the shoot-out, though as far as I am aware it is not yet known whether he was killed by the police or the robbers. One other person was also killed, as were the two robbers. Miramar PD tweeted and later deleted confirmation that there had been no law enforcement fatalities.

This is a horrifying example of the reckless militarisation of law enforcement in the US and of a disregard for human life and public safety that we can only hope is criminal. Police officers are being taught that they are warriors whose duty is to kill evildoers, sheepdogs who must kill the wolves to protect the sheep, and being given military equipment without anything like military training. Any number of current and former US soldiers have commented that the rules of engagement they operate under in active warzones are more restrictive than what cops seemingly operate under in the US. It is a war crime to take cover behind civilians, but here are cops doing exactly that, and firing at people who have a hostage, and firing when there are bystanders behind their targets. And for what? Some jewels? The robbers might not have even taken anything. The cops might have killed an innocent person, a victim of these criminals, and certainly endangered all the nearby drivers, seemingly just so they could kill the bad guys.

How is America going to deal with this threat they face from their own law enforcement officers? My position remains, as it has long been, that the police should be disarmed. Ordinary cops do not need guns. Situations requiring an armed response can be handled by dedicated firearms units. Such units would have strictly limited duties and could thus receive highly specialised training. But what say you, leavened and unleavened masses of NSG?

so lets play a game say your in the LAPD and you roll up on to drugged up bank robbers wearing homemade head to toe body armor toting ak-47s and hk91's and they start firing at you are you just gonna sit there and let them kill you because you think police shouldn't be armed. instead of solving the problem you would be helping it get worse by disarming police. plus even the LAPD swat had a hard time during the North Hollywood Shootout and the SLA shootout in 74 hell the FBI had a difficult time during Waco what im trying to say is your idea is stupid. What happens if an armed gunman walks into your home and takes them hostage and you too far away are you gonna call your non-existent un armed police?

I remember watching an episode of Most Shocking on truTv where 3 British police officers were running away from a single man wielding a hatchet.

[Chernoslavia]

I like how he uses this one incident to demonize all police officers and call for their disarmament. Clearly he's never been in a Detroit style neighborhood.

or LA in the 70's, 80's or 90's when police had to deal with a lot worse

Yup, where the only people able to establish any form of order were roof Koreans.

[Vassenor]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms. Fear is what morality and the law are upheld by, take away their arms and no one will listen to the government, much less follow the laws.

I dunno, it's worked pretty well here.

[Chernoslavia]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms. Fear is what morality and the law are upheld by, take away their arms and no one will listen to the government, much less follow the laws.

I dunno, it's worked pretty well here.

Where?

[Agend]

[quote="Gig em Aggies";p="36500920"][quote="Chernoslavia";p="36500917"]

I like how he uses this one incident to demonize all police officers and call for their disarmament. Clearly he's never been in a Detroit style neighborhood.

I didn't demonize them. No one would follow the law if they didn't fear the repercussions.

[Valrifell]

But those poor police officers will be defenseless without their human shields : ((((

[The Chuck]

I dunno, it's worked pretty well here.

Where?

Think she means the UK but Idk for certain. Vass can confirm/correct me if need be

[Nouveau Quebecois]

Why is there no option to praise the police and give them more military equipment and power?

[Chernoslavia]

I wasn't referring to you.

[Valrifell]

Why is there no option to praise the police and give them more military equipment and power?

May as well just put the US under perpetual martial law.

[Gig em Aggies]

Why is there no option to praise the police and give them more military equipment and power?

May as well just put the US under perpetual martial law.

if your gonna do that at least create the Lawgivers or some ABC bots first

[Valentine Z]

Why is there no option to praise the police and give them more military equipment and power?

May as well just put the US under perpetual martial law.

A M4 for every citizen, awww yeah! :P

-----

Jokes aside, personally for me, at least, the police should be armed at least with a handgun on them, while perhaps giving them a much more thorough and clear training (I don't know much about the US Police Academies, so... I can't say much here). Basically, more training and give them a baton with a handgun. If the situation can be easily defused or can be de-escalated, use a baton or any matter they see fit. As soon as a hostile starts brandishing and threatening with a gun, a policeman should have a gun for their own defense.

You need to arm a police officer because you will never know who is running around with a black market weapon. If the police are using human shields, that's illegal, sure... but in a high-stake situation with a hostile person shooting at them, it's quite difficult to hit them non-lethally, let alone quell a robber without a gun.

It should be up to the policemen to defuse the situation with minimal causality, and disarming them will only make their jobs harder, considering the geopolitical differences of US compared to other countries.

[Ifreann]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms. Fear is what morality and the law are upheld by, take away their arms and no one will listen to the government, much less follow the laws.

Nations exist that have unarmed police officers. It's entirely possible to have law and order without arming cops.

---

NYT

Following an armed robbery of a jewellery store, during which the robbers and shopkeeper exchanged fire and it is unclear if anything was actually stolen, the robbers hijacked a UPS truck in an attempt to escape. Police pursued the truck onto a nearby highway where it was caught in traffic. The ensuing shoot-out was caught on camera by a news chopper. Officers can be seen out of their vehicles firing on the UPS truck, in which driver Frank Ordoñez was being held hostage, while taking cover behind occupied vehicles on the road. Ordoñez, his identity confirmed by his family, not the police, was killed in the shoot-out, though as far as I am aware it is not yet known whether he was killed by the police or the robbers. One other person was also killed, as were the two robbers. Miramar PD tweeted and later deleted confirmation that there had been no law enforcement fatalities.

This is a horrifying example of the reckless militarisation of law enforcement in the US and of a disregard for human life and public safety that we can only hope is criminal. Police officers are being taught that they are warriors whose duty is to kill evildoers, sheepdogs who must kill the wolves to protect the sheep, and being given military equipment without anything like military training. Any number of current and former US soldiers have commented that the rules of engagement they operate under in active warzones are more restrictive than what cops seemingly operate under in the US. It is a war crime to take cover behind civilians, but here are cops doing exactly that, and firing at people who have a hostage, and firing when there are bystanders behind their targets. And for what? Some jewels? The robbers might not have even taken anything. The cops might have killed an innocent person, a victim of these criminals, and certainly endangered all the nearby drivers, seemingly just so they could kill the bad guys.

How is America going to deal with this threat they face from their own law enforcement officers? My position remains, as it has long been, that the police should be disarmed. Ordinary cops do not need guns. Situations requiring an armed response can be handled by dedicated firearms units. Such units would have strictly limited duties and could thus receive highly specialised training. But what say you, leavened and unleavened masses of NSG?

so lets play a game say your in the LAPD and you roll up on to drugged up bank robbers wearing homemade head to toe body armor toting ak-47s and hk91's and they start firing at you are you just gonna sit there and let them kill you because you think police shouldn't be armed.

No, I'd floor and get the hell out of there. What would you do? Pop off a few shots with your 9mm and hope you can get an opening to get out of your car and get to the rifle in the back before you're killed?

instead of solving the problem you would be helping it get worse by disarming police. plus even the LAPD swat had a hard time during the North Hollywood Shootout and the SLA shootout in 74 hell the FBI had a difficult time during Waco what im trying to say is your idea is stupid. What happens if an armed gunman walks into your home and takes them hostage and you too far away are you gonna call your non-existent un armed police?

Yeah, and they would send in the highly trained firearms unit, which is exactly who I would want securing the safety of my family, not some dipshit who'd sacrifice their lives to kill the hostage takers or kill my neighbour with a stray shot.

---

Why is there no option to praise the police and give them more military equipment and power?

Judge Dredd option or martial law option.

[Diopolis]

Out of curiosity Iffy, do you support police disarmament in Northern Ireland, or just the US? Because ‘NI, but somehow with more guns’ is a better description of the US than ‘Britain where the police are armed’.

[Nakena]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms.

I like how he uses this one incident to demonize all police officers and call for their disarmament. Clearly he's never been in a Detroit style neighborhood.

Also a State that is not willing to use force to enforce its however just order is soon in trouble.

[Gagium]

People tried to drive through that shoot-out?

GG

[Loben The 2nd]

can we please define what exactly is a *human shield* in this context?

[Nouveau Quebecois]

can we please define what exactly is a *human shield* in this context?

Using a civilian vehicle as cover.

[Satuga]

NYT

Following an armed robbery of a jewellery store, during which the robbers and shopkeeper exchanged fire and it is unclear if anything was actually stolen, the robbers hijacked a UPS truck in an attempt to escape. Police pursued the truck onto a nearby highway where it was caught in traffic. The ensuing shoot-out was caught on camera by a news chopper. Officers can be seen out of their vehicles firing on the UPS truck, in which driver Frank Ordoñez was being held hostage, while taking cover behind occupied vehicles on the road. Ordoñez, his identity confirmed by his family, not the police, was killed in the shoot-out, though as far as I am aware it is not yet known whether he was killed by the police or the robbers. One other person was also killed, as were the two robbers. Miramar PD tweeted and later deleted confirmation that there had been no law enforcement fatalities.

This is a horrifying example of the reckless militarisation of law enforcement in the US and of a disregard for human life and public safety that we can only hope is criminal. Police officers are being taught that they are warriors whose duty is to kill evildoers, sheepdogs who must kill the wolves to protect the sheep, and being given military equipment without anything like military training. Any number of current and former US soldiers have commented that the rules of engagement they operate under in active warzones are more restrictive than what cops seemingly operate under in the US. It is a war crime to take cover behind civilians, but here are cops doing exactly that, and firing at people who have a hostage, and firing when there are bystanders behind their targets. And for what? Some jewels? The robbers might not have even taken anything. The cops might have killed an innocent person, a victim of these criminals, and certainly endangered all the nearby drivers, seemingly just so they could kill the bad guys.

How is America going to deal with this threat they face from their own law enforcement officers? My position remains, as it has long been, that the police should be disarmed. Ordinary cops do not need guns. Situations requiring an armed response can be handled by dedicated firearms units. Such units would have strictly limited duties and could thus receive highly specialised training. But what say you, leavened and unleavened masses of NSG?

Could we maybe wait for all the facts, before we start spewing anti-police, disarmament bs?

[Loben The 2nd]

can we please define what exactly is a *human shield* in this context?

Using a civilian vehicle as cover.

was the civilian vehicle occupied?