home

120 Bullets

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue May 10, 2005 at 12:54:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Maybe Los Angeles Sheriff's deputies had a good reason to fire 120 shots at a car they were chasing in Compton, but since the driver was unarmed, the seemingly reckless use of a massive amount of firepower will be difficult to justify. The driver was wounded, as was an officer, "possibly by friendly fire."

After a 12-minute car chase, officers surrounded the vehicle and opened fire, an event captured on video by by a news photographer alerted to the incident by a police scanner. The sheriff said the vehicle was moving backward toward deputies at one point during the incident.

Innocent bystanders report that their houses were hit by stray bullets. Would the deputies have endangered neighborhood residents with 120 bullets if they had been in Beverly Hills rather than Compton?

< Guantanamo Defense Lawyer Interview | Texas Considers Written Consent for Traffic Searches >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    120 Bullets | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Come on, TL, you know the answer to that... By the way, Blaghdaddy had been under the impression that the suspect had been armed...was that totally bogus or has some fresh stuff come up about it?

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Jeeez .... 120 shots & they just barely wounded the guy? Are all thses cops ex gang members? Here in Chicago the gangs hit everything but who they're aiming at? I smell litigation. Nothing new for the LAPD I guess?

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    TChris, you continue to use alarmist and misleading lingo. The suspect was not unarmed, he was armed with an SUV. The linked article makes the same lame equivocation. I'm not defending the cops' decisions, just attacking yours.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Foxnews made the point very clear, that he was in possession of a deadly weapon, his vehicle. Use of force has been out of control for years in most big cities and unless sentencing for misleading on police reports is taken more seriously, it will continue in its downward spiral.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#5)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    " The suspect was not unarmed, he was armed with an SUV. "
    Now you're gettin' it, Roy. There are far too many criminally negligent people out there armed with gas-guzzling, pollution spewing, rollover-prone, tiny-import-crushing SUVs. Let's round up all those criminals and get 'em off the road. I'll even chip in my share for another 120 rounds of ammo.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Look at the tape, he wasn't moving the vehicle when they opened fire. After he was hit it rolled forward at idle. I love the breathless way they say "he led officers on a chase at speeds approaching 35 mph." He lead them around the block over and over with the neighbors catcalling and making fun of the keystone cops. If it wasn't compton, he wouldn't have been shot and there's no way cops would have fired off that many rounds in a neighborhood that was middle class or above.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    I haven't seen the video myself, but from what coworkers say it seems pretty bad. Bad as in poor officer safety and a serious crossfire issue which may have contributed to number of bullets fired as well as the mistaken belief the suspect was the one shooting. As with everything, those with agendas, T-Chris included, will get every inch of mileage out of it that they can.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    The Sheriff Dept. isn't allowed NEAR Beverly Hills, except to work as extras on film shoots, and to haul away county cons. The PRIMARY PROBLEM with the Sheriffs? They live outside the areas they serve. That has very definite results in the field, because they don't think -- Gosh, what if a stray bullet hits Mrs. Smith's house? -- like beat cops might. They think -- Wow, these n*g*rs are uppity. Not surprising a great many live in Riverside, official home to thousands of the rightwing wackos. BB, this is NOT the LAPD.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#9)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    he led officers on a chase at speeds approaching 35 mph . . . Imagine the carnage that might have happened if he was really dangerous, if he was going forty around the block or if he was totally stopped. Those guys shot and shot and shot and shot. It was loud. I saw that video at the gym. Nobody even voiced a word, except me. Unbelievable.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    I watched the video a little bit ago, definite training issue with respect to the crossfire and the report indicated the driver was traveling 70 MPH in a residential neighborhood which is 3x the prima facia speed limit. Not that it really matters in regards to the shooting, but criticize where it's deserved.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    The day we see a shoot-out like this in Brentwood (where were they when O.J. hit the bricks?), we'll know that justice is color-blind... Until then....keep your f#*king heads down, brothers and hermanos...

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#12)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    et al - On April 29 I got hit in the rear while stopped in the left hand lane to let the car in front of me turn left. I was hit in the rear by a Ford Bronco. Don't tell me that a SUV isn't a deadly weapon. Blagh - And you might add... "And don't run from the police."

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    An SUV is a deadly weapon? Yeah, boohoo. But that doesn't mean that the police have the right to blow away people when they have plenty of cars on scene to stop ANY SUV on the planet from turning its wheels. Bush kills tens of thousands of innocent people and soldiers, and that's OK -- he's a petit prince with blue blood. Necrophiliac, like all royals. Some poor schmuck 'runs from the police,' and then maybe tries to backup when cornered. This guy is supposed to be the, p'tui, 'criminal'? HILARIOUS. Bush has committed this guy's crime about a billion times over in magnitude. It must be nice being Emperor. The Sheriffs, never having thought that anyone being pursued might try to make a break for it when cornered, are forced to plaster the guy and any innocent person in two city blocks with a fusillade of lead. "They don't value life like we do." --Westmoreland

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Every car is a potential weapon, so is a bicycle, but that isn't the issue here IMO. The cops fired 120 shots like raving lunatics.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Let's be honest here.
    I'm not defending the cops' decisions, just attacking yours.
    As with everything, those with agendas, T-Chris included, will get every inch of mileage out of it that they can.
    Don't tell me that a SUV isn't a deadly weapon... And you might add... "And don't run from the police."
    "Our" point is that some of "us" feel that the police are abusing their power by interpreting their authority as including use of deadly force as soon as one resists arrest in any way. One can call anything (even humor - as the Encarta Dictionary does) a weapon. The three definitions are as follows:
    1.Device designed to injure or kill 2.Something used to gain advantage 3.Animal’s protective part used for defense or attack
    Now the SUV is not a weapon by the first definition, as a gun or knife would be and one wouldn't (shouldn't) describe the driver as "armed". As the officers were "armed" with police cars there is a lot of ambiguity as to whether this guy used the SUV Defensively (to protect himself by fleeing - not a bad choice IMO under the circumstances)or as a means of attack (this backing up thing is getting a little lame - you all have to admit) My next question is - Why would someone have to have "an agenda" to find this unacceptable and worthy of public outcry? My idea of an answer is that you don't think it could ever happen to you or anyone you love. Anyone here who lives in circumstances where there are regular shootouts in your neighborhood and wants to speak up for the cops use of force vs. the driver's, I humbly bow to your wisdom. The rest of you should understand that my very cute smart light brown 5 year old has a chance (very real, albeit small) of meeting this same fate.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#16)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    mfox - No defense here of when/why/how the police acted. I don't have enough information either way. But the fact is, if the driver had not run, none of the actions that followed would have occurred. I still maintain that the dumbest song lyrics ever written were: "I fought the police, and the police won." As for SUV weapons, almost anything can be a weapon. If someone is trying to run over me with a SUV, I'd say he has a huge weapon.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Blagh's with PPJ on this one...looks like an unwarranted use of force in a residential neighborhood, plus the man was not putting anyone in imminent danger... Of course, as PPJ says, you fight the law, you take your lumps... Blaghdaddy's more concerned with the 120 flying bullets coming through his window...police or gang, they'll still kill you dead...

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    As for the number of bullets - certainly seems excessive. A few at the tires would seem to do the trick. As for their aim/intent - let's hope they weren't trying to kill the guy, if so, they need to be fired for incompetence. I think it's safe to assume this was not their intent. Regardless, yes, looks excessive.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Paul in La la BB, this is NOT the LAPD. Same difference!

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Paul in La..La OH yeah... I almost forgot to ask. Is it possible for you to post anywhere, about any subject without using this same line...? Bush kills tens of thousands of innocent people and soldiers, and that's OK -- Just asking

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#21)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    As for the number of bullets - certainly seems excessive. A few at the tires would seem to do the trick.
    Well now that depends on the number of officers who fired. If there were 10 officers that's only 12 rounds per person (if the actual # is 120 and not 90.) and 12 can be fired off pretty quick. IMO the crossfire could very well have caused a mistaken belief of continued fire from the suspect. The officers, believing they were being fired at continued to return fire. Thus, the number of rounds is not necessarily excessive. Shooting the tires out is not a solution.
    As for their aim/intent - let's hope they weren't trying to kill the guy, if so, they need to be fired for incompetence.
    This is certainly an uninformed point of view. Thankfully they did not kill the man, but accurate fire in the face of incoming fire is difficult at best regardless of the amount of training you have. Incompetence it is not. Their intent should have been to stop the threat, whatever it is, and with an appropriate level of force, nothing more, nothing less.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#22)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    IMO the crossfire could very well have caused a mistaken belief of continued fire from the suspect.
    Well, that in itself is a problem, isn't it? If the police are firing in such a way that they don't know who's shooting, that's not the best situation.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#23)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Quaker, It very well could be, which is why I pointed it out.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    "Our" point is that some of "us" feel that the police are abusing their power by interpreting their authority as including use of deadly force as soon as one resists arrest in any way.
    Fair enough, but feeling that way doesn't make it true.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Paul in LA: BB, this is NOT the LAPD. Posted by BB : "Same difference!" No, as I pointed out, Sheriffs are not street cops. They are fish out of water. They don't provide basic community level services. They do movie set security, they transport prisoners, they protect the courts, and they patrol outlying, sparsely populated areas. It's a very different MO than the LAPD, which is street-level and interactive. Try asking a Sheriff for the time of day, or whether they just saw a fire engine go by with its siren on. They just look the other way and ignore you. Bush kills tens of thousands of innocent people and soldiers. His crimes are FAR worse than this one poor schlub who wanted to escape from his pursuers. I said that because without some perspective, the rightwing plays the criminal= antichrist button, over and over. So it's not me being redundant in a vacuum -- it's me being redundant to counter that rightwing redundancy, that perennial moralistic cant, which conveniently ignores the GIGANTIC immorality of their programs and 'leaders.'

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    Paul in La..La No, as I pointed out, Sheriffs are not street cops. Well my point was (that to the rest of the counrty) cops in the LA area seem to be pretty much the same. They shoot first & ask questions later. So it's not me being redundant in a vacuum IMO yes it is... no matter what the subject, you always get a Bush dig in. You have Bush on the brain...and although that is the case with most men, you are barking up the wrong Bush.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    No, as I pointed out, Sheriffs are not street cops.
    The author of this gem is also severely misinformed. Keep up the good work. While sheriff's departments in California are required by law to provide court security, jail and civil process service, there is only one county in the entire state of California (Where I believe the author is commenting from, unless he's referring to Louisiana)that does not have sheriff's deputies on patrol, and that county is San Francisco.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    Patrick.... The author of this gem is also severely misinformed. Paul in La La land doesn't know what he is talking about? Say it isn't so!

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    "Sheriffs are not street cops. They are fish out of water. They don't provide basic community level services. They do movie set security, they transport prisoners, they protect the courts, and they patrol outlying, sparsely populated areas" PIL, Compton is an "outlying, sparsely populated area?" You are too funny. Most every movie set security officer I've ever seen is a cop on a black and white motorcycle. Nary a green sherrif among them. Also, I got a traffic ticket - you know, on the street - from a sherrif the day after Christmas. But I guess I should believe everything else you say Bush and racism.

    Re: 120 Bullets (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    uh, "sheriff" and "say about Bush and racism."

    120 Bullets | 30 comments (30 topical)