Arizona cop kills man armed... with a baby.

Well, if tasers work the same way that defibrillators work, tasing the guy while he's holding the baby is not going to be too healthy for the baby.
In fact, it's probably more dangerous for the baby than the cop shooting the man.

I'm not a big fan of cops, either, but this guy sounds dangerous - they needed to get the baby away from him. Where was the kid's parents and grandmother? and who leaves a baby with a nutcase and a gun?

Most major cities have at least one "sniper" rifleman. It just makes sense.

I've had people come up to me at the gas station at every time of day and night asking for gas money. Sometimes, when I'm feeling particularly one-with-the-universe I give them money, most often not. One time, I would have, but only had a dollar and they guy looked at me like and that's the last time I ever offered or gave anyone money at a gas station. And, I've never been shot. Or mugged or robbed.

So basically the guy refused to come outside, and the police didn't want it to escalate into a hostage situation, so they killed him when he was turning around to go inside?

An unarmed man, I might note.

Without any further information, that's pretty hard to make a determination.

What we do know is that the cop in question has many shootings, and at least one required the city to settle a claim with a family of a shot individual.

How did that happen?

Guy got into a fist fight with his friend. Goes home, thinks nothing about it. An hour later the power is cut off. He goes outside with a gun to investigate - and sees guys sneaking around his house. He takes a shot at them, they fire back, killing him.

They were police, wanted him on a warrant for his fist fight, but they didn't identify themselves.

That's not a justified shoot to me - if you are police, you notify the perp. Otherwise the perp is completely justified in shooting at people invading his home.

But not in modern America, and that's complete bullshit.

So the guy who shot this guy for turning around to walk back in his house also shot a guy who though he was facing a home invasion.

Oh, there was a march on city hall to get his ass fired by 60 people. Sounds to me like this guy needs a desk job.

I can't believe some are still busting on the cop when it's been noted:

1. this cop is on SWAT so that's why he kills people - that's his specific task
The cop knows what he's doing, thus he eliminated the threat without harming the baby. Mission accomplished, now it's Miller time!
2. Loxas did have a gun at one time, and guns were found near his body. Not a guy who needed a group hug versus a bullet at that particular time.

I don't like dealing with cops any more than anyone else, but I respect them wanting to go home alive at the end of their shift. We have cop killings like crazy around here, so it's NOT a given that there's always wiggle room for a negotiation or non-lethal means for a cop to keep their happy ass alive.

"You wanna know how to get Loxas? He pulls a kid, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the store to get him some diapers, you send him to the morgue. That's the Scottsdale way!"

Read the articles again. Loxas was NOT unarmed. A pistol and shotgun were found near the body.

Had he been allowed to go back inside, he would have had a hostage and not just any hostage, a baby.

The police officer obviously thought the guy was armed, but that's not enough to justify shooting the guy.

The question is: could the police officer have prevented the fatal shooting by being more careful, warning the guy before he shot him, basically anything that could have helped clear up the confusion in this situation.

If there was anything the police officer could have done but failed to do, then he was acting negligent and needs to be punished.

I read that article and others.

The man was NOT armed. That's complete bullshit.

There were weapons inside the house. He did not have those weapons when he was shot, and you should not be allowed to shoot someone because there MAY be a weapon in the house.

No police officer saw him with a weapon. People reported he had a weapon. People are sometimes wrong. And other times, they intentionally lie.

What's clear is at that moment, no one was in danger. Someone MIGHT have been in danger if he went in the house. But that wasn't some random kid, it was his grandson. Maybe all he wanted to do was put his grandson in the house before he dealt with the cops.

That's a reason to shoot someone?

This guy has been on bad shoots before. You don't kill someone for turning their back on you.

And of course, there's no video footage, so it's very possible the cops are lying about what is going on. That happens regularly - they know the rules, they now how they have to put things forward so it appears they acted appropriately, even when they didn't.

What about the child? What happens to that child when he gets inside? Does it get molested? Shot?

And if the man had pulled a gun and shot the baby and the cops were sitting on their collective thumbs you'd have been screaming for the cops' heads on platters for not saving the kid.

Risky move shooting a man holding a nine-month old baby boy. Could've gone all types of wrong.




BTW - Has anyone mentioned that lethal force is often justified in defense of others? In this case, believing the infant was in danger does sound reasonable.

Granted, that could have been handled better. IMO if a fight ends up with nobody getting stitched up or pissing blood or whatnot, who gives a shit?
A fucking warrant for a fight? What kind of pussy nation are we? Go arrest some wife-beater or meth maker.

But in the situation under discussion, the cops did everything right.
Give credit where credit is due.

The weapons were inside the house? Where was he going? Inside the house. Where the weapons were.

We don't know, that is speculation. But do you want police officers to kill people based on wild speculation what they might do in a situation that has not yet happened?

That situation was discussed in CCW class. It's a bit of a gray area depending on the circumstances, they all are, but if somebody tries to snatch a kid, the shoot may be justified because of the risk of harm to the child.

So do you risk the child?

The reasonable thing to do when confronted by armed officers telling you to come out or step out of the car is to keep your hands visible and come out, not to resist.

He did not pull a gun and he did not shoot the baby. Facts should come before speculation.

Did the police officers know that there were weapons inside the house at the time they were facing the suspect? If they didn't know this at the time, shooting him would have be even more unjustified. What matters is what the police officer knew or could have known at the moment he shot the guy.

About shooting someone who's not facing you:
the situation had already went into "shit hitting the fan" mode. It's not a duel with anyone's pride on the line. Your enemy makes a mistake, you take your shot.

In a non-lethal setting if you are in a fist-fight with someone and they suddenly turn their back what will you do? Or if they get knocked to the ground? Do you give them a chance to regroup, or finish the fight? I'm not John Wayne or Muhammed Ali, so I'll pour on the coals to finish it before I get hurt.

In the military, yes.

In the police? NO.

Which is why it isn't a good idea to mix the two. Hence the military's level of discomfort with 'police actions' - they are there to kill.

The police shouldn't be. That's a last resort.

Here, it wasn't the last resort.

Do you understand the English language?

If he has to go get the weapon to have a weapon, he isn't armed then, is he?

What he had was a cell phone, which is what everyone has.

He was shot because he had a cell phone. Period.

Except that WF is always speculating What if?
And the truth is that for some people here, this cop is "BAAAAAAAD" and needs to be destroyed before he does any more "damage"

What happens when the guy barracades himself in the house with a pistol, shotgun, several airsoft rifles, and an improvised explosive device, along with his own grandchild as a hostage?

Aw, he was just funnin' around.

Yeah, like the father who blew himself and his 2 kids up the other day and is suspected of murdering his wife.

Do YOU understand the English language? He was going inside where the weapons were.

As much as I'd like to think inappropriate cell phone use was a capital offense I suspect you're exaggerating a tad here.

Okay, so you're saying that the police officer acted in defence of the child. Did he know for sure that the child was in danger? The decision to shoot someone should not be based on wild assumption. Did he try to clear up the confusion by taking all reasonable measures to understand the situation? If there was anything he could have done to prevent the shooting, he should have done it. Don't you agree?

Interesting, the shooter wasn't SWAT. He used to be SWAT, but he was no longer on that team.

No yelled commands? That's the 2nd time witnesses have said this guy has killed suspects without communicating with them.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...olice-had-previous-run-ins.html#ixzz1mk66LvgY

Once again: did the police officers know that there were weapons inside the house at the time they confronted the suspect?

They knew he had been reported earlier as threatening his neighbors with a gun and he had a prior arrest in 2010 with a gun. Where do most people keep their guns? In the house.

There were no weapons on the guys person. The cell phone was found in the guys pocket, not his hand.

At best, the police misidentified what was in his hand, though evidently it wasn't in his hand when he was shot.

But when you add in the police not even yelling out commands at the guy?

Guy opens the door, police are there, he leans over to put the baby down, and is shot in the head.

Might very well have been a bad guy. He had a prior arrest for disorderly, supposedly waving a gun at someone, but that was dropped by the DA for lack of evidence.

He had a few calls to deal with the police for late night parties.

And evidently he regularly watched his grandson.

Might have been up to all sorts of illegal shit.

But he did nothing at that time that warranted getting his head blown off.

How do we know they didn't put that baby in his hands after they shot him?

Vic Mackey was always pulling a baby out of his trunk and placing it on the body.

The article doesn't say that he was putting the baby down. It says he was turning to go back inside the house where he had a pistol, shotgun, and a functional IED.