Frank Girardot: Shootings difficult to cover

At first wind all of these stories with the exception of the westlake and san jacinto incidents sound like they could have been avoided. A bigger picture must be painted. Hopefully the press can help us with this.

Sir:
Report the incidents as they occurr, not as some newspapers, repot them as they feel they occurr. Punching the tickets of felons actually does the larger portion of the taxpaying public a big favor. No expensive trial, incarceration, and no future problems.

these criminals deserve to be shot! If a cop feels as if his life is on the line, he/she has every right to protect themselves! It seems like they just let these people go free and they do it again! Just get rid of these criminals!

I was a little surprised by how suddenly the article stopped just as soon as I thought it was going to dive a little deeper into the issue.

I think it's a struggle to be patient with news stories that have officer-involved shootings.

Everyone wishes to know both sides of the story before they judge but it usually isn't readily available.

And I can't help but find myself being sympathetic to relatively unarmed victims.

A woman reaching for a baton vs officers with guns. Even if she gained possession of the baton, how in the world would that cause officers to fear for their lives?

Same thing goes for the training equipment story; aren't these scenarios for which the taser was invented?

And if they aren't armed with tasers, police officers almost always seem to have the advantage in numbers.

Take for example that recent incident with Philidelphia police officers easily swarming in and wrestling 3 or 4 suspects to the ground (and then subsequently abusing their power with a non-stop flurry of baton-strikes and kicks).

And why is it always 20-50 shots fired at cars, of which we almost always learn later that the driver and passengers didn't have guns themselves? Of course the car is considered a weapon but my point is, why not fire just one or two warning shots?

At the very least, shoot to disable. 20 shots at that range (if the car is being used as a weapon in a car on car scenario, the range will be extremely short) and you're almost sure to kill someone without bulletproof windows.

Why does it seem like once a cop has decided to shoot, they just aren't doing the situation justice if they don't unload at least a full clip?

Any driver who was idioticially using the car in a threatening manner, might just drop what they're doing once they realize officers are willing to shoot them to death.

And it does seem that officers are very willing to shoot them to death.

Let's face it, the respect we have for cops is because they're putting themselves in danger to protect the law.

Showing restraint before firing, even at a risk to themselves, is what they're paid for.

Is it so crazy then to suggest that maybe some cops AREN'T willing to take that risk?

I feel better knowing that Patrick Rose was only shot once. Although it is no excuse, I would like to point out that his prior problems occured when he was 19 and 20 years of age. This is a person that could have been rehabilitated. Thanks for your unbiased reporting.

Molly wrote:

I feel better knowing that Patrick Rose was only shot once. Although it is no excuse, I would like to point out that his prior problems occured when he was 19 and 20 years of age. This is a person that could have been rehabilitated. Thanks for your unbiased reporting.

"This was a person that COULD have been rehabilitated?" I beg to differ-this was a person that SHOULD have been rehabilitated! 6 yrs. is more than ample time for anyone who WANTS to change their life for the better to do so, I should think. And who would make the decision that he WANT/be WILLING to be rehabilitated? The CDC? The Parole/Probation Depts.? Society at large? You'd think the person in question, no doubt. How many chances are you given to turn your life around? Every time you're released from jail?(until you fall back on your old ways, then return to serve more time again?) Please stop trying to blame everyone under the sun and make excuses for the utterly foolish choices of two people who truly knew better!

"And I can't help but find myself being sympathetic to relatively unarmed victims.

A woman reaching for a baton vs officers with guns. Even if she gained possession of the baton, how in the world would that cause officers to fear for their lives?

Same thing goes for the training equipment story; aren't these scenarios for which the taser was invented?

And if they aren't armed with tasers, police officers almost always seem to have the advantage in numbers.

Take for example that recent incident with Philidelphia police officers easily swarming in and wrestling 3 or 4 suspects to the ground (and then subsequently abusing their power with a non-stop flurry of baton-strikes and kicks).

And why is it always 20-50 shots fired at cars, of which we almost always learn later that the driver and passengers didn't have guns themselves? Of course the car is considered a weapon but my point is, why not fire just one or two warning shots?

At the very least, shoot to disable. 20 shots at that range (if the car is being used as a weapon in a car on car scenario, the range will be extremely short) and you're almost sure to kill someone without bulletproof windows.

Why does it seem like once a cop has decided to shoot, they just aren't doing the situation justice if they don't unload at least a full clip?"
How many times have you been hit with a bat or baton being swung by a very upset or under the influence person? It can be very hard on the body if not kill you.
You never shoot to warn or wound a subject with a weapon. If you pull your weapon it means 1 thing you are in fear of great bodily harm or death. That means you shoot to kill! This sounds like another fool bringing a knife to a gunfight.
All the cops I know would never want to kill someone. Sometimes it is not their choice since the person set the stage and not them.
When you are in fear of your life sometimes even a full magazine isn't enough! It is called self preservation.

Sir, respectfully speaking in regards to your statement, you do not have the slightest idea of how law enforcement officials are trained. TV glamorizes what everyone thinks cops should do. In real life there are no "Warning shots" due to the liability of a shot that missed it's target. Tasers were developed to be a less lethal option to be used in lieu of a greater means of force. A person armed with a baton or weight lifting equipment has gone beyond the scope of the tasers design. An impact weapons such as a baton can easily be used to strike a police officer in the head, incapacitating that officer, and allowing his or her firearm to be taken. That is why a greater use of force must be taken to prevent officer injuries or death. In the crime filled world in which we all live in there is not the luxury of having an overwhelming force of cops to overpower criminals. The truth of the matter is that in any given city the ratio of cop to citizens is as good as 1:500 or as poor as 1:3000 depending on where you live. Imagine for an instant that you have 2 seconds to decide whether your next action will allow you to live or die. Cops face situations that TV cant help you understand or cope with. Leave the decisions to the professionals who are trained for those unfortunate situations where deadly force is used and have faith in the concept that eventhough you dont agree with it, they are doing the right thing.

The one thing most people forget is that our officers put a target on their backs everytime they get in uniform and go to work. The unknown is their everyday lives. We ask them to be fair and reasonable and then we judge them for doing their jobs in an unreasonable situation. All these people would have to do is follow instructuons and comply with the demands of the officers. Its easy to look at a bad situation when its been hrs. gone by and the news media has streched and added to the facts. Our officers put their lives on the line everyday and we should not condeim them when things get crazy. The majority of our officers are out there for us and we should back them when ever we can.

I bet if you obey the law and don't attack the men and women who are hired to protect innocent people then you won't get shot at.
The poor man in the Inglewood case was one of the terrible exceptions...But the lives saved from taking out the trash can't be overlooked.

krissy wrote:

these criminals deserve to be shot! If a cop feels as if his life is on the line, he/she has every right to protect themselves! It seems like they just let these people go free and they do it again! Just get rid of these criminals!

from Gina] People like you with those stupid comments are what makes the world think killing is ok, but it's not,no one deserves to be killed like that.

jammer wrote:

Sir:
Report the incidents as they occurr, not as some newspapers, repot them as they feel they occurr. Punching the tickets of felons actually does the larger portion of the taxpaying public a big favor. No expensive trial, incarceration, and no future problems.

May god help you,you low-life inconciderate waste of a human being

krissy wrote:

these criminals deserve to be shot! If a cop feels as if his life is on the line, he/she has every right to protect themselves! It seems like they just let these people go free and they do it again! Just get rid of these criminals!

I usually never wish bad upon people but damn the things I wish for your future imagine if it was your brother,any family member, or even a friend your a freaking dumb a** if you dont understand our family needs to mourn and this doesnt help at all

Molly wrote:

I feel better knowing that Patrick Rose was only shot once. Although it is no excuse, I would like to point out that his prior problems occured when he was 19 and 20 years of age. This is a person that could have been rehabilitated. Thanks for your unbiased reporting.

Im sorry to be the one to tell you but he was shot many more times and it was a total of 28 shots fired