Police Kill Armed Man, Hostage in Fla.

[TheEgg]

Hogue called the woman's death tragic, "tantamount to a police officer getting killed."

This is a really stupid statement, even if you put the best spin on it. Hogue would do well if he clarified it.

The fact that the BG had 10 or more holes in him and the hostage had "multiple wounds" sure makes it sound like panic fire from the officers, rather than a calculated use of deadly force. Since I was not there, hard to tell, but these facts would make me look at the situation very closely.

 

[MechAg94]

I have some questions:
What sort of distances were involved here?
How many total shots were fired by the police officers?

If the distances were long, they could have aimed at the guy's head and still fired all over the place. In that case, some cheap 30/30 lever guns would have been much better weapons than issue pistols in that case. Lever guns would be cheap to put in every car as well. AR15's would work, but cost much more.

I am curious about total number of rounds for one reason: Did the officers make slow careful shots or did they just start blasting until their magazines were empty? I am not really interested in proving guilt on the part of the LEO's with this question, just curous what they did, how they did it, and why as well as how they were trained.

Would a non-lethal bean bag shotgun have been effective in this case? At the very least to allow the hostage to get free of the guy.

 

[TheOtherOne]

What if it was a similar situation and the police had either not been called or not yet shown up and a concerned neighbor heard the first gunshot and decides to rush outside with his own weapon and suddenly finds himself in the same predicament? The man with the hostage and a shotgun fires at him so he returns fire and ends up killing the hostage taker and sadly the hostage too.

If that happened I'm fairly certain you would be reading an article about a local citizen being charged by authorities with manslaughter (at the very least). Of course, the reporter would also throw in a nice diatribe about how Florida's Shoot First law is creating a wild west atmosphere.

Thank goodness that didn't happen and instead the response came from first-class citizens who do not have to follow the same laws and are allowed to shoot back when fired upon regardless of the situation.

 

[Shootcraps]

+1.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Never?

I said, "Never." I meant never. I don't recall mentioning any qualifications.

OK, you're an armed LEO on a commercial flight. A middle-eastern male suddenly jumps up and seizes a pilot who has come out to use the restroom. He waves a gun around, and begins dragging the pilot back towards the flight deck. He is almost completely concealed behind the pilot. Do you shoot through the pilot to take him out?

No. Of course not. What you are proposing is tantamount to committing murder to save your own life, and the life of some number of third parties. No.

I might try to shoot past the hostage and disable the hijacker. If I accidentally struck the hostage, I would fully expect to be prosecuted for either assault or murder.

- Chris

 

[El Rojo]

What you are proposing is tantamount to committing murder to save your own life, and the life of some number of third parties.

So then would it be wrong for the Air Force to shoot down a hijacked plane that is heading for urban America? Is it better for that plane of 183 passengers to run into a building holding thousands? Don't pilots or flight attendants know by taking the job that they might have to give up their life in order to "protect and serve" their passengers?

So many inconsistencies.

Also, I grow tired of the same old "If this had happened to a CCW holder or neighbor" routine. Can anyone site any kind of source that shows where a CCW holder tried to save someone, killed or maimed someone innocent, and was successfully prosecuted for it? I hear that example used all the time, but I have never seen an actual case. Can someone cite a case where a law abiding citizen "sprayed and prayed" and was prosecuted for it afterwards. I hear of this mythical event all the time as justification for eliminating some "double standard". Yet I have never been presented with evidence that would prove this possibility is not anecdotal or of such rarity that it is a non-factor in such discussions. I would assume that as much as I hear it mentioned, some of you here would be able to provide a plethora of examples to prove your point that such a double standard exists.

 

[DRZinn]

What you are proposing is tantamount to committing murder to save your own life, and the life of some number of third parties. No.

No, it isn't. If you do nothing, everyone will die, including the hostage. If you shoot through the hostage, maybe he'll be the only innocent to die.

 

[Chris Rhines]

So then would it be wrong for the Air Force to shoot down a hijacked plane that is heading for urban America?

Very much wrong.

I had always thought that "the ends justify the means" was no longer a generally held concept in morality. Guess I was wrong.

Don't pilots or flight attendants know by taking the job that they might have to give up their life in order to "protect and serve" their passengers?

No more so than police officers know that they may have to die protecting and serving the public. Speaking of inconsistencies...

No, it isn't. If you do nothing, everyone will die, including the hostage. If you shoot through the hostage, maybe he'll be the only innocent to die.

By shooting through the hostage you are killing a person who is no threat to you, hence outside the umbrella of self-defense. That is murder. The fact that he's being used as a human shield by the real threat is irrelevant.

- Chris

 

[MechAg94]

I had always thought that "the ends justify the means" was no longer a generally held concept in morality. Guess I was wrong.

Oh, people (especially politicians) let the ends justify the means all the time.

I don't think that is a case of the ends justifying the means. It is a matter of saving inocent life and making a decision on how best to do that. I don't know if I would call the means justified, just the best of a set of poor choices. I do assume that you have no other options but to shoot the plane down. If I were on a plane, I would hope they would give us time to attempt to take action, but I have no problem with shooting it down rather than let concern for my life lead to the death of countless others.

I think the main thing to me is that you do have an obligation to attempt to preserve the life the hostage. You should be competent enough to make a head shot at short range. At longer ranges, you have to consider if there is a way to get in closer or stall. I don't think the first response should be to blast away. You are almost guaranteeing a dead hostage with that approach.

If you are not an LEO and dealing with a hostage situation, I don't think you have the right to gun down hostages to get to the criminal. At least, I doubt the courts would help you much if you did.

 

[El Rojo]

Chris Rhines, I only asked questions, I gave no comment. You have to answer those question for yourself. If you expect flight attendents to have to take a bullet, then your statement of taking a life is murder is inconsistent. You can't have it both ways. Those questions are for you to figure out and if you read them again, I take zero position either way.

Unless you answer the questions as yes, yes, no, you are not being consistent. Or you could answer the questions no, no, yes too I suppose. Either way, if I understand you correctly, since the ends don't justify the means, really what we should do is not interfere with fate by any means. If a plane has been hijacked, let it run into a building. If a person is taken hostage with the intent of causing more harm, we have no right to try and stop it for fear of interfering at a risk of losing innocent life. Would you also advocate that the police should not respond to these incidents because the risk is too great that the mean does not justify the end? I am just trying to understand your position.

Or maybe it is more of a gray world. Sure they can respond and do what they have to do, but if they gun down an innocent, they lose their protections even if it potentially saved more lives, including their own? You know I guess I could accept that. The cops tried hard not to shoot the hostage, but they did, so tough luck, we tried hard not to fire you or prosecute you. Sometimes bad things happen. I can accept that.

 

[DRZinn]

drifting a little, but bear with me...

By shooting through the hostage you are killing a person who is no threat to you, hence outside the umbrella of self-defense. That is murder. The fact that he's being used as a human shield by the real threat is irrelevant.

So, let me make sure I have this straight. You think it would be better to do nothing and let the terrorist crash the pane into its intended target, killing thousands, including the hostage, than to shoot one innocent hostage and take back the plane?

 

[Byron Quick]

It's a shame that these policemen didn't have rifles.

I'd be interested in seeing how many folks here could hit a grapefruit and never miss from behind the concealment (not cover) of a trash can while taking fire from a shotgun. I can consistently make head shots with a pistol on a paper target. Somehow, I think my accuracy might degrade under fire. Maybe the ironmen here would maintain their world class accuracy.

Chris,

Friend, I certainly hope that none of us is ever taken hostage. I sincerely hope that no one ever is in that situation. If you were taken hostage and the hostage taker was shooting at me...I'd take cover if possible. However, in the airplane and cockpit scenario, I'd shoot through you to prevent the hijacking of the plane, the deaths of all the passengers and crew not to mention thousands on the ground. If the situation was reversed and I'm the hostage on the airliner and you're the guy who's only way to kill the terrorist is to shoot through me...do it.

Oh, almost forgot. The Wally World's around here must be better stocked with varieties of shotgun shells than the ones some of you patronize. Mine sells stuff like buckshot, slugs, and BB shotshells. Don't think you'll nonchalantly turn and take those on your coat.

And I've seen the patterns of OO buck shot with a sawed off shotgun. If the range was thirty feet and my supposed cover was a trash can, I'd be in fear of my life. I'm no super marksman but at thirty feet with a sawed off shotgun and buckshot, I'll hit what I'm shooting at-the lack of sights won't matter.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

The cops tried hard not to shoot the hostage,

. Assuming a fact not in evidence.

This airliner scenario is not analagous to the situation.

The bg had one hostage,

one sawed off, which had just been discharged two times (did he saw off the magazine too? how many rounds can one get into a sawed off semi)

Then he went and discharged his sawed off again. That's three.

and, since we have heard no information about injuries sustained by the fired on cop, was at a distance where he was only lethal to the hostage.

Or the fired on cop had sufficient cover.

Or the SLUG just fell out the end of the shortened barrell or was unable to penetrate the trash can.

Or he was at a closer range and so drugged up and so bad a shot that he could not hit anybody anyway.

I know there was little time to evaluate all these risks and many in the LEO community have just probably been trained to empty their magazines "to remove the threat"

My two questions, one of which can be answered by somebody local with more access to local information is....
1) How bad was the cop injured?

Any cop can answer this one...
2) What if it was your partner in the headlock?

 

[Byron Quick]

Different shotguns have varying magazine capacities. My Brownings hold five. I am unaware of any automatic shotguns that have less than that unless plugged for bird hunting.

cropcirclewalker,

You seem to think that whether the officer was wounded or how badly has some relevance. (Oh! I've only taken flesh wounds...I'd better hold my fire until I receive a life threatening wound! ) Are you asserting that if the BG has missed three times that the officer should have held his fire and let the BG fire at least two more times? If so, that is a ridiculous position to take. The only trash bins I've ever seen that constitute cover from buckshot or slugs are the dumpster type of trash containers. Hardly what I would describe as a trash can. On the other hand, who knows what reporters will write? Many of them appear to be nearly illiterate.

and, since we have heard no information about injuries sustained by the fired on cop, was at a distance where he was only lethal to the hostage.

Or the fired on cop had sufficient cover.

Or the SLUG just fell out the end of the shortened barrell or was unable to penetrate the trash can.

Or he was at a closer range and so drugged up and so bad a shot that he could not hit anybody anyway.

There's the possibility that you conveniently left out also: that the shooter had simply missed three times and was adjusting his fire closer with each shot. Of course, that possibility justifies the cop being in fear of his life and justifies firing for anyone, even a cop.

By the way, buckshot is effective out to forty yards or so and can be lethal further...it's just not as accurate. A friend of mine has killed a buck with a slug at ninety yards. I personally consider that to be a lucky shot that I would not take shooting slugs but the buck was DRT. JShirley, another of the moderators here, took a retired bullet resistant vest and covered a railroad tie with it. Then he shot it with a 12 guage slug. The slug didn't penetrate the vest but it penetrated the railroad tie with the vest wrapped around it. Several inches deep.

The reason I posted the previous is that you seem to lack experience with the capabilities of shotguns. The weapon is more dangerous than you seem to believe.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Quick, my apologies. I thought everyone here must have read the initial story. There were 2 shots fired inside the motel room when the bg killed the hostages dog.

He only leveled at the cop once and the cop sought cover behind a trash can.

My concerns about his injuries is that it would help us to know at what distance he was from the sawed off. He couldn't have been at handshake or spit-in-your -eye distance or the cop would not have had time to seek cover.

I thought everyone would know that as a pistol loses its accuracy as the distance increases, a sawed off loses its lethality.

Subsequently as the distance increases for the pistol, it is obvious that the danger to the hostage increases.

edited.
Yes, I am unfamiliar with semi auto shotguns and especially sawed offs. I have an Ivers Johnson Champion (30" full choke fued gun) and a Mossberg Pump. I know if I sawed off the pump, the shells would fall out the tubular mag.

Someone stated above that a slug out of a sawed off hasn't much power and fer sure has no accuracy. Perhaps somebody knows. I include that into my questions.

 

[Byron Quick]

Mr. Quick, my apologies. I thought everyone here must have read the initial story. There were 2 shots fired inside the motel room when the bg killed the hostages dog.

Sure, I read that. However, I refrained from making the possibly fatal assumption that the BG did not immediately top off his magazine. Takes about five seconds at the most. I refrain from making assumptions when I cannot see what is happening.

A sawed off automatic would only be a single shot if the magazine tube was sawn off. On my Light Twelve you could remove about half of the barrel without touching the magazine tube. The magazine tubes on many pumps are longer than the ones on most automatics.

Accuracy degradation of the slug in a smoothbore sawed off shotgun could be a reasonable factor. And it could be another possibly fatal assumption. How? By assuming that the sawed off shotgun does not have a barrel rifled for slugs. Such a gun would still be accurate enough with slugs if the barrel was shortened correctly.

Bottom line: It's a shame they didn't have rifles available. I don't think there's many people who can consistenly make head shots while never missing and hitting something they didn't want to hit using a pistol while under fire.

Also, we don't know what cover or concealment was or was not available. Considering a typical trash can to be cover from buckshot or slugs is ridiculous. Try it. I have owned one trash can in my life that might constitute cover from buckshot. It was heavy galvanized steel and weighed about four times as much as an ordinary trash can. Even it would not stop a slug.

a sawed off loses its lethality.

Not as much as you seem to believe with slugs or buckshot. I could be at a distance where I know I couldn't make a headshot with a pistol under ideal conditions and I'd still be within the lethal zone of a sawed off shotgun firing buckshot or slugs. Once again, I've seen penetration from such weapons at varying distances. Most trashcans would not be cover at forty yards from buckshot much less slugs.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yes, thank you Mr. Quick. When you said

Not as much as you seem to believe with slugs or buckshot.

I get the feeling that you may have much more experience with sawed off shotguns than I.

I only stated that lethality goes down as distance increases. I do not know what the lethal range is and apparently you do.

That is why I would like to know the distances involved and the extent of the injuries sustained by the cop.

Many questions seem to grow out of this mess.

If the bg was 40 yards away from the cops, the killing of the hostage was not justified.

If the bg was spit-in-your-eye close enough then

1) How bad was the cop hurt?
2) How did they managed to hit the hostage several times?

 

[TheOtherOne]

I hear that example used all the time, but I have never seen an actual case. Can someone cite a case where a law abiding citizen "sprayed and prayed" and was prosecuted for it afterwards.

Maybe a good samaritan just hasn't yet killed an innocent bystander. I don't hear too many people who believe that they would be able to get away with it, but maybe so?

Anyways, if it is widely taught in the law enforcement world that you must return fire on a hostage taker who has a hostage wrapped around him then I do not want the police to show up if I ever find myself in a hostage situation. If the cops come, then not only do I have to worry about my captor killing me but I have to worry about him shooting at the police and the police killing me.

Hmmm.... I keep finding more and more situations where I would just prefer that the government would leave me alone. I'm perfectly capable of screwing things up myself. I don't need any help!

 

[svtruth]

Shotgun vs pistol

I'm a new, 6-8 mos, shooter but if I were outside the lethal range of the shotgun, I think I would wait for him to run out of ammo. If inside, I can fire accurately enough to attempt a head shot on BG, away from hostage.
Don't the poloce there get trained on the four rules?
Yes, yes, stress. That, I understand, is why they get training.

 

[1911_sfca]

Wow, you guys sound like a bunch of liberals. You should move out here to California; the victim-blaming socialists would just LOVE you.. especially with all the "blame the cops" attitude. We all know that sawed off shotguns aren't lethal anyway, and cops should always be perfect shots.

 

[gc70]

The details in the news stories are too sketchy for me to draw a firm conclusion on whether this was a "good" shoot, with unfortunate consequences, or a "bad" shoot, with unfortunate consequences.

Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the tendency of responses to support the two ends of the spectrum of action - either advocating that the cops totally cower and let the BG shoot at them or justifying the cops for blasting away as soon as the BG took a shot.

I strongly suspect that the best course of action in this type of situation is rarely at either extreme.

 

[Byron Quick]

The best course of action would be to equip police with weapons capable of dealing with hostage takers while lowering the probability of collateral damage.
AR15. Or even as mentioned before, a Winchester 94 .30-30.

There isn't a best course when faced with this situation when armed only with service pistols. You've got a choice between poor, bad, and none.

Supposedly, Wyatt Earp never took cover in any gunfights. He just calmly advanced, taking careful aim, and firing deliberately. He was never wounded. His demeanour and actions reportedly shook his opponents up to the point that they couldn't shoot straight.

Dunno if I believe that. Even if I do believe it, I've got a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Earp was damned lucky in the marksmanship of his opponents. I don't expect the cops to be Wyatt Earp.

Equipped as they were equipped, under the circumstances as we know them, I wouldn't be surprised to see news of a dead hostage and a wounded kidnapper.

 

[twency]

If I'm the hostage in a situation like this, and you have the opportunity/necessity to return fire on the hostage-taker, I hope you shoot at the hostage-taker. Please do your best not to hit me thank-you-very-much, but if you do happen to hit me, it's not your fault. The blame for my injury or death lies entirely with the bad guy who started the situation.

-twency

 

[jashobeam]

Not simply tragic, but unacceptable

While I cannot say that I expect any LEO to take a bullet for his fellow man, I will say that I do expect EVERYONE to not risk shooting an innocent person in order to save his own life. Am I asking too much? In the way that I am envisioning the scenario having happened, it just seems like the officers valued their lives over the life of the hostage.

Finally......Would the cops have opened up on the bg if the hostage was one of theirs?

I think that this is a very good and important question to ask. It seems to me like they panicked and used poor judgement.

I would like to hear a first-hand account of the situation in order to find out how close the cops initially were to the BG and if they were trapped or pinned down by some sort of enclosure. IF they were not trapped, and depending on the initial distance, then my question is why they didn't simply run away.

My endeavor is not to cop-bash, but to critically examine occurrences such as these so that we can condition ourselves to be better prepared/programed/trained to act/react correctly should we find ourselves in a similar situation.

 

[Byron Quick]

jashobeam,

Hope no one uses you as a shield while they shoot at me. Barring absolute cover and an absolutely safe route of retreat; I'll be returning fire. I'll try my damnedest not to hit you but as I said earlier, getting shot at will probably degrade my accuracy potential. Hopefully, I'll have a clear line to reach my truck carbine or had the foresight to bring it with me.

Why didn't they run away? One very simple explanation is in line with the few facts that we have. The police had heard two shotgun blasts from within the apartment as they approached. The police had no way of knowing that a dog had been shot instead of a person. So they run away to avoid the possibility of shooting the hostage. And then the next day the headlined story goes something like this: Wounded hostage bleeds to death in apartment after police run!!! Woman hostage sodomized with a shotgun by alleged kidnapper after being abandoned by police. Before he pulled the trigger!! After hearing shots fired in a hostage situation, they could take cover but they couldn't leave. Ask a cop what his department hostage policy is. If you don't like it then ask the department's administration.

Some of the what-ifs and coulda-woulda-shouldas here have dropped right over the edge into la-la land.

Tell you what: if I'm taken hostage...yeah, free me if you can possibly do so. But, hell or high water, kill the walking pile of feces that took me hostage.