Coroner: Toddler killed by LAPD bullet

[NeoConsSuck]

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The 19-month-old toddler who died during a gunfire exchange between police and her father was killed by a single police bullet to the head, the Los Angeles County coroner said Wednesday.

The report said it came from a Los Angeles Police Department officer's rifle.

The girl's father, Jose Raul Pena, died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds, the coroner said.

Pena, 34, was holding his daughter Suzy when he opened fire on police last Sunday, unleashing 40 shots in three separate exchanges. He and his daughter died in a hail of gunfire after he confronted police in an alley behind his apartment.

A total of 11 officers fired nearly 90 shots at Pena.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/13/toddler.shooting/index.html

[patrice]

1. I always wonder why they don't have specific procedures

for someone to be responsible for wounding when necessary.

Why were all of those people shooting at the same time?

[Erika]

2. How truly sad. No shots at the legs or kneecaps?

Was the barrage of bullets necessary?

[Solar]

6. Some facts:

There were 3 real shootouts. The first two took place outside. The first one consisted of regular LAPD street cops responding to a call. Vena (the shooter) ran back inside and continued to periodically fire from inside. A relative reported he been drinking and using cocaine heavily that day. SWAT was called in.
The second shootout occurred in the back of the building after a long period of negotiations. Police thought Vena had been injured this time. Fearing he would kill himself or the baby out of desperation of a wound, police made the decision to raid the building. The third shootout started.
Vena continued to use the baby as a shield while retreating to a small office room. Police deployed a flashbang (it does exactly what it sounds like - creates a very loud bang and a very bright flash). Vena fired several times through the thin walls, and wounded one of the SWAT officers, who was immediately taken to safety by some of the other team members. (I can guarantee you that the SWAT team did not fire back through the walls at Vena, even without a hostage situation, SWAT teams never do anything like that). The SWAT team entered the office room and shot at Vena. Vena actually fell to the ground from getting shot but had so much alcohol and drugs in him that he managed to stand back up. Finally Vena was killed from the gunfire.

Some notes: The 90 shots fired by police happened over the length of 3 separate gun battles. Only 11 officers fired in all (an average of less than 9 shots fired per officer and only 30 shots per gun battle). Vena fired about 40 times during the 3 shootouts.

I don't know for sure, but it would be a safe bet to say there were police snipers at the scene when backup was called for after the initial shootout. However, with Vena wildly running inside and out with the baby as a shield, the sniper(s) obviously did not have a clear enough shot to fire.

Less-lethal weapons were used, SWAT teams commonly use flashbangs to disorientate any possible or known suspects in the rooms they clear. Tear gas, pepper spray, and beanbag rounds work only by pain. Suspects that are high and/or drunk don't feel pain hardly at all, thus these less-lethal weapons would not be effective for the situation.

Leg-shots, regardless of whats shown in Hollywood movies, are not an effective way of disabling the suspect for several reasons:
1) its hard enough to hit biggest part of the body, the chest. Hardly any shots could hit the suspect's legs, especially if they are not standing still.
2) shooting someone in the leg just knocks them down, rarely are they incapacitated. Meanwhile they can keep firing. It would take too many shots incapacitate a suspect just by hitting them in the leg.

LAPD SWAT is one of earliest formed and best-experienced and trained special police teams in the US. They practice almost non-stop for every kind of situation possible, obviously this includes hostage situations. Most of the time when LAPD SWAT is called is when violent suspects have barricaded themselves inside a building. A quote form the CNN article:
"Sunday's incident was only the second time in the 38-year history of the SWAT team that a hostage died during a standoff involving the unit, Bratton said. In the last incident, in the 1970s, the victim was killed by the hostage-taker, he said."

The baby was killed by a single bullet which struck her head. I am NOT trying to say everything was fine and dandy. Obviously this is a horrible tragedy. Obviously nobody wanted to see it turn out this way. But the evidence is clear that the officers responded as trained and exercised restraint as much as possible. Vena was the person ultimatly responsible for the death of his daughter. I'm not saying the police were 100% perfect, but they were pretty damn close.

Id like to end with a quote from The LA Times (reg req'd)
Bratton said his officers -- who he has said are traumatized by the child's death -- were "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
"If a police officer is injured or a suspect goes down there may well be a need to go in," said Bratton, noting reasons for immediate SWAT action. "In Columbine if you remember they didn't move in fast enough and they were severely criticized -- because things were going on inside."

[Justin54B20L]

7. Thanks for the facts, that clears up the situation.

[Solar]

8. Yes it does

Its sad to see people jump to conclusion so fast when they don't even know what they are talking about. No wonder us liberals get bad reputations, some people are practically begging to make us all look like crazies.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Well, heck...how could anyone jump to any conclusions when a small...

...child is killed by a single police bullet to the head?

Good thing I read your great post! I certainly don't want anyone to think I'm one of the "crazies" who care more about human life than resolving a situation quickly in a hail of gunfire.

Thanks again for saving "us liberals" from having such a "bad reputation"!

[MisterP]

11. but you do't KNOW anything! you just watch HOLLYWOOD!

*sob*
On a less brain-dead note, isn't it about time for another L.A. race riot? We have a Bush in charge, so...

[Solar]

13. I care just about her life just as much as you do

I've just realized, under the circumstances it was the best the could have done.

By your reasoning, we should blame the New York police and firefighters for failing to rescue every single WTC victim on 9/11 too!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Big difference....the NYPD and NYFD weren't shooting at the people...

...they were trying to rescue.

Bad analogy, pal. Very bad.

[Solar]

28. It was their job

It was their job to rescue them. Clearly people were not rescued as a result of their actions, so by your logic, it was their fault.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. Again, your attempt to equate the rescue operations at the WTC....

...have absolutely NOTHING to do with the the situation that is the subject of this thread.

I'm beginning to believe that you think the death of the little girl was an acceptable loss as long as they killed the bad guy. Where's the logic in that?

[Solar]

27. Give me a clear answer here

YES or NO: do people make honest mistakes? (no malice or laziness, but best possible effort given)

If you or anyone else says no, then they are ignorant, hateful, misguided crazies indeed.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. Individuals make mistakes...but out of 11 police officers, the senior...

...officer-in-charge should have known better than to continue firing at a man holding a child.

If anyone disagrees with that, "then they are ignorant, hateful, misguided crazies indeed".

[Solar]

40. You still didn't answer

Do you believe in honest mistakes or not?

Vena was still shooting at them. It is impossible to hold fire when you are being shot at by a person 5 feet away. You cannot deny that.

[Mairead]

103. Agreed. The scene commander should lose his rank and job

It was the scene commander's responsibility to keep his subordinates from turning cowboy.

I find it interesting that at no point did they fill the building with tear and regurgitant gas, which certainly would have reduced Mr Peña to incapability. I'd hypothesise that perhaps they wanted to spare the baby, but that doesn't square with their being willing to shoot in her direction with inaccurate-but-highly-lethal solid-slug pistols.

[Solar]

106. tear gas does not work of drugged up users

Its been shown time and again that pepper-sprays and tear gas have little to no effect on those that have high amounts of drugs or alcohol in their systems. Vena was extremely high on both alcohol and cocaine.

And I say again, the reason they rushed the building was because they thought Vena was going to kill the baby or himself.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Firing 90 rounds is showing restraint? Interesting. Your other....

...comments are also very interesting:

"Some notes: The 90 shots fired by police happened over the length of 3 separate gun battles. Only 11 officers fired in all (an average of less than 9 shots fired per officer and only 30 shots per gun battle). Vena fired about 40 times during the 3 shootouts."

Good thing no other children were present.

[Solar]

12. You really don't understand my point at all do you?

Why don't you go down to the gun range and see if you can do any better? Don't forget the target will have a human shield and will also be firing back at you while moving eratically. You'll have to hit the target multiple times as well, because its hyped up on several drugs too.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solar]

32. bring out the sniper then

Your magic sniper than can see and shoot easily through solid walls!

Or did you mean they should have brought the sniper inside the building to shoot from 10 feet away?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Snipers wait for targets of opportunity. Rather than take the chance...

...of killing the child by having 11 police officers fire 90 rounds toward the suspect, they should have waited to get a sniper into a position from where he or she could have fired and hit the target.

By the way, some police forces have infrared heat devices that do indeed allow them to see through brick walls. In coordination with someone using a .50 caliber sniper rifle, shooting through a solid wall to hit the target would not have been a problem.

[Solar]

44. damned if they do, damned if they don't

There was a good chance when Vena ran back inside after the 2nd shootout that he would have killed the baby. Based on that threat, they decided the only choice was to rush the building. Hopefull we'll evolve enough in the future to be able to predict it exactly.

[Xithras]

82. Uh, bull on the wall thing.

The only people who use those things are military and paramilitary units, and even then only when they don't care who they kill inside. Why? Because even though a wall won't stop a bullet, it will change its course enough so that they often miss. Through the wall shooting is typically only done with automatic weapons where the objective is to fire enough rounds to kill everyone in the room. Under NO circumstances would the technology be used to free a hostage being held mere inches from the target.

[AngryAmish]

88. I don't think police use a .50

Those things shoot really far and if a bullet could go through a wall, through a person, through another wall and keep going.

But I could be wrong. Not an expert on police or guns.

[Solar]

90. You're exactly right

People complain about "overkill" one moment and then they think cops should use a .50 cal anti-material rifle the next moment!

Its completly unrealistic and if they did that, they'd still be complaining, only this time for a different reason. Cops are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

.50 caliber rifles are used to punch holes right through the engine block of a truck, it could go through an entire neighborhood of drywall homes. Its tough enough to shoot through glass without having the bullet be slightly deflected. There is no way to accurately predict the path of a bullet going through multiple layers. The debris caused by a .50 cal round blasting through a wall would be immense and would definitly injure, if not kill, the baby. Now that sounds like an actual definition of overkill.

And no, there is no thermal scope that allows you to see through several walls with a perfect image. The best image you'd get is just a blob, theres no wall in hell you could accuratly shoot the man and leave the daughter unharmed.

[progressivebydesign]

77. Well Solar, I get the point. Thank you for your posts.

Some people here are rabid cop-haters, and haven't a clue how life works beyond their family room doors. They live in a virtual world, and know only of tv and video game violence. They actually believe that police would willingly and easily kill a toddler, when in fact, those types of incidents haunt the officers for the rest of their lives. I guess the posters who are attacking the police on this would feel very comfortable having the shooter running free through the neighborhood firing at will, with a toddler in his arms for protection.

[sweetheart]

61. They murdered him and the kid, murderers

They did not have to press the issue. It is the stupid police state
thinking that police don't back off and let things cool down. They
COULD have taken them alive, had they used time to their advantage.
But clearly the LAPD assholes want to kill people, because time is
money and how else can they make a living.... stupid criminal police.

They murdered that man and the kid. It was avoidable, the entire
altercation and the police exacerbated it so they could kill them.

But since there is no justice in the US, they'll get off on the Los
Angeles excuse that to kill a civilian is just part of police work
these days.

[nini]

74. Yes, they hunted down the man for no reason and 'murdered' him

:eyes:


Get real.

[sweetheart]

83. 2nd degree murder

It was an unnecessary killing exacerbated by pushy impatient policing.
The deaths were avoidable, and were those people valuable to the state,
they wouldn't have killed them.

[EchoV]

95. They murdered him and the kid?

Are you that paranoid that you actually believe that? Or are you just trying to see who all will rise to the bait?

[sweetheart]

104. If the police did not come,

If the police did not exist at all, and this man did what he did,
he'd probably fall asleep at some point, and most likely, with
good policing, he could have been subdued without any violence, had
the police simply left and came back at 5 am a week later.

This hard headed police behaviour of shaking people down is the cause
of a large amount of deaths and murders that are written off as
necessary for keeping the peace... and its a lie, this protection
racket, and the real fact that unregulated drugs trade was again involved
in this totally avoidable drugs war victem.

The government is institutionally stupid for creating this disgusting
police state out of a fine democracy, and all the acts of the police
ARE the crimes of the state, the worlds most heinous terrorist, big bad
evil white daddy USA with his nukes, his invasions, oil thefts and
imperial land grabs of asia.

The drugs war has turned the police in to an institutionalized threat
to individual freedom and liberty. This man suffered from a drugs
problem, and because he was not administered by a proper doctor, with
clean, safe drug supplies, he went bonkers and, due to the arms
proliferation irresponsibility of the arms profession pushing their
products, he had the means to kill... and still, its no fun to shoot
your gun when there is nothing to shoot at. The police could have
"not been there", and taken this man down without killing him.

If the man were george bush and his daughter jemma, do you think they
would have killed him and the daughter? DO you think that there is
equality in the USA? Police state indeed. :-)

[EchoV]

107. Ok

So I can come over to your house and mistreat you if I'm on drugs and the cops should just leave me be and eventually I'll just snap out of it and leave you alone? Or what if I was a neighbor of this nut? His waving his gun around the place is violating MY rights. So I have no rights but a drugged out jerk does?

[sweetheart]

108. And what caused that?

He's taking unknown uncontrolled substances without medical supervision,
and wingnut gun laws have armed him with deadly force. Bush threatens
to kill your kids and make them work like slaves to pay back his debt
for the next 50 years, and you have no rights, but a drugged out jerk
does. Bush does the same think as this man, but the police don't
protect us from him.

Where are our rights? The fact is, that this sort of "strong" policing
is reserved for the poor and dark skins who are killed if they have
a problem. When bush does the same thing, they change the laws to
let him get away with it. The state has lost its moral compass, and
the poor pay for it. If you are poor, then you have no rights, and
that is the reality to your question.

[noonwitch]

64. I feel really bad for cops, when they are being shot at

and a tragedy ends up occurring. This is different than NYPD shooting an unarmed man 44 times, or the DPD beating an unarmed crackhead to death with flashlights. This guy was nuts and firing at them-he killed the baby, no matter who's bullet it was.

[okieinpain]

87. I'm not a big police fan, but they do have a terrible job. some are

bad, and need to be off the force, but there are a lot of decent ones also. I've had my fair share of both.

by the way thanks for the great post.

[fleabert]

98. I appreciate your response. and I have a question,

the part about the officers being worried about him trying to kill himself and the baby... isn't that what happened anyway? so perhaps what they could learn from this is that sometimes it is best to do nothing and wait, or maybe there is another way this could have been handled?

I feel the same way about this as I do about car chases, does the recovery of the vehicle warrant the risk to public safety that a car chase brings? did the risk of the hostage holder committing suicide warrant putting the child in more danger? I know these are unknowns, and the man and the baby might have died no matter what, but can't something good come of this? A review of tactics should be involved, and I hope that's a no-brainer for the LAPD, no matter how good of a rep they have. To me, there's obviously room for improvement in their tactics for hostage situations such as this.

[Justin54B20L]

3. I thought that they had snipers for this kind of situation?

I mean, a good SWAT sniper could have take him out with one shot leaving the hostage (child) relatively unharmed. Was there a HRT team there? And yeah, I'd really like to see the operating procedures used in this situation.

90 shots? Overkill? Especially with a hostage. So sad.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. Overkill is SOP

Better overkill than a dead cop seems to be the rule. The father probably thought they'd never shoot with a baby in his arms but once he injured the cop all bets were off. That poor child.

[Romulus]

75. more to it than a "clear shot"

Marksmen must factor in the lag time of the bullet flight, known as "leading," for a shot on a moving target. You then have to be sure your clear shot will still be clear when the bullet gets to the target.

To target a single person running or walking at constant speed, etc., it's not that hard to get the right lead if you know what you are doing. But when that person is holding a small hostage, or running and stopping or constantly changing direction, it complicates things.

For example, compare the task facing a hunter targeting a single duck within a flock going overhead in formation, versus trying to pick off a crow or sparrow darting about.

It sounds like this guy may have been running around randomly, which would make it hard to guess the right lead, especially in a high-pressure situation where you know your mistake could cost a kid's life with YOUR bullet. I would not want to be that police marksman . . .

[progressivebydesign]

78. Sniper can only do so much in that situation.

With the guy moving around out of control, smoke, firing through walls, etc., they can only do so much.

[KoKo]

4. LAPD has always been known as a tough...shoot first and ask later

police force. With Bush in power it's probably gotten worse than worse. Sure sounds like it with this terrible incident. :-( Awful.

[WI Independent]

14. Alternate headline: "Gunman kills toddler before turning gun on self"

A textbook "Damned if you do... damned if you don't"

Another detail of the incident: At one point he had his 17 year old step-daughter hostage also. He shot at her as she escaped. I don't think it would be illogical to assume the daughter was in serious danger inside with him. Would they have been better to wait outside for the sound of the dreaded two shots?

[Erika]

15. I can't imagine living with the guilt of shooting a toddler

through the head.

Why didn't the cops shoot the legs or kneecaps?

Maybe under Bush and his warrior policies, we are becoming so violent that we no longer consider the lives of the innocents, foreign or domestic, as precious.

[Solar]

16. see my post (#6) for an explanation

In my big post (#6) I explain why leg shots aren't used by police.

Everyone, including those officers, value the lives of the innocent. They'll have to live with that moment in their lives forever. This was just a freak accident, I know that doesn't bring the girl back to life, but it was an honest mistake. I think people are judging the police unfairly and not taking the exact details into consideration.

[Erika]

17. I saw your post

A person carrying an infant should have been easily taken down by sharp shooters on a swat team.

For you to defend the killing of a toddler by a bullet through it's head during a barrage of bullets is disgusting.

Maybe the Bush mentality of not caring about the helpless or innocent has taken over the common sense of this country. Ninety bullets is not a freak accident.

[Zynx]

18. You have a movie-inflated opinion of firearm accuracy

Hitting a moving target AT ALL is hard as hell. Hitting parts on that moving target such as the shooting shoulder, shooting arm, knees, or head is even more difficult. Doing so when the target is carrying a human shield is even more difficult.

Police are not aimbot gods and trick disabling shooting is generally Hollywood BS.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. I used to know a guy that taught sniper courses for the LAPD...

...making that kind of head-shot is what police snipers are trained to do.

I knew plenty of snipers when I was in the service...one guy I knew, a Marine, had the record for the longest kill-shot in Vietnam, about 1.5 miles, using a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

[Solar]

42. bullets can't go through buildings

was he shooting through a wall with at a man flinging around a human shield?

[Zynx]

71. Snipers almost ALWAYS shoot at stationary targets, especially at range

Hitting something that is moving erratically in and out of cover is orders of magnitude more difficult than hitting a stationary target. That's just a fact.

[Romulus]

76. you knew GySgt Carlos Hathcock?

:wow:

[Bravo411]

97. Really?

.50 cal sniper rifles were not used in Vietnam. They were either 30-06 or 308 caliber.

The longest sniper shot recorded was by a Canadian in Afghanistan using a .50cal.

Up until then, I believe that Carlos Hathcock held the record and he was a Marine sniper in Vietnam, but he didn't use a .50cal sniper rifle.

[Mairead]

19. "Ninety bullets is not a freak accident."

Well said, Erika.

If a sniper can kill someone at 1000 yards --over half a mile away-- there's no excuse for what was done to that toddler.

[Erika]

21. Indeed, we are in trouble

Thanks to G W Bush and his "kill" mentality. Ninety bullets aimed at the legs would have brought the guy down under any hit and miss situation and saved the life of the little one.

[Solar]

22. Read the articles again

The shots were fired over 3 seperate engagements by only 11 officers. That means on average, 3 shots were fired by each officer each engagment.

"If a sniper can kill someone at 1000 yards"

If you show me a sniper that can see and shoot accurately through solid walls missing a human shield hostage, than I'll show you a compassionate conservative.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. Using an infrared device and spotting for a guy firing....

....a .50 caliber sniper rifle, a solid wall would not have posed much of a problem, especially at the shorter distances involved in this situation.

FYI, those rifles are designed to pierce the armor on lightly armored vehicles.

[Solar]

43. oh thats real practical!

if they had done that, you'd be complaining about how the bullet continued through the guy and hit other innocents. You still havn't answered how he's supposed to do with a target thats practically dancing.

[Zynx]

69. Give me a freaking break. Using an anti-material rifle in a city?

SWAT doesn't even *have* .50 caliber rifles.

Join the real world, please.

[Mairead]

47. "see and shoot accurately through solid walls"

Exactly how is that relevant? The child was killed in the final shootout in the alley. I.e., nobody had to shoot through walls to kill her. The cop who killed her saw her, unless he shot through her father's chest. So what's your point?

[Solar]

53. the final shootout was inside the building

The second shootout happened outside in the back alley after negotiations had been underway for a while. He ran outside and shot at police, who returned fire. He ran back inside. Police thought he had been injured in that exchange so the decision was made for SWAT to rush in and try to stop him from killing the girl or himself (perhaps he stumbled). SWAT entered and found him inside a small office room, also discovering he wasn't injured.

This was the third and last shootout. He kept firing at them while holding the baby as a shield, even after they used a flashbang to try to subdue him. A SWAT officer was injured and had to be dragged to safety by his teammates. Vena (the shooter) fell to the ground from gunshot wounds but managed to stand back up. Finally he was killed. After everything ended, the officers discovered the baby was dead.

There was speculation that Vena had killed her even before the 3rd shootout began, as none of the officers had time to look close enough during the gunbattle, but it was only after this autopsy, obviously, that it was found out that a stray SWAT bullet killed her.

SWAT arrived after the first shootout so there was no time to use a sniper. Negotiations began and lasted for a while. Then he suddenly ran out in the back alley starting battle #2. This fight was very brief and there was no time for any sniper to get an angle, let alone time get a good shot. The third battle happened right after the second one as SWAT rushed in.

The third and final gunbattle occured completly inside so it was impossible to use a sniper.

Nothing can erase the fact the girl is dead. Its horrible that the she died, and nobody wanted that at all. I'm not writing this off or pretending it doesnt matter. The police did the best they could given the situation and circumstances. Its easy to sit back now and pretend to know everything, but nobody has that luxery when its happening. I have complete faith that the department as well as the entire police community will learn from this tragedy. Police have a huge burden of responsibility on their shoulders, but I have trust in the system as a whole. Hopefully they can prevent something lke from ever happening again.

[tedzbear]

92. No need to read anything. The police were way out of line.

Most responsible hostage situations don't end so fast. They could have continued negotiations with the man until he began to sober up and talk sense. Why not negotiate for at least another 12 hours, or even 24?

Of course, the risk there is that the negotiations might have succeeded and the man surrendered, saving the girl. Why doesn't anyone consider THAT possibility.

The idea that it was necessary to kill the little girl in order to save her is bullshit.

That's the same rationalization the Pentagon uses in Iraq when it kills innocent children.

[Solar]

20. clearly you didnt understand it then

The only explanation I can give in addition to my previous one is simple: you're only listening to what you want to hear. We're supposed to live in a perfect world where nobody ever makes an honest mistake.

The fact that it was a toddler that died is irrelevent to this conversation, would it have been better if it was another adult he was hiding behind?

The fact the bullet hit her head is irrelevent, its not as if they were aiming for it.

Your ranting about how this is somehow Bush's fault clearly isn't relevent.

What is relevent is that you think the police are some kind of magic heroes who never make a honest mistake. I said this before and I'll say it again. Why don't you blame the NYPD and Fire Department for not rescueing every single victim from the WTC on 9/11? If someone decided to commit suicide by getting hit by a car on the highway, would you blame the driver?

What is relevent is you armchair quarter-back attitude. You saw it in the movies so it *must* be able to be done in real life.

You know why police don't aim for the legs? It doesn't work! I can guarentee you if it did, you'd hear about all the time!

But since you're not going to listen to that part, why don't you find me the hundreds of stories of standoffs that were solved by shooting the backguy in the leg with a pistol while he was running?

[Erika]

23. Your post is histrionic

As I said, ninety bullets aimed at the legs would have brought the guy down and saved the life of the little one.

[WinkyDink]

24. Well

Imagine what might have happened if they HADN'T wanted to save the child.
Oh, wait.

[Solar]

25. And your posts are ignorant

Its ignorant for you to think that the police should have not defended themselves during the first two shootouts. Its also ignorant for you to expect a police officer to be able to hit either a bone or artery in a moving suspect's leg from 50 feet away with a pistol, because thats what it would take for a gunshot in the leg to actually stop someone hyped up on drugs. Its also ignorant to think that you know more about firearms and ballistics than people who train with them their entire career.

If they could have done it, they would have. If you think people are lazy or mean enough to risk the life of an innocent hostage when they could 'simply shoot their legs' then I think you have an anti-personal disorder.

[Erika]

29. I disagree.

I believe the cops could have defended themselves without taking the life of a toddler.

I do think that Bush has desensitized the killing of innocents as per www.icasualties.org Thousands of Iraqi innocents have been killed without reason or cause. Bush bragged about his shock and awe campaign on an innocent populace.

Bush is macho, kill em and move on. I think the PD picked up on his attitude. Remember, ninety bullets.

[Solar]

31. once again

You're going horribly off topic. Why don't you blame the makers of the alcohol he drank? Their product desensitized him to the point where safer alternatives wouldn't work. If it wouldn't have been for the legal booze he drank, everythin would be fine.

[Erika]

33. The little one died from a bullet to the head

Out of 90 shots fired, why weren't they at the legs?

[LisaL]

50. And how do you know that?

Out of 90 bullets, the toddler was shot once.
You can't possibly know if the father was shot in the legs or not.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. All the more reason for using a sniper. One bullet - one kill. That....

...beats the heck out of using 11 officers firing 90 rounds toward a guy holding a child.

Based on the responses you're getting, it looks like you're the one that's "horribly off topic".

[Solar]

41. Im usingyour reasoning

If you want to go off on wild tangents, I'll be more than happy to show you how wrong you are.

I'm getting tired of nowbody answering this question: How can a sniper see and shoot through solid walls?

A sniper could not have solved this situation once Vena ran back inside.

[Roy]

45. What about before he went back inside???????????

You keep saying a sniper couldn't hit this guy through solid walls.

Are you saying that the round the kid took through the head was through a solid wall?

[Solar]

46. He was already inside

He was already inside by the time SWAT and the rest of the backup arrived. The few times he did run outside were too fast/unexpected for a sniper "to wait for a nice clean open shot."

[Mairead]

48. He was not inside when he and the child were killed. He was in an alley.

So your repeated 'shoot through walls' water-muddying is meaningless.

The whole thing was over, start to finish in only 150 minutes! Does 'rush to judgement' mean anything to you?

Peña wasn't a criminal, he was a man who got into an apocalyptic state of mind over the impending failure of his business. In other words, he went mad from stress. Lack of resilience and 'viking pyre' thinking seems to be characteristic of many 'macho' men.

LA has an HRT, and the HRT has access to many trained professionals outside their ranks. The basic HRT strategy is avoid confrontation, string it out, wear the hostage-taker down. These guys either weren't HRT or they ignored their training because they clearly didn't do any 'string it out, wear him down' in 150 MINUTES. They effed up. And it cost that toddler her life.

[LisaL]

49. Stress? Geez. The guy was drunk and on cocaine, according

to his step daughter. That's why he had gone "crazy". Not just from being stressed out.
:eyes:

[Mairead]

51. Yes, isn't it amazing how many people start drugging up when

they're in pain. Could it be because they can see no other options?

The key fact here is that Peña was not a criminal, he was just a man who got into business trouble and went mad because of it. That the whole thing was over in 150 MINUTES tells some of us that the cops effed up. And the fact that Bratton tried to paint Peña as a 'cold-blooded killer' tells us that he knows they effed up and is throwing truth and simple decency overboard in an attempt to avoid responsibility.

[LisaL]

52. No, I don't find it amazing when people start dragging up

because they are stressed out. Not a criminal?
Well, what do you call a guy that takes his toddler hostage and starts shooting at police officers?
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Mairead]

55. "What do you call a guy who starts shooting at police"

Y'know, I think I'm going to stop responding to you. You have such a unique set of meanings for words that we have almost no communications space in common. Take, for example, the word 'criminal'. Whether someone is a criminal is a judgement made by a court, not by the police and not by you. As far as I'm aware, no court ever adjudged Mr Peña a criminal. Which means that no, no matter how much you want him to have been a criminal, he was not a criminal. On the evidence we have, he was someone who, stressed beyond his capacity to cope, lost his mind. A loss that ended in tragedy when uncaring/incompetent cops got involved.

The fact that you seem not to care about --or perhaps even understand-- such distinctions doesn't speak well for you, as far as I'm concerned.

[LisaL]

57. Lost his mind? He had enough of his mind left

to use his toddler as a shield. And it's fine if you don't' respond to me. Because you are making no sense whatsoever. Even if he didn't have a prior criminal record, he was shot while committing a crime.
What do you think, he would have been let go if he survived? Cause, after all, he was just diagnosed by you as "having lost his mind" due to stress. By the way, how did you make that diagnosis? Are you an arm chair shrink by any chance? Well, if you can diagnose him with "losing his mind", I sure as hell can tell you he was a criminal. FYI, criminal is someone who had committed a crime. I don't need the courts to tell me that shooting at police officers while holding your toddler as a shield is a crime. I am not that stupid that I need 12 people on the jury to tell me what a crime is. Furthermore, I would suggest you look up the word "criminal" on www. dictionary.com
Main Entry: 2criminal
Function: noun
1 : one who has committed a crime
2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime
Now, ask yourself a question "Is shooting at police officers a crime?"
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Mairead]

58. chirp chirp

[LisaL]

59. Not one to keep your promises, are you?

Cause for some reasons you are still responding to my posts.

[Mairead]

60. chirp chirp

[Solar]

54. So I guess that makes it fine then?

If you've got a reason, you can just start random shooting sprees and use your baby as human shield? Get real.

And yes the third and final shooting occured inside. Hostage negotiators were at the scene and were talking when Vena decided to run out into the alley. The second gunbattle erupted, but ended quickly when Vena ran back inside. Thinking he was going to kill the baby or himself, SWAT entered the building quickly and the third and final battle occured.

[Mairead]

56. "And yes the third and final shooting occured inside."

Where are you getting this from?

[Solar]

62. Several different reports

"Bratton said police were able to reach Pena by phone and tried to get him to release the child. They also managed to rescue Pena's 17-year-old stepdaughter. Meanwhile, Pena again stepped out of the building and shot at officers, who again returned fire, police said. He then ran back inside."

"Around 6:30 p.m., Pena exited the rear of the building where a SWAT unit was setting up. Police said officers opened fire when he reached for his weapon and he ran back inside while returning fire."

"SWAT officers followed him into the building, and it was believed the exchange of gunfire that occurred there killed Pena and his daughter. Officer Daniel Sanchez, a 15-year veteran, was wounded in the shoulder. He was treated at a hospital and released Monday."
source

Heres a diagram of the events from the LA Times

(Keep in mind that the gunfire was not limited just to the three main gun battles, Vena fired sporadically at police and innocent bystanders)

The LA Times has many articles about the shooting, its where I learned most of the information. They require registration, you can use Bug Me Not to get around it.

[raccoon]

65. Solar, you have provided a lot of info about this case

and posted some good posts about it.

This was, for the cops, truly a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. It's easy for people to be Monday morning quarterbacks about anything, but to be actually in the situation is something else.

Being a cop is a thankless job if ever there was one. I know there are bad cops, but I think the majority are doing the best they can.

In a perfect world, the little girl would have been rescued. But she's gone and Pena is responsible.

[Mairead]

66. There seem to be some disagreements about where it happened:

Here's what LA's KABC News had to say yesterday (Wednesday 13th July, which seems to be the most recent account):

The final outbreak of gunfire occurred as SWAT officers moved into position in the back of the building after rescuing Pena's 17-year-old stepdaughter, Bratton said.

Pena emerged from the building holding Suzie in front of him as a shield as he shot at police, wounding 39-year-old SWAT Officer Daniel Sanchez in the right shoulder, according to LAPD officials. The officer was treated at a hospital and released the next day.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/071305_nw_ois_coroner.html

[Solar]

84. Those two battles were very close together

I can see how some people would combine the last two and think of it was one large shootout, the third happened soon after the second. That article does not explicitly say that Vena and the girl died outside. The fact of the matter is Vena ran back inside. Numerous reports explicitly describe this. The LA Times articles have been written each time as new information was released. If they had made a mistake, it would have been corrected by now.

Negotiations were being held up to the moment Vena suddenly ran out to the alley. When he ran back in, a decision had to be made at that instant. The police, thinking he was injured, could not have affored to just sit back and wait.

[Mairead]

86. Do you have evidence?

So far, the information you supplied is more stale than the account I found. I don't see any reason to accept your version of events at present.

[Solar]

89. Yes you skipped right over it

Your one article does not explicitly describe where the fatal shootings took place. The numerous articles I have posted explicitly said the shootings were inside. What do you not understand about that?

[Mairead]

99. I'll presume that means you don't.

Explicit can still be wrong in whole or part. But generally, though not necessarily, fresher information is better.

[Solar]

105. but you source is not expliicit at all

Your source makes NO mention of where it actually happened at the end. How can you claim my three sources are wrong when yours does not even back you your claim?

[VTMechEngr]

68. OK- Somebody needs a reality lesson!

first - 90 bullets over 3 hours and 3 shootouts. Thats nothing.

Second, I own several handguns, and I'm a good shot. Could I hit a target 4 inches wide from 50 feet. Sure. Give me a minutes to aim, get the right pose, train my eye on the target, and I could probably get within it.

But, to hit that target from 50 or more feet in seconds with it moving? Yeah, sure bud. You also a creationist?

[Mairead]

85. The reality lesson we're trying to get across is that

any idiot with a pistol can shoot the hell out of someone if they don't care about 'collateral damage'.

But that doesn't make it appropriate. The cops had the situation under at least as much control without shooting as they did with. They could have sat tight and waited the guy out, let his brother try to talk him down, etc. He wasn't going anywhere! They had the area evacuated and nobody except the baby was in danger. But the baby was in at least as much danger from the cops whenever the idiots shot at Peña without having a clean line of fire!

Get it?

[EchoV]

96. I don't think you get it.

Have you ever tried to reason with a person who was drugged up like this man was? Not to mention the cops had people there who were talking to him. So this guy comes running out shooting and the police do what? Let him run three blocks down the road where people haven't been cleared out? He goes into a home full of people. Now there are more people in danger. You know what? That child is dead because of the father. Period. Get it?

[Mairead]

100. We're not the ones not getting it.

The nature of being drugged-up is that it's not permanent. It wears off in a matter of hours. Even if Peña had had the means to refresh the state, eventually he'd have exhausted it or himself.

As to Peña choosing to run down the road--that would certainly have given the cops a number of excellent opportunities to shoot him, wouldn't it. Perhaps that's why he didn't choose to do that during the 150 minutes of the confrontation? No, what he did was to 'hole up', which is typical behavior.

The cops played cowboy, violated the most basic rules of situation management, rushed to confrontation, and shot a baby dead in their eagerness to end a situation that they already had under control.

[Zynx]

70. What is with this movie-inspired accuracy idiocy?

Pistol versus moving target at 50 feet = impossible to intentionally hit specific part, period.

For that matter, a scoped rifle will still have a difficult time of it, even if the scoped rifle has a useful LOS and is actually there in time to get set - which SWAT wasn't.

The people calling for "disabling" the suspect in this thread have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about as regards gun accuracy.

[Mairead]

101. If they couldn't be sure of making their shot, why were they shooting?

They had Peña contained, he wasn't going anywhere, the only person in danger was the baby and she was in at least as much danger from inaccurate shooting by cops as from her father's lunacy. So why were the cops shooting at all? Because Peña was shooting at them? So what--he wasn't hitting them, and everyone else was evacuated.

If they'd simply sat tight, eventually he'd have exhausted his ammunition, his drugs supply, or his apocalyptic frenzy.

The cops effed it up trying to play cowboy.

[OzarkDem]

73. Huh?

A sniper can't take down a shooter if he is barricaded in a small room, probably hiding behind furniture.

[LisaL]

94. What is that obsession with leg shots? If they shot 90

bullets, how do you know they didn't manage any leg shots?

[youthere]

63. If that were the headline..

I suspect there would be critics .. "why didn't they DO something to help that child!" Damned if you do...

[brainshrub]

67. The headline is unfair.

This is a sad situation, but it was the father who killed the baby by his actions.

[sleipnir]

79. Well, the earlier story was about an autopsy to reveal who's bullet it was

That was the lead, this is the followup. The headline refers to a previous article, which was discussed to a fine point here at DU.

I'm not going to jump into the fray, but that's why the headline is what it is.

[Bo]

72. This is no surprise with L.A. Cops... what assholes

[VTMechEngr]

80. To all those claiming a sniper .50 could have ended it:

To fire a Military grade round through a brick wall, even if you had thermal imaging would be too dangerous for the child. Projectiles often shift trajectory when encountering hard surfaces (like bricks) and a large round like a .50 would also carry shrapnel(brick chunks) with it. And God help them if they had messed that one up. There wouldn't be a baby left to bury.

[phillinweird247]

81. On a lighter note

Did anyone notice this line "began at 2 p.m. when Pena's estranged wife made a domestic terrorist report,"
Is it me or does everything come down to terrorism these days.
With all this domestic terror Thank Goodness we have the Patriot act to keep us safe.

BTW I am one of those cop hating types but I find it hard to believe that the LAPD would what to kill a toddler. This is a tragedy that will haunt them for life.

[slackmaster]

91. Interesting observation

I have a terrorist pain in my lower back today, but it's almost time to deal with terrorist-hour traffic and go to my nice neighborhood terrorist pub for some terrorist ale.

BTW I am one of those cop hating types but I find it hard to believe that the LAPD would what to kill a toddler.

Of course they didn't want to kill the child. Police are human beings.

[WhiteTara]

93. we're not talking overkill here are we?

I mean 90 bullets? Did they all think they were such bad shots that they had to empty their guns? I am disgusted. I hope those men never have another night's peaceful sleep.

[hippywife]

102. I've read this whole thread to this point

and while I don't know anything about snipers, weapons caliber, etc. I do believe they should have tried longer that 150 minutes. Other hostage situations go on for hours and hours.

The last line of the article:
Sunday's incident was only the second time in the 38-year history of the SWAT team that a hostage died during a standoff involving the unit, Bratton said. In the last incident, in the 1970s, the victim was killed by the hostage-taker, he said.

No one can convince me that in LA this is the first time in 35 years this type of situation has occurred. It leads me to believe that in other situations, they had the patience to wait it out.