377 rounds fired at car?

**l921428x** · 05-09-2014, 03:04 AM

I don't remember this. at the end people said they were laughing. bizarre.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06...ises-concerns/

**Schuetzenman** · 05-09-2014, 05:42 AM

They all sound trigger happy and they weren't letting a Cop shooter be tried. Somebodies need to be fired.

**Dan Morris** · 05-09-2014, 07:48 AM

Miami is getting a new police chief. Last week, they hired the Aurora Co chief. Despite all the praise, all I can see he did here is convert Aurora to a Kevlar zone!
Dam

**Aggressive Perfector** · 05-09-2014, 08:28 AM

I don't feel sorry at all for Montesano. Assuming his passenger didn't know what went down prior to getting in the car, his death is unfortunate. But all officers who opened fire should be fired at the minimum. There was no reason to shoot. The car was stuck inside somebodies house, the occupants did nothing more than sit there, not posing a threat. WHY these officers fired all those rounds at two not immediately threatening suspects trapped in their vehicle in a residential area without regard for residents safety is just outright retarded. I can't even begin to comprehend it. "Oh, he killed an officer". Yes he did and he should fry for it. That does not mean shoot on sight. That's how gangs operate, not police. Is this a police force, or a gang with LEO insignia?

**5.56NATO** · 05-09-2014, 08:38 AM

I dunno, I feel sorry about the passenger if he was innocent but the other guy got what he had coming. And the crossfire hit cops, well, stupid has a price.

**imanaknut** · 05-09-2014, 12:58 PM

Also, with all that gunfire, as opposed to what happens in the movies and TV, several uniformed civilians reported having their ear drums blown out!

**Aggressive Perfector** · 05-09-2014, 05:27 PM

^Not to mention being hit by friendly fire.

**stinker** · 05-09-2014, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Aggressive Perfector

I don't feel sorry at all for Montesano. Assuming his passenger didn't know what went down prior to getting in the car, his death is unfortunate. But all officers who opened fire should be fired at the minimum. There was no reason to shoot. The car was stuck inside somebodies house, the occupants did nothing more than sit there, not posing a threat. WHY these officers fired all those rounds at two not immediately threatening suspects trapped in their vehicle in a residential area without regard for residents safety is just outright retarded. I can't even begin to comprehend it. "Oh, he killed an officer". Yes he did and he should fry for it. That does not mean shoot on sight. That's how gangs operate, not police. Is this a police force, or a gang with LEO insignia?

Because civilian police have become extremely militarized, and lots of them are ex soldiers that have probably fought in the sandbox.
This was that military training on display.

Civilian police are supposed to be guardians. The people they perform their job around are their neighbors. Fellow citizens that sometimes do stupid or downright evil shit and their job is to follow up after the fact and/or stop it in progress if possible so a court can decide what to do about someone's misbehavior. The absolute last option you want is to have to pull that trigger on someone because that's not your job. Your job is to maintain the peace for people. Quite simple really.

Militarized police are the enforcement soldiers of the government. There are the police and then there are "those people" that they oversee. Their job is to ensure your compliance with whatever rules have been dictated that you must abide by. If you fail to abide by those rules then it's their job to see to it that that you are properly punished. It's them versus us so to speak.

They're the "good guys" obviously so as every good soldier knows if they're the good guys then the people they oversee must be the "bad guys" because everyone is guilty of something and they good guys mission is always righteous.

Case point as an example? This story.

If you were a soldier fighting in a war zone somewhere, Afghanistan or Iraq for example, and you found out a guy in a blue Volvo had just shot one of your fellow soldiers, and you were then able to pin that guy down between say...a house and a pole...would shove 350 rounds straight up his ass plus maybe a grenade or two(assuming you had them) just to be sure, or would you gently arrest him and read him his rights while you fetch his lawyer for him?

Bystanders?...Meh, whatever...
It's just collateral damage.
Everyones guilty of something anyways so really it's an acceptable casualty rate.

Soldiers destroy their enemies with extreme prejudice and if you're not one of them, you're potentially against them.
Real police do not behave that way.

This is the fundamental core of the problem with cops right now.
It's going to get far worse.

**l921428x** · 05-09-2014, 06:28 PM

the problem I have is they fired 50 rounds, waited then unloaded 300. to me this is murder and stinker you are dead, pun intended, nuts on in your evaluation.

**Hatedbysheeple** · 05-10-2014, 12:40 AM

Well put stinker.

In stressful situations you fall back to the level of your training or lack there of.

Warriors pride themselves on training to the highest standard humanly possible for a reason. The cops in question have shown what caliber of men that are.

**Krupski** · 05-10-2014, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by Aggressive Perfector

Is this a police force, or a gang with LEO insignia?

Is there a difference?

**Krupski** · 05-10-2014, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by stinker

Because civilian police have become extremely militarized, and lots of them are ex soldiers that have probably fought in the sandbox.
This was that military training on display.

Our soldiers serve with honor and distinction. I seriously doubt that they transform into bloodthirsty crazed animals as soon as their military service ends.

The uniformed civilians had a shooting spree for one simple reason: Because they could. (and the cops investigating the cops will, of course, find that proper procedure was followed and no charges will be filed).

**stinker** · 05-10-2014, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Krupski

Our soldiers serve with honor and distinction. I seriously doubt that they transform into bloodthirsty crazed animals as soon as their military service ends.

The uniformed civilians had a shooting spree for one simple reason: Because they could.

Not bloodthirsty crazed animals. Didn't say that and quite the opposite actually.
I think you mistook that as a criticism of our military. Very much not so.
The job the military does exceedingly well using militarized tactics is completely appropriate for the setting they are in.

It's a matter of how to handle the perception of adversaries and threats relative to the situation they're in.

Like Hatedbysheeple said...
"In stressful situations you fall back to the level of your training or lack there of. "

Generally speaking, soldiers(military) perceive threats as "enemies of their (country,state,county,city,way of life,etc,whatever)" and they deal with those threats by eliminating them with overwhelming force. The "enemy" is a very personal thing to any soldier. They personalize it and grow to hate them. They're taught to hate them from the very beginning of their enlistment. Never in history has a war of nations been fought by men with nothing but love in their heart for the guys on the other side pointing weapons at them. This is how a military operates and must operate. If that were not the case then we would've had our asses kicked by a bunch of Hajis, Skinnys, Gooks, Slopes Zipperheads or Krauts a long time ago. I would have it no other way for their job either.

When the police start to become militarized(and start acting like soldiers) you should see where that might start to become a bit of a serious problem and completely inappropriate. When the guy you arrest on some chicken shit misdemeanor starts becoming "the enemy" to the officer and every other citizen "beneath him/her" is a potential enemy if they haven't proven themselves trustworthy then it should be no surprise when that officer starts treating people like Hajis, Skinnys, Gooks, Slopes Zipperheads or Krauts. Shoot first and find out if you were right later starts to become the norm just like it is becoming now. They're pulling the trigger more and more frequently "because they can". It's what they're being trained and conditioned to do through evolution of tactics and what i guess you could call "cop subculture".

(Next paragraph is mostly directed at new people/lurkers, but it merits saying)
Now, do not mistake this as a rant against ex soldiers becoming police either. But just for the sake of being thorough... Even worse that the worst "ex-soldier/bad cop" example you can possibly present is the cop that was never in the military to begin with and decides they have something to prove so they can be respected too like them soldier boys are. They're seething with jealously and envy every time people praise other officers as great and honorable just because they were in the military. Think mall ninja on steroids with a judge in their back pocket aggravated by a massive inferiority complex. That person you really do need to be absolutely pissing your pants afraid of because he/she wants to hide behind their badge and use their gun to make a name for themselves. Not strictly limited to the law enforcement occupation by any means either.

(and the cops investigating the cops will, of course, find that proper procedure was followed and no charges will be filed).

And that's the other part of the problem. It breaks a glass ceiling that should NEVER be broken for any reason. I won't say it's the first time it's happened because only a idiot would think that. Every time they clear an officer of his wrongdoing just because "they could" since nobody will give a shit about the "bad guy", they make it easier and easier to lower the standard for the definition of "bad guy that deserved it" to include lesser and lesser things. Ever wonder how many people have been shot because a narcotics cop kicked their door in to confiscate their bag of pot? Yeah, yeah i know, that bad guy was committing a terrible crime and using a drug that is an imminent threat to the state of our nation, right?

Edit: An afterthought, has anyone been shot during a raw milk raid yet?
It is a "public health issue, for the children" afterall.
How much more "because you can" can you get than "stopping the poisoning of children"?

We are dangerously close to the point that only the personal political considerations of the cops that investigate the cops will be the issue that decides the fate of the officer in question. The hearing will become just be a formal way of saying "screw you lesser peasant, you're not one of our brotherhood".

You can not allow police to be the decider of an accused persons fate because guess what...They're wrong sometimes. Too often to be trusted with that kind of power. When summary judgment involves a bullet through the skull "because they could" then summary judgment is unacceptable under any circumstance.

The passenger in the car is a prime example. Who was he? Did he know what the driver had done or was he just in the wrong car at the wrong time? Were they even friends or did he just get picked up hitchhiking? Was the "bad guy" thinking that a hostage might be useful if he were cornered so that's why he picked the guy up? Answer those questions from the perspective of a cop pulling up to that scene and pulling out his weapon. Anything that has been discovered after the fact can not be used for consideration. Then ask, should you shoot simply because you can?

Guess it doesn't matter though since he's dead and it's ok since everybody is guilty of something anyways. The officer gets the benefit of the doubt automatically too right?

**l921428x** · 05-10-2014, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by stinker

Not bloodthirsty crazed animals. Didn't say that and quite the opposite actually.
I think you mistook that as a criticism of our military. Very much not so.
The job the military does exceedingly well using militarized tactics is completely appropriate for the setting they are in.

It's a matter of how to handle the perception of adversaries and threats relative to the situation they're in.

Like Hatedbysheeple said...
"In stressful situations you fall back to the level of your training or lack there of. "

Generally speaking, soldiers(military) perceive threats as "enemies of their (country,state,county,city,way of life,etc,whatever)" and they deal with those threats by eliminating them with overwhelming force. The "enemy" is a very personal thing to any soldier. They personalize it and grow to hate them. They're taught to hate them from the very beginning of their enlistment. Never in history has a war of nations been fought by men with nothing but love in their heart for the guys on the other side pointing weapons at them. This is how a military operates and must operate. If that were not the case then we would've had our asses kicked by a bunch of Hajis, Skinnys, Gooks, Slopes Zipperheads or Krauts a long time ago. I would have it no other way for their job either.

When the police start to become militarized(and start acting like soldiers) you should see where that might start to become a bit of a serious problem and completely inappropriate. When the guy you arrest on some chicken shit misdemeanor starts becoming "the enemy" to the officer and every other citizen "beneath him/her" is a potential enemy if they haven't proven themselves trustworthy then it should be no surprise when that officer starts treating people like Hajis, Skinnys, Gooks, Slopes Zipperheads or Krauts. Shoot first and find out if you were right later starts to become the norm just like it is becoming now. They're pulling the trigger more and more frequently "because they can". It's what they're being trained and conditioned to do through evolution of tactics and what i guess you could call "cop subculture".

(Next paragraph is mostly directed at new people/lurkers, but it merits saying)
Now, do not mistake this as a rant against ex soldiers becoming police either. But just for the sake of being thorough... Even worse that the worst "ex-soldier/bad cop" example you can possibly present is the cop that was never in the military to begin with and decides they have something to prove so they can be respected too like them soldier boys are. They're seething with jealously and envy every time people praise other officers as great and honorable just because they were in the military. Think mall ninja on steroids with a judge in their back pocket aggravated by a massive inferiority complex. That person you really do need to be absolutely pissing your pants afraid of because he/she wants to hide behind their badge and use their gun to make a name for themselves. Not strictly limited to the law enforcement occupation by any means either.

And that's the other part of the problem. It breaks a glass ceiling that should NEVER be broken for any reason. I won't say it's the first time it's happened because only a idiot would think that. Every time they clear an officer of his wrongdoing just because "they could" since nobody will give a shit about the "bad guy", they make it easier and easier to lower the standard for the definition of "bad guy that deserved it" to include lesser and lesser things. Ever wonder how many people have been shot because a narcotics cop kicked their door in to confiscate their bag of pot? Yeah, yeah i know, that bad guy was committing a terrible crime and using a drug that is an imminent threat to the state of our nation, right?

Edit: An afterthought, has anyone been shot during a raw milk raid yet?
It is a "public health issue, for the children" afterall.
How much more "because you can" can you get than "stopping the poisoning of children"?

We are dangerously close to the point that only the personal political considerations of the cops that investigate the cops will be the issue that decides the fate of the officer in question. The hearing will become just be a formal way of saying "screw you lesser peasant, you're not one of our brotherhood".

You can not allow police to be the decider of an accused persons fate because guess what...They're wrong sometimes. Too often to be trusted with that kind of power. When summary judgment involves a bullet through the skull "because they could" then summary judgment is unacceptable under any circumstance.

The passenger in the car is a prime example. Who was he? Did he know what the driver had done or was he just in the wrong car at the wrong time? Were they even friends or did he just get picked up hitchhiking? Was the "bad guy" thinking that a hostage might be useful if he were cornered so that's why he picked the guy up? Answer those questions from the perspective of a cop pulling up to that scene and pulling out his weapon. Anything that has been discovered after the fact can not be used for consideration. Then ask, should you shoot simply because you can?

Guess it doesn't matter though since he's dead and it's ok since everybody is guilty of something anyways. The officer gets the benefit of the doubt automatically too right?

well written and promoted.

**Charliebravo** · 05-11-2014, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by l921428x

I don't remember this. at the end people said they were laughing. bizarre.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06...ises-concerns/

Yeah, people need to be fired, at a minimum. You don't just launch rounds into a car for no reason. I'm sure that the first few did so thinking that they were killing a cop-killer. The rest just followed in because it was the cool thing to do at the time.