• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Miami Shootout

mike2810 said:
Then please explain to us in detail how law enforcement should have responded.
Click to expand...

By following at a safer distance and waiting for a time where there were no civilians or where they could get civilians out of the way... :roll:
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not making use of occupied civilian vehicles as cover is a good place to start.

But in general, the decision to engage in a shootout in a crowded intersection was an idiotic one. The thieves were in possession of what, 440K worth of Jewelry and Amazon deliveries? Nothing even remotely worth putting the lives of other people in danger for.

The van in question doesn't have an unlimited supply of gas. It also has a tracker installed on it. What was the point of forcing a confrontation?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the cops were just shooting blindly at a truck when the bad guys were not even in view (in the back)...
 
mike2810 said:
Were you ok with the suspects firing at the police before they were stopped? Was there not a number of civilian cars on the road at the time that the suspects were endangering.

Maybe you can explain why some are putting the blame on the law enforcement officers with not much comment about the actions the suspects were carrying out.
Click to expand...

Because the actions of the bad guys are understood and condemned... that does not mean that cops have to act recklessly too...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Because the actions of the bad guys are understood and condemned... that does not mean that cops have to act recklessly too...
Click to expand...

imo, very few have "condemned" the suspects on this thread.

I agree the tactics used by law enforcement needs to be reviewed when an after action report is completed. I suspect there are facts we do not know about the incident. What we have is just the news stories and what information that has been released.

Remember the LA bank robbery of 1997? How was the police response then?

20 Years Later: Bank-Robbing Duo Turned LA Neighborhood Into a War Zone - NBC Southern California
 
The police did not open fire until the kidnapper and thief started shooting. That left the police no choice.
 
joko104 said:
The police did not open fire until the kidnapper and thief started shooting. That left the police no choice.
Click to expand...

Sure it did. They could have retreated. They could also have chosen not to pressure the criminals and potentially create a gun fight.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure it did. They could have retreated. They could also have chosen not to pressure the criminals and potentially create a gun fight.
Click to expand...

To make a call on that, we'd need to know what the criminals intended to do. Were they going to a private airport to hijack a plane and kill everyone in the process? Were they going somewhere to take hostages? Were they going somewhere to kill and maim innocents in the process of digging in?

Until we know what happens if we let them go, how can we make a decision on that.

One would guess, all said and done, the case brings questions to that process given the lack of clear justification.
 
ecofarm said:
To make a call on that, we'd need to know what the criminals intended to do. Were they going to a private airport to hijack a plane and kill everyone in the process? Were they going somewhere to take hostages? Were they going somewhere to kill and maim innocents in the process of digging in?

Until we know what happens if we let them go, how can we make a decision on that.

One would guess, all said and done, the case brings questions to that process given the lack of clear justification.
Click to expand...

and had the police "retreated" and "chosen not to pressure the criminals" such that the perps drove to a heavily populated destination, such as a school, airport, hospital and substantial human carnage resulted, these same monday-morning quarterbacks would be telling us how the police were wrong NOT to confront the bad guys when their vehicle was immobilized and the perps were all located in one place
 
justabubba said:
and had the police "retreated" and "chosen not to pressure the criminals" such that the perps drove to a heavily populated destination, such as a school, airport, hospital and substantial human carnage resulted, these same monday-morning quarterbacks would be telling us how the police were wrong NOT to confront the bad guys when their vehicle was immobilized and the perps were all located in one place
Click to expand...

But that the case has blown up is an indication that those concerns were not immediate and real.
 
ecofarm said:
To make a call on that, we'd need to know what the criminals intended to do. Were they going to a private airport to hijack a plane and kill everyone in the process? Were they going somewhere to take hostages? Were they going somewhere to kill and maim innocents in the process of digging in?

Until we know what happens if we let them go, how can we make a decision on that.

One would guess, all said and done, the case brings questions to that process given the lack of clear justification.
Click to expand...

Nah.. we don't need to know.

Just like they don't need to know if they should pursue a car and push them to a high speed chase through a school zone... because "well what if they plan to get out and start shooting school kids".

IF starting a confrontation or continuing a confrontation has a high probably of causing collateral damage right then... then police have a responsibility to understand that.. and not pawn off the clear and present danger with "well.. what if"...

And NO ONE.. said "let them go"...

The question is whether the time and place to confront them was the appropriate place. If a criminal can be followed at a discreet distance that doesn't cause harm to bystanders, he should be and then when its appropriate..or better yet... maneuver the criminal into an area where its safer to engage with less chance of collateral damage.
 
justabubba said:
and had the police "retreated" and "chosen not to pressure the criminals" such that the perps drove to a heavily populated destination, such as a school, airport, hospital and substantial human carnage resulted, these same monday-morning quarterbacks would be telling us how the police were wrong NOT to confront the bad guys when their vehicle was immobilized and the perps were all located in one place
Click to expand...

Nope... but I would suggest that the police would have tried to say maneuver the criminals away from those heavily populated destinations... for example by getting police ahead of the perpetrators...and closing off roads that led to heavily populated areas or schools etc.

But.. I certainly would never fault a police officer that told me he was afraid to shoot for fear of hurting bystanders. NEVER. The police have to be aware of clear and present dangers and not play "well what if".

Under that scenario.. your premise would be the police should charge in in any hostage situation.. regardless if it gets the police and the hostage killed... because "what if".
 
jaeger19 said:
Nah.. we don't need to know.

Just like they don't need to know if they should pursue a car and push them to a high speed chase through a school zone... because "well what if they plan to get out and start shooting school kids".

IF starting a confrontation or continuing a confrontation has a high probably of causing collateral damage right then... then police have a responsibility to understand that.. and not pawn off the clear and present danger with "well.. what if"...

And NO ONE.. said "let them go"...

The question is whether the time and place to confront them was the appropriate place. If a criminal can be followed at a discreet distance that doesn't cause harm to bystanders, he should be and then when its appropriate..or better yet... maneuver the criminal into an area where its safer to engage with less chance of collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Well, the fact of the matter is, in real life, these decisions are made based on the likelihood of the criminal continuing to kill people. See, that's a real consideration. Sometimes, bad guys do more bad stuff. See? So these decisions must be made.

It's not an easy decision. And sometimes we get it wrong, and we need to review the decision process.

But don't act like people are ****ing idiots. It does matter what they would do.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, the fact of the matter is, in real life, these decisions are made based on the likelihood of the criminal continuing to kill people. So.
Click to expand...

Exactly... and whats the likelihood of a criminals killing people if the police push criminals into a shootout in a crowded area. Where there is a high possibility of collateral damage?

Versus some unknown... "but but what if they?".

.
 
joko104 said:
The police did not open fire until the kidnapper and thief started shooting. That left the police no choice.
Click to expand...

So, according to you, if the shooter was holed up in a school bus full of kids, it would be okay to open up regardless of the consequences. Sorry, but that's not how law enforcement works in the US.
 
mike2810 said:
imo, very few have "condemned" the suspects on this thread.

I agree the tactics used by law enforcement needs to be reviewed when an after action report is completed. I suspect there are facts we do not know about the incident. What we have is just the news stories and what information that has been released.

Remember the LA bank robbery of 1997? How was the police response then?

20 Years Later: Bank-Robbing Duo Turned LA Neighborhood Into a War Zone - NBC Southern California
Click to expand...


That was a new and unheard of incident. I think that the cops did fine there.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That was a new and unheard of incident. I think that the cops did fine there.
Click to expand...

I remember that incident as if it was yesterday. Many do not understand the pressure and decisions law enforcement must make in a blink of an eye.
 
mike2810 said:
Then please explain to us in detail how law enforcement should have responded.
Click to expand...

Old LEO saying- 'You can't outrun a motorola'....

It seems counter to what many departments out here teach... armed confrontation in a mass of civilian innocent bystanders is frowned upon. Trailing the suspects, NOT getting drawn into a wild free for all shoot-out is what I'd expect from TRAINED armed professionals. You bring them to Justice, not serve up the death sentence and FYI you don't use civilians and their occupied vehicles as cover.

I'd opine allowing the criminals to leave the congested area, or go to ground somewhere so the number of innocent civilians is reduced would be what the department trains their Officers to do. Simple math- insured property verses lives... :roll:

How's that for a start???? :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Old LEO saying- 'You can't outrun a motorola'....

It seems counter to what many departments out here teach... armed confrontation in a mass of civilian innocent bystanders is frowned upon. Trailing the suspects, NOT getting drawn into a wild free for all shoot-out is what I'd expect from TRAINED armed professionals. You bring them to Justice, not serve up the death sentence and FYI you don't use civilians and their occupied vehicles as cover.

I'd opine allowing the criminals to leave the congested area, or go to ground somewhere so the number of innocent civilians is reduced would be what the department trains their Officers to do. Simple math- insured property verses lives... :roll:

How's that for a start???? :peace
Click to expand...

why the expectation that the perps are going to do what you would like them to do ... leave congested areas? why would they not instead try to seek a dense civilian population to add to their number of hostages/human shields?
 
mike2810 said:
imo, very few have "condemned" the suspects on this thread.....
Click to expand...

Do you really think anyone on this thread support the murderers? Obviously the “suspects” (Lamar Alexander and Ronnie Jerome Hill) were murdering criminals who deserved what they got. Questioning the actions of the police in the deaths of the UPS driver and the innocent bystander(Frank Ordoñez and Rick Cutshaw) is legitimate and I’m certain the Miami-Dude police are the strongest proponents of reviewing what happened and what they could have done better.
 
justabubba said:
why the expectation that the perps are going to do what you would like them to do ... leave congested areas? why would they not instead try to seek a dense civilian population to add to their number of hostages/human shields?
Click to expand...

Ummm because they wish to escape.... :roll:

If they want to use more as human shields the response isn't to start shooting... :doh

There is a reason why departments have specially trained Officers in SWAT and hostage negotiations.... :doh

It is part and parcel of most departments doctrine... the expectation is the Officers serve and protect... not aggressively attack bad guys and devil take care of anyone getting in the way... :peace

(FYI I've trained too many LEOs to believe otherwise)
 
mike2810 said:
I remember that incident as if it was yesterday. Many do not understand the pressure and decisions law enforcement must make in a blink of an eye.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I was watching that live... it was crazy. Just another reason why Los Angeles is awesome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom