Boom! Headshot! Sorry about the baby...

[sig239]

Many of the posts in this thread indicate that belief.

That hasn't stopped the keyboard know it alls.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Josh Powell was unarmed also. But that didn't stop him from splitting his kids heads open like a watermelon and blowing up the house did it... Life isn't simple, only from behind your keyboard it is.

You don't take one instance and justify any action from now until forever because of it.

If I killed a nun with a ball point pen, should we ban ball point pens?

An unarmed man was shot and killed because he was presumed to be armed by a trigger happy cop who was probably angry that the man wasn't complying. He's dead. Not tazed, not pepper sprayed, DEAD.

If you truthfully believe that there were no other options besides a bullet to the head, then I am glad that you're not a cop.

[idrivea4banger]

sig239=whats wrong with society.
kill first, ask later.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

It takes a special kind of man to shoot at someone holding a baby. Although I am sure there will be someone along to defend this guy soon enough.

He should have voluntarily taken a bullet to the face before firing a gun at someone holding a baby. I mean seriously... what is he out there for? To protect the baby, or to kill some old douchebag? Might as well just go home and let the situation resolve itself, rather than have cops that are willing to fire guns at babies. Holy shit.

[SS Junk]

Josh Powell was unarmed also. But that didn't stop him from splitting his kids heads open like a watermelon and blowing up the house did it... Life isn't simple, only from behind your keyboard it is.

Extremely poor example.

[mikec]

Josh Powell was unarmed also. But that didn't stop him from splitting his kids heads open like a watermelon and blowing up the house did it... Life isn't simple, only from behind your keyboard it is.

Only he wasn't unarmed as he had a hatchet. And he didn't get shot. And what happened with him has zero points of comparison with what happened here.

Extremely poor example.

Of a smart person. Absolutely. It's really no wonder that he's more proficient at making tags than debate...

[sig239]

sig239=whats wrong with society.
kill first, ask later.

So whats the problem?

[sig239]

Only he wasn't unarmed as he had a hatchet. And he didn't get shot. And what happened with him has zero points of comparison with what happened here.



Of a smart person. Absolutely. It's really no wonder that he's more proficient at making tags than debate...

Still crying like a bitch I see.. Dont get mad and stomp away like you have in the past, pussy.

[Big A]

He should have voluntarily taken a bullet to the face before firing a gun at someone holding a baby. I mean seriously... what is he out there for? To protect the baby, or to kill some old douchebag? Might as well just go home and let the situation resolve itself, rather than have cops that are willing to fire guns at babies. Holy shit.

Someone holding a baby is superfluous, if they are an immediate danger to those around them. The details of this particular case aside, if someone where armed with a weapon and firing at people, while holding a baby, I see absolutely no problem with taking him out with a bullet to the head.

This situation looks to me like a case of unjustifiable homicide, not "OMG, he's got a baby!" The decision to use deadly force should have almost no bearing on a hostage, either the person is aiming/firing at people, or they aren't. In this case he wasn't even leveling a weapon, someone headed back into their house isn't justification to shoot them.

[mikec]

Still crying like a bitch I see.. Dont get mad and stomp away like you have in the past, pussy.

I see you're a classy truck driver!

I wouldn't doubt you being one of those guys with three or four half empty gallon jugs of urine behind his seat at all...

[03trubluGT]

Someone holding a baby is superfluous, if they are an immediate danger to those around them. The details of this particular case aside, if someone where armed with a weapon and firing at people, while holding a baby, I see absolutely no problem with taking him out with a bullet to the head.

This situation looks to me like a case of unjustifiable homicide, not "OMG, he's got a baby!" The decision to use deadly force should have almost no bearing on a hostage, either the person is aiming/firing at people, or they aren't. In this case he wasn't even leveling a weapon, someone headed back into their house isn't justification to shoot them.

You don't have to be an active shooter to be a threat. There is some interesting additional information below:

PHOENIX — Authorities are investigating an Arizona officer's decision to shoot a man holding a baby, as officials point out that the same policeman had been involved in six previous shootings since 2002, five of them fatal.

James Peters was one of several Scottsdale officers called to a home in the Phoenix suburb on Tuesday night after neighbors reported a man holding a baby was threatening them with a handgun, Chief Alan Rodbell said.

James Loxas, 50, was shot and killed, but the infant he was holding was not harmed, he said.

Peters is a 12-year veteran of the police force who has served on its SWAT team. In three of his previous six shootings, other officers also fired at suspects. As a SWAT officer, he has been put in situations to deal with this type of incident more than a regular patrol officer.


A list compiled by The Arizona Republic shows Peters' first shooting was in 2002, when he was one of three SWAT officers who shot and wounded a domestic violence suspect after a standoff. Between 2003 and 2010, he was involved in five fatal shootings.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office investigated his previous shootings and ruled them justifiable, Rodbell said. In one instance, he received the department's medal of valor for killing a suspect who was holding a store employee hostage after hijacking a doughnut truck driver. Doughnut truck driver? How ironic!


Not everyone agrees that Peters always acts appropriately.

Jason Leonard, a lawyer in Fort Myers, Fla., who represented the family of a man killed in 2006 by Peters and another officer, said he is concerned the city seems to support Peters even when his actions are questionable.

"My concern is that he seems to shoot first and ask questions later and has been supported in this policy," Leonard said. "I don't think he's going after innocent citizens, however, if you find yourself in a precarious situation, he seems to err on the side of escalating the violence."

Kevin Hutchings had gotten into a fight with a close friend in August 2006 and then left and drove to his house in Mesa, about 10 miles to the south. Officers had the friend call Hutchings at his house, and Scottsdale police went there, Leonard said.

While he was talking on the phone, police cut the power to flush him out, Hutchings came outside with a gun to investigate, and was fatally shot. Leonard said officers never announced their presence. The family accepted a $75,000 settlement from the city. And I'm sure the lawyer got his 33% cut.


Police department spokesman Sgt. Mark Clark said investigators were looking into Peters' decision to shoot Loxas on Tuesday and why officers felt threatened or believed he was a threat to the child.

"There were at least three officers that were in a position to engage the suspect," Clark said. "At least one of the officers thought he saw something in the suspect's hand. So at this point in the investigation we want to make sure we have all of the officers' statements down."

Rodbell said the investigation will likely take weeks to complete. Afterward, the findings will be turned over to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

Police said Loxas went back in his house after allegedly threatening the neighbors, then opened the door with the 9-month-old grandson in his arms but wouldn't come out.

Several officers called for him to come outside, but Loxas refused, Rodbell said. Peters shot Loxas in the head with a scope-equipped rifle from about 15 yards away when he leaned over and reached inside the house.Loxas died instantly, and fell with the baby in his arms, police spokesman Sgt. Mark Clark said. The baby was unhurt.

Police said a loaded handgun was tucked into the side of a chair a few feet inside the door, and a shotgun was also found nearby.Rodbell promised a complete investigation into the shooting.

"A police officer's primary duty is to protect life. It is difficult for everyone when we are forced to take a life," Rodbell said.

Mike Rains, a suburban San Francisco lawyer who represented officers involved in hundreds of shootings in the past 30 years, said one with so many shootings deserves extra scrutiny from his department and the public.

"Seven shootings is a hell of a lot," Rains said, noting that Peters is either very aggressive in taking calls that end up requiring him to shoot or he is quicker on the trigger than he should be.

In this case, the actions Loxas took in threatening his neighbors with a gun and refusing to come outside while holding a baby led to a legitimate concern by the officers, he said. He speculated that Loxas may have wanted police to shoot him in a so-called "suicide by cop."

Regardless, a more critical look at the officer and the shootings is important, Rains said.

"We can only hope that they have sufficient training and sufficient good judgment and common sense and reasoning to make good decisions," Rains said. "Because sometimes they don't and when they don't, people get injured and killed who don't deserve it."

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/5098522-Ariz-cop-who-shot-man-holding-child-investigated/

[SEB]

Another case of if it looks like shit & smells like shit! Its gotta be shit. 7 shootings in 10 years? Something seems fishy to me. Regardless what his threats where. People threaten on this board all day everyday. Doesnt mean anything. Its just talk. If the guy had a firearm on him while the cops where there. I could understand the guy being put down. But my first thought when I read this is this cop was trigger happy & has been for sometime! Your history gives a good indication of your future behavior & this wont be the last guy this cop kills if he remains on the force! I see a investigagtion in the future and lawsuit being brought on by the family

[SS Junk]

"My concern is that he seems to shoot first and ask questions later and has been supported in this policy," Leonard said. "I don't think he's going after innocent citizens, however, if you find yourself in a precarious situation, he seems to err on the side of escalating the violence."

That says enough for me.

[03trubluGT]

That says enough for me.

Justified is justified.

Just don't do stupid shit around this guy.

I could be posting with 2 confirmed kills under my belt, and I would have been totally justified. It just so happens I didn't pull all the slack out of the trigger on both occasions.

And I'm damn glad I did not have to kill those two guys.

[mikec]

Glad you don't have to deal with that either man.