Christopher Dorner

Recklessly Shooting at a Random Truck, Injuring Innocent Women, Is Not Enough to Get Bounced from the LAPD

Or possibly even disciplined

|

The good news is that it is against Los Angeles Police Department policy for its officers to just recklessly open fire on random people after confusing them with a suspect in a crime. The bad news is a pack of officers who violated this policy may not even get so much as a slap on the wrist.

The eight police officers who a year ago, during the hunt for ex-cop-turned-killer Christopher Dorner, opened fire on two women in a truck delivering newspapers, are going back out on the field. From the Los Angeles Times:

Eight Los Angeles police officers who violated department policy when they mistakenly opened fire on two women during the hunt for Christopher Dorner will be retrained and returned to the field, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in a department-wide message Wednesday.

The message, sent on the LAPD's internal computer network and obtained by The Times, notes his disapproval in the actions of the seven officers and one sergeant. 

"While I understand supervisors and officers were required to make split-second decisions regarding the perceived threat presented before them I found it to be very concerning that officers fired before adequately identifying a threat; fired without adequately identifying a target and not adequately evaluating cross fire situations," Beck said.

But apparently none of those extremely terrible decisions should keep these officers from going back out onto the field with their guns. The Times notes that the decision to return the officers to the field doesn't prohibit Beck from disciplining them, but sources told the paper it's unlikely. No discipline at all for just lighting up a truck in a hail of gunfire.

Last year, Reason TV interviewed the lawyer for the two women, Maggie Carranza and Emma Hernandez, injured by the police in the shootings. Watch below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on Giving America a Raise

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Obviously the officers in question need some retraining. All those shots fired and the perps are still alive. What if they had been shooting at actual scumbags? They might not have made it home safely.

  2. The good news is that it is against Los Angeles Police Department policy for its officers to just recklessly open fire on random people after confusing them with a suspect in a crime. The bad news is a pack of officers who violated this policy may not even get so much as a slap on the wrist.

    Then what’s the point of it being against policy? Why have a policy? (I know, I know. i can feel the nut-punches coming.)

    1. You have a policy in place to identify who needs to be re-trained in the policy. Duh.

    2. In this case, procedures weren’t followed. And nothing else happened.

  3. AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. LITERALLY.

  4. Let’s remember that Dorner was targeting very important people: law enforcement. That required extra special care, such as firing blindly at the unarmed and setting buildings ablaze.

  5. The only thing that saved those women’s lives was the fact that most cops are lousy marksmen.

    1. Stormtroopers in more ways than one.

  6. Beck faulted the officers for jumping to the conclusion that Dorner was in the truck they opened fire upon. Beck said the officers compounded their mistake by shooting in one another’s direction with an unrestrained barrage of gunfire.

    None of which is apparently even illegal.

    1. They shot in one another’s direction?
      My goodness!
      They could have shot a fellow cop!
      That’s terrible!
      Horrible!
      They must be retrained so that the next time they shoot at innocents, they don’t shoot in one another’s direction!

  7. More proof that if your a cop you can do what you want to us enemy combatants err citizens

    1. I wonder what would happen if a citizen started firing at random people. Then its called a mass shooting. When cops do it it just against policy and since policy has no teeth feel free to shoot

  8. Ow, my balls, lol

    jockstrapsrus.com

    1. Crap, there’s actually a jockstrapsrus Web site.

      1. Searching for this has led me to /r/jockstraps (NSFW)

        I’ll likely be distracted for the next few days. Carry on without me.

      2. Jockstrapasaurus (javalinus ballcradli) was predated into extinction by members of the Towelsnapicus genus.

        1. Towelsnapicus, widely regarded as an apex predator, appears to have preferred preying upon weaker, less physically inclined species, such as Acneus clearasilis and even the airborne Avicus clubicus.

          1. Clubicus aviensis, maybe?

  9. “I sympathize with the officers, but I have a very high standard for the application of deadly force…

    NO, YOU DO NOT.

    None of this guy’s actions back up his rhetoric.

    1. “And there’s more retraining where that came from, buster!”

    2. “I sympathize with the officers, but I have a [compromised my] very high standard for the application of deadly force…

  10. Looks like the only thing they did wrong was shoot in one another’s direction. Sickening.

    1. I hope the training involves flash cards for various makes and models of cars and pickup trucks. And maybe a test for color-blindness.

  11. But apparently none of those extremely terrible decisions should keep these officers from going back out onto the field with their guns.

    It’s not like any officers were placed in jeopardy.

    1. Actually, they were. They were shooting in each other’s general direction.

  12. the officers compounded their mistake by shooting in one another’s direction with an unrestrained barrage of gunfire.

    I guess I was wrong.

  13. The good news is that it is against Los Angeles Police Department policy for its officers to just recklessly open fire on random people after confusing them with a suspect in a crime.

    Shouldn’t it also be against policy to recklessly open fire, even if the suspect is positively identified? Isn’t he supposed to get a chance to surrender first?

  14. The important thing is that those officers went home safely that night. The newspaper delivery women…not so much.

  15. Interesting this article doesn’t mention the shooting occurred in front of the LAPD Captain’s house, by the 8-10 guys who were guarding the captain.

    1. That would imply that they were under specific orders to shoot first, identify later.

  16. “…the officers compounded their mistake by shooting in one another’s direction with an unrestrained barrage of gunfire.”

    Dogs being walked together will attack each other when confronted by a third dog that acts aggressively. It’s known as leash aggression. Apparently it’s fairly common pack behavior.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.