LE Shooting in Inglewood today

[Fire in the Hole]

May 17, 2009
Inglewood, CA

A man armed with a semiautomatic handgun was killed early Sunday in a shootout with police and one officer was wounded in the leg, authorities said.

Police were sent to a home in response to neighbors' complaints about people fighting, possibly at a party, said Lt. Mike McBride.

The police were confronted by a man with a handgun and three officers opened fire, including the one who was shot, McBride said. The victim was found with a semiautomatic handgun but it was unclear whether it had been fired, he said.

The wounded officer was hospitalized in stable condition.

Inglewood police and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office were investigating.

Inglewood is a Los Angeles suburb.

[Jonathan Doe]

I believe Inglewood PD is handling their own scene, otherwise they would have called me for CSI since I am on call. My dispatcher said she didn't get the request.

[CavTrooper]

I believe Inglewood PD is handling their own scene, otherwise they would have called me for CSI since I am on call. My dispatcher said she didn't get the request.

Witness statements say that the man was unarmed and shot in the back according to chan 11 news.

[SmokinMr2]

Witness statements say that the man was unarmed and shot in the back according to chan 11 news.

Did ya ever notice that witnesses "always" say that ?

[tyrist]

Witness statements say that the man was unarmed and shot in the back according to chan 11 news.

Those type of statements being untrue are not uncommon.

[CaliTheKid]

Wittness was his girlfriend. Officer was shot in the leg.

[bluestaterebel]

Wittness was his girlfriend. Officer was shot in the leg.

Suspects girlfriends make the best witnesses

[yzErnie]

Good guys - 1
Bad guys -- 0

[CavTrooper]

isn't Inglewood PD under federal investigation for multiple shooting of unarmed victims?

Ahh.... yes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/13/local/me-inglewoodpolice13

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the Inglewood Police Department in the wake of several officer-involved shootings of unarmed suspects and other incidents in which the agency has been accused of using excessive force.

The probe marks the second ongoing investigation into the department, which was the focus of community protests last year when officers shot and killed four people -- three of them unarmed -- in the span of four months.

Since 2003, Inglewood police have shot and killed 11 people, five of them unarmed, according to law enforcement records reviewed by The Times.

[Ron-Solo]

Strange how the "Unarmed Man" had a handgun.

Let the investigation be complete before rushing to judgement. Just because the department in under investigation, doesn't mean these guys are guilty until proven innocent.

People will say all kinds of things to the media, since no one is confronting them with facts that contradict what they are saying happened. I supervised a case once where the media interviews said one thing, then we proved those witnesses were not even there when the event actually happened. The damage by the media witnesses was already done in the community. Took a long time to rebuild the trust.

The truth will come out.

[uzigalil]

I believe that the Officer shot was friendly fire.

[trendar5]

Your source? It could be....but your source? The back very often becomes the backdrop when suspects turn their bodies. Not necessarily a problem.

[ilbob]

Your source? It could be....but your source? The back very often becomes the backdrop when suspects turn their bodies. Not necessarily a problem.

[/sarcasm on]Thats right, because as a society we have decided it is OK for cops to shoot people in the back that are running away from them.[/sarcasm off]

The problem is not whether the shooting was "legal" or not. If the PD is investigating it themselves, it will be found to be legal. Thats just the way these things work. Even if they do a diligent and fair job of it, its still a case of them investigating themselves and no one seriously believes in such an investigation.

[Jonathan Doe]

[/sarcasm on]Thats right, because as a society we have decided it is OK for cops to shoot people in the back that are running away from them.[/sarcasm off]

The problem is not whether the shooting was "legal" or not. If the PD is investigating it themselves, it will be found to be legal. Thats just the way these things work. Even if they do a diligent and fair job of it, its still a case of them investigating themselves and no one seriously believes in such an investigation.

I think you should reconsider your statement. You may not know how the department investigates the incidents especially when someone was hit. When DA's office, homicide bureau and IAB conduct investigation separately, I don't think there is a chance for a cover up. One of my old academy classmates was fired over a shootng a man armed with a knife in early 90's. I couldn't understand it, but that was how it was decided. He was a good cop.

[r08ert209cali]

Strange how the "Unarmed Man" had a handgun.

Let the investigation be complete before rushing to judgement. Just because the department in under investigation, doesn't mean these guys are guilty until proven innocent.

People will say all kinds of things to the media, since no one is confronting them with facts that contradict what they are saying happened. I supervised a case once where the media interviews said one thing, then we proved those witnesses were not even there when the event actually happened. The damage by the media witnesses was already done in the community. Took a long time to rebuild the trust.

The truth will come out.

Media is totally useless in these events and most others for that matter.
as for if the truth comes out I doubt it.