Okay, I'll play devil's advocate. I still don't have enough info to make a determination about whether the police made the best out of a bad situation or screwed the pooch - other than to note that any situation that produces dead innocent people sucks. The other side of that is that bad guys shooting it out in a crowded space is never going to be safe no matter what the cops do or don't do.
While I'll allow that it is likely that police shot both bad guys, the UPS guy and the bystander, to my knowledge that hasn't been clarified. If the hostage and/or the bystander turn out to have been killed by the robbers would that change any of your views?
The UPS truck was stopped by traffic. The cops were using cars as cover/concealment (in other words innocent bystanders as human shields) as they approached and fired into a panel truck -- where they couldn't see who or what they were shooting at, killing the robbers, the hostage, and a bystander.
The cops were using available cover and concealment. Video was posted of some uninvolved motorists doing the exact same thing - crouching behind occupied cars and trying not to get shot. No, they weren't using innocent bystanders as human shields. The bad guys were, for sure, but no one else that I saw.
Supposedly the bad guys started shooting first, so that makes it okay.
If that turns out to be the truth, how exactly do you want police to handle an active shooter scenario featuring (as you noted) lots of innocent people all around the UPS truck? What's the best tactical solution in your book? Turn around and leave? Maybe pull a Scot Peterson and hang out where it is safe until the bad guys run out of ammo or decide they're done? Make sure that you stand up tall in the hope that any incoming round hits you square and maybe doesn't hurt as many people behind you?
You can see cops using occupied cars as cover. There could be a backseat full of child safety seats for all they know.
Assuming as before that the bad guys started blasting first then I don't care. The backseat full of kids in car seats is not safer by giving free reign to the armed robbers who have shown a willingness to carjack and take hostages, and who have decided to level up to active shooters on crowded street. Nor is there any conceivable way the police could have approached the vehicle with zero risk. That is to say, if cops crouch behind a car, any occupant of the vehicle could be injured by incoming gunfire. If they stand in the open then innocent people behind them could be injured by incoming gunfire. If they shoot at the vehicle they might miss and hit someone. If they fail to engage the bad guys, the bad guys might keep trying to kill people.
I actually laughed out loud at that. I'm fairly certain that isn't their number 1 goal or we'd have seen the citizens pulled out of their cars instead of the police using them as human shields.
Again with the
When the bad guys are shooting on a crowded street (or a crowded school, or wherever bad guys are shooting at innocent people), the best thing to do in my opinion is to stop the shooting ASAP. That's why we criticized Scot for failing to even attempt to engage the Parkland shooter. It's easy to armchair quarterback the call to shoot the bad guys given the risks and the outcome, or to use cover and concealment to move to where they could get a better shot. Then again, who is to say that had more of the police focused on evacuating the vehicles instead of applying tactical pressure that the outcome would have been any better? People hidden in their vehicles might catch a round, but so might people running away, especially if the bad guys are then able to take more time to aim. For that matter, pulling someone out of a car or leading them away could draw fire every bit as much or more.
Yes, I'm aware that what-ifs could easily go the other way too. Maybe had mak or bob been in control of the situation and applied their brilliant, retrospective tactical prowess no one would have gotten hurt at all.
