To his credit, Jonathan Turley built up the scenario well, creating a mental image of a travesty where the First Rule of Policing cost a woman hostage her life.
Misty Holt-Singh, 41, had just run into the Stockton, California bank and left her 12-her-old daughter in the car for a quick transaction. In an instant, her life would change as Gilbert Renteria Jr., Jaime Ramos, and Alex Martinez came into to rob the bank. They took Singh hostage and fled in a car. However, the police were quickly on their tail and trapped the car. She may have had a glimmer of hope. After all, there were some 33 police officers surrounding the car. That is when the Stockton police opened up on the car and fired over 600 bullets — killing Holt-Singh, 41, and two of the bank robbers.
Outrageous. The callousness of the officers’ self-serving firing of “over 600 bullets” so that 10 of them, ten bullets, found their way into the body of Misty Holt-Singh and took her life, defies description.
The bank robbers had taken Holt-Singh clearly as a human shield and led the police on a high-speed car chase in a car stolen from a bank employee. Witnesses say that Holt-Singh was crying and saying that her daughter was in the car and that she did not want her daughter to be traumatized by seeing her with the robbers. The three robbers could care less, of course.
It wasn’t just the suffering of the mother as bullets entered her body, but of the knowledge that her 12-year-old daughter was left behind, in the mother’s car, as she was taken hostage by the fleeing bank robbers, chased by the police. As any parent must understand, our own life is secondary to the welfare of our child. For Misty Holt-Singh, the indignity of death was compounded by the harm suffered by her daughter.
The horror of this scenario can’t be understated. And yet, it wasn’t enough of the story to understand and appreciate what happened. From USA Today:
Stockton police Chief Eric Jones said at a news conference that Holt-Sigh’s [sic] wounds “show the cowardice” of Ramos, who reportedly used her as a human shield.
Yes, he was definitely a coward, as well as many other despicable things, but then, the bullets that struck Holt-Singh came from weapons of the 20 officers who fired. Yet, further down in the article, essentially buried given that most people read all the way to the third paragraph before they get bored, comes the official statement:
The chief defended the officers’ actions, saying the suspects had fired on them with a semiautomatic rifle and that they had no choice but to return fire. Hundreds of bulletholes were found in 14 police vehicles, citizens’ cars, homes and businesses along the route of the hour-long chase through Stockton and neighboring communities about 80 miles east of San Francisco.
This bit of information fundamentally changes the paradigm. It does not make the killing of Misty Holt-Singh any better, or less horrible, but it does shift the understanding of what happened from the expected First Rule of Policing to a situation with no perfect answer.
Had the cops fired upon the bank robbers because they feared for their own safety, their own lives, at the expense of killing the hostage, then the question would have been what alternatives to protect themselves were available that didn’t involve their returning fire knowing that the hostage was being used as a human shield.
Had the cops not engaged the bank robbers in a chase, the question would have been how they could allow the robbers to flee with a hostage, with her 12-year-old daughter watching, without pursuit in an effort to save Holt-Singh (plus two other women taken hostage and thrown from the car during the chase) from what might be deemed certain harm, if not death.
Had the cops been patient and outwaited the bank robbers, pursuing them but not firing upon them or otherwise acting to stop them, what about the others?
Hundreds of bulletholes were found in 14 police vehicles, citizens’ cars, homes and businesses along the route of the hour-long chase through Stockton and neighboring communities about 80 miles east of San Francisco.
The potential for harm and death was everywhere, whether it was the hostage or a shopper, a driver, a walker or a baby in its crib. As it turned out, the only innocent killed in this battle was Misty Holt-Singh. This isn’t to suggest that her death isn’t tragic; indeed, it’s horrifying. But it is remarkable that more people weren’t harmed, didn’t die.
We tend to believe, largely because we want to believe, that there is always an alternative that will save the day, will end a potential tragedy without anyone harmed, especially an innocent person. Situations do not always work out so neatly. Sometimes, there is no good answer, and it ultimately becomes a choice between bad options which are more likely to result in tragedy than not.
Perhaps there were better options here that would have served to protect everyone’s life, including Misty Holt-Singh’s. Perhaps, they appear only after we have the fortuitous events, the known unknowns, available to measure the wisdom of choices made. Perhaps not.
There are many instances in which poor, horrible choices are made by police, often for their own benefit at the expense of those they pretend to protect and serve. And for this, they are castigated, and rightfully so. But not every death of an innocent person can be prevented, and not every choice which results in tragedy is a bad choice. Sometimes, all the options are bad.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Sometimes, all the options are bad.”
Good post – good reminder.
I will always fail to understand the narrative of, ‘We killed the hostage to save her.’ Out of the bad options available, I don’t see how it was the best option.
I too fail to understand that narrative. But that’s not the story here, where the bank robbers are shooting at other cars, houses, and businesses. Assuming risk had to be taken somewhere, the question would be how to minimize the risk to the greatest number of people.
maybe they were and maybe they were not. is there any real evidence outside the holes themselves to prove they came during the chase and rom the bank robbers. and not just a collection of years of use in the city getting popped by pissed off citizens.
Dang. Why didn’t I think of that. Or maybe it was space aliens. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Having lived in the city in question for over 30 years (left about 10 years ago), I’d judge the question only half-sarcastic/snarky.
There are a lot of questions left unanswered. How long before the police fusillade were the implied hundreds of shots fired by the bandits ? Was the bad guys’ car stopped? Disabled? Surrounded by the many officers? Preventing more shots from being fired is one thing; retaliating out of anger, fear, and adrenaline is another. Nothing will bring back Ms. Holt-Singh, but someone in authority ought make a thorough, candid, and unbiased investigation and publish the findings. And take appropriate actions afterward.
Just because there aren’t clearly better options doesn’t mean we ought simply accept a result as bad as this one. To (badly) paraphrase a poet, just because we know and understand does not mean we must accept and be resigned.
They are investigating, and if it turns out that facts and circumstances lend credence to an option being better than others, then we have a difference situation.
~~~This bit of information fundamentally changes the paradigm.~~~
You chicken shit! Use that word esteemed one. Go ahead, I dare you!
I guess we should count ourselves lucky here then?
After all the domestic war machine didn’t immediately order a drone strike on the fleeing vehicle and take out an entire block or two until they were certain the target was neutralized, it was an hours long CHASE of a gang of armed to the teeth bank robbers after all. Nor did the force “that is” follow that hypothetical air strike up days later with a few more drone strikes of the bank robbers homes just to send a message.
Hint: In a parallel universe things don’t escalate as a foregone conclusion and yes banks still get robed by very bad men with guns.
Enjoy playing strategic escalation war games with your grilled ham and cheese this afternoon esteemed one. It won’t make the sandwich taste any better.
You are out there (not way out there but down the trail of out there) trying to justify why milk tastes good with your sandwich with this post esteemed one.
Build a better sandwich first. Yes, there were options here and as usual the guys with more guns, helicopters, etc..brought the situation to an end the best, some might argue the only way they knew how.
The bad guys had a hostage and shot first…Not a damn thing “we” can do about a little collateral damage in “situations” like this I guess.
~~~The horror of this scenario can’t be understated.~~~
Dream on esteemed one dream on!
P.S. Parallel universes do exist BTW talk to your grilled ham cheese about it this afternoon and when the Stockton PD used this tragic scenario to justify future capital investment “to protect the children” I don’t want to hear about it. I will be mixing up my chocolate milk, buttering my bread, and cutting the cheese.
“They are investigating, and if it turns out that facts and circumstances lend credence to an option being better than others, then we have a difference situation.”
Sounds like you’re of the opinion that this is a unique situation that Stockton police had never contemplated prior to it happening.
If it’s true that the only option they believe was viable was to respond in the manner stated, that is scary.
That’s hard to believe, but I suppose it shouldn’t be.
I have no clue what “unique” has to do with this in your head, but it has nothing to do with what I’ve written.
Sure sounded to me like you were suggesting this was something unique.
If that’s not what you meant, it sure sounded that way to me. I thought you were trying to say that the police didn’t have any other viable options . That’s why I used the word “unique”.
I should have known better than to express an opinion, but I thought most readers would be interested in hearing what others would have to say. Otherwise, your post lacks “meat” imo.
Well sure, without your comment there’s no reason to read the post at all. Most readers thank you for your contribution to their reading pleasure.
Dear anonymouse,
You are the only reason I come to SJ, searching and hoping for a comment so that my life has meaning. When I find your comment, I rejoice. When I read through one of SHG’s posts and see nothing by you at the end, I am very sad.
Ignore SHG’s mean snarkiness, and comment as often as you can. You rock my world. Thank you for being you.
Sgt. Schultz: do you practice law in NY?
[Ed. Note: This will be the one and only time I will move your comment from a new thread to a reply, where it belongs. If you can’t manage to use “reply” like everyone else, your comments will be deleted.]
So SGTSchultz, your answer is yes. you DO practice law in NYC? Thanks for the headsup. Don’t want to have my comments deleted…even when they don’t sting.
You do realize you’re now talking to yourself, and that Sgt. Schultz has not replied. Right?
I have a good idea why “schultz” hasn’t replied, but it was fun
for the few moments it took to figure it out.
And why didn’t “schultz” reply? And what took a few moments to figure out?
Msybe has to do with his profession/reputation etc.
[Ed. Note: I know I said I wouldn’t move any more of your comments because you didn’t use reply, but I couldn’t bring myself to toss this one, so I moved it anyway.]
Yes, that must be it. I think you’ve nailed it. Your logic is impeccable.
Thanks, but it really wasn’t hard to figure out. Sgt Schultz? Right. Give “schultz” credit for trying to have it both ways…without risking any discomfort over such a minor thing. Only a highly trained, learned professional could get away with something like that.
“Hundreds of bulletholes were found in 14 police vehicles, citizens’ cars, homes and businesses along the route of the hour-long chase through Stockton and neighboring communities about 80 miles east of San Francisco.”
If the rounds were fired throughout the entire chase or merely at the end changes the analysis. If, say, every half mile the suspects were firing, then the police need to stop it ASAP. If everything happened near the end, then maybe had the police waited it out there wouldn’t have been a loss of life or numerous gunshots fired by the suspects.
My reading is that they were firing continuously at police who were driving behind them. So should the police have backed off and followed from a further distance, maybe just using air support, to save the hostage? But then would the suspects have thought they got away and executed the hostage, dumping her from the car, and driven to their safe house?
Maybe there was no viable option to save the hostage’s life but police have handbooks, SOPs, cross-training with federal agencies, etc. where surely such a contingency was considered. And if not, they do now so hopefully they can develop a plan based on these facts to follow in the future.
These are the known unknowns, the variables that dictate action (or inaction) in an ongoing situation. Sometimes, tactics are clear and other times, there is danger/problems no matter what choice is made. Only afterward, and then only because of the impact of choices made along the way, is there an opportunity to look back and think whether there was a better, safer approach.