Terrorist getting owned

DeLamar.J said:
Civil liberties! How is robbing a bank a civil liberty? If someone is going to go as far as doing something that extreme they should be wiped off the face of the earth. I bet you wouldnt be crying civil liberty if your mother was one of the hostages in that building. And what is there to prove, its right there on tape? There is a time to prove your case, but when your doing things like holding hostages, what needs to be proven?
Click to expand...
Okay Saddam. Got it. You're right. I'm wrong.
 
lol saddam, I dont belive in hurting innocent people, just bank robbers, kidnappers, rapists, hostage takers. I realize that you being a liberal, will have sympathy for these people, but I dont. Im going to change my screen name to saddam hehe :mp5: .
 
So, I suppose you think being liberal is weak and killing offenders is strong? I challenge that - I believe that as soon as I sink to the level of the bad guy, I become the bad guy. And it's SO EASY to just off someone because they piss you off or break the law or whatever. I think it takes guts to keep a jerk alive and dish out his punishment accordingly.

Hmm...my five-year-old child just lifted a pack of gum from the store because I said no. Should we just ship him off to juvey now?

The sad thing here is that you really don't think there is anything wrong with what you're proposing.
 
Waiting for the video to download so I will hold my comments on that....as to SWAT teams rigging up remotes/kill switches et al to vehicles....as a SWAT cop myself I can say that unless an agency has one rigged just for such an occasion (dont know of any) that is movie fantasy and just isnt going to happen.
 
I was saying it is possible however possiblities are not real life lol. Ask me about the possiblities in Nursing care and I can tell you the reality of it lol. Just as any LE Person can tell you unless you walked the beat and wore the uniform it is difficult to second quess actions of LE.

Mark E. Weiser
Former Reserve Deputy Sheriff here in Kansas
 
DeLamar.J said:
lol saddam, I dont belive in hurting innocent people, just bank robbers, kidnappers, rapists, hostage takers. I realize that you being a liberal, will have sympathy for these people, but I dont. Im going to change my screen name to saddam hehe :mp5: .
Click to expand...
and to hell with 'innocent until proven guilty'. You go Girl!
 
I was saying it is possible however possiblities are not real life lol. Ask me about the possiblities in Nursing care and I can tell you the reality of it lol. Just as any LE Person can tell you unless you walked the beat and wore the uniform it is difficult to second quess actions of LE.

Mark E. Weiser
Former Reserve Deputy Sheriff here in Kansas
Click to expand...

LOL...yeah I hear ya. Just saw the video, while I give them an A for originality and artistic impression, the guy shouldnt have been allowed to wheel off. A tac team should have dropped him with an impact munition or a slug if the situation demanded it when the guy walked out of the building.

As a devils advocate...the guy was a fleeing violent felon. By the letter of the law, deadly force could be on the table. I wouldnt have signed off on this plan though.
 
As with most stuff, we don't have the full info. From the video clip and a few quick searches, the guy was claiming to have explosives and had threatened to use them. He may have said something like "Im on a deadmans switch...", etc.
 
shesulsa said:
So, I suppose you think being liberal is weak and killing offenders is strong? I challenge that - I believe that as soon as I sink to the level of the bad guy, I become the bad guy. And it's SO EASY to just off someone because they piss you off or break the law or whatever. I think it takes guts to keep a jerk alive and dish out his punishment accordingly.

Hmm...my five-year-old child just lifted a pack of gum from the store because I said no. Should we just ship him off to juvey now?

The sad thing here is that you really don't think there is anything wrong with what you're proposing.
Click to expand...
Your trying to say I think people should die for stealing a pack of gum or pissing me off, thats not the case at all. Im talking about serious crimes were the person will not surrender. Someone could break my nose and I wouldnt kill them, but when you hold a bunch of innocent people hostage and threaten to have a hand grenade wich could kill everyone around you. Why should anyone go easy on a person like that.
 
Say Im in the local quickie mart and someone pulls a gun and demands money from thr register, I feel that person has lost there right to live at that moment, unless they surrender when told to. Now if they get away and get caught later of course its not right to hurt them now. I think your getting me wrong here.
 
Okay, perhaps I'm not understanding you - and I don't think you're understanding me. I'm not boo-hooing this guy's rights and I recognize the possible need for deadly force in certain situations. I'll back off a little, because on re-read, my original issue was with labeling this guy as a terrorist. He is a criminal and a felon, clearly, and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner, but I think giving him one chance and then blowing him away is a bit extreme.

I don't think you're gonna shoot a kid for stealing a pack of gum - I was using the analogy that sending a 5-year-old to juvey for stealing a pack of gum was as extreme as your one-strike-your-out suggestion.

Fair enough?
 
Interesting discussion.

First of all, I gotta give the cops in the video a solid 10. Although a couple of bean-bags would probably have been just as effective (and a lot cheaper) the Evel Knievel stuff was too cool. ;)

As far as the way we handle hostage situations, armed criminals, etc. To some extent I've got to go with James' opinion. I personally believe that we have become so concerned with "political correctness" and so afraid of getting sued that the LEO's are often unable to act as quickly or as decisively as is necessary to resolve the problem. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is holding hostages and threatenting to kill them, pop him. Yeah, you can let the negotiaters yell at him and tell him to give up but if he doesn't, nail him. Standing there and talking just means that you're gambling with the lives of the innocent people that he/they are holding. I'm not saying that negotiation should not be used as a method of crisis resolution, just that many times I think it's a waste of time (unless the negotiator is distracting the guy so the assault-team can get into position).


Yes I know, I'm a heartless bastard.
 
DeLamar.J said:
Why would you need proof if it is happening right there on camera?
Click to expand...
Haven't you ever seen a magician? Don't you know that what you are seeing may not actually be what is happening?

Doesn't anyone study ETHICS anymore?

I believe the ETHICAL thing to do is to apprehend the perpetrator with the least amount of force that will be effective. At the point in the video where the police obstructed the motorcycle, there was no longer a threat to hostages, so the requirement of deadly force, while it might be legal because the perpetrator is fleeing, it would be unethical because he was no longer an imminent threat.

I see that once again, I have a very small minority view point on this. I must say that it disturbs me that so many who have experience with law enforcement and military engagment are not looking for the least invasive effective resolution to such conflicts.

Thank you.

Michael
 
Haven't you ever seen a magician? Don't you know that what you are seeing may not actually be what is happening?
Click to expand...
Kind of sounds like the "baby nothing happened, what woman? Theres nobody in our bed. I didnt do it..." defense. :) Seriously, this was a crime in progress, not an investigation to determine who the offender was. The issue is the guy needed to be caught and the police in this case didnt seem to have an efficient plan to do so. I would have even suggested an immediate takedown once the guy got on the bike (personally I wouldnt have left that as an option but thats another story) and the hostages were away. Less lethal or otherwise.

BTW anybody know how long this stand-off was? Was there time to get a tac team there? Or was it left to patrol?

Present an alternate apprehension scenario and we'll discuss it.
 
michaeledward said:
I believe the ETHICAL thing to do is to apprehend the perpetrator with the least amount of force that will be effective. At the point in the video where the police obstructed the motorcycle, there was no longer a threat to hostages, so the requirement of deadly force, while it might be legal because the perpetrator is fleeing, it would be unethical because he was no longer an imminent threat.
Click to expand...
To work with this proposition then, I would consider stopping the offender with certainty, with zero chance of escape, is a lesser amount of "force" than allowing for any possibility of escape, that he must then be tracked, and hopefully found, not to mention the potential for more violent activity, after having evaded capture.

So you're correct, he was no longer an imminent threat to the hostages he had held, rather, he is now an imminent threat to the rest of the civilian population outside the bank.

I think that whatever capture tactic is necessary that can provide for the greatest probability of success is what is warranted. I am not saying that this is the case here, as I am just not aware of what other alternatives they had at the time. Time, by the way, is a crucial factor here as well. I'm certain that they didn't have the time to have a sit down discussion as to which capture method would best serve their ethical standards. That's what the debrief is for.
 
Perhaps not really applicable to this case, but an associated point.



Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3rd 1143 (7th Cir. 1994) cert. Denied 115 S.Ct. 81 (1994)
This case involved the shooting of a suspect who was wielding a fire poker. When the officer attempted to arrest him, he charged the officer with the fire poker and was shot by police. Plaintiffs who sued on behalf of the deceased claimed the officer did not use other means of force available to him at that time, listing disabling chemical spray, a police dog, and distance. The court stated "that to permit every jury in this type of case to hear expert testimony that the defendant would have been uninjured if only the police had been able to use disabling gas or a capture net or a Taser a municipality is liable because it failed to buy this equipment. The Constitution does not enact a police administrator's equipment list." The court ruled that there is no legal "precedent" that requires an officer to utilize alternatives to deadly force.
 
Tgace said:
Perhaps not really applicable to this case, but an associated point.



Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3rd 1143 (7th Cir. 1994) cert. Denied 115 S.Ct. 81 (1994)
This case involved the shooting of a suspect who was wielding a fire poker. When the officer attempted to arrest him, he charged the officer with the fire poker and was shot by police. Plaintiffs who sued on behalf of the deceased claimed the officer did not use other means of force available to him at that time, listing disabling chemical spray, a police dog, and distance. The court stated "that to permit every jury in this type of case to hear expert testimony that the defendant would have been uninjured if only the police had been able to use disabling gas or a capture net or a Taser a municipality is liable because it failed to buy this equipment. The Constitution does not enact a police administrator's equipment list." The court ruled that there is no legal "precedent" that requires an officer to utilize alternatives to deadly force.
Click to expand...
As you point out, this doesn't really parallel what was happening here. No law enforcement officer was being attacked.

If you are arguing that police can and should any means at their disposal, I fear for my country.

Mike
 
I think you are jumping to conclusions....The only point Im making is that the "why did they shoot him when they could have beanbaged/tased/sprayed him" arguements have no basis in legal precedent. Why you are worried about what happened in Spain and drawing conclusions about US LEO's is another issue.

I also dont believe the decision in my cited case is predicated on an officer being attacked either. It just happens that one was in this instance.

Once again, why not present your arrest plan and we'll game it out.
 
michaeledward said:
I see that once again, I have a very small minority viewpoint on this. I must say that it disturbs me that so many people who have experience with law enforcement and military engagement are not looking for the least invasive effective resolution to such conflicts.
Click to expand...
Agreed - who is it that once said that when you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to stop and reflect to ensure your opinion is warrented?

kenpotex said:
First of all, I gotta give the cops in the video a solid 10. Although a couple of beanbags would have been just as effective (and a lot cheaper) the Evel Knievel stuff was too cool.
Click to expand...
Also, agreed. I don't necessarily think the police action was necessarily out of line - it was expensive (I'm sure those funds could have gone somewhere else) and chancey.

flatlander said:
So you're correct, he was no longer an imminent threat to the hostages he had held, rather, he is now an imminent threat to the rest of the civilian population outside the bank.
Click to expand...
So does this equate with terrorism in your opinion? We toss that term around easily. Did he terrorize those hostages? Yes. Did he terrorize the neighborhood? Yes. But can we use the term "Terrorism" in this fashion?

What I'm getting at is slapping a much more serious lable on this guy - what he did was bad enough. If they are calling him a terrorist, what's next? Is this the so-called liberal media tossing around a fun, popular word? And how will this be tried?

I must not be expressing myself well enough because we are all getting sidetracked on whether the force used was warranted. Again - my major concern here is the use of the label of Terrorism where this non-political, drug-motivated hostage situation is concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Democratic Convention

Previous Thread

For all Chocoholics

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top