Terrorist getting owned

[Tgace]

I think you are right. Terrorism has a political agenda. This was straight up crime.

 

[michaeledward]

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.

I don't have an arrest plan. I don't have the requisite skills and knowledge to put one together. So, in that game, you win, every time.

Why not just follow the guy til the motorcycle runs out gas? Hell, if it was a bank robbery, just let him go. Go catch him tomorrow.

Was there no action available that would use less violence, and yet still be effective?

I guess it is how you measure 'effective' ... if 'effective' means to capture him as quickly as possible, regardless of the perpetrators health (and ability to stand trial / serve time), then by all means they were effective. If effective means capturing a perpetrator and bringing him to stand before the justice system, I have to believe there were less violent ways of handling this.

 

[Tgace]

I don't have an arrest plan. I don't have the requisite skills and knowledge to put one together. So, in that game, you win, every time.

Why not just follow the guy til the motorcycle runs out gas? Hell, if it was a bank robbery, just let him go. Go catch him tomorrow.

Was there no action available that would use less violence, and yet still be effective?

I guess it is how you measure 'effective' ... if 'effective' means to capture him as quickly as possible, regardless of the perpetrators health (and ability to stand trial / serve time), then by all means they were effective. If effective means capturing a perpetrator and bringing him to stand before the justice system, I have to believe there were less violent ways of handling this.

I think I already gave some of my options. First off hostage takers never go mobile. Negotiate for hours if you have to. Assault if you need to. If you do decide to give him a vehicle, disable it and take him out (less lethal or otherwise) when he gets on. The guys lucky he wasnt just shot through the brain with a .308, this guy wasnt just shoplifting.

Follow a motorcycle? With a helicopter maybe. Those arent always as plentiful as Hollywood would have you think. Say you do chase him, he hops off the bike and you still have a guy who says he has a grenade in his pocket. Youve just moved the same problem to an uncontrolled area.

Just let a hostage taking bank robber go to "catch him another day"? Felons would just love that option. Walk out of the bank, hop in a car and drive off, the Cops arent going to do anything . In car chase scenarios where its unknown if the driver is just some scared kid without a license, your "run of the mill" car thief or some doper with a rock of crack on him, this is an option. That option isnt typically afforded to violent felons trying to flee from the scene. What if the guy ditches the cycle, carjacks a car and kills the driver? This guy has shown his intent to use violence (at least I think threatening people with a grenade qualifies) to get his way. Unknown pursuits are a different story.

By all means if you can end the situation without violence than do it. However this guy placed himself in the situation, dont want to get killed, dont rob banks.

 

[Cryozombie]

be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, expect a trial by jury of his peers, the right to speak in his own defense.
. Mike

I couldnt watch the clip... It wouldnt play for me... and I am not advocating execution by the police... but...

If you are standing in a bank with a handgrenade holding people hostage and demanding drugs and money...

Isn't it plainly clear that you are guilty? Does it need to be proven in court at that point before you are treated as someone who is less than innocent?

 

[Tgace]

I couldnt watch the clip... It wouldnt play for me... and I am not advocating execution by the police... but...

If you are standing in a bank with a handgrenade holding people hostage and demanding drugs and money...

Isn't it plainly clear that you are guilty? Does it need to be proven in court at that point before you are treated as someone who is less than innocent?

Spain...Bank robber takes hostages and demands drugs/$$$...Says he has a grenade (is one displayed I dont know). The guy is allowed to exit the bank and get on a motorcycle. A few yards down the street. A cop car pulls into the bikes path, the guy does an AWSOME Evil Kenivel flip over the hood (the bike just explodes into pieces) and hes arrested. Apparently still alive and kicking.

 

[michaeledward]

Isn't it plainly clear that you are guilty? Does it need to be proven in court at that point before you are treated as someone who is less than innocent?

I have been arguing two seperate points.

1) Was there some less violent way of apprehending the person.
2) The police do not determine innocence or guilt.

Many who have posted (although not all) seem to just want to cause this person pain because he is 'obviously guilty'. Forget the fact that the thread was started by claiming the person was a terrorist.

I must be wrong. So few can see my point of view, I must be living in a cave.

Mike

 

[Mark Weiser]

One of the MOST difficult things to deal with as a LEO is with non LEO's second guessing LEO actions. I have stated again unless you are willing to don the badge and wear the uniform You are back seat driving and a thorn in the side of LE.

LEO often are restricted and are often put at higher risk due to Dept Policies that make certain sectors of the Population happy. In turn are often blamed when unable to do the ETHICAL thing in stopping crime from occuring. That is why LEO are often seen as reactive not proactive.

 

[michaeledward]

One of the MOST difficult things to deal with as a LEO is with non LEO's second guessing LEO actions. I have stated again unless you are willing to don the badge and wear the uniform You are back seat driving and a thorn in the side of LE.

LEO often are restricted and are often put at higher risk due to Dept Policies that make certain sectors of the Population happy. In turn are often blamed when unable to do the ETHICAL thing in stopping crime from occuring. That is why LEO are often seen as reactive not proactive.

And this is how you go about seeking the support of the community? Gee, Thanks.

How does that saying go ... With friends like those .. . .

 

[Flatlander]

I have been arguing two seperate points.

1) Was there some less violent way of apprehending the person.
2) The police do not determine innocence or guilt.

Many who have posted (although not all) seem to just want to cause this person pain because he is 'obviously guilty'. Forget the fact that the thread was started by claiming the person was a terrorist.

I must be wrong. So few can see my point of view, I must be living in a cave.

Mike

To respond,

1) Perhaps, and I've addressed that in my previous post. The situation is so dynamic and time constrained, that I don't begrudge them coming up with a quick and viable solution. As well, cutting off his bike is "probably" (read has the probability of) less immediately life threatening than a lump of lead in the ear.

2) You're right - police do not, and should not, make final judgement; but they must be able to exercise judgement. In this case they must judge how to neutralize the threat. You referenced the possibility of chasing and waiting for the bike to run out of gas - that's not neutralizing the threat - civilians are still placed in danger.

I want to address this:

I guess it is how you measure 'effective' ... if 'effective' means to capture him as quickly as possible, regardless of the perpetrators health (and ability to stand trial / serve time), then by all means they were effective. If effective means capturing a perpetrator and bringing him to stand before the justice system, I have to believe there were less violent ways of handling this.

The primary responsibility of the officer in this type of circumstance is to protect the public. So effective comes to mean any immediate and warranted actions necessary to achieve that goal.

Capturing a perpetrator and bringing him to justice is for a time when the public safety issue hasn't taken on this level of immediacy. In a nutshell, it's better to take the guy out than allow him to hurt another.

Why do you suppose the police carry a sidearm? When Joe Public's life is at risk, Constable X must draw and shoot. Is there another way to apprehend? Sure. Charge at the offender, take a few rounds in the chest, and hope you slow him down while your back up comes to join in the spray. Eventually, he'll be in cuffs, but only after people have been hurt. Admittedly, this is the British way, but that's not how we do things on this side of the puddle.

Shesula - no, I don't think that this can be labelled terrorism, provided it was merely a bank robbery. I also don't believe that anyone else posting in the thread would think it such. If so - speak up! Let your voice be heard!

Dan

 

[Flatlander]

In turn are often blamed when unable to do the ETHICAL thing in stopping crime from occuring. That is why LEO are often seen as reactive not proactive.

They are reactive, Mark. It's Government's job to be proactive - in developing crime reductive policy. The Law enforcement Community is a first response organization - reactive by definition.

 

[Mark Weiser]

From my experiences in LE one of the biggest grips of Senior Administration was the limitations placed on them by Government Personnel and then they(same Government Personnel) expect and demand eveen more protection by LEO's while restricting their (LEO) functions. You can not have your cake and eat it too lol.

I hope that people will realize that LEO's are doing the best they can under current policies and mandates.

The problem is under current regulations that bind the function of LEO's are often changed after an incident occurs in which those restrictions would have prevented the occurence in the first place.

Case in point the LAPD incident with the Two Famous Bank Robbers. Many times LEO's have often asked for training, equipment, personnel, etc..... from those very same people and are often rebuked and turned down until the you know what hits the fan and then these very same people will get those request moving along.

 

[DeLamar.J]

It just seems to me, the most simple way to handle someone doing something like that is to let it be known they have one chance to give up, and stop putting innocent people in danger, or they are going to die. Seems fair enough to me. If everyone knew that was the way things like that are handled, I bet no one would even try stuff like that anymore because they know they are NOT going to be respected in any way at all for there actions, and resorting to violence, and putting innocent peoples lives in danger for no good reason will most likely get you killed.
I dont think people like that deserve any type of respect for there actions, by respect I mean taking it easy on them, imagine if it was your wife or daughter being held hostage by this man, I bet you would feel the same way. Every man woman and child being held was someones son, daughter, mother ect. I would be so upset knowing my wife was being held hostage that I would want this man dead as quickly as possible so he could never do something like this again.
I hate when people resort to violence to get what they want. Thats bad enough, but when you put innocent peoples lives at risk on top of it, that drives me freaking nuts. Why why why would someone do this? :tantrum:
We need a zero tolerance policy on this type of violence, you get one chance to cut it out. Givee them a very clear warning.
Sir or mam, we will not tolerate violence anymore in this country, you do not have the right to negotiate, surrender now and you will be givin a fair trail and no harm will be done to you, if continue you actions, we will use deadly force with extreme predjiduce. This is your first and final warning.
But that will never happen because it is to extreme for most people. I think alot of people would have to loose a family member to a violent crime before they would feel this way. I am all about provding people with protection, that way they know without a doubt that if they are a innocent victim in some kind of stick up, that person is going to pay dearly for putting there life at risk if they dont give up quickly.