BelgianBoy Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 dean said:To be fair, the whole quote is "shoot first and ask questions later." The air masrhall did give a warning for the victim to get down on the floor. You don't kid around in an airport, saying you have a bomb. Everyone know that and if they do it, they suffer the consequenses. Maybe, there should be a law to keep mentally unstable persons from flying. Certainly, if I were a sky marshall, I wouldn't think a bomb could get through security but I wouldn't bet the other passanger's lives on my beliefs. dean, Actually I was expressing my own thoughts, not quoting, and actually the plane landed at destination 'after' checking at departure and 'after' the actual flight, and actually I think I noticed he was actually shot outside of the plane...... Lets be reasonable here, air cowboys are not trained not to 'shoot first' at all ? Or was he just fucking bored out of his mind ? BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadaBing Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 BelgianBoy said:Lets be reasonable here, air cowboys are not trained not to 'shoot first' at all ? Or was he just fucking bored out of his mind ? BB I would tend to agree with you .. IF .. the guy was running around screaming he had cotton candy and not a bomb ! and if he would have followed orders to drop the sack , and followed orders to hit the ground , and not reached into his sack , here we say " 3 strikes and your out ! " , well he got 4 , and a bullet. Bada Bing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 I agree, but why shoot to kill instead of shoot to immobilise ? BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 ''I agree, but why shoot to kill instead of shoot to immobilise ?'' I agree, although I believe it's much harder than you think to shoot someone running in the legs a few times, than it is to aim for a more definite shot at the torso, which will probably kill. In addition, if the suspect is shot in the legs he can still detonate the bomb/pull a weapon etc etc. Ever since ?the war on terror? was declared, the police have been told to shoot to kill if suspected of being a terrorist threat (after issuing warning if time/safety allows), regardless of the severity of threat. To anyone that thinks this policy is wrong, blame the terrorists that caused this current higher state of anxiety among the security services, not the boys in blue. Its a tricky one this - the guy was clearly a potential threat to all, running around with a backpack shouting bomb in this day and age is asking for trouble, mental illness or not. Its similar to the Brazilian guy that was shot on the London underground in July, he was running with a backpack, jumped over the turnstiles, the police asked him to stop and he didn?t...armed police shout at him three times to stop, but he carried on running, so they shot him 5 times in the head. It?s tragic, and wrong, but what choice do the security services have? With so many terrorists intent on killing every 'infidel' that boards a plane, drives his car, checks into a hotel or simply goes to work, I think we have no choice but to be overly cautious for the greater good of innocent people. What if the marshal had not shot him, and he DID turn out to be a terrorist and blew the fuckin plane to bits? If armed police ever shout at me to 'stop, on the ground' I?ll fuckin well stop and get on the ground, otherwise - I get shot. Simple as that. I?m sure if it was someone close to me who had been shot in these circumstances, I would take the opposite view, but looking at it objectively you can?t really argue that it?s wrong. Its very, very tragic, but in these times, what choice do we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 All police in the U.S. asre trained that, if they draw their guns, it is with the intention to shoot to kill, not wound. I'd love to continue this discussion, but I leave in half an hour for the airport and then St. Martin. With it -5F outside and 10 inches of snow, 85F sounds pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 Batty said:''I agree, but why shoot to kill instead of shoot to immobilise ?'' I agree, although I believe it's much harder than you think to shoot someone running in the legs a few times, than it is to aim for a more definite shot at the torso, which will probably kill. In addition, if the suspect is shot in the legs he can still detonate the bomb/pull a weapon etc etc. Ever since ?the war on terror? was declared, the police have been told to shoot to kill if suspected of being a terrorist threat (after issuing warning if time/safety allows), regardless of the severity of threat. To anyone that thinks this policy is wrong, blame the terrorists that caused this current higher state of anxiety among the security services, not the boys in blue. Its a tricky one this - the guy was clearly a potential threat to all, running around with a backpack shouting bomb in this day and age is asking for trouble, mental illness or not. Its similar to the Brazilian guy that was shot on the London underground in July, he was running with a backpack, jumped over the turnstiles, the police asked him to stop and he didn?t...armed police shout at him three times to stop, but he carried on running, so they shot him 5 times in the head. Lemme punch a few holes in your arguments.... 1. Prove me wrong, but the Brazilian guy in London was not carrying a backpack at all..... 2. in Miami, the guy was running away from the marchall carrying a backpack, so why aim at the torso at all and risk an explosion ????? better to aim at the head then, but easier to aim at the lower back / legs IMO, and I speak from experience. 3. and finally, to blame the terrorists for the 'shoot to kill' policy is simplistic at best, 'we' do not need to stoop ourselves to their level to win this.... BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 Batty, Have a look at the other thread here BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 BelgianBoy ''1. Prove me wrong, but the Brazilian guy in London was not carrying a backpack at all.....'' You are right, my mistake. He was not carrying a back pack. He was simply wearing a heavy quilted jacket...This on its own should not of course be deemed as suspicious (even though it was early July in British Summertime), but when you couple that with the fact that he jumped the turnstile (fact) and bolted down the escalator (fact), when he was told by armed police to stop and face down, it COULD be deemed as suspicious. Hey, guys, please don?t take this the wrong way....the guy was innocent and died in tragic circumstances. He shouldn?t have been shot. All I'm saying is that he was told to sit the fuck down, he didn?t, and he was shot. As a youth, I used to jump turnstiles and bolt down escalators, and I sure as hell wouldn?t expect the police to pull a gun on me and tell me to lie down. However, in these times, on such a rightful high alert, the police have to be cautious, and firm. The shoot to kill policy is correct, despite the chances of tragically fucking up and shooting someone innocent now and then. "2. in Miami, the guy was running away from the marshal carrying a backpack, so why aim at the torso at all and risk an explosion ????? better to aim at the head then, but easier to aim at the lower back / legs IMO, and I speak from experience." I don?t know. We will have no way of knowing this. Jesus, could be one of ten reasons.... back pack slung on his shoulder/he took it off and carried it/small backpack with clear shot mid-torso up.... who knows. You see the point I was trying to make though. "3. and finally, to blame the terrorists for the 'shoot to kill' policy is simplistic at best, 'we' do not need to stoop ourselves to their level to win this...." I completely disagree. 'We' (the huge majority of civilians that are not terrorists!) should blame them. We could argue the finer, more fragile points of why incidents like this happen, but when you boil it down... it happens because the security services are wound up and on guard. The reason they are wound up and on guard, is because terrorism has moved up a gear over the last few years and they are more prevalent, widespread and more of a threat than ever. Further more, I do not think we are stooping to there level. To stoop to there level we would have to plant bombs in civilian buildings and bomb trains at rush hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusty Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 BelgianBoy said:I agree, but why shoot to kill instead of shoot to immobilise ? BB . Shoot to immobilise::As well as being the land of guns,the U.S is also the land of any excuse for litigation.Dead men don't need 5 million dollars a year incapacity compensation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 After looking through the other thread on this, it appears that once again the trigger happy dudes have been lying to cover up what happened. I can understand such things in say Thailand. But holy sh*t, not in the US or UK. Is the whole world going mad??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.