TTK12G3 on 14/10/2006 at 17:32
Perhaps...
He was obviously out of his mind, so no one really knew what thought could make it into his head. However, the fact that the tank was disabled and that they had the guy surrounded gives rise to the question as to why they couldn't have just bashed him upside the head and rip him out.
The Alchemist on 14/10/2006 at 17:40
Well, I imagine what they were thinking was A) the tank could manage to get free and then we're fucked until it breaks down again, or we just blow it up. and B) he might have a gun in there and he's crammed inside a tiny compartment, I sure as hell wouldnt want to jump into the insides of a tank with a lunatic like that in there. Although they should have used a taser gun, not a live round.
Ko0K on 14/10/2006 at 17:44
Long story short, the cop was following a protocol.
Pyrian on 14/10/2006 at 19:23
The tank actually threw a track. The guy was still trying to get it going, despite having a gun pointed at him at point blank range and being ordered to desist. The police in San Diego back then were noted for being a bit trigger happy...
TTK12G3 on 14/10/2006 at 23:52
Quote Posted by The Alchemist
Although they should have used a taser gun, not a live round.
That's what I was thinking.
Phydeaux on 15/10/2006 at 00:10
Quote Posted by The Alchemist
Although they should have used a taser gun, not a live round.
Typical armchair quarterbacking, 20/20 hindsight response.
Firstly, that was in 1995. Did they have taser guns back then? Maybe...I really don't know. I know the PD in my town hasn't had them that long.
Secondly, tasers don't always work, especially when drugs (like the meth that guy was on) are involved.
Thirdly, you weren't there. The internet commando is never there. Whenever a cop shoots a dangerous perp, there's always people who say "why didn't they taser him?" or "why didn't they shoot the gun out of his hand" or "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" or other outlandishly ignorant shit like that. The day a police officer starts worring about the safety of a dangerous criminal, instead of the safety of himself, his fellow officers, or the public, is the day that the wrong people get hurt or killed.
TTK12G3 on 15/10/2006 at 00:26
Quote Posted by Phydeaux
Typical armchair quarterbacking, 20/20 hindsight response.
Right, so let's not have a say.
Quote Posted by Phydeaux
Firstly, that was in 1995. Did they have taser guns back then? Maybe...I really don't know. I know the PD in my town hasn't had them that long.
Secondly, tasers don't always work, especially when drugs (like the meth that guy was on) are involved.
Maybe not, but I'm sure they had clubs. Last time I checked, meth does not make you immune to getting knocked out.
Quote Posted by Phydeaux
Thirdly, you weren't there. The internet commando is never there. Whenever a cop shoots a dangerous perp, there's always people who say "why didn't they taser him?" or "why didn't they shoot the gun out of his hand" or "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" or other outlandishly ignorant shit like that. The day a police officer starts worring about the safety of a dangerous criminal, instead of the safety of himself, his fellow officers, or the public, is the day that the wrong people get hurt or killed.
This is true, for the most part. However, killing someone is no more than an option in certain cases. This may very well have been such a case. Anyway, what's done is done. Nothing can change the outcome. Besides, someone else definitely fucked up right before that chase even began.
Pyrian on 15/10/2006 at 01:19
The inside of a tank does not strike me as a good place to use a taser.
Quote:
Thirdly, you weren't there.
Neither were you. Nonetheless, any public servant must face public scrutiny, for unsupervised power begets tyranny.
I understand not condoning using lethal force against someone who no longer poses any threat based merely on the possibility that they might eventually pose a threat; that standard could be applied to
anybody. That being said, such an obvious destructive intent strikes me as bad enough. He hadn't killed anybody, but he easily could have, intentionally or otherwise.
Mortal Monkey on 15/10/2006 at 02:26
Still, there are plenty less-than-lethal weapons you could use to subdue a target. My weapon of choice for a stalled tank would be teargas.
TTK12G3 on 15/10/2006 at 02:38
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
My weapon of choice for a stalled tank would be teargas.
That could work, but meth may offset some of its *desired* effects.
