SubJeff on 15/10/2006 at 08:09
You've never experienced CS gas have you? No amount of crack or meth or whatever is going to numb that stuff. I only interviewed a guy who had been gassed and the fumes of him were insane uncomfortable for me - I had to leave after about 2 minutes because I couldn't see anymore. I vote CS gas for tank chases.
The Alchemist on 15/10/2006 at 08:32
Quote Posted by Phydeaux
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.
Chill out.
dvrabel on 15/10/2006 at 09:11
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
Maybe not, but I'm sure they had clubs. Last time I checked, meth does not make you immune to getting knocked out.
Any strike with a baton to the head that's sufficiently hard to reliably cause
unconciousness has a high chance of causing severe injuries and death.
Uncia on 15/10/2006 at 09:48
Which still has a lower fatality rating than a bullet to the head.
Vigil on 15/10/2006 at 12:05
And then there's the feasibility of swinging a club inside the cabin of a tank.
I'm with Phydeaux here. It's so very, very easy to conduct a Trial By Internet with the benefit of hindsight and in the absence of any experience of the situation, and smugly declare that whatever authority figure was involved fucked up and should have done this or should have done that. If only they'd listened to you, eh?
Yes, there regularly are fuckups and yes, the actions of authority figures need to be subject to scrutiny. But that's why they have investigations. Give it a rest.
Uncia on 15/10/2006 at 12:30
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
Right, so let's not have a say.
<p></p>
Uncia on 15/10/2006 at 12:31
Not that I disagree with either side's point, I just find the blind faith "rarr, he did it so he must have had a reason!" position irritating. At least, more irritating than automatic skepticism. Cries of "he deserved it for what he had done up to that point!" aren't helping the matter any; cops aren't Judge fucking Dredd.
TTK12G3 on 15/10/2006 at 12:44
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
No amount of crack or meth or whatever is going to numb that stuff.
You've never seen a meth addict take THREE cans of mace to the face, have you? Not that the police had tear gas since trying to be ready and prepared for stuff like this would actually take an effort and skill and require good organizational ability. I am not trying to attack the police, but this case in particular is unacceptable.
Quote Posted by Vigil
Yes, there regularly are fuckups and yes, the actions of authority figures need to be subject to scrutiny.
But that's why they have investigations. Give it a rest.
I more or less have this feeling as well, but I still don't understand why a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to police enforcement is seemingly totally acceptable to all cases remotely similar to this.
Also, investigations are never totally relaible.
EDIT: Also, (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson) Shawn Nelson
Jonesy on 15/10/2006 at 14:39
About half a dozen years back, there was a police tape circling around television shows like "World's Wildest Police Videos" and stuff like that. It showed a man driving all over the place, looking like he was drunk. The police give chase, the guy crashes into a tree off an interstate. Police pull up, yell at him to get out of the car. He does, but proceeds to beat one of the attempting arresting officers about the head. The police end up having to tackle the guy with 5 officers to get him down.
When commenting on the tape later, they found that the guy was on PCP and was beating the officer with two broken arms.
About the tank chase- the man was obviously military or ex-military and had stolen a 48 ton tank. They didn't want to take the chance that he also stole an M-16 in addition.
TTK12G3 on 15/10/2006 at 16:01
OK... So, assuming that using a gun was the only feasable option, tell me again why it was necessary to shoot him in the head to stop him. You can't operate a tank or gun with shot up arms.
