Shug on 17/10/2006 at 02:21
From that Wikipedia article linked earlier:
Quote:
Police action
Question was raised whether or not it was necessary for the police to kill Nelson. Scott Nelson himself said police were just doing their job when they shot his brother. Police Captain Tom Hall said that if Nelson managed to free the tank, he "could have taken out no less than 35 vehicles that were passing at that moment." Additionally, police decided that if non-lethal action such as tear-gas was used, this might have stopped Nelson but not the tank, and officers would not be able to enter the tank if it was still moving and with tear-gas present. Barbed wire to tangle the treads was considered, but would not have been effective. Police officials called military personnel and discussed ways of stopping the tank, including using another tank, but all options were considered impractical.
That seems a bit more comprehensive than your average e-explanation where it was the cops just being TRIGGER HAPPY
for fuck's sake, the guy is in a tank driving the city streets, this isn't the GTA expansion pack
Mingan on 17/10/2006 at 03:33
I must disagree with you sinister: even snipers aim for center mass. The usually high-power rifle they use have enough power to kill anyone with a shot to the chest.
Notice: I am NOT a crack shot, not even got weapon handling formation, but this is not UT guys, headshots are HARD to get. Geez it's hard to steady binoculars just looking at the deers 500 metres away from my house.
Tocky on 17/10/2006 at 03:50
That is not a deer and you are making my dogs nervous.
Sinister Handed on 17/10/2006 at 08:08
Mingan, you are quite correct. In a lethal situation you would still always aim center mass. I was more referring to the idea that snipers have other options in certain circumstances. Such as shooting a weapon from a suicidal suspect's hands, something you would never even consider armed with a handgun.
Mortal Monkey on 17/10/2006 at 10:54
If you're a sniper, you might have to aim several feet above the target's head in order to hit it at all. Granted, with modern technology you can have built-in range adjustment software. But even then, it would probably be easier to shoot a weapon out of someone's hands with a pistol from eight feet.
Agent Monkeysee on 17/10/2006 at 15:26
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
But even then, it would probably be easier to shoot a weapon out of someone's hands with a pistol from eight feet.
It would not unless you're some kind of insane crack pistol shot. Police snipers regularly shoot weapons out of people's hands. I've
never heard of someone doing this with a handgun, at least intentionally. Trained officers regularly miss with entire magazines from 10 yards. There are numerous cases where people have missed with entire magazines from 10
feet.
Handguns are fucking HARD TO USE, people. Even for highly-trained personnel. The platform is naturally unstable and is simply incomparable to a rifle under any circumstances.
Whether officers should have the authority or discretion to use deadly force and under what circumstances is a perfectly legitimate debate. "He should have shot him in the arm" is not. It's like asking why basketball players don't just shoot three pointers every time. Unless you've actually fired a handgun you're in simply no position to judge the particulars of any one shooting. The kind of concentration, training, and discipline it takes to get a handgun to actually put the bullet where you point the barrel,
especially under high-stress situations, is simply something you can't reasonably evaluate from the comfort of your Internet. Very few people are proficient at it and the ones who are spend years of training intensely and maintaining a strict practice regimen to keep it up.
The point is this isn't Soldier of Fortune and you can't simply target the body part you want incapacitated.
Quote Posted by Shug
Police officials called military personnel and discussed ways of stopping the tank, including using another tank, but all options were considered impractical.
This line cracks me up.
Police: Hey we have this crazy dude in a tank rampaging around. What would it take for us to stop him?
Military: Uh... another tank?
Police: ...
Military: Want me to call in an airstrike?
Jonesy on 17/10/2006 at 19:44
Quote Posted by Mingan
I must disagree with you sinister: even snipers aim for center mass. The usually high-power rifle they use have enough power to kill anyone with a shot to the chest.
(
http://www.emergency.com/polcsnpr.htm) Police snipers aim for the brain stem. Anything else leaves the chance of the suspect firing his weapon by reflex.
Martin Karne on 22/10/2006 at 15:16
His name was Tom Goodman!
[/very Nolf-esque]
Somnus on 24/10/2006 at 22:00
Quote Posted by Shug
From that Wikipedia article linked earlier:
That seems a bit more comprehensive than your average e-explanation where it was the cops just being TRIGGER HAPPY
for fuck's sake, the guy is in a tank driving the city streets, this isn't the GTA expansion pack
The question here is whether, at the time he was shot, he was still a threat. From what I gather, it was pretty clear that the tank just wasn't going anywhere, and was no longer the danger it was beforehand. So here's my question: if he was no longer a threat, then did he need to be shot?
I'm not going to get into the semantics of where or how the man should have been shot. To me, that's irrelevant. Why it happened in the first place is what should be examined.
If he was clearly an imminent danger--on the cusp of causing irreparable human damage--then he should have been killed for the greater good. If, on the other hand, he was no longer dangerous, with his "tank" immobilized and no longer capable of moving, I see no reason for his death. In such a case it would seem like a gratuitous example of government being too eager to use lethal force against its own people. What he had done is irrelevant. What he was doing, on the other hand, is.
The answer to crime should not always be "shoot first, ask questions later," which appears to be the opinion of many here (with many of the attitudes displayed seemingly derived from the opinion that police have a right to regularly exercise violence as a tool of law enforcement). In this country, the United States, we hold the power to delegate guilt or innocence to the courts, and not to the police. The police are authorized to kill only in their own defense. If this man was not an imminent threat to them, then why did they shoot him?
Agent Monkeysee on 24/10/2006 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Somnus
The police are authorized to kill only in their own defense.
That's not even remotely true. Police may use deadly force in any situation where they have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat to others. Self defense is the only legal justification for
civilians to use deadly force.
