|
Post by Peltigera on Jan 22, 2010 12:05:32 GMT -5
Well it's one thing to do that at a range, slow fire, and it's another with stress and sub machine guns. Know what they say in the Canadian military? The safest place to be is where the Yanks are aiming. Strangely, the British Army say much the same.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 22, 2010 15:11:07 GMT -5
Again I ask, if not shoot him, what were the police supposed to do?
See Pelti's answer above. Also, note the requirement to justify your actions afterwards to a formal hearing, in every single case.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 22, 2010 22:00:20 GMT -5
The it sounds as if we have basically the same system, exept that we don't send a lone, armed officer out in the woods looking for a suspect who has already killed a lone , armed officer that same night. We believe in teamwork.
That and we train our officers to shoot until the threat is neutralized, not sit there and shoot one round, stop, and wait to see if he shoots back.
But as far as being accountable for every round, a full investigation into a shooting, etc., yes, we're pretty much there.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Jan 23, 2010 7:06:16 GMT -5
Believe it or not, Wayne, we also believe in team work. We just don't believe in having everyone in the team armed. Our armed response officers are crack marksmen, not just ordinary joes with a bit of fire-arm training. He is not there to "neutralise" the threat - he is there to safe-guard the other officers who in turn are there to apprehend the suspect. If a crack marksman cannot disable a man with one shot, he is not really a crack marksman, is he? What we are really after is the chap giving himself up - he is a suspect, not a convicted criminal and is innocent at this point. We do not execute innocent people here. The end result has to be a trial, not a funeral.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jan 23, 2010 8:04:24 GMT -5
We do not execute innocent people here.
Perhaps the USian mentality is that a few bullets are much cheaper than a trial, incarceration and/or a legal execution.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Jan 23, 2010 9:21:39 GMT -5
Sadly, far too many believe that.....
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 23, 2010 19:07:03 GMT -5
"What we are really after is the chap giving himself up - he is a suspect, not a convicted criminal and is innocent at this point. We do not execute innocent people here. The end result has to be a trial, not a funeral."
We're looking for a trial here as well. We don't "execute" anybody without a trial. Unfortunately, the suspects won't always let the police take them alive.
|
|
|
Post by coachklc on Aug 13, 2018 18:48:27 GMT -5
The SWAT team members say that when Freeland pointed his gun at them, they opened fire, shooting Freeland 68 times out of their 110 rounds fired.Under 62% accuracy. How typical to be bragging about incompetence. Well he was inside of a boat. So there is that. 62% is not bad when you can not see your target and are not 100% sure that he had not jumped out and hid under the boat. That happened about 30 miles from me. Grady Judd is awesome.
|
|