Idiotic responses to the idiot who shot 2 Mounties

[Michael OLeary]

I really don't know, these events could have led anywhere.
I would really just like to see that the rcmp has a more firmer grasp on these kinds of situations.

Now, just keep reading those two sentences until they make sense together. Then, short of a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, describe a possible solution within the Charter that would have effectively dealt with both cases - without assuming prior knowledge of the suspect's intentions.

 

[DustyFoot]

Let's review:

Now, what should the cops do until they get these windhields? Nothing?

Well he is free and on the loose right now. If they let him go he would still be free and on the loose, but they would be alive.

If we can't accept letting the guy go, then I think the tactics could be better at catching/killing him. The police do their job by exercising overwhelming force.....

If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him, or point your gun at him.....If you chase/corner him, and shoot near him you are going to make him react in a certain way....Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.

If someone has a gun and you threaten their life, what do you think is going to happen? Either don't threaten their life, or put them into a situation where they are unable to threaten your's.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well he is free and on the loose right now. If they let him go he would still be free and on the loose, but they would be alive.

If we can't accept letting the guy go, then I think the tactics could be better at catching/killing him. The police do their job by exercising overwhelming force.....

If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him, or point your gun at him.....If you chase/corner him, and shoot near him you are going to make him react in a certain way....Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.

If someone has a gun and you threaten their life, what do you think is going to happen? Either don't threaten their life, or put them into a situation where they are unable to threaten your's.

Nice solution :

If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him

Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.

Gee, lets hope no-one ever complains about you to the police and just decides to toss in the remark "I think he's armed."  'Cause that might suck.

Well, back to work for me.

 

[DustyFoot]

Well just seems to me that shooting at someone who is armed, but not killing them is like cornering a racoon in your attic and poking it with a stick......

If you are going to corner a dangerous person/animal and put it in a situation where it feels its life is threatened you better be prepared to deal with the way dangerous people/animals react when they feel their life is threatened....

 

[paracowboy]

DustyFoot,
shut up. You are talking so much bullshit, I don't even know where to begin. Anyone with the slightest grasp of LEO tactics (And mine are very slight indeed) knows that you haven't made a lick of sense since you started babbling. And the fact that you would base any of your bizarre conjecture on a letter written by someone stupid enough to shoot at Police Officers, leads me to question your intellect further.

 

[DustyFoot]

Ah yes, personal attacks and insults. The sign of someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[WannaBeFlyer]

Ah yes, personal attacks and insults. The sign of someone who knows what they're talking about.

Oh this is going to be good....

 

[paracowboy]

DustyFoot,

I am not going to debate this with you. You have illustrated quite clearly that you have no clue as to what you are talking about, and therefore, cannot debate. I find your second-guessing our LEO insulting to them, and so, I say to you: Shut up. One more post from you in this thread will result in Administrative action.

 

[armyvern]

The police do their job by exercising overwhelming force.....

If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him, or point your gun at him.....If you chase/corner him, and shoot near him you are going to make him react in a certain way....Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.

WOW with the above. Are you a LEO? A soldier? I think not based on the highlited (my emphasis) point you make here.

Far from doing their jobs "exercising overwhelming force"

the aim is to use "the minimal amount of force necessary" in order for any injury to an arrestee etc to be considered "justifiable."

Think whichever way you want, smoke whatever you wish, you can not justify this idiot's murder of 2 of Canada's finest because this waste of rations and O2 decided that he did not want to be arrested and was willing to lead them on a chase.

Anybody can plan for any contingency...no body can plan for the actions of wilful idiots who deem themselves god and above the laws and morals of mainstream society.

 

[NavComm]

WOW with the above. Are you a LEO? A soldier? I think not based on the highlited (my emphasis) point you make here.

Far from doing their jobs "exercising overwhelming force"

the aim is to use "the minimal amount of force necessary" in order for any injury to an arrestee etc to be considered "justifiable."

Think whichever way you want, smoke whatever you wish, you can not justify this idiot's murder of 2 of Canada's finest because this waste of rations and O2 decided that he did not want to be arrested and was willing to lead them on a chase.

Anybody can plan for any contingency...no body can plan for the actions of wilful idiots who deem themselves god and above the laws and morals of mainstream society.

+1

 

[DustyFoot]

Ok sorry I shouldn't have said it that way, thats not what I meant by "Overwhelming Force"......What I met by "Overwhelming Force" is that when you have 10 cops surrounding 1 suspect you shouldn't need to use any force.

If you have 20 ERT guys with assault rifles pointed at one guy with a shotgun, you shouldn't need to fire any shots......

Thats what I meant by exercising overwhelming force......

 

[Jarnhamar]

If a guy has a gun (or might have a gun), either shoot and kill him, or point your gun at him.....If you chase/corner him, and shoot near him you are going to make him react in a certain way....Either shoot to kill, or don't shoot.

problem is dangerous criminals break the law yet RETARDED left wing (or is it right wing? whatever) bleeding heart people start crying over criminals who are shot.

ohh the police are too agressive, maybe they didn't have to shoot!
Maybe they could have done something different!

Enter the taser. In an attempt to  save the lives of asshole criminals we start using tasers.  What do we get for thanks?  More lawsuits.  Ohh maybe we didn't have to use tasers!  Someone (out of thousands) died when you shot them with a taser, how horrible.

I think we should take those people and put THEM in a police uniform and send them into the shit. Let them with their infinate wisdom make the decision on whether to shoot or not.

I don't see what the problem is here?
I'm sure this guy had tons of reasons behind his actions. Don't all criminals?  Who cares?  Police tried to stop him. He didn't stop. Two cops whilist performing their duty were killed.  

His running away (and killing police) pretty much destroys anything I'd care about his story.

If you have 20 ERT guys with assault rifles pointed at one guy with a shotgun, you shouldn't need to fire any shots......

Your assuming here my friend.  That one guy might be high on drugs and hes going to say you know what Im going to take down as many of them as I can. So while you try and use logic and surmise you shouldnt needs to fire any shots, he's just fired and killed 2 or 3 officers with families who were just doing their job. Now their kids get to grow up without a mom or dad JUST because someone did something they shouldn't have done.

Assuming gets people killed.

It's just too easy to sit back on a couch or computer screen and talk about what was overwealming force and what wasn't. Put a uniform on, put yourself in that situation and then you will have the right to decide what force to use.

 

[MPIKE]

Header should now read "2 idiots  :blotto: respond to Mounties shot thread"...

I wondering if it's even worth giving these two a venue...  :threat: trolls

Dusty et al ...learn your arcs!!!

also fill in your profile which will probably save us the bandwidth.

 

[DustyFoot]

I don't see why looking for ways to prevent this kind of thing always ends up with someone accusing someone of justifying murder.

If you think it is inevitable and we should just let it happen then so be it. Some people like to try to make improvements and constantly better the system.....

 

[Jarnhamar]

You have a point there I agree.  But thats not the responsibility of the police. Thats the court and justice system.  Or whoever else.

There was a reason but the fact remains he ran from the police which requires the police to stop him.  Whatever his reason, he was in the wrong when he decided to a) step on the gas  b) pick up a gun.

 

[DustyFoot]

Your assuming here my friend.  That one guy might be high on drugs and hes going to say you know what Im going to take down as many of them as I can. So while you try and use logic and surmise you shouldnt needs to fire any shots, he's just fired and killed 2 or 3 officers with families who were just doing their job. Now their kids get to grow up without a mom or dad JUST because someone did something they shouldn't have done.

Assuming gets people killed.

It's just too easy to sit back on a couch or computer screen and talk about what was overwealming force and what wasn't. Put a uniform on, put yourself in that situation and then you will have the right to decide what force to use.

So you think that because people are unpredictable that means we should not try to come up with policies and procedures that will protect police officers lives?

You think that because the guy might be crazy or on drugs that means it doesn't matter if you go into a situation with 20 ERTs or with one person?

 

[NavComm]

problem is dangerous criminals break the law yet RETARDED left wing (or is it right wing? whatever) bleeding heart people start crying over criminals who are shot.

ohh the police are too agressive, maybe they didn't have to shoot!
Maybe they could have done something different!

Enter the taser. In an attempt to  save the lives of ******* criminals we start using tasers.  What do we get for thanks?  More lawsuits.  Ohh maybe we didn't have to use tasers!  Someone (out of thousands) died when you shot them with a taser, how horrible.

I think we should take those people and put THEM in a police uniform and send them into the crap. Let them with their infinate wisdom make the decision on whether to shoot or not.

I don't see what the problem is here?
I'm sure this guy had tons of reasons behind his actions. Don't all criminals?  Who cares?  Police tried to stop him. He didn't stop. Two cops whilist performing their duty were killed.  

His running away (and killing police) pretty much destroys anything I'd care about his story.

I agree with Ghost. It seems to me lately that criminals go ahead vandalizing property, robbing innocent hard-working people and when they get injured by police who are trying to protect the law-abiding citizens, they cry blue bloody murder and try to sue the government on some trumped-up civil liberties bullshit.

Anyone stupid enough to engage the police in a gun battle and lucky enough to survive it after having killed an officer, deserves death IMHO. If this letter to the paper is from the escapee, then he must think we're all gullible enough to believe that he honestly thought he could just drive away after being told he was under arrest! That's just not believable.

Edited to add Ghost's quote

 

[Jarnhamar]

So you think that because people are unpredictable that means we should not try to come up with policies and procedures that will protect police officers lives?

Of course I do.

You think that because the guy might be crazy or on drugs that means it doesn't matter if you go into a situation with 20 ERTs or with one person?

Huh?

Your suggesting that if 20 law enforcement officers circle one single suspect that they

shouldn't

have to fire a shot.  I'm saying that attitude gets police officers killed.

 

[MPIKE]

Dusty,

where are you getting this 20 ERT crap and what is your background on tactics and deployment of LEOs??

Can you give us a run down on your expertise in this area? thinking from the get go that it is limited given your wordsmithing.....

also i encourage you to maybe learn from posts of the pasts
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27740.0/all.html

I said in that thread and I'll say it again....

As already suggested refrain from uninformed opinions , get the facts from an Inquiry or from someone who was there and not the media's spin before putting your comments in print.

 

[karl28]

DustyFoot  Also please remember that these RCMP officer where killed in the line of duty try and remember that when you posting please , and next do your self a favor man fill out your profile honestly and some people might take what you say more seriously  and remember this piece of advice " be ware the toes that you step on today because it might belong to the A@! you have to kiss tomorrow "