Police Fire At Hostage & Use Human Shields

[Deus Regem]

What the actual fuck is wrong with you people thinking the police should be punished for doing their God damn job? Do you think, what, that any armed and dangerous criminal should be allowed to get away scot-free just because they have an hostage? If we did that hostage-taking would be the new national fucking pass time. It's a tragedy the UPS driver was killer of course, but it's not the fault of the police. Those robbers were a threat to public safety, which means the police had every right to engage and neutralize that threat - especially after the pricks started shooting at the cops. The fact it took place on a crowded freeway is also a tragedy, but again that isn't the police's fault.

Armed & dangerous suspects had robbed a jewelry store and were escaping with a hostage, police pursued - as they are fucking supposed to - and were fired open. They returned fire - as they are fucking supposed to - and unfortunately an innocent man was killed in the crossfire. It's a tragedy it ended this way, but it could have ended up much fucking worse if the thugs had been allowed to escape and you're in complete fucking denial if you actually believe otherwise. You are living in a fantasy world if you think the police avoiding violence at every turn will somehow make things better.

Anyone with a hard-on for police hatred is just as much of an ignoramus as anyone with a hard-on for militarizing the police. Both of these extreme positions are fucking stupid and detrimental to any debate regarding law enforcement. The fact of the matter here is that the police did what they are paid to do. It didn't turn out perfect, but this isn't fucking TV. This is how it works sometimes. Sometimes you don't get the best ending with puppies, rainbows, and giggling babies. Sometimes innocent people fucking die. It's not pretty, but that's life.

The police did their job. It's not a happy ending, but it can't always be. Get the fuck over it.

finally someone said something realistic.

[Deus Regem]

"Liberty for me, none for thee," as they say.

And then they figure out too late that they're part of the "Thee" camp.

Then there will be no end of the shocked Pikachu face.

Most of us KNOW that we are in the Thee camp thank you

[Page]

That hijacked UPS truck was being GPS tracked AND there was a police helicopter following. The perpetrators were not about to get away.

[Agend]

If it keeps public order then I'm fine with sacrificial as many lives as possible. Just not enough to where the state has no one to rule over.

[Islands of Washington]

or LA in the 70's, 80's or 90's when police had to deal with a lot worse

Yup, where the only people able to establish any form of order were roof Koreans.

YES! ROOF KOREANS! We need at least 3 roof Koreans on every public building

[Deus Regem]

is the hostage taker also dead?

Yes, as was the hostage.

Literally every death that happened in this incident was caused by the police.

You do know that based on official information who caused the deaths of the victims is undetermined? Therefore this argument that the police caused the deaths is a Logical fallacy

[Gormwood]

Yup, where the only people able to establish any form of order were roof Koreans.

YES! ROOF KOREANS! We need at least 3 roof Koreans on every public building

Go move to Pyongyang then.

[Salandriagado]

It's not a statement about firearms, it's a statement about human psychology: 60 feet away is "they're getting close, but they aren't here yet" as a matter of instinct.

I'm going to need some kind of a source on that - the average human sprints at about 29 feet per second, so sixty feet is just a hair over 2 seconds away.

That's "here" to me.

Sure, and that's relevant if it's a human sprinting at you. It's not relevant if it's a human sitting in a car with the doors closed stuck in traffic.

[Salandriagado]

The army seems to manage pretty well. Fuck, countries with specialist armed response police forces seem to manage to keep them well trained enough to not do stupid shit like this. All of the available evidence seems to point to you talking out of your fucking arse.

Seeing how I apparently missed you, I will respond to this. Not only are police training and military training incredibly different,

Well it seems like the police training is worse, so fix it.

but even with the extensive training the military goes through there are still people in the army who, when they get shot at or see people around them die start to freak the fuck out. So sure while the army is certainly better at these situations, they also specifically train these people to get shot at, because that's kinda the major thing that happens during war. While police need to learn different things, like apprehension, cuffing, rights, etc. So comparing the training of the military to police is stupid. Should the police have more training? Yes definitely, training is always a good thing. Will that prepare someone being shot at in a real life or death situation no, and likely never.

Why not do both sets of training? Also, you literally just admitted that other organisations do manage to massively reduce problems like this by more training. So yes, it will prepare people, and we know this because it does.

[Islands of Washington]

There's no reason to disarm police officers.

It'll stop them shooting people.

law abiding citizens usually don't interact with the police.

Law abiding citizens have plenty of interactions with the police.

So whether we have a right to own a gun is irrelevant. If you don't want to get shot by the police, you can try not breaking the law. I hear that works pretty well.

And fails with tragic consequences.

Preventing a few accidents isn't worth causing far more problems by allowing criminals to operate freely.

Criminals don't operate freely if cops don't have guns. Cops don't just shoot criminals, that's not what policing is.

Personally, I shed no tears for idiots like the teenager in St. Louis who thought it was a good idea to shoot at the swat team.

I'm sure you don't.

"Law abiding citizens have plenty of interactions with the police."
This is so far the only thing i've seen that makes any remote sense.
If you've ever gone through Military/or Police training, you know that just going in guns blazing is not the initial response in most situations. This situation however, as i've read, is a little bit of an extreme case.

2 suspects attempted robbery, and shot at the officers. Unfortunately, if a police officer is fired on, they do not try to stop them from shooting, they return fire. Its just training, Secondly, if your fired at, most likely your aim with reduce, as your instinct as a human is to stop the threat as fast as possible. Unfortunately, the Driver and the Bystander were killed in the crossfire. It is a terrible situation yes, however somethings will happen, whether good or bad. My heart goes out for both victims families, but some tragedies are unavoidable.

[Jebslund]

If it keeps public order then I'm fine with sacrificial as many lives as possible. Just not enough to where the state has no one to rule over.

Try not to cut yourself on that edge, mate.

[Satuga]

Well it seems like the police training is worse, so fix it.

Why not do both sets of training? Also, you literally just admitted that other organisations do manage to massively reduce problems like this by more training. So yes, it will prepare people, and we know this because it does.

I've advocated for better police training before, so I agree with that, I don't agree with disarming police however.

[Galloism]

I'm going to need some kind of a source on that - the average human sprints at about 29 feet per second, so sixty feet is just a hair over 2 seconds away.

That's "here" to me.

Sure, and that's relevant if it's a human sprinting at you. It's not relevant if it's a human sitting in a car with the doors closed stuck in traffic.

That's ~4 car lengths. Or... about 2 seconds away.

[Satuga]

Killing over money is entirely different from killing for no reason. A person who will beat you to a pulp for looking at his girlfriend isn't just going to jump some rando for no reason, as the arguably psychotic overreaction to you looking at his girlfriend was a reaction to a slight, not an out of the blue action. That $20 is something the killer believed he was entitled to, not just a power trip.

It's too petty when weighed against the fact that the hostage is only good to them alive and becomes a liability as a corpse. Criminals are not some alien 'other' that acts completely different from humans. They're humans that, while having skewed morals, operate on a risk/reward mode of thinking like anyone else. If there isn't enough reward to overcome risk, they won't do it, and that includes killing a hostage.

You seem to be arguing from an assumption that people who kill illegally are nonhuman and therefore do not operate according to the principles of human psychology. As I've said many times in this thread, that level of irrationality is rare. Enough so that it should not be the default assumption.

You see, I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to get at. That 20 bucks should never be enough to warrant murder, however the thugs who do kill over this amount of money are using the fact it involves money to kill said person. It's about finding an excuse to kill that I'm talking about.

True they might run on risk vs. reward, but you're forgetting two things, one they're dumb-ass criminals so in this situation they're probably not going to think rationally, and two the hostage may also pose as a threat to the criminals, as they can either 1. let him go and the police will still chase them, or 2. keep him, the police will chase them but more cautiously, but also allow the hostage to get more information from the hostage takers. So at least in the eyes of the criminals the man might be more trouble than he's worth. After all they did already shoot someone before, so they probably couldn't care less if they shot the hostage.

I'm trying to argue that people who have killed over petty reasons, or have killed for something other than protection of themselves or others, should not be given the benefit of the doubt that they won't kill again. Rather they should be treated as dangerous as they have proved before.

[Ifreann]

That hijacked UPS truck was being GPS tracked AND there was a police helicopter following. The perpetrators were not about to get away.

But what if the armed robbers had suddenly and inexplicably started murdering everyone around them?!

---

It'll stop them shooting people.

Law abiding citizens have plenty of interactions with the police.

And fails with tragic consequences.

Criminals don't operate freely if cops don't have guns. Cops don't just shoot criminals, that's not what policing is.

I'm sure you don't.

"Law abiding citizens have plenty of interactions with the police."
This is so far the only thing i've seen that makes any remote sense.
If you've ever gone through Military/or Police training, you know that just going in guns blazing is not the initial response in most situations. This situation however, as i've read, is a little bit of an extreme case.

2 suspects attempted robbery, and shot at the officers. Unfortunately, if a police officer is fired on, they do not try to stop them from shooting, they return fire. Its just training, Secondly, if your fired at, most likely your aim with reduce, as your instinct as a human is to stop the threat as fast as possible. Unfortunately, the Driver and the Bystander were killed in the crossfire. It is a terrible situation yes, however somethings will happen, whether good or bad. My heart goes out for both victims families, but some tragedies are unavoidable.

But this tragedy was avoidable. The police did not need to return fire. They could have retreated. And if their training keeps them from retreating then their training is fucked.

[The Emerald Legion]

That hijacked UPS truck was being GPS tracked AND there was a police helicopter following. The perpetrators were not about to get away.

But what if the armed robbers had suddenly and inexplicably started murdering everyone around them?!

---

"Law abiding citizens have plenty of interactions with the police."
This is so far the only thing i've seen that makes any remote sense.
If you've ever gone through Military/or Police training, you know that just going in guns blazing is not the initial response in most situations. This situation however, as i've read, is a little bit of an extreme case.

2 suspects attempted robbery, and shot at the officers. Unfortunately, if a police officer is fired on, they do not try to stop them from shooting, they return fire. Its just training, Secondly, if your fired at, most likely your aim with reduce, as your instinct as a human is to stop the threat as fast as possible. Unfortunately, the Driver and the Bystander were killed in the crossfire. It is a terrible situation yes, however somethings will happen, whether good or bad. My heart goes out for both victims families, but some tragedies are unavoidable.

But this tragedy was avoidable. The police did not need to return fire. They could have retreated. And if their training keeps them from retreating then their training is fucked.

No.

[Jebslund]

You see, I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to get at. That 20 bucks should never be enough to warrant murder, however the thugs who do kill over this amount of money are using the fact it involves money to kill said person. It's about finding an excuse to kill that I'm talking about.

I understand what you are saying perfectly well. It's just that it is patently false. It's not (usually) just them looking for an excuse. It's that their moral compass is skewed such that they believe they are entitled to the $20 bucks, and killing the person to get it is justified. The murder is not the end. The money is. You and I would not consider $20 worth killing over. But you nor I have the level of entitlement and narcissism necessary to do so. You might argue that $20 is too little to be worth it. I've seen people (metaphorically) die on far smaller hills than that. Unreasonable a response as it is, it's not unreasonable to assume there are those who are willing to literally kill on any hill they are prepared to figuratively die on. Again, I refer you to the narky boyfriend scenario. Being willing to kill over a petty reason is not the same as being willing to kill for *no* reason.

True they might run on risk vs. reward, but you're forgetting two things, one they're dumb-ass criminals so in this situation they're probably not going to think rationally, and two the hostage may also pose as a threat to the criminals, as they can either 1. let him go and the police will still chase them, or 2. keep him, the police will chase them but more cautiously, but also allow the hostage to get more information from the hostage takers. So at least in the eyes of the criminals the man might be more trouble than he's worth. After all they did already shoot someone before, so they probably couldn't care less if they shot the hostage.

I'm forgetting nothing. If the hostage was more trouble than he was worth, they would have shot him before taking the vehicle, or, better yet, have ordered him out of the vehicle and left him behind. If they are so dumb as to kill a hostage, they would lack the foresight to take one in the first place, and would certainly lack the foresight to consider that he might overhear something. If they're smart enough to think ahead far enough to get the idea to take the hostage to slow down the cops, then they are smart enough to know that killing the hostage means the police are not only no longer hampered in their efforts to apprehend them, but will also go after them that much harder now that they have (another) murder to their name. Any criminal smart enough for that would also be smart enough not to say or do anything that would be used against them. This isn't the movies. Criminals don't usually take hostages just to take hostages, which means killing their hostages isn't useful, especially if they've only got the one. Criminals aren't as stupid as you think. The majority of those that get caught get caught because they got cocky, greedy, or complacent, not because they were stupid to begin with.

I'm trying to argue that people who have killed over petty reasons, or have killed for something other than protection of themselves or others, should not be given the benefit of the doubt that they won't kill again. Rather they should be treated as dangerous as they have proved before.

You are doing so from the flawed position that criminals are 1)stupid to the point of lacking any sort of planning ability or sense of self-preservation and 2)automatically going to kill for no reason just because they killed for petty reasons. The former is rarer than you think, the latter is rare to the point that it is only even worth considering in situations where the criminals in question have proven themselves psychopaths. The type of criminals you image are generally only found in fiction. The actions of the police need to be based on what is generally encountered in the real world, adjusted for changes in the present situation, not based on a worst-case scenario that they're unlikely to ever actually encounter.

[Kernen]

But what if the armed robbers had suddenly and inexplicably started murdering everyone around them?!

---

But this tragedy was avoidable. The police did not need to return fire. They could have retreated. And if their training keeps them from retreating then their training is fucked.

No.

They definitely could have. It was physically possible and they elected not to do so.

[Greater Cesnica]

No.

They definitely could have. It was physically possible and they elected not to do so.

They fucked up in every conceivable manner. One does not have to anti-police to see this unfortunate truth. They acted in a heavy-handed manner that resulted in unnecessary loss of life. The shots that killed the two innocent people were from pistol-caliber rounds. There was no precision in their gunfire, they concentrated fire rapidly on a general area. If only they had given an officer the opportunity to use their patrol rifle, if only they had perhaps waited for sharpshooters, if only they had created a perimeter, etc. etc.

[Totenborg]

They chased a UPS truck full of criminals who had previously been engaged in a firefight at a jewelry shop. The UPS trucked stopped they appear to be attempting to establish a perimeter when the criminals began shooting at them. Snipers and hostage negotiators are great they take between 30 minutes to an hour to deploy. You need to establish a perimeter to keep the criminals in one location for the aforementioned assets to come into play. If the Criminals stop you from forming a perimeter by shooting at you this is a typical result you get.

The more I listen to Ifrean talk, the more obvious it is that he’s not qualified to talk about anything that involves armed combat.

Funny, that's what I've been thinking about you.

[Greater Cesnica]

The more I listen to Ifrean talk, the more obvious it is that he’s not qualified to talk about anything that involves armed combat.

Funny, that's what I've been thinking about you.

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Funny, that's what I've been thinking about you.

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

Judging by the gun talk threads, a fair number of the first at least.

[GlobalControl]

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

Judging by the gun talk threads, a fair number of the first at least.

Is this the part were I raise my hand?

[Greater Cesnica]

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

Judging by the gun talk threads, a fair number of the first at least.

As a gun owner myself, can confirm there are a bunch of us. However, lots of gun owners are quite frankly dumbasses. Living in Canada, I had no choice but to take a firearms safety course to get my PAL, so perhaps I'm slightly more qualified?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Judging by the gun talk threads, a fair number of the first at least.

As a gun owner myself, can confirm there are a bunch of us. However, lots of gun owners are quite frankly dumbasses. Living in Canada, I had no choice but to take a firearms safety course to get my PAL, so perhaps I'm slightly more qualified?

Here in the States, it varies by jurisdiction, though most are pretty loose. I've never been asked to show I was qualified, just that I was old enough and not a criminal.