Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:39 pm wrote:Lesson:
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple law enforcement officers, do not make them "feel threatened"
Simulist » Mon May 27, 2013 2:42 pm wrote:Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:39 pm wrote:Lesson:
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple law enforcement officers, do not make them "feel threatened"
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple armed persons — law enforcement persons, or otherwise — do not make them "feel threatened."
Yeah. That's probably pretty good common sense.
Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:48 pm wrote:Simulist » Mon May 27, 2013 2:42 pm wrote:Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:39 pm wrote:Lesson:
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple law enforcement officers, do not make them "feel threatened"
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple armed persons — law enforcement persons, or otherwise — do not make them "feel threatened."
Yeah. That's probably pretty good common sense.
it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.
it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.
Burnt Hill » Mon May 27, 2013 1:01 pm wrote:it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.
I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".
But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.
Burnt Hill » Mon May 27, 2013 3:19 pm wrote:I know, we have gone from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to extraordinary claims = certain conspiracy, no evidence needed.
I am not saying that's how you operate C_w. But it is why I often play devils advocate.
Simulist wrote:
Everything happens for a reason — and that reason always has something to do with the Rothschilds or something.
Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 4:25 pm wrote:Burnt Hill » Mon May 27, 2013 3:19 pm wrote:I know, we have gone from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to extraordinary claims = certain conspiracy, no evidence needed.
I am not saying that's how you operate C_w. But it is why I often play devils advocate.
I appreciate a devil's advocate POV.
I wonder though, if it isn't a bit of an extraordinary claim on the part of the FBI that this unarmed guy was able to threaten the life of the officers to the extent that he had to be fatally shot in order to stop him. Where's the evidence?
Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 19:34 wrote:stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 3:07 pm wrote:Ten FBI agents go to interview a guy, and they end up shooting him dead instead.
If they didn't mean to kill him, that is an extraordinary FAIL.
The fact they sent 10 agents (is that a fact?) from different jurisdictions makes it less likely that they were there to do a "hit".
Now if these 10 agents start dropping....
I surely don't want to be defending the FBI, it just seems to me more likely that it played out the way it was reported.
Have we connected the two FBI helicopter casualties directly to Tamerlans capture?
Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:01 wrote:it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.
I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".
But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.
stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 4:43 pm wrote:Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 19:34 wrote:stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 3:07 pm wrote:Ten FBI agents go to interview a guy, and they end up shooting him dead instead.
If they didn't mean to kill him, that is an extraordinary FAIL.
The fact they sent 10 agents (is that a fact?) from different jurisdictions makes it less likely that they were there to do a "hit".
Now if these 10 agents start dropping....
I surely don't want to be defending the FBI, it just seems to me more likely that it played out the way it was reported.
Have we connected the two FBI helicopter casualties directly to Tamerlans capture?
You mean the two agents who reportedly died from the impact of hitting the ocean? Their unit was involved in the arrest of the younger Tsarnaev. Nobody has reported anything further. So if you want to be a coincidence theorist, have at it.
stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 4:46 pm wrote:Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:01 wrote:it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.
I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".
But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.
How do you know it was not handled professionally by a single agent whose bosses wished to send a message that the FBI means business and can get away with anything it wants?
Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:58 wrote:stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 4:46 pm wrote:Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:01 wrote:it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.
I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".
But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.
How do you know it was not handled professionally by a single agent whose bosses wished to send a message that the FBI means business and can get away with anything it wants?
By a single agent with 9 accomplices who have agreed to go with the knife wielding story?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 180 guests