# Terrorist getting owned



## DeLamar.J (Jul 30, 2004)

http://www.cbsnews.com/media/2004/04/06/video610577.wmv


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2004)

Cudos to Spanish Police.  If that happened here, there'd be an outcry about the morons 'rights'.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2004)

I don't agree.

I don't think bank robbers are terrorists.

I don't think police officers should be executioners. Was there no other, less violent way to capture the perpetrator? It seems the Spanish police have become Judge Dredd.

Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 30, 2004)

With the advent of new computer techs. It would be possible to rig a kill switch to the motor that could be used remotely to disable the bike. Then when in a safe area if a grenade is used then only he would blow himself up. I do not think even SWAT would have used this tactic on the video but then again this is a Different country and law enforcement unit. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## Fightfan00 (Jul 31, 2004)

Diffrent countries have diffrent ways of tolerating things.I guess the spanish took care of it their way


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2004)

I agree, there are other ways.  Unfortunately, sometimes a message has to be sent, and the Spanish police sent one. My guess is that the hope is that the terrorists will see that video and go somewhere else rather than Spain.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 31, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Cudos to Spanish Police. If that happened here, there'd be an outcry about the morons 'rights'.


hooraa!


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 31, 2004)

Bearing in mind the recent pre-election attack in Spain,  I would say that whatever needs to be done to apprehend these villains should be done. 


:mp5:


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 31, 2004)

The problem with so called Terrorist is that he or she is willing to give his or her life to the cause. So the best way is to catch them alive if possible and have them watch I LOVE LUCY reruns and Leave it to Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet, Marcus Welby MD, Bradey Bunch, the list goes on and on. 

*PsychOps at work. *


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 31, 2004)

Okay, assign me as the devil's advocate now.

 Are we equating all crime as terrorism?  This is a bank robbery.  This thief didn't seem to be willing to sacrifice his life for a point of view - he wanted his life...and money and drugs.

 Now, I don't really think what the Spanish police did here to stop him and arrest him was unjustified or even beyond what we would do here.  And I like Mike Weiser's suggestion of the kill switch on the engine (remote controlled, of course).  What REALLY BOTHERS ME is the equation of lesser crimes with terrorism.  

 So let's define terrorism.  Webster's New Standard Dictionary for Home, School and office, pub. 1969 defines it as "mass-organized ruthlessness."  Webster's New World Dictionary, pub. 1966 defines it as "the use of terror and violence to intimidate, subjugate, etc., especially as a political policy."  

 So, is bank robbery with the use of hostages considered terrorism in your minds, everyone?  Although it is very heinous and despicable, I just can't quite equate it with terrorism.  I still think it is a lesser crime that terrorism.

 Yes, the captor instilled terror in his victims upon taking them hostage, however his agenda was purely selfish and non-political, was it not?  Is there a part of the picture I'm not seeing?

 Respectfully


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

I feel that if someone goes as far as taking a hostages and robbing banks, they should be shot on the spot unless they surrender, he got lucky IMO. If it were up to me I would give him one chance to surrender and if he did not, he dies. I think a person should always be givin a chance to give up, but after they try to take it a step further we should have zero tolerance policy. Alot of people dont agree with this point of view, but if you give someone who is robbing banks, taking hostages, carrying grenades or even bluffing something like that the chance to give up, and they dont, how is killing them unjustified?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I feel that if someone goes as far as taking a hostages and robbing banks, they should be shot on the spot unless they surrender, he got lucky IMO. If it were up to me I would give him one chance to surrender and if he did not, he dies. I think a person should always be givin a chance to give up, but after they try to take it a step further we should have zero tolerance policy. Alot of people dont agree with this point of view, but if you give someone who is robbing banks, taking hostages, carrying grenades or even bluffing something like that the chance to give up, and they dont, how is killing them unjustified?


Yeah ... I agree ... all those civil liberties are for the birds anyhow. Why should anyone expect; to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, expect a trial by jury of his peers, the right to speak in his own defense.

Nahh .... Screw America and its 225 years of liberty .... We don't need rights ...we need security. 

Thanks for contributing. Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 31, 2004)

I didn't realize the guy on the motorcycle was a bank robber. I was under the impression that was a terrorist. 


No, I think a terrorist is someone who does nasty things to incite fear, or to attack a society. Theivery doesn't equate.


However, he flew pretty good. Unfortunately for him, the landing wasn't particularly graceful.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 31, 2004)

I watched the clip again and it doesn't specifically state he is a bank robber - I assumed that, I guess, because he held hostages in a bank, but he demanded money and drugs and a getaway vehicle - he did not serve a political or religious agenda.

 Not a suicide bomber, just a junkie.  However, the reporter insinuates a link to terrorism.  See, I think of 9/11, the Oklahoma city bombing, and the prior WTC bombing as terrorist acts for obvious reasons, I think.  Violence, destruction and loss of life to serve the purpose of asserting a political and sometimes religious point of view.  This guy just wanted to get high.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 31, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I feel that if someone goes as far as taking a hostages and robbing banks, they should be shot on the spot unless they surrender, he got lucky IMO. If it were up to me I would give him one chance to surrender and if he did not, he dies. I think a person should always be givin a chance to give up, but after they try to take it a step further we should have zero tolerance policy. Alot of people dont agree with this point of view, but if you give someone who is robbing banks, taking hostages, carrying grenades or even bluffing something like that the chance to give up, and they dont, how is killing them unjustified?


 Okay - so if we begin to apply the word terrorism and/or what some of us believe to be an appropriate response to terrorism to what you are describing, then all the abusive spouses and abusive parents, sexual predators, certain politicians, oh the list goes on...should all just be killed.  If abuse and rape aren't hostage situations, what is?

 Okay, let's line them all up and ship them off to Guantanamo, then just nuke the place.  How about drug dealers and pimps too?  They hold people hostage and kill them with their drugs, violence and power-over - let's shoot all of them also.  Might as well off the hookers because they hold a man hostage for more money.  Then there's the police - they hold people hostage in exchange for evidence, confession, statements, etcetera.  Let's throw in the U.S. Military because they hold our young people hostage, inflicting terror on new recruits during Basic to incite the rage response so they may willing go forward and risk life and limb, cover up, show faith to an entity that exists purely for use by the whims of people like Dubya?  Or large corporations who ship off their hard labor to third-world countries to make your $100 dollar Nike shoes, handcrafted by children under the age of 10 who get paid cents per week and can't leave the work camp.  If that's not a hostage situation, what is?

 Or our energy industry who shut people's power off because they rigged supply and demand to make more money and incite terror in the market and consumers?

 Come to think of it, let's just bomb everyone.  If all the horrible things we are all doing doesn't justify death, what does?


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yeah ... I agree ... all those civil liberties are for the birds anyhow. Why should anyone expect; to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, expect a trial by jury of his peers, the right to speak in his own defense.
> 
> Nahh .... Screw America and its 225 years of liberty .... We don't need rights ...we need security.
> 
> Thanks for contributing. Mike


Civil liberties! How is robbing a bank a civil liberty? If someone is going to go as far as doing something that extreme they should be wiped off the face of the earth. I bet you wouldnt be crying civil liberty if your mother was one of the hostages in that building. And what is there to prove, its right there on tape? There is a time to prove your case, but when your doing things like holding hostages, what needs to be proven?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 31, 2004)

Okay Gentlemen:

I am not a MODERATOR but I think the personal barbs should cease before they close the thread. 

Thanks, 
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Okay - so if we begin to apply the word terrorism and/or what some of us believe to be an appropriate response to terrorism to what you are describing, then all the abusive spouses and abusive parents, sexual predators, certain politicians, oh the list goes on...should all just be killed.  If abuse and rape aren't hostage situations, what is?
> 
> Okay, let's line them all up and ship them off to Guantanamo, then just nuke the place.  How about drug dealers and pimps too?  They hold people hostage and kill them with their drugs, violence and power-over - let's shoot all of them also.  Might as well off the hookers because they hold a man hostage for more money.  Then there's the police - they hold people hostage in exchange for evidence, confession, statements, etcetera.  Let's throw in the U.S. Military because they hold our young people hostage, inflicting terror on new recruits during Basic to incite the rage response so they may willing go forward and risk life and limb, cover up, show faith to an entity that exists purely for use by the whims of people like Dubya?  Or large corporations who ship off their hard labor to third-world countries to make your $100 dollar Nike shoes, handcrafted by children under the age of 10 who get paid cents per week and can't leave the work camp.  If that's not a hostage situation, what is?
> 
> ...


You are getting me all wrong. I dont belive in negotiating with criminals doing things like hostage taking, bank robbing ECT. If it is known without a doubt who is doing this they should be givin one chance to stop there actions and surrender, if they dont, well.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Okay Gentlemen:
> 
> I am not a MODERATOR but I think the personal barbs should cease before they close the thread.
> 
> ...


I dont want this to become a flame. Im just having a debate thats all, there are no bad feeling toward anyone, no matter what there opinion, I find it very interesting to debate this with others.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 31, 2004)

Your would-be response to a situation like that sounds extreme to me.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Civil liberties! How is robbing a bank a civil liberty? If someone is going to go as far as doing something that extreme they should be wiped off the face of the earth. I bet you wouldnt be crying civil liberty if your mother was one of the hostages in that building. And what is there to prove, its right there on tape? There is a time to prove your case, but when your doing things like holding hostages, what needs to be proven?


Okay Saddam. Got it. You're right. I'm wrong.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

lol saddam, I dont belive in hurting innocent people, just bank robbers, kidnappers, rapists, hostage takers. I realize that you being a liberal, will have sympathy for these people, but I dont. Im going to change my screen name to saddam hehe :mp5: .


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 31, 2004)

So, I suppose you think being liberal is weak and killing offenders is strong?  I challenge that - I believe that as soon as I sink to the level of the bad guy, I become the bad guy.  And it's SO EASY to just off someone because they piss you off or break the law or whatever.  I think it takes guts to keep a jerk alive and dish out his punishment accordingly.

 Hmm...my five-year-old child just lifted a pack of gum from the store because I said no.  Should we just ship him off to juvey now?

 The sad thing here is that you really don't think there is anything wrong with what you're proposing.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2004)

Waiting for the video to download so I will hold my comments on that....as to SWAT teams rigging up remotes/kill switches et al to vehicles....as a SWAT cop myself I can say that unless an agency has one rigged just for such an occasion (dont know of any) that is movie fantasy and just isnt going to happen.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 31, 2004)

I was saying it is possible however possiblities are not real life lol. Ask me about the possiblities in Nursing care and I can tell you the reality of it lol. Just as any LE Person can tell you unless you walked the beat and wore the uniform it is difficult to second quess actions of LE. 

Mark E. Weiser
Former Reserve Deputy Sheriff here in Kansas


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> lol saddam, I dont belive in hurting innocent people, just bank robbers, kidnappers, rapists, hostage takers. I realize that you being a liberal, will have sympathy for these people, but I dont. Im going to change my screen name to saddam hehe :mp5: .


and to hell with 'innocent until proven guilty'. You go Girl!


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2004)

> I was saying it is possible however possiblities are not real life lol. Ask me about the possiblities in Nursing care and I can tell you the reality of it lol. Just as any LE Person can tell you unless you walked the beat and wore the uniform it is difficult to second quess actions of LE.
> 
> Mark E. Weiser
> Former Reserve Deputy Sheriff here in Kansas



LOL...yeah I hear ya. Just saw the video, while I give them an A for originality and artistic impression, the guy shouldnt have been allowed to wheel off. A tac team should have dropped him with an impact munition or a slug if the situation demanded it when the guy walked out of the building.

As a devils advocate...the guy was a fleeing violent felon. By the letter of the law, deadly force could be on the table. I wouldnt have signed off on this plan though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2004)

As with most stuff, we don't have the full info.  From the video clip and a few quick searches, the guy was claiming to have explosives and had threatened to use them.  He may have said something like "Im on a deadmans switch...", etc.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> and to hell with 'innocent until proven guilty'. You go Girl!


Why would you need proof if it is happening right there on camera?


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> So, I suppose you think being liberal is weak and killing offenders is strong?  I challenge that - I believe that as soon as I sink to the level of the bad guy, I become the bad guy.  And it's SO EASY to just off someone because they piss you off or break the law or whatever.  I think it takes guts to keep a jerk alive and dish out his punishment accordingly.
> 
> Hmm...my five-year-old child just lifted a pack of gum from the store because I said no.  Should we just ship him off to juvey now?
> 
> The sad thing here is that you really don't think there is anything wrong with what you're proposing.


Your trying to say I think people should die for stealing a pack of gum or pissing me off, thats not the case at all. Im talking about serious crimes were the person will not surrender. Someone could break my nose and I wouldnt kill them, but when you hold a bunch of innocent people hostage and threaten to have a hand grenade wich could kill everyone around you. Why should anyone go easy on a person like that.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 31, 2004)

Say Im in the local quickie mart and someone pulls a gun and demands money from thr register, I feel that person has lost there right to live at that moment, unless they surrender when told to. Now if they get away and get caught later of course its not right to hurt them now. I think your getting me wrong here.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 1, 2004)

Okay, perhaps I'm not understanding you - and I don't think you're understanding me.  I'm not boo-hooing this guy's rights and I recognize the possible need for deadly force in certain situations.  I'll back off a little, because on re-read, my original issue was with labeling this guy as a terrorist.  He is a criminal and a felon, clearly, and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner, but I think giving him one chance and then blowing him away is a bit extreme.

 I don't think you're gonna shoot a kid for stealing a pack of gum - I was using the analogy that sending a 5-year-old to juvey for stealing a pack of gum was as extreme as your one-strike-your-out suggestion.

 Fair enough?


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 1, 2004)

Interesting discussion.

First of all, I gotta give the cops in the video a solid 10.  Although a couple of bean-bags would probably have been just as effective (and a lot cheaper) the Evel Knievel stuff was too cool. 

As far as the way we handle hostage situations, armed criminals, etc.  To some extent I've got to go with James' opinion.  I personally believe that we have become so concerned with "political correctness" and so afraid of getting sued that the LEO's are often unable to act as quickly or as decisively as is necessary to resolve the problem.  As far as I'm concerned, if someone is holding hostages and threatenting to kill them, pop him.  Yeah, you can let the negotiaters yell at him and tell him to give up but if he doesn't, nail him.  Standing there and talking just means that you're  gambling with the lives of the innocent people that he/they are holding.  I'm not saying that negotiation should not be used as a method of crisis resolution, just that many times I think it's a waste of time (unless the negotiator is distracting the guy so the assault-team can get into position).


Yes I know, I'm a heartless bastard.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Why would you need proof if it is happening right there on camera?


Haven't you ever seen a magician? Don't you know that what you are seeing may not actually be what is happening?

Doesn't anyone study ETHICS anymore?

I believe the ETHICAL thing to do is to apprehend the perpetrator with the least amount of force that will be effective. At the point in the video where the police obstructed the motorcycle, there was no longer a threat to hostages, so the requirement of deadly force, while it might be legal because the perpetrator is fleeing, it would be unethical because he was no longer an imminent threat.

I see that once again, I have a very small minority view point on this. I must say that it disturbs me that so many who have experience with law enforcement and military engagment are not looking for the least invasive effective resolution to such conflicts.

Thank you. 

Michael


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2004)

> Haven't you ever seen a magician? Don't you know that what you are seeing may not actually be what is happening?


Kind of sounds like the "baby nothing happened, what woman? Theres nobody in our bed. I didnt do it..." defense.  Seriously, this was a crime in progress, not an investigation to determine who the offender was. The issue is the guy needed to be caught and the police in this case didnt seem to have an efficient plan to do so. I would have even suggested an immediate takedown once the guy got on the bike (personally I wouldnt have left that as an option but thats another story) and the hostages were away. Less lethal or otherwise. 

BTW anybody know how long this stand-off was? Was there time to get a tac team there? Or was it left to patrol?

Present an alternate apprehension scenario and we'll discuss it.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe the ETHICAL thing to do is to apprehend the perpetrator with the least amount of force that will be effective. At the point in the video where the police obstructed the motorcycle, there was no longer a threat to hostages, so the requirement of deadly force, while it might be legal because the perpetrator is fleeing, it would be unethical because he was no longer an imminent threat.


To work with this proposition then, I would consider stopping the offender with certainty, with zero chance of escape, is a lesser amount of "force" than allowing for any possibility of escape, that he must then be tracked, and hopefully found, not to mention the potential for more violent activity, after having evaded capture. 

So you're correct, he was no longer an imminent threat to the hostages he had held, rather, he is now an imminent threat to the rest of the civilian population outside the bank.  

I think that whatever capture tactic is necessary that can provide for the greatest probability of success is what is warranted.  I am not saying that this is the case here, as I am just not aware of what other alternatives they had at the time.  Time, by the way, is a crucial factor here as well.  I'm certain that they didn't have the time to have a sit down discussion as to which capture method would best serve their ethical standards.  That's what the debrief is for.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2004)

Perhaps not really applicable to this case, but an associated point.



*Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3rd 1143 (7th Cir. 1994) cert. Denied 115 S.Ct. 81 (1994)*
This case involved the shooting of a suspect who was wielding a fire poker. When the officer attempted to arrest him, he charged the officer with the fire poker and was shot by police. Plaintiffs who sued on behalf of the deceased claimed the officer did not use other means of force available to him at that time, listing disabling chemical spray, a police dog, and distance. The court stated "that to permit every jury in this type of case to hear expert testimony that the defendant would have been uninjured if only the police had been able to use disabling gas or a capture net or a Taser a municipality is liable because it failed to buy this equipment. The Constitution does not enact a police administrator's equipment list." _The court ruled that there is no legal "precedent" that requires an officer to utilize alternatives to deadly force._


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Perhaps not really applicable to this case, but an associated point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As you point out, this doesn't really parallel what was happening here. No law enforcement officer was being attacked.

If you are arguing that police can and should any means at their disposal, I fear for my country.

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2004)

I think you are jumping to conclusions....The only point Im making is that the "why did they shoot him when they could have beanbaged/tased/sprayed him" arguements have no basis in legal precedent. Why you are worried about what happened in Spain and drawing conclusions about US LEO's is another issue.

I also dont believe the decision in my cited case is predicated on an officer being attacked either. It just happens that one was in this instance.

Once again, why not present your arrest plan and we'll game it out.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I see that once again, I have a very small minority viewpoint on this.  I must say that it disturbs me that so many people who have experience with law enforcement and military engagement are not looking for the least invasive effective resolution to such conflicts.


 Agreed - who is it that once said that when you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to stop and reflect to ensure your opinion is warrented?



			
				kenpotex said:
			
		

> First of all, I gotta give the cops in the video a solid 10.  Although a couple of beanbags would have been just as effective (and a lot cheaper) the Evel Knievel stuff was too cool.


 Also, agreed.  I don't necessarily think the police action was necessarily out of line - it was expensive (I'm sure those funds could have gone somewhere else) and chancey.



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> So you're correct, he was no longer an imminent threat to the hostages he had held, rather, he is now an imminent threat to the rest of the civilian population outside the bank.


 So does this equate with terrorism in your opinion?  We toss that term around easily.  Did he terrorize those hostages?  Yes.  Did he terrorize the neighborhood?  Yes.  But can we use the term "Terrorism" in this fashion?  

 What I'm getting at is slapping a much more serious lable on this guy - what he did was bad enough.  If they are calling him a terrorist, what's next?  Is this the so-called liberal media tossing around a fun, popular word?  And how will this be tried?

 I must not be expressing myself well enough because we are all getting sidetracked on whether the force used was warranted.  Again - my major concern here is the use of the label of Terrorism where this non-political, drug-motivated hostage situation is concerned.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2004)

I think you are right. Terrorism has a political agenda. This was straight up crime.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think you are jumping to conclusions....The only point Im making is that the "why did they shoot him when they could have beanbaged/tased/sprayed him" arguements have no basis in legal precedent. Why you are worried about what happened in Spain and drawing conclusions about US LEO's is another issue.
> 
> I also dont believe the decision in my cited case is predicated on an officer being attacked either. It just happens that one was in this instance.
> 
> Once again, why not present your arrest plan and we'll game it out.


I don't have an arrest plan. I don't have the requisite skills and knowledge to put one together. So, in that game, you win, every time. 

Why not just follow the guy til the motorcycle runs out gas? Hell, if it was a bank robbery, just let him go. Go catch him tomorrow. 

Was there no action available that would use less violence, and yet still be effective? 

I guess it is how you measure 'effective' ... if 'effective' means to capture him as quickly as possible, regardless of the perpetrators health (and ability to stand trial / serve time), then by all means they were effective. If effective means capturing a perpetrator and bringing him to stand before the justice system, I have to believe there were less violent ways of handling this.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't have an arrest plan. I don't have the requisite skills and knowledge to put one together. So, in that game, you win, every time.
> 
> Why not just follow the guy til the motorcycle runs out gas? Hell, if it was a bank robbery, just let him go. Go catch him tomorrow.
> 
> ...


I think I already gave some of my options. First off hostage takers never go mobile. Negotiate for hours if you have to. Assault if you need to. If you do decide to give him a vehicle, disable it and take him out (less lethal or otherwise) when he gets on. The guys lucky he wasnt just shot through the brain with a .308, this guy wasnt just shoplifting. 

Follow a motorcycle? With a helicopter maybe. Those arent always as plentiful as Hollywood would have you think. Say you do chase him, he hops off the bike and you still have a guy who says he has a grenade in his pocket. Youve just moved the same problem to an uncontrolled area.

Just let a hostage taking bank robber go to "catch him another day"? Felons would just love that option. Walk out of the bank, hop in a car and drive off, the Cops arent going to do anything . In car chase scenarios where its unknown if the driver is just some scared kid without a license, your "run of the mill" car thief or some doper with a rock of crack on him, this is an option. That option isnt typically afforded to violent felons trying to flee from the scene. What if the guy ditches the cycle, carjacks a car and kills the driver? This guy has shown his intent to use violence (at least I think threatening people with a grenade qualifies) to get his way. Unknown pursuits are a different story. 

By all means if you can end the situation without violence than do it. However this guy placed himself in the situation, dont want to get killed, dont rob banks.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, expect a trial by jury of his peers, the right to speak in his own defense.
> . Mike



I couldnt watch the clip... It wouldnt play for me... and I am not advocating execution by the police... but...

If you are standing in a bank with a handgrenade holding people hostage and demanding drugs and money...

Isn't it plainly clear that you are guilty?  Does it need to be proven in court at that point before you are treated as someone who is less than innocent?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I couldnt watch the clip... It wouldnt play for me... and I am not advocating execution by the police... but...
> 
> If you are standing in a bank with a handgrenade holding people hostage and demanding drugs and money...
> 
> Isn't it plainly clear that you are guilty? Does it need to be proven in court at that point before you are treated as someone who is less than innocent?


Spain...Bank robber takes hostages and demands drugs/$$$...Says he has a grenade (is one displayed I dont know). The guy is allowed to exit the bank and get on a motorcycle. A few yards down the street. A cop car pulls into the bikes path, the guy does an AWSOME Evil Kenivel flip over the hood (the bike just explodes into pieces) and hes arrested. Apparently still alive and kicking.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Isn't it plainly clear that you are guilty? Does it need to be proven in court at that point before you are treated as someone who is less than innocent?


I have been arguing two seperate points.

1) Was there some less violent way of apprehending the person. 
2) The police do not determine innocence or guilt.

Many who have posted (although not all) seem to just want to cause this person pain because he is 'obviously guilty'. Forget the fact that the thread was started by claiming the person was a terrorist.

I must be wrong. So few can see my point of view, I must be living in a cave.

Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 1, 2004)

One of the MOST difficult things to deal with as a LEO is with non LEO's second guessing LEO actions. I have stated again unless you are willing to don the badge and wear the uniform You are back seat driving and a thorn in the side of LE. 

LEO often are restricted and are often put at higher risk due to Dept Policies that make certain sectors of the Population happy. In turn are often blamed when unable to do the ETHICAL thing in stopping crime from occuring. That is why LEO are often seen as reactive not proactive.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> One of the MOST difficult things to deal with as a LEO is with non LEO's second guessing LEO actions. I have stated again unless you are willing to don the badge and wear the uniform You are back seat driving and *a thorn in the side of LE. *
> 
> LEO often are restricted and are often put at higher risk due to Dept Policies that make certain sectors of the Population happy. In turn are often blamed when unable to do the ETHICAL thing in stopping crime from occuring. That is why LEO are often seen as reactive not proactive.


And this is how you go about seeking the support of the community? Gee, Thanks.

How does that saying go ... With friends like those .. . .


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have been arguing two seperate points.
> 
> 1) Was there some less violent way of apprehending the person.
> 2) The police do not determine innocence or guilt.
> ...


To respond,

1) Perhaps, and I've addressed that in my previous post. The situation is so dynamic and time constrained, that I don't begrudge them coming up with a quick and viable solution. As well, cutting off his bike is "probably" (read has the probability of) less immediately life threatening than a lump of lead in the ear.

2) You're right - police do not, and should not, make final judgement; but they must be able to exercise judgement. In this case they must judge how to neutralize the threat. You referenced the possibility of chasing and waiting for the bike to run out of gas - that's not neutralizing the threat - civilians are still placed in danger. 

I want to address this:



> I guess it is how you measure 'effective' ... if 'effective' means to capture him as quickly as possible, regardless of the perpetrators health (and ability to stand trial / serve time), then by all means they were effective. If effective means capturing a perpetrator and bringing him to stand before the justice system, I have to believe there were less violent ways of handling this.


The primary responsibility of the officer in this type of circumstance is to protect the public. So effective comes to mean any immediate and warranted actions necessary to achieve that goal.

Capturing a perpetrator and bringing him to justice is for a time when the public safety issue hasn't taken on this level of immediacy. In a nutshell, it's better to take the guy out than allow him to hurt another.

Why do you suppose the police carry a sidearm? When Joe Public's life is at risk, Constable X must draw and shoot. Is there another way to apprehend? Sure. Charge at the offender, take a few rounds in the chest, and hope you slow him down while your back up comes to join in the spray. Eventually, he'll be in cuffs, but only after people have been hurt. Admittedly, this is the British way, but that's not how we do things on this side of the puddle.

Shesula - no, I don't think that this can be labelled terrorism, provided it was merely a bank robbery. I also don't believe that anyone else posting in the thread would think it such. If so - speak up! Let your voice be heard!

Dan


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 1, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> In turn are often blamed when unable to do the ETHICAL thing in stopping crime from occuring. That is why LEO are often seen as reactive not proactive.


They are reactive, Mark. It's Government's job to be proactive - in developing crime reductive policy. The Law enforcement Community is a first response organization - reactive by definition.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 1, 2004)

From my experiences in LE one of the biggest grips of Senior Administration was the limitations placed on them by Government Personnel and then they(same Government Personnel) expect and demand eveen more protection by LEO's while restricting their (LEO) functions.  You can not have your cake and eat it too lol.

I hope that people will realize that LEO's are doing the best they can under current policies and mandates. 

The problem is under current regulations that bind the function of LEO's are often changed after an incident occurs in which those restrictions would have prevented the occurence in the first place. 

Case in point the LAPD incident with the Two Famous Bank Robbers. Many times LEO's have often asked for training, equipment, personnel, etc..... from those very same people and are often rebuked and turned down until the you know what hits the fan and then these very same people will get those request moving along.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Aug 2, 2004)

It just seems to me, the most simple way to handle someone doing something like that is to let it be known they have one chance to give up, and stop putting innocent people in danger, or they are going to die. Seems fair enough to me. If everyone knew that was the way things like that are handled, I bet no one would even try stuff like that anymore because they know they are NOT going to be respected in any way at all for there actions, and resorting to violence, and putting innocent peoples lives in danger for no good reason will most likely get you killed.
I dont think people like that deserve any type of respect for there actions, by respect I mean taking it easy on them, imagine if it was your wife or daughter being held hostage by this man, I bet you would feel the same way. Every man woman and child being held was someones son, daughter, mother ect. I would be so upset knowing my wife was being held hostage that I would want this man dead as quickly as possible so he could never do something like this again. 
I hate when people resort to violence to get what they want. Thats bad enough, but when you put innocent peoples lives at risk on top of it, that drives me freaking nuts. Why why why would someone do this? :tantrum: 
We need a zero tolerance policy on this type of violence, you get one chance to cut it out. Givee them a very clear warning.
 Sir or mam, we will not tolerate violence anymore in this country, you do not have the right to negotiate, surrender now and you will be givin a fair trail and no harm will be done to you, if continue you actions, we will use deadly force with extreme predjiduce. This is your first and final warning.
But that will never happen because it is to extreme for most people. I think alot of people would have to loose a family member to a violent crime before they would feel this way. I am all about provding people with protection, that way they know without a doubt that if they are a innocent victim in some kind of stick up, that person is going to pay dearly for putting there life at risk if they dont give up quickly.


----------

