Dru Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 The bomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 $$ Rule. It would be inconceivable for our society to simply vacate the building and leave the guy alone for a few days until he's tired and lonely. Even if there's a 50/50 chance he'd detonate the grenade (if it were live), there's a 50/50 chance he'd lay it down on the floor and walk out of the building after thinking it over for a few hours (without 17 firearms pointed at his head from 25 feet away). But NO, our politicians and law enforcement can't stomach the fact that someone won't obey them immediately and comply with their commands. Shutting down the federal building for a few hours would cost <gasp> thousands of dollars. If he detonates the grenade (which might just as easily happen in his final moments after being shot) it would cost even more! What's a life worth? I asked this same question a few years ago as I watched a rooftop police sniper prepare to take out a troubled hotel guest about 9th and Denny in Seattle. The hotel was evacuated, police in place, the sniper had a buddy covering his backside, and the stage was set. I worked in a nearby building with a view of the sniper's rooftop and the hotel balcony window. I had to leave before the assasination....I couldn't bear to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 $$ Rule. You're right. Generally, in this world, monetary value holds priority. And, in this political sovereign state, democratic mechanisms determine some governmental policies. Do you believe the voting public would support your prefered policy? My intention is not to imply either policy as correct, but simply, to recognize the way of the world. You may construe the world shops for ideas at Simpletons-R-Us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 if the grenade had been live (which it appears there was really no way of knowing), the dude holding it was not the only life at stake. the safety of the public and the other people involved is a driving factor. reduce that to $$ ... or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 dood..how'd I get a cake by my name?? That's a pretty freak'in sweet feature here at the CC world...I love you guys!! YEAH for me!! what would be even cooler is if you got a REAL cake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 if the grenade had been live (which it appears there was really no way of knowing), the dude holding it was not the only life at stake. the safety of the public and the other people involved is a driving factor. reduce that to $$ ... or not. not if they vacate the building (which they did), lock him in, confine him to the lobby, and leave him alone! who else is involved then? Sure, put up a SWAT team in the event he tries to throw an espresso machine thru the window and leave with the grenade, but short of that I think we should give disturbed citizens a little time and space to work it out and end the event peacefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 if the grenade had been live (which it appears there was really no way of knowing), the dude holding it was not the only life at stake. the safety of the public and the other people involved is a driving factor. reduce that to $$ ... or not. I agree completely. Imagine yourself in a situation like this. If some guy came up to me and convinced me that he was going to blow me up with a grenade, I would not aim for his leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Crash Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 I wouldn't aim for his leg either. But I thought the wrist of the hand holding the grenade isn't a bad choice (yes, if you miss and get the grenade instead, oops; if you miss and he detonates, oops). Anyway... It's time for somebody to invent a projectile that can neutralize someone immediately w/o killing him/her. drC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 I wouldn't aim for his leg either. But I thought the wrist of the hand holding the grenade isn't a bad choice (yes, if you miss and get the grenade instead, oops; if you miss and he detonates, oops). Anyway... It's time for somebody to invent a projectile that can neutralize someone immediately w/o killing him/her. drC yeah, or at least a grenade that doesn't go off after the owner has been shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griz Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 So the only way they could have him drop his grenade was to shoot him dead? All these elite shooters can't aim for other body parts and incapacitate him? drC if a cop has to use a gun then he is required to shoot to kill. there is no in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 if a cop has to use a gun then he is required to shoot to kill. there is no in between. I'm glad to hear that... ...I'd rather be dead than get shot there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griz Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 or ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.