|
Vancouver RCMP Taser, Assault & Kill Polish Man at Vancouver Airport (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstring
Here. I'll play devil's advocate.
Assume the man is a dangerous super-criminal with 4 submachines, a pack of explosives stuck to his chest, and a predator-like ray gun on his shoulder -- UEBER dangerous in other words. Are you going to approach him and taze him? No way - you first find out what he wants.
Why was this situation any different? Why would police approach someone like that without figuring out who this guy is and what he wants?
Yea, just taze him, go go go! Whoopie! Accidental death! sowwy :( |
Thanks for a laugh.
Let's breakdown your scenario.
There is this dangerous super-criminal. So we know he's dangerous.
4 submachineguns. Normal people carry submachinguns? Therefore, dangerous.
Pack of explosive on his chest. Not normal. Therefore, dangerous.
Predator like ray gun. Dangerous.
Clearly all signs point to that this dude is dangerous, even if we do not know exactly what he wants, based upon the fact that he has weapons he can use to kill someone.
How would I approach the situation?
I'd stay way the back out of the blast radius of the explosive (hopefully) and I'd communicate using a megaphone. (Oh, and ensure I have plenty of back up pointing guns at this guy)
Dude doesn't comply with my demands that he disarm himself immediately and step away from his weapons, and first sign that I see, for example, he's showing signs that he's pointing a weapon at me, or is reaching for the trigger device for the bomb, I put rounds into his chest.
I'm not going to risk getting shot or other people hurt, esp. knowing this is a dangerous criminal. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
We don't think we're better than you guys, but we understand a bit better exactly how a cop think in this situation because of our experience, and we want to see more facts before we make a judgement. |
The actions of law enforcement agents have to make just as much sense to those they are 'protecting', as to those they are working with. The RCMP is hiding behind the slogan that we as the public cannot pass judgement because we were not involved, because we are not trained to handle that situation.
If their actions do not make sense to the very people who hire them, pay them, and give them that responsibility, they are not doing a good job.
EvilTree, I understand what you are saying: we need more info. To me, the facts seem pretty clear. Had there been another altercation which we could not see on the film, I would have agreed with you, but we saw the only confrontation, in its entirety, that took place. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by FunkyCrew
i dunno if this was mentioned, but why couldn't the police just tackle him down and hand cuff him? |
That's what most people are asking. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
The actions of law enforcement agents have to make just as much sense to those they are 'protecting', as to those they are working with. The RCMP is hiding behind the slogan that we as the public cannot pass judgement because we were not involved, because we are not trained to handle that situation.
If their actions do not make sense to the very people who hire them, pay them, and give them that responsibility, they are not doing a good job. |
I agree with you for the most part, but the thing is, police work is not easy to understand, nor does the public understand all the procedures, techniques and whatnot.
So what you may see seems wrong, but may be legit under police rules and procedures.
I don't think anything we see is clearly black or white as people seems to want.
| quote: |
EvilTree, I understand what you are saying: we need more info. To me, the facts seem pretty clear. Had there been another altercation which we could not see on the film, I would have agreed with you, but we saw the only confrontation, in its entirety, that took place. |
Fair enough, and I've already expressed my own doubts about the cops handling of the situation.
In case some of you fail to understand my point, I AM NOT CONDONING THE RCMP HANDLING OF THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION |
|
|
| Superstring |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
How would I approach the situation?
I'd stay way the back out of the blast radius of the explosive (hopefully) and I'd communicate using a megaphone. (Oh, and ensure I have plenty of back up pointing guns at this guy)
|
KEY WORD -- COMMUNICATE. Which clearly wasn't done in this place. Thank you for proving my point.
A. Man dangerous. Communicate, find out what he wants. He doesn't comply - kill him.
B. Man NOT dangerous. Leave him alone.
Pick, what is it? And don't tell me, a quick walk up to the guy with a "what's the problem, sir" is communication. |
|
|
| Superstring |
Condolences to the victim's mother can be sent to:
Mrs. Zofia Cisowski
174 St Paul St, # 205
Kamloops, BC
V2C 2H9
Fundraising for the Victim's Mother:
"Zofia Victims Trust"
Valley First Credit Union
Kamloops Branch
100-180 Seymour Street
Kamloops, BC
V2C 2E3
www.valleyfirst.com/locations/kamloops
(contact them if you have any concerns about the legitimacy of this fund) |
|
|
| djeso |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
It is easy for us to be armchair generals by looking at one piece of evidence and couple of news articles and judge someone to be guilty.
|
It is pretty easy look it's easy math
5 officers and 1 man out of control = tasered at least twice (confirmed)
Video speaks for itself, I guess shoot and ask questions later is a better way. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstring
KEY WORD -- COMMUNICATE. Which clearly wasn't done in this place. Thank you for proving my point.
A. Man dangerous. Communicate, find out what he wants. He doesn't comply - kill him.
B. Man NOT dangerous. Leave him alone.
Pick, what is it? And don't tell me, a quick walk up to the guy with a "what's the problem, sir" is communication. |
Are you nuts? You're willing to walk up to a DANGEROUS CRIMINAL (by your own words) who's got a freaking bomb strapped on his chest.
I've said that I'd communicate with the criminal safe distance away, using a megaphone. (or whatever device I can use to talk to the criminal)
My primary concern is to disarm the man so that he's no harm to anyone. At this point, I don't give a whether he's going nuts because the cookies in his oven is burnt. I want this dangerous criminal disarmed so that he's not capable of harming anyone, and then I'd find out what he wants.
The fact that he's a dangerous criminal (I'm guessing he's been ID as having previous criminal record or such) and the fact that he's got a gun and bomb communicated to me that this dude is probably dangerous.
Once you're dealing with a situation in a guy has a weapon, the situation escalated more than simple talking to a loud annoying jerk on a street. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by djeso
It is pretty easy look it's easy math
5 officers and 1 man out of control = tasered at least twice (confirmed)
Video speaks for itself, I guess shoot and ask questions later is a better way. |
I've also taken into consideration the other threads in which the cops used tasers, and people were jumping on the cops pretty fast, and those situations were less ambiguous than this RCMP one. |
|
|
| Superstring |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I've said that I'd communicate with the criminal safe distance away, using a megaphone. (or whatever device I can use to talk to the criminal) |
There you go. This wasn't done.
Man dead. Criminal negligence. End of story. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstring
There you go. This wasn't done.
Man dead. Criminal negligence. End of story. |
Actually no.
We're only talking about your hypothetical scenario. Not the RCMP one. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
We're only talking about your hypothetical scenario. Not the RCMP one. |
Read the thread title... We are talking about this RCMP one.
Your arguments are going very far. |
|
|
|
|
