The Police Lied

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

Lucasa

If a mistake was made in id’ing the guy fix it. If it was bad intel fix it. It appears that the shooter killed the guy because he thought he was going to detonate on a train because that is what previous terrorists have done then it’s a judegement call. And if you don’t back your man up in that situation you are not only a poor leader but shouldn’t be charged with leading men in that situation. As anyone who has ever lead men in combat or life or death situations would realize.

You put a man in that position and sometimes he will make mistakes. To think that it won’t happen is unrealistic. Perfection happens only in movies and at cocktail parties.

To say that position is based on someones support of President Bush is hyseterically funny.

102

Hedo, people are willing to admit that mistakes happen, and that isn’t the whole issue here at all.

I’ll even agree with Snipe in that in tense situations the adrenaline flows and mistakes can be made.

However, that doesn’t mean that we have to give this a pass without looking at it. It doesn’t have to be politicized to be examined.

The guy doing the ID taking a piss, so that no ID could be made. That is a problem. Having a process where a positive ID is assumed by members of the operation when it hasn’t been made, that is a problem. Having some member on the team who’s so gung ho to shoot a terrorist that a guy with no packages and making no threatening moves is shot, seems like a poor call.

There are problems in there. They should not be glossed over, as you say, they should be fixed.

However, there is a bigger problem, and that is covering up the problems and lying to the public. That is a different animal altogether. Of course, there is a brotherhood built up by people that risk their lives together.

Presumably everybody knows this. Even in that situation, there are men of courage and conscience who will do what is right, instead of simply letting their principles be trampled. I know it is not an easy choice.

It just depends on which principles you place higher priority. Do you violate the trust or bond you have with others, or do you violate your own principles and values instead.

I’d like to think that people who are in charge of administering the rules of society place the values of a society above their own at times. Principles of law and justice should be applied even when it comes at a personal cost and at personal pain…

A lost job, lost friends, a divorce, or whatever. Short of death, these are the prices that someone gets to pay to keep society working the way it should.

103

[quote]hedo wrote:
Lucasa

If a mistake was made in id’ing the guy fix it. If it was bad intel fix it. It appears that the shooter killed the guy because he thought he was going to detonate on a train because that is what previous terrorists have done then it’s a judegement call. And if you don’t back your man up in that situation you are not only a poor leader but shouldn’t be charged with leading men in that situation. As anyone who has ever lead men in combat or life or death situations would realize.

You put a man in that position and sometimes he will make mistakes. To think that it won’t happen is unrealistic. Perfection happens only in movies and at cocktail parties.

To say that position is based on someones support of President Bush is hyseterically funny.[/quote]

I’ve made no assertions about this incident AND President Bush. The only reason I mentioned the two in the same post is because RJ made a jab at me even though I was on his side. I wanted to clearly delineate to Rainjack that I am pro-Bush but against the shooting of this civilian. I’m categorically agreeing with you on this issue, one’s feelings about the President should have little to no bearing on the situation at hand.

So, if the shooter [quote]thought he was going to detonate on a train because that is what previous terrorists have done[/quote], why was the subject shot dead ON THE TRAIN (arguably not running)? Not only was he shot, he was shot 8 times. Not a double or triple tap, but seemingly as few as 5 and as many as 8 from one shooter. Sounds like overzealousness to me, the kind that needs to be rectified. You’re right, I’m not fit to lead these men into combat. Oh wait, this wasn’t combat nor a life or death situation. BTW- How many times in combat or life or death situations do you get to push your opponent to the floor and nearly unload a clip? Another BTW, how many men under your command (or are we on the same playing field here)?

104

[quote]Ferrum wrote:
hedo wrote:
Lucasa

If a mistake was made in id’ing the guy fix it. If it was bad intel fix it. It appears that the shooter killed the guy because he thought he was going to detonate on a train because that is what previous terrorists have done then it’s a judegement call. And if you don’t back your man up in that situation you are not only a poor leader but shouldn’t be charged with leading men in that situation. As anyone who has ever lead men in combat or life or death situations would realize.

You put a man in that position and sometimes he will make mistakes. To think that it won’t happen is unrealistic. Perfection happens only in movies and at cocktail parties.

To say that position is based on someones support of President Bush is hyseterically funny.

I’ve made no assertions about this incident AND President Bush. The only reason I mentioned the two in the same post is because RJ made a jab at me even though I was on his side. I wanted to clearly delineate to Rainjack that I am pro-Bush but against the shooting of this civilian. I’m categorically agreeing with you on this issue, one’s feelings about the President should have little to no bearing on the situation at hand.

So, if the shooter thought he was going to detonate on a train because that is what previous terrorists have done, why was the subject shot dead ON THE TRAIN (arguably not running)? Not only was he shot, he was shot 8 times. Not a double or triple tap, but seemingly as few as 5 and as many as 8 from one shooter. Sounds like overzealousness to me, the kind that needs to be rectified. You’re right, I’m not fit to lead these men into combat. Oh wait, this wasn’t combat nor a life or death situation. BTW- How many times in combat or life or death situations do you get to push your opponent to the floor and nearly unload a clip? Another BTW, how many men under your command (or are we on the same playing field here)?[/quote]

Well I’ve commanded up to 16 men at a time. I never pumped bullets into someone at close range but I have fired 120MM apds rounds into armored vehicles…just to make sure they were dead even though they were not moving, simple because we didn’t want potentially live tanks behind us. An officer of higher rank told me to do that and I didn’t question the validity of his orders or his wisdom.

I 've also waited for the enemy to clear a vehicle before hitting it a second time with the main gun of my tank. I’ve seen others cut them down with a .50cal. I didn’t judge those men and they didn’t judge me. No time for that during a battle. However if one of my men on the flank told me to turn and fire I would and did. What I am trying to say is that men in combat come to rely on others.

This argument is getting kind of old. We have all made our point and knowledge comes from different perspectives. These guys killed a guy to prevent carnage. Hidsight being 20/20 says it was a bad call. That sucks. Too some that have had to kill or risk being killed it’s understandable. To others it isn’t. That’s not going to change.

Vroom-

I agree with the majority of your last post. Not that far away.

105

Hedo, I would say that I’d expect different behavior out of civilian authorities than the military in a combat situation.

I don’t know that they are appropriately comparable.

From the military perspective, I don’t think I’d be able to find fault with your viewpoint. From the civilian viewpoint, I expect different priorities to be upheld.

Is that fair?

106

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo, I would say that I’d expect different behavior out of civilian authorities than the military in a combat situation.

I don’t know that they are appropriately comparable.

From the military perspective, I don’t think I’d be able to find fault with your viewpoint. From the civilian viewpoint, I expect different priorities to be upheld.

Is that fair?[/quote]

Sure it’s fair.

Differnet viewpoint but I don’t think either is wrong.

If I was that poor bastard I’d have killed the guy if I thought he had a bomb and he was a terr. It’s a shame that the shooter got bad info and I hope that the Brits get their house in order about it.

107

Hedo,

[quote]vroom wrote:
The guy doing the ID taking a piss, so that no ID could be made. That is a problem. Having a process where a positive ID is assumed by members of the operation when it hasn’t been made, that is a problem. Having some member on the team who’s so gung ho to shoot a terrorist that a guy with no packages and making no threatening moves is shot, seems like a poor call.
[/quote]

And I’m saying that we can’t just hand the guy a ‘get out of jail free’ card just because he pulled the trigger, especially because this was a civilian environment not on the field of battle and additionally because there is the potential for this action to recur. If this happens again, and again, and again, I can’t believe that the shooter is ALWAYS automatically innocent. If he’s not always innocent, then his actions need to be investigated.

Look, if he didn’t accept the fact that he might one day shoot a civilian, he probably shouldn’t put on his piece and shield. He should be able to justify his actions before a jury. Between the arguably excessive rounds he put in the guy’s head and the coverup that ensued afterword, I get the distinct feeling he (among others) can’t.

And I see no reason to not to publicize this. I’m not demanding publicity for the murder trial, but not refusing it, as for the coverup, that should be shouted from the highest hilltop. If he’s guilty of murder, I think the pro’s should get the message to keep their shit tight (and adrenalin in check) and this shooter should get a very long break before he sees anyone in his crosshairs again if ever and if not guilty, then his guilt alone will be enough. This is much more fair than what his victim received and as much as any civilian would receive.

108

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
I have a down jacket that I bought years ago. Everytime I wear it, people ask “aren’t you too warm?”, and every time I explain how it’s an old jacket, it has lost almost all the down, and now, although it looks “bulky” is little more than a windbreaker. Ever since I heard this story, whenever it’s a little brisk, and I put on my old jacket, I thank God I live in Canada, where I (for the time being) won’t get tackled and executed for looking suspicious.

Don’t you guys share the same Queen?

I would ditch the jacket.[/quote]

Buy me a new one and I will. You can send he cash right to my paypal account.

109

I predict spandex and form fitting clothes will be the new fashion.

This way, anyone can check all our packages at a glance and know who’s really got the dynamite down their pants.

Learn to love it…

110

[quote]vroom wrote:
I predict spandex and form fitting clothes will be the new fashion.

This way, anyone can check all our packages at a glance and know who’s really got the dynamite down their pants.

Learn to love it…[/quote]

Am I the only one who looks for oportunities to strip excessively when going through airport security? Unfortunately-- or perhaps fortunately for the screeners and society at large-- I’m clean cut, white and affluent and about as unsuspicious as they come. I think they know better than to search the people who are drunk in that fun night at the bar way, as opposed to the scared shitless to fly drunk types. Oh well, I’ll get my chance yet.

111

Most if not all the posts here have some relevance to the siuation. But I believe that a big part of the problem was simply fear that someone was going to set off another bomb and the men involved were not going to let that happen no matter what .

With that being said as with all endeavors training to the point where it becomes second naturewould probably improve future response. I would think that with this situation the powers that be will not accept fault.{regret and mistakes go hand in hand,move along learn from the mistake to prevent future regret.