Now THAT'S how you take down an armed suspect..

[Tik-Tok]

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Well experts in the field, with far more experience in these situations than anyone here on beyond, together with all of the facts in hand, have deemed it was a proper take-down. Can't get much more proof than that.

Then in that case i will delete all my posts and make it sound like i was never wrong.

Cool. I retract my previous statements. I believe it may have been reckless but since experts with way more knowledge than i will ever have in this area say it's legit. Then it's legit.

it'd kinda suck to be the guy who owned the wall though.

[clem24]

Originally posted by sexualbanana

What I'm saying is, wouldn't a couple shots in the back result in far less collateral damage?

This was addressed by the chief or the guy talking to the media... You've got the luxury of hindsight and sitting behind the computer and not having your life on the line. Anyway, the gist is that sure they COULD'VE tried to shoot him but had they missed, the guy can turn around and pound off a few shots and do some real damage.

Just so many what-if's that could've happened, but didn't because he was taken out in the best manner possible.

Police did nothing wrong. He had it coming to him (or possibly wanted to be shot). Don't want to get hit by a police cruiser? Don't walk down the street with a gun.

[Arash Boodagh]

Didnt read thread.
Suge Night ran over and killed people, they call it murder. So the "pro cops action" members here should have no problem with a drone shooting a missile at this perp.
No warning to surrender.

[googe]

Originally posted by revelations

uuuuh .... because they fired at the cops first with a semi-automatic rifle of some kind? (AR-15?)

Absolutely tragic, but the cops had little choice once they were fired upon.

The cops had the obvious choice, which would have caused no deaths.

Don't chase.

Yeah, bank robbers will get away. Not worth killing the hostages over.

Stupid decision really.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by googe
The cops had the obvious choice, which would have caused no deaths.

Don't chase.

Yeah, bank robbers will get away. Not worth killing the hostages over.

Stupid decision really.

Are we still talking about the guy who just burned down a church?

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mibz
Are we still talking about the guy who just burned down a church?

He's talking about the other news story posted where the suspect shot the cops and the cops shot back and killed the hostage along with the shooter.

[msommers]

Fucking. Sweet.

[zieg]

[rob the knob]

Originally posted by ZiG-87

[Traffic_Cop]

Originally posted by ZiG-87

LMAO!!! thats awesome.....welcome to internet policing.

Great post

[zieg]

Originally posted by rob the knob
[B]

heh thanks.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by rage2

He's talking about the other news story posted where the suspect shot the cops and the cops shot back and killed the hostage along with the shooter.

Ah, yeah, that makes more sense.

[revelations]

Originally posted by googe


The cops had the obvious choice, which would have caused no deaths.

Don't chase.

Yeah, bank robbers will get away. Not worth killing the hostages over.

Stupid decision really.

If the cops didn't chase, they would've been castigated by the family of the victim for not doing so - sure they could've let a helicopter follow the vehicle instead but how long from the time of the robbery to the time the suspects started shooting at the police?