40 minutes worth of negotiations with a maniac with a gun.....
Nice shot- one less piece of rubbish cleaned up.
Nice shot- one less piece of rubbish cleaned up.
Armed Standoff Downtown TO
- Thread starter Marbles
- Start date
True to a point.... but even a regular "beat cop" can use "lethal force" if he believes life is in danger.Sheik said:
The way I see it, there is one less wife-beating tool walking the streets.
This guy reminds me of that line from the Wizard of Oz..."If I only had a brain".
I have no sympathy for this type of coward, and I hope that the next guy who thinks that he's a tough guy when waving a gun in public gets exactly what he deserves...a well-placed .308 to the head.
They should give that sniper an award or something. That guy saved an innocent life.
This guy reminds me of that line from the Wizard of Oz..."If I only had a brain".
I have no sympathy for this type of coward, and I hope that the next guy who thinks that he's a tough guy when waving a gun in public gets exactly what he deserves...a well-placed .308 to the head.
They should give that sniper an award or something. That guy saved an innocent life.
Perhaps I've just been watching too much of those terrorist TV shows or movies.
It was my understanding that when there's a hostage situation, and it looks like they're about to lose the gunman (ie. he/she is starting to get irrational, angry, twitchty that sort of thing) the task force's job is always shoot to kill. They want to eliminate any remote chance of the gunman firing a shot at their hostage. That basically means a shot to the head. (which was what happened)
It was my understanding that when there's a hostage situation, and it looks like they're about to lose the gunman (ie. he/she is starting to get irrational, angry, twitchty that sort of thing) the task force's job is always shoot to kill. They want to eliminate any remote chance of the gunman firing a shot at their hostage. That basically means a shot to the head. (which was what happened)
Sniper is the best option to "solve" the situation.
A well-trained sniper can be a deadly arensal in a well-hidden, open area for ambush, assessination or eliminating the "tangos" like this one.
Like a sesaoned Marine Sniper. You can't be called a sniper when you can't be one shot one kill all the time under all kinds of adverse weather.
Based on the video clip. There could be 2 possible places or high ground around the union station where the ETF sniper can be sure to hit the target within 500 yards with the 7.62mm bullet "exited" from M24 Sniper rifle, or the civilian version the Remington 700s.
10x24 Leopold M3 Ultra scope is adequate for the sniper and the spoter beside him to zero in the head of the gunman, so that the single bullet can hit the area around the nose and the eye, disorient the gunman and guarantee the kill in seconds.
BTW, if the first bullet fails to kill the gunman on the spot, or worse miss, the chance of the hostage survival will be less than 50% by the time the second bullet hit the gunman.
And for those bleeding heart who think it's better to wound the gunman rather than kill him on the spot, that's even more dangerous since the gunman still pose serious threat to others around him.
There is no alternatives to this situation unless he is holding anything BUT gun.
Lastly, the police sniper proved his training really well and the taxpayer money is well spent.
A well-trained sniper can be a deadly arensal in a well-hidden, open area for ambush, assessination or eliminating the "tangos" like this one.
Like a sesaoned Marine Sniper. You can't be called a sniper when you can't be one shot one kill all the time under all kinds of adverse weather.
Based on the video clip. There could be 2 possible places or high ground around the union station where the ETF sniper can be sure to hit the target within 500 yards with the 7.62mm bullet "exited" from M24 Sniper rifle, or the civilian version the Remington 700s.
10x24 Leopold M3 Ultra scope is adequate for the sniper and the spoter beside him to zero in the head of the gunman, so that the single bullet can hit the area around the nose and the eye, disorient the gunman and guarantee the kill in seconds.
BTW, if the first bullet fails to kill the gunman on the spot, or worse miss, the chance of the hostage survival will be less than 50% by the time the second bullet hit the gunman.
And for those bleeding heart who think it's better to wound the gunman rather than kill him on the spot, that's even more dangerous since the gunman still pose serious threat to others around him.
There is no alternatives to this situation unless he is holding anything BUT gun.
Lastly, the police sniper proved his training really well and the taxpayer money is well spent.
That's why each have Glock sidearm with second set of magazineand Level I to II Kevlar bulletproof vest when he or she is on the beat.Quest4Less said:
True enough.Quest4Less said:
Then he is off the beat for minimum the next shift while he fills out all of the damn paperwork explaining why he unholstered his firearm.
On the one hand we empower them to protect us and on the other hand we handcuff them with paperwork.
Wanna know why occasionally a cop could lose his sidearm when he goes to the washroom and the sidearm somehow "flushed" away or worse "forget" to pick up after "minding his own business"?Nibbler said:
Don't flame me!
What is the distinction here between shoot and shoot to kill? Isn't it true that whenever a police officer pulls the trigger he is using lethal force and, by definition, shooting to kill? Police are trained to shoot for the largest portion of the target. For a human being that would be the chest area of the torso. (unless of course in a case like this hostage taking where the officer has the time and necessity to aim for an instintaneous kill shot.)
People need to understand, when a cop pulls the trigger it is under the most dire of circumstances and they DO NOT shoot to wound our disarm. They shoot to stop you so that you can take absolutely NO reciprocating action(read kill you). They don't go for the leg, they don't shoot the gun out of your hand. The risks of even attempting this are huge. THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES. If one pushes a situation to the point where an officer has the need to pull the trigger chances of survival are not good and even if one does survive, long term effects from your injuries are quite likely.
The boys in blue on front street yesterday deserve our congratulations and heartfelt thanks.
People need to understand, when a cop pulls the trigger it is under the most dire of circumstances and they DO NOT shoot to wound our disarm. They shoot to stop you so that you can take absolutely NO reciprocating action(read kill you). They don't go for the leg, they don't shoot the gun out of your hand. The risks of even attempting this are huge. THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES. If one pushes a situation to the point where an officer has the need to pull the trigger chances of survival are not good and even if one does survive, long term effects from your injuries are quite likely.
The boys in blue on front street yesterday deserve our congratulations and heartfelt thanks.
Wish I had the time ...
to participate in this, but I don't.
I will make one short comment:
There are huge numbers of advanced technologies for taking down individuals who are threatening harm to themselves or others without killing them. None of these are being used right now by our police forces.
I think it is disgusting that they shoot to kill - this is likely the most extreme case we have seen here, so its easy for people to jump on the yes wagon. At the same time, they have taken down teenagers in the street wrongly because of the same policies.
In my opinion, I want those protecting me to behave better than those from whom I am being protected. I want to know that their repertoire of behaviours and responses is far greater and more practiced than the perpetrator. I also want to know that they won't use their criminal tactics on me by accident, and that if I do run into them, I can count on the law being properly upheld rather than ignored because of their privilige. (Similarly, I don't think they should be allowed to lie to me to continue an investigation - but that is a continuation of this issue on another tack)
I want to know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, and that means that the good guys put more thought, care, and concern into how they behave and the consequences of their behaviour. The individuals with whom they interact are agitated, overwrought, scared, perhaps psychotic, and not in a position to think slowly or rationally - the same cannot be said for law enforcement.
The fact that two different negotiators were unable to make a change in the situation speaks to their skills, or lack thereof. Or, perhaps keeping the guy under threat of death didn't help the negotiation.
The justification for the kill was that he was brandishing the gun, but if the negotiators could talk to him for so long, the opportunity for a different kind of take-down existed. And the what-if game being run now about the jammed gun is just so much ass-covering.
I'm particularly concerned that training for these situations is extremely poor, that the reliance on kill shots means that other avenues of appropriately and less violently/tragically de-escalating such a situation is not even explored. Why don't we have any of the new non-kill weapons?
Criminals (may) kill, cops should not (especially as a first shot).
to participate in this, but I don't.
I will make one short comment:
There are huge numbers of advanced technologies for taking down individuals who are threatening harm to themselves or others without killing them. None of these are being used right now by our police forces.
I think it is disgusting that they shoot to kill - this is likely the most extreme case we have seen here, so its easy for people to jump on the yes wagon. At the same time, they have taken down teenagers in the street wrongly because of the same policies.
In my opinion, I want those protecting me to behave better than those from whom I am being protected. I want to know that their repertoire of behaviours and responses is far greater and more practiced than the perpetrator. I also want to know that they won't use their criminal tactics on me by accident, and that if I do run into them, I can count on the law being properly upheld rather than ignored because of their privilige. (Similarly, I don't think they should be allowed to lie to me to continue an investigation - but that is a continuation of this issue on another tack)
I want to know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, and that means that the good guys put more thought, care, and concern into how they behave and the consequences of their behaviour. The individuals with whom they interact are agitated, overwrought, scared, perhaps psychotic, and not in a position to think slowly or rationally - the same cannot be said for law enforcement.
The fact that two different negotiators were unable to make a change in the situation speaks to their skills, or lack thereof. Or, perhaps keeping the guy under threat of death didn't help the negotiation.
The justification for the kill was that he was brandishing the gun, but if the negotiators could talk to him for so long, the opportunity for a different kind of take-down existed. And the what-if game being run now about the jammed gun is just so much ass-covering.
I'm particularly concerned that training for these situations is extremely poor, that the reliance on kill shots means that other avenues of appropriately and less violently/tragically de-escalating such a situation is not even explored. Why don't we have any of the new non-kill weapons?
Criminals (may) kill, cops should not (especially as a first shot).
In all the police activity during the last 10 years was there ever a more appropiate time to use lethal force. If the cops weren't to shoot then when would they.
PS. I was about 1 km from the scene inside a Go Bus circling the station
PS. I was about 1 km from the scene inside a Go Bus circling the station
Point Taken Leatherdoll, and perhaps there are times in which the police do not act as cautiously as they should (although I believe that your post may stem from a personal run in of some sort with the police). I would say however that I believe the vast majority of police officers to be very conscientious professionals that do there utter best to protect the safety of the people.
However, in the case of a man holding a hostage after showing his complete disregard for the safety of others (as witnessed by shooting a gun in a crowded food court). They have pretty good indications that he is very capable of harming people. If he has a gun to someone's head, doesn't that make you think they are probably in danger. I applaud the Toronto Ploice Service and the ETF (one of the most highly trained police services in the world).
Additionally to your point about them being able to bring some less lethal force to bear... As many posters have pointed out, they couldn't have done that without giving him a chance to fire. Additionally, the fact that it was in an open area without any near concealment, they couldn't get close enough to try anything... Even if this were the movies which colors so many people's perceptions of what is possible.
The men and women that faced this danger on Wednesday did so for us. They were protecting the thousands of people pouring into the downtown core for the start of work - and one very frightened woman guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that his gun jammed was unknown to the police and I don't think it covers their ass at all, it makes this situation ever more tragic. Although I remember thinking that he must have been out of ammo when hearing that he had only pistol whipped his wife when he got to her. Again this is information that came out later.
http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040826-005/page.asp
Let me ask another question of everyone... Had things gone the other way and the young lady were killed by this psychopath, would we now be yelling at the police for not shooting him to put an end to this sooner?
Bubbie
However, in the case of a man holding a hostage after showing his complete disregard for the safety of others (as witnessed by shooting a gun in a crowded food court). They have pretty good indications that he is very capable of harming people. If he has a gun to someone's head, doesn't that make you think they are probably in danger. I applaud the Toronto Ploice Service and the ETF (one of the most highly trained police services in the world).
Additionally to your point about them being able to bring some less lethal force to bear... As many posters have pointed out, they couldn't have done that without giving him a chance to fire. Additionally, the fact that it was in an open area without any near concealment, they couldn't get close enough to try anything... Even if this were the movies which colors so many people's perceptions of what is possible.
The men and women that faced this danger on Wednesday did so for us. They were protecting the thousands of people pouring into the downtown core for the start of work - and one very frightened woman guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that his gun jammed was unknown to the police and I don't think it covers their ass at all, it makes this situation ever more tragic. Although I remember thinking that he must have been out of ammo when hearing that he had only pistol whipped his wife when he got to her. Again this is information that came out later.
http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040826-005/page.asp
Let me ask another question of everyone... Had things gone the other way and the young lady were killed by this psychopath, would we now be yelling at the police for not shooting him to put an end to this sooner?
Bubbie
Not sure whether your quote was sarcasm or not, but I will respond as though it is not...Pete Graves said:
Apparently the suspect was armed with a sawed off 22 calibre rifle. While modifying a weapon makes it illegal, anyone who has gone through the appropriate background check and been issued a license by the police can purchase a rifle much like the one used. They used to be called FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate), not sure what the paperwork is called now.
Canada Firearms Centre probably has better details:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/default.asp
I guess he sawed it down so that it could be concealed, although that is probably what saved his wife's life. A 22 is not a very powerful rifle to start with, but cutting down the barrell in a manner that the shooter did, you decrease muzzle velocity and accuracy. Those more conversant in guns and such could probably give better details.
Bubbie
