Posted:
#26
Got ém both. Took awhile but man, those CBP hunters are good.
One Down and One to Go on the Escaped Convicts
Posted:
#28
Don't get me wrong--a very bad fellow and deserved it, I guess. But the Sgt. just shot the unarmed dude as he was running away? Because he '...feared he would lose him'. And they are hailing the Sgt. as a hero? Okay...I guess. Just doesn't seem too heroic to shoot someone, maybe in the back, as they are running away. I guess you have to assume he would be armed. But he is running away and certainly not aiming a gun or firing back.
I understand the point of catching, or stopping, this fellow at all costs. It just doesn't set right on some level. I could also see how this couldn't been interpreted differently had the circumstances been slightly different. Some unarmed criminals it is seen as heroic to shoot but the media, while others it is perceived completely differently.
I get that this guy was assumed armed and very dangerous. I know everyone was edgy and scared. But this is to me the same atmosphere that causes cops to shoot people in situations not too far removed from this. Running from cops is never good. Or being overly aggressive. You just never know how someone with a gun will react in situations like that. Adrenaline, fear, obligation to duty, etc.
Very glad they got them. Just a tad interesting the way the views of the media are in these situations.
Posted:
#29
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Don't get me wrong--a very bad fellow and deserved it, I guess. But the Sgt. just shot the unarmed dude as he was running away? Because he '...feared he would lose him'. And they are hailing the Sgt. as a hero? Okay...I guess. Just doesn't seem too heroic to shoot someone, maybe in the back, as they are running away. I guess you have to assume he would be armed. But he is running away and certainly not aiming a gun or firing back.
Don't get me wrong--a very bad fellow and deserved it, I guess. But the Sgt. just shot the unarmed dude as he was running away? Because he '...feared he would lose him'. And they are hailing the Sgt. as a hero? Okay...I guess. Just doesn't seem too heroic to shoot someone, maybe in the back, as they are running away. I guess you have to assume he would be armed. But he is running away and certainly not aiming a gun or firing back.
I understand the point of catching, or stopping, this fellow at all costs. It just doesn't set right on some level. I could also see how this couldn't been interpreted differently had the circumstances been slightly different. Some unarmed criminals it is seen as heroic to shoot but the media, while others it is perceived completely differently.
I get that this guy was assumed armed and very dangerous. I know everyone was edgy and scared. But this is to me the same atmosphere that causes cops to shoot people in situations not too far removed from this. Running from cops is never good. Or being overly aggressive. You just never know how someone with a gun will react in situations like that. Adrenaline, fear, obligation to duty, etc.
Very glad they got them. Just a tad interesting the way the views of the media are in these situations.
See your point but he was a dangerous, escaped convicted murderer on the loose. Completely differerent ballgame.
Sadly we have to pay the other guys hospital bill... 
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
See your point but he was a dangerous, escaped convicted murderer on the loose. Completely differerent ballgame.
Sadly we have to pay the other guys hospital bill...
True---I got no problem with that. Very sad to almost wish he didn't make it either.
Yes. Very dangerous. Cannot really fault the guy. Probably the first and only time he had confronted this situation.
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Don't get me wrong--a very bad fellow and deserved it, I guess. But the Sgt. just shot the unarmed dude as he was running away? Because he '...feared he would lose him'. And they are hailing the Sgt. as a hero? Okay...I guess. Just doesn't seem too heroic to shoot someone, maybe in the back, as they are running away. I guess you have to assume he would be armed. But he is running away and certainly not aiming a gun or firing back.
Don't get me wrong--a very bad fellow and deserved it, I guess. But the Sgt. just shot the unarmed dude as he was running away? Because he '...feared he would lose him'. And they are hailing the Sgt. as a hero? Okay...I guess. Just doesn't seem too heroic to shoot someone, maybe in the back, as they are running away. I guess you have to assume he would be armed. But he is running away and certainly not aiming a gun or firing back.
I understand the point of catching, or stopping, this fellow at all costs. It just doesn't set right on some level. I could also see how this couldn't been interpreted differently had the circumstances been slightly different. Some unarmed criminals it is seen as heroic to shoot but the media, while others it is perceived completely differently.
I get that this guy was assumed armed and very dangerous. I know everyone was edgy and scared. But this is to me the same atmosphere that causes cops to shoot people in situations not too far removed from this. Running from cops is never good. Or being overly aggressive. You just never know how someone with a gun will react in situations like that. Adrenaline, fear, obligation to duty, etc.
Very glad they got them. Just a tad interesting the way the views of the media are in these situations.
In my opinion, with a convicted murderer on the loose, having escaped from prison and a presumed immediate threat to anyone ( including a motor home/camper ) in his path, the state police should have been ordered to shoot to kill. Period. Shoot to kill.
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
In my opinion, with a convicted murderer on the loose, having escaped from prison and a presumed immediate threat to anyone ( including a motor home/camper ) in his path, the state police should have been ordered to shoot to kill. Period. Shoot to kill.
In my opinion, with a convicted murderer on the loose, having escaped from prison and a presumed immediate threat to anyone ( including a motor home/camper ) in his path, the state police should have been ordered to shoot to kill. Period. Shoot to kill.
They were instructed stk.
Posted:
#34
Convicted murderers don't have to worry about being shot in the back if they don't escape from prison. Do the crime do the time.
Whether this guy was running at the cop or running away from him he should have been shot.
I can just hear him trying to explain what happened if he didn't shoot him. "Well I didn't want to shoot him in the back and he wouldn't stop so I let him get away instead".
Hot Forum Topics
