markd_nscr986 0 #51 August 5, 2005 ***No I'm not. Targets don't shoot back. I do. good calland thanks for your insight....... For those of you unfamiliar with handguns,rifles, shotguns,close quarters tactical situations...... I shoot weekly at a "steel and paper" practical match....anywhere from 120 to 160 rounds.....in a controlled enviroment,without "targets" shooting back.......my hands still wobble from the running and the adrenalin......and occasionally a "no shoot" takes a round or two........and I have been doing this for years........so just imagine......... in an uncontrollled enviroment with shots being fired at you..........even with extensive training and practice.....rounds will end up where they shouldn'tMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #52 August 6, 2005 QuoteI've been searching the net for facts about this event. The neighbor in harms way has never been mentioned. Combine that with the fact that SWAT had control of the area for 2 1/2 hrs, does it seem strange (convenient?) to you that a neighbor is suddenly in harms way? Try this http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/national/main708355_page2.shtml An excerpt QuoteAt one point, Lemos retreated into an apartment building, where police said he held the girl hostage. Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man; when they at one point attempted to help a neighbor escape the area, he fired at them and they fired back, McDonnell said. Quote The fact that you try and justify it speaks well of your loyalty, but little else. How about we not make this personal, OK? I know the type and quality of people that are on large SWAT teams and I base my judgement on that. Also, I've seen nothing confirming that 100 rounds were fired but I haven't started questioning your integrity. QuoteA neighbor might be harmed so you pump 100 rounds into the area and say fuck the kid?!?!? What kind of professional makes this decision? Where did you come up with this decision cycle? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #53 August 6, 2005 QuoteQuoteI've been searching the net for facts about this event. The neighbor in harms way has never been mentioned. Combine that with the fact that SWAT had control of the area for 2 1/2 hrs, does it seem strange (convenient?) to you that a neighbor is suddenly in harms way? Try this http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/national/main708355_page2.shtml An excerpt QuoteAt one point, Lemos retreated into an apartment building, where police said he held the girl hostage. Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man; when they at one point attempted to help a neighbor escape the area, he fired at them and they fired back, McDonnell said. Quote The fact that you try and justify it speaks well of your loyalty, but little else. How about we not make this personal, OK? I know the type and quality of people that are on large SWAT teams and I base my judgement on that. Also, I've seen nothing confirming that 100 rounds were fired but I haven't started questioning your integrity. QuoteA neighbor might be harmed so you pump 100 rounds into the area and say fuck the kid?!?!? What kind of professional makes this decision? Where did you come up with this decision cycle? The decision cycle was yours. You said they started firing when a neighbor was threatened ...so they unleashed a shit storm. I made no comment concerning your integrity. Your loyalty is admirable, to an extent. It does, however, reinforce the historic problem with police review of such incidents. We all have situations where our emotions, feelings of loyalty, etc cloud our judgment. Dude, 100 rounds (your referenced article says 300 but that was from the childs mother who watched her baby's head disintegrate so I figure she might be a little too emotionally involved to be fair. jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #54 August 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteBTW...the "willing target" comment....dude, if you're SWAT, then you are willing and you are a target. No I'm not. Targets don't shoot back. I do. Ha! THIS guy (the target) did! Unfortunately, the cops also got the kid.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #55 August 8, 2005 QuoteThe Russians tried the sleeping gas trick, and ended up killing most everyone, including the hostages They used the wrong gas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #56 August 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe Russians tried the sleeping gas trick, and ended up killing most everyone, including the hostages They used the wrong gas. Hindsight is always 20/20... By the way, what gas would you recomend to the SWAT teams that would neutralize a guy with a gun (and possibly on drugs) without harming a toddler? A civilian can critizice a soldier. No problem with that, as you seem to be able to critizice the SWAT without belonging to them or being in the situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #57 August 9, 2005 In a perfect world, and on the movies, the sniper always has a clean line of sight to the suspect and everything is crystal clear. It rarely happens like that in real life. Subjects like to move around, walk behind stuff, and generally not stay with the plan. Plan? "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #58 August 9, 2005 Quote...A civilian can critizice a soldier. No problem with that, as you seem to be able to critizice the SWAT without belonging to them or being in the situation. Soooooo....only a SWAT can criticize a SWAT....now THAT'S going to be productive, I can tell.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #59 August 9, 2005 I was being ironic, Rhino always says that unless you have served you have no credibility at all when speaking about military or war, yet he is doing the very same thing here with the SWAT teams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #60 August 9, 2005 It seems to me, you're biggest problem with this encounter is the fact that they shot 100 rounds. I haven't seen that stated yet, but I'll go with that number for now. How many bullets should the police be allowed to shoot when faced with an individual who poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or another person? Don't give some subjective answer. Tell me based on your knowledge and experience what a reasonable response should be limited to. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #61 August 9, 2005 QuoteA neighbor might be harmed so you pump 100 rounds into the area and say fuck the kid Yeah, we get with the bad guys and come up with a plan about how the crisis is supposed to play out. The bad guys keep screwing it up. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #62 August 9, 2005 QuoteIt does, however, reinforce the historic problem with police review of such incidents. We all have situations where our emotions, feelings of loyalty, etc cloud our judgment. So, if I disagree with you, it's because my judgment is clouded. If I agree with you, does that make me objective and fair? Maybe my experience in matters of this nature gives me a better understanding of what actually happens and what is or is not possible. Just a thought. QuoteI made no comment concerning your integrity. I'll reconstruct your post and maybe you can explain what you meant better. QuoteI've been searching the net for facts about this event. The neighbor in harms way has never been mentioned. This seems to imply that you don't believe my comment that a neighbor was involved in the shooting. QuoteCombine that with the fact that SWAT had control of the area for 2 1/2 hrs, does it seem strange (convenient?) to you that a neighbor is suddenly in harms way? This seems to imply that you believe the neighbor story was added for someone's convenience? I'm not sure what the 2 1/2 hour time frame has to do with any of this. If you weren't questioning my integrity, please explain what you meant. BTW, it doesn't seem strange. This loyal dog is eagerly awaiting your response. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #63 August 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt does, however, reinforce the historic problem with police review of such incidents. We all have situations where our emotions, feelings of loyalty, etc cloud our judgment. So, if I disagree with you, it's because my judgment is clouded. If I agree with you, does that make me objective and fair? Maybe my experience in matters of this nature gives me a better understanding of what actually happens and what is or is not possible. Just a thought. A mother's knowledge and expertise does not make her an objective judge on the beauty and intelligence of her children. I find myself in the position disagreeing with mom's assessment. QuoteI made no comment concerning your integrity. I'll reconstruct your post and maybe you can explain what you meant better. QuoteI've been searching the net for facts about this event. The neighbor in harms way has never been mentioned. This seems to imply that you don't believe my comment that a neighbor was involved in the shooting. QuoteCombine that with the fact that SWAT had control of the area for 2 1/2 hrs, does it seem strange (convenient?) to you that a neighbor is suddenly in harms way? This seems to imply that you believe the neighbor story was added for someone's convenience? I'm not sure what the 2 1/2 hour time frame has to do with any of this. If you weren't questioning my integrity, please explain what you meant. BTW, it doesn't seem strange. Yes, it does strike me as convenient. Perhaps it's true. Neither of us knows. The police had 2 1/2 hours to secure the area. By the police account, they did not. Even if true, the massive response is unacceptable. Surely you can see this. Perhaps one of the things to be reviewed is the manner in which SWAT secures the surrounding area. This loyal dog is eagerly awaiting your response. Your loyalty to your unit and SWAT in general is admirable. If I were you, I might also see an Indian attack and circle the wagons. It would, however, call into doubt my ability to objectively view the situation. What I see as a viable review is looking into procedures, decision making and command structure. As I said, I'm not trying to hang anyone here. I would like to prevent such an unacceptable result in the future. Yes, loyal dog, it was unacceptable. jen "It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place." -H. L. Mencken----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
