Perhaps it can ask the shooter to "please put down your weapon, you have 40 seconds to comply", giving them an opportunity to surrender before unloading a machine gun into them[1].
So you agree with the other poster that is is possible to pull a gun and point it at them without killing them. What a roundabout way of pretending to disagree.
This is America. Law enforcement officers do not remove their firearms.
The law requires some minimal amount of adult supervision in childcare settings that was already violated when none of the supervisors were being interrogated. Sending one person to remove one child supervisor would have exacerbated that problem.
Sure, and that is a bad reason to go in guns blazing. It is even worse than if it was a hostage situation.
It is even worse if the subject capitulated and went outside. What could they do, take aim at someone and then get shot?
This is stupid trigger happy gangster style policing.
I feel bad for the guy having to die with his hands handcuffed behind his back. I mean - at least let him try to disarm his own bomb, he has nothing to lose.
Tell him you'll shoot him if he moves from the area, but otherwise back away and let him try.
I don't know why the article didn't really discuss this, but if you know that there are armed gamblers inside and are worried that they will be a danger to you, why not just announce that you are outside, have the people come out and just wait? Storming through the door with weapons drawn SPECIFICALLY because you believe that they are armed is probably the worst piece of logic possible. You are basically causing deaths with negligence at this point. But there isn't really much of an incentive to change this process when you get to murder whatever civilian you want and take their stuff and know that even if they fight back, they will go to prison for a very very long time. I don't get why this is the way things work.
reply