|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 8, 2005 9:49:06 GMT -5
'said story' I was checking the news for the morning and say this. Near as I can tell the marshal made the right choice, but it is sad that the choices of others have created a situation were this sort of thing will happen.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Dec 11, 2005 15:32:46 GMT -5
That's quite interesting though. Do you think something like this could have been prevented? I mean it seemed like it was a very difficult situation to try to figure out when many lives could have been on the line. It was only after they shot hi tha they find he had nothing on him.
What would you guys have dne in that situation?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 11, 2005 17:35:16 GMT -5
Not really. The reason being that I believe that if he had a bomb and nothng (like all those whining about the death are claiming should have been done) was done there may well have been several lives lost. The needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few, or the one, as in this case.
It is my opinion that the Marshalls did the right thing. I would have done the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Dec 11, 2005 23:09:48 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by cenk on Dec 12, 2005 13:30:04 GMT -5
Couldn't the Marshals just have shot a teaser at him or something to immobilise him instead of killing him.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 12, 2005 14:18:52 GMT -5
Stun guns are large, have very limited range and while they often work they do not always work (particularly with persons who are on drugs). In situations where it is believed that there is a bomb and the lives of many people are at stake trying to be nice and just stunning the person carries a lot of risk.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 28, 2005 10:46:51 GMT -5
I can think of a thousand ways it could have been avoided, but all of them involve better discretion on the part of his wife.
|
|