The 9/11 Republican

[PS]

Your simple, one-sentence responses are great for dodging issues at hand. I maintain my ViperZero=SuperCobraJet equation.

Tell him to go and read the "Questioning Religion" thread. Otherwise it means nothing, which they both seem to agree on. *cough* POSTDODGER!!!11*cough*

 

[Famine]

So, just a quick summary...

Racybacy still can't find the other 397 bullets.

[...]

As the pictures above showed, only one bullet is shown penetrating the windshield.

[...]

Of course not. If the two other people in the car were injured by gunfire, then there has to be at least 2 more bullet holes, but the pictures by from Yahoo News do not show them.

[...]

I'm still waiting for the other 397 bullets.

Perhaps...

the pictures by from Yahoo News do not show them.

You're assuming too much. For a start, if three people in the car were injured, that would only require two bullets (most likely). You're then assuming from a right-side and front-right quarter picture and spotting only one bullet hole (I count four, by the way), only one bullet was fired - are soldiers only stationed at one side of a military checkpoint? And finally, 400 rounds could be fired, but only 1 hit (or "at least four", in this case)...

 

[ledhed]

One fifty cal could have easily killed or wounded everyone in the car depending on the angle of entry remember a fifty cal is used as an light air defence round and an armor piercing round. The other wounds could be caused by shrapnel ..I have seen nothing to indicate what TYPE of wounds they are. Also by what proccess did you determine that 400 rounds were fired ? Its an assumption based on speculation and inuendo. this thread in fact is based on what ? In any rate a law rocket would have made this conversation moot.
They should have had one.

 

[Famine]

One fifty cal could have easily killed or wounded everyone in the car depending on the angle of entry remember a fifty cal is used as an light air defence round and an armor piercing round. The other wounds could be caused by shrapnel ..I have seen nothing to indicate what TYPE of wounds they are. Also by what proccess did you determine that 400 rounds were fired ? Its an assumption based on speculation and inuendo. this thread in fact is based on what ? In any rate a law rocket would have made this conversation moot.
They should have had one.

I have not determined anything. The content of the "news" stories and photographs does not give any particular credence to any version of events.

However, all of the occupants received "gunshot wounds" - and this is unlikely to be reported if they were on the end of a light artillery round.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

Famine - I think he meant .50 cal (M82A1A sniper rifle and some machine guns fire this round - it isn't considered "artillery" but I can see the confusion between .50 cal and 50 cal).

It is also the round the Desert Eagle (handgun) is chambered for.

EDIT: in hindsight it doesn't really matter because 1) the rounds are most likely 7.62 NATO rounds fired from M16's. 2) If the soldiers did decide to fire, they should not have fired just 1 or 2 shots. Just like in law enforcement, if lethal force is used, it should be LETHAL. If you shoot someone, you shoot them to kill them because that is the only way to remove the threat that justifies the use of lethal force in the first place. One could argue that the soldiers didn't carry out their mission because they failed to kill everything in the car when they decided to fire on it (nevermind questions about whether or not they should have fired in the first place).

 

[ledhed]

Ahhh but Mr Famine a .50 cal machine gun round CAN cause shrapnel wounds . Any high kinetic energy round can. Also flying glass from a windshield could be considered shrapnel along with broken pieces of the cars interior. shrapnel does not have to be part of the penatrating round itself , it can and many times is part of what a round passes through on its way to a target. for example shootong through a cyderblock wall at a group of soldiers standing behind it for cover is liable to wound or kill a group of them because the cynder block wall exit pieces join the projectiles with a velocity sufficient to penetrate soft tissue.

 

[PS]

Famine - I think he meant .50 cal (M82A1A sniper rifle and some machine guns fire this round - it isn't considered "artillery" but I can see the confusion between .50 cal and 50 cal).

It is also the round the Desert Eagle (handgun) is chambered for.

EDIT: in hindsight it doesn't really matter because 1) the rounds are most likely 7.62 NATO rounds fired from M16's. 2) If the soldiers did decide to fire, they should not have fired just 1 or 2 shots. Just like in law enforcement, if lethal force is used, it should be LETHAL. If you shoot someone, you shoot them to kill them because that is the only way to remove the threat that justifies the use of lethal force in the first place. One could argue that the soldiers didn't carry out their mission because they failed to kill everything in the car when they decided to fire on it (nevermind questions about whether or not they should have fired in the first place).

What Const. Jeff Hunt said:

Neither police, nor army personnel are taught to shoot to kill. They're taught to encourage the threat to cease and desist, if they do not, then force may be used. If lethal force is determined to be the only way to stop the threat, then by any means necessary, they will neutralize the threat until there is no longer any imminent danger.

Well that's what the cop at my school says anyway (I've asked that quesiton a few times before).

 

[Minnesota01R6]

my 2 roommates are cops. They are taught to put 2 rounds to the chest and 1 to the head. I am not saying the cops are supposed to try to kill the suspect, but they are supposed to shoot them in the two areas most likely to kill them because it is the best way to stop the threat. I guess I mixed up my terminology since, to me, shooting someone in the chest and head is "shooting to kill."

 

[ledhed]

dude the army is taught to shoot to kill..they are not cops. cannons , cluster bombs , fuel air explosives , mines ...grenades..missles and rockets along with with small arms will encourage you to cease to exist. anyone who tells you different is blowing smoke up your pipe.
No police training I have ever heard of teaches a shot to the head except for special circumstances and under controlled conditions. Shooting is always center mass for many reasons .
When ever a police officer uses his weapon , he is using deadly force and is supposed to follow his or her guidlines in the use of it. Any use of a weapon has the potential to be deadly so they are supposed to be very carefull as to when they commit to it.

What your school officer is saying is " surrender or die " only in different words

 

[a6m5]

my 2 roommates are cops. They are taught to put 2 rounds to the chest and 1 to the head.

That's special forces stuff, right there. I don't think we("civilians") are supposed to know that cops in your area are being taught to shoot the suspects same way Navy SEALS take out the enemy. Police in our area are being taught to use lethal force as the very last resort.

P.S. I'm not comparing cops in the U.S. to the troops in Iraq. That's an totally different situation. Anybody trying to force their way thru any U.S. Military checkpoints in Iraq can expect to be shot and killed IMO.

 

[Minnesota01R6]

Police in our area are being taught to use lethal force as the very last resort.

My roommates aren't being taught to use anything different than anywhere else in the state or the country. Lethal force is used only as a last resort. The cops here carry OC (mace), an asp (billy club), a tazer, a 9mm beretta, and an AR-15 in their car. The continuum of force dictates that as threat to the community or officer increases, so does the amount of force that can be used to stop or apprehend the suspect. The first stage in the continuum is police presence and verbal commands, the last is deadly force. Once deadly force can be used, it is necessary to TRY to put 2 shots center of mass and 1 to the head because many people (especially people on drugs) can have superhuman strength and can still attack for up to 2 minutes after being shot in the chest (police call these people "walking dead" and one recently stabbed a St. Paul cop to death after the cop put several rounds "center of mass"). If the person is still standing, 1 to the head will stop their brain from communicating with their body, thus stopping the suspect from attacking or fleeing and coincidentally ending their life.


The same thing goes for the military in their current role in Iraq. They are essentially a police force, and are trained to act the same way. According to the minnesota statute, police can use lethal force:

(1) To protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

(2) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.

I would suspect that the military is operating under similar rules of engagement, and as long as they reasonably believed the car contained terrorists bent on killing people, they were in the clear.

Reference: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/066.html

 

[carkmouch]

have any of you "in the middle" people ever looked at the Libertarian Party?

check it out for yourselves and you might like it www.lp.org