"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:32:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:24:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 18:31:54 -0800, wrote:

You couldn't begin to compare this situation with say, Kent State,
for
example.
I'm betting that by tomorrow, it will be a racial incident and that
the Reverend Jackson will be right in the middle of it.

Interesting though that it's the second Brazilian shot dead in the
past six months or so for refusing to respond to police commands.

Anyway, there were more witness reports of the guy talking about
bomb
that the two who said they never heard it, so it probably was a
good
shoot. Those guys have a tough job - I hope the Marshall can
handle
it without falling apart.
The fellow who was shot was a US citizen, and I believe he was a
native of Costa Rica.
Hmmm - report I saw said Brazil. Hey, critical incidents create a
lot
of fog and false impressions - the guys main mistake was not stopping
when he was told to.
Yeah, well, if he were suffering from a serious mental illness, he
might not have heard the commands or he might have thought they were
coming from spiders, or, well, who knows, eh?
Understood, but you can't make that kind of distinction in the middle
of a crisis situation. I'd bet it was horrible confused, the guy was
running, his wife was screaming - panic. The Marshal did the right
thing and can't be faulted for it as much as some would like to make
him the villain in this.

You know, I'm not saying they should be faulted. I'm simply saying there
should be a coroner's inquest. I also think marshals should be equipped
with tasers in addition to pistolas.

I wonder if a taser would be a good idea for use near an electrical
detonation device.

I wonder if a gun would be a good thing to use with a perp who has his
finger on a detonation trigger.

Although there's always the chance of one last twitch, a bullet in the
mouth/eye/throat (depending on angle) stops the action instantly. It hits
what snipers call the "plum".

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

You know, I'm not saying they should be faulted. I'm simply saying
there should be a coroner's inquest. I also think marshals should be
equipped with tasers in addition to pistolas.
I wonder if a taser would be a good idea for use near an electrical
detonation device.
I wonder if a gun would be a good thing to use with a perp who has his
finger on a detonation trigger.

Although there's always the chance of one last twitch, a bullet in the
mouth/eye/throat (depending on angle) stops the action instantly. It hits
what snipers call the "plum".


I wasn't aware the marshals had pumped their six shots into the guy's
mouth, eye, and throat. His head must have fallen clean off.

I didn't say that, and we don't know. What I *do* know for a fact is that
they're trained and expected to put the first shot in the head. This mandate
is completely different than that followed by a street cop. If you don't
understand why, think about it some more.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I would have tasered the guy.

No you wouldn't. You really don't know what a taser might do to an
electric detonator.

What would a bullet to do a guy who has his thumb on the plunger of a
detonating device?

That's unknowable. However, ask a cop what two bullets in the chest do to a
person who's in an altered state of consciousness (drugs, etc). Often, it
still leaves him able to threaten or struggle for at least a few seconds.



Make him release it?

You're offering up a straw man argument.

In that case, why do you suppose air marshals and certain other types of
marksmen are trained (with great difficulty) to shoot first at the head? To
show off? Because they get more points or something?

You have said you own a handgun. Would it be correct to assume that you've
pondered the possibility that you might have to use it against an intruder
in your home? Not point it and then argue. I mean USE it. If your answer is
yes, then have you spent any time at all reading about HOW to use it in
those circumstances?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Make him release it?

You're offering up a straw man argument.

In that case, why do you suppose air marshals and certain other types of
marksmen are trained (with great difficulty) to shoot first at the head?
To show off? Because they get more points or something?

You have said you own a handgun. Would it be correct to assume that
you've pondered the possibility that you might have to use it against an
intruder in your home? Not point it and then argue. I mean USE it. If
your answer is yes, then have you spent any time at all reading about HOW
to use it in those circumstances?


My home defense firearm is a shotgun. I've pondered whether I might have
to use it. Under the right circumstances, I would. I know how to use it.
But home defense is not the same as what we are discussing.

Now you're using NOYB's tactics: Changing the subject to avoid answering
important questions. You wondered what a head shot would do insofar as a
person's ability to use his finger. I explained that this is precisely the
shot that certain kinds of marksmen are trained to make FIRST. This is a
different approach than used in a typical defense situation. What I've just
told you are facts. Why do you think air marshals are trained to shoot this
way?

Again:

Why do you think air marshals are trained to shoot this way?

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:08:49 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 18:31:54 -0800, wrote:

You couldn't begin to compare this situation with say, Kent State, for
example.
I'm betting that by tomorrow, it will be a racial incident and that
the Reverend Jackson will be right in the middle of it.

Interesting though that it's the second Brazilian shot dead in the
past six months or so for refusing to respond to police commands.

Anyway, there were more witness reports of the guy talking about bomb
that the two who said they never heard it, so it probably was a good
shoot. Those guys have a tough job - I hope the Marshall can handle
it without falling apart.


The fellow who was shot was a US citizen, and I believe he was a native of
Costa Rica.

Apparently, he's been here since 1986. More than enough time to understand
shouted requests to show his hands, put down the bag, etc.

Sure, unless you suffer from a serious mental illness.

As I stated, hopefully there will be a coroner's inquest.

I hope they start doing them for abortions also.

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
You know, I'm not saying they should be faulted. I'm simply saying
there should be a coroner's inquest. I also think marshals should be
equipped with tasers in addition to pistolas.
I wonder if a taser would be a good idea for use near an electrical
detonation device.
I wonder if a gun would be a good thing to use with a perp who has his
finger on a detonation trigger.
Although there's always the chance of one last twitch, a bullet in the
mouth/eye/throat (depending on angle) stops the action instantly. It
hits what snipers call the "plum".

I wasn't aware the marshals had pumped their six shots into the guy's
mouth, eye, and throat. His head must have fallen clean off.

I didn't say that, and we don't know. What I *do* know for a fact is that
they're trained and expected to put the first shot in the head. This
mandate is completely different than that followed by a street cop. If
you don't understand why, think about it some more.

Do they not graduate skycop school unless they can put a shot in someone's
head from 50' feet away while standing on a platform that is pitching,
rolling and yawing? Or, how far away are they to make a head shot?

I don't know the details. You can post that question in rec.guns and I'm
sure one of the LEOs will be able to help.


I can make a head shot (small pie plate) reliably with a handgun at, oh,
25 to 50 feet, but that's while standing on terra firma and shooting at a
stationary target on a range, and without distractions.

I can do it, too, if I'm using ammo that the gun likes and I take my time.
But you and I don't have to worry about where the bullet might go if the
target moves. And, we're not using $2000.00 guns which have been extensively
tweaked by highly experienced armorers at Springfield, SIG or whatever brand
these guys are using nowadays.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Make him release it?

You're offering up a straw man argument.
In that case, why do you suppose air marshals and certain other types
of marksmen are trained (with great difficulty) to shoot first at the
head? To show off? Because they get more points or something?

You have said you own a handgun. Would it be correct to assume that
you've pondered the possibility that you might have to use it against
an intruder in your home? Not point it and then argue. I mean USE it.
If your answer is yes, then have you spent any time at all reading
about HOW to use it in those circumstances?

My home defense firearm is a shotgun. I've pondered whether I might have
to use it. Under the right circumstances, I would. I know how to use it.
But home defense is not the same as what we are discussing.

Now you're using NOYB's tactics: Changing the subject to avoid answering
important questions. You wondered what a head shot would do insofar as a
person's ability to use his finger. I explained that this is precisely
the shot that certain kinds of marksmen are trained to make FIRST. This
is a different approach than used in a typical defense situation. What
I've just told you are facts. Why do you think air marshals are trained
to shoot this way?

Again:

Why do you think air marshals are trained to shoot this way?

You asked whether I had thought about using a gun on an intruder and how I
would use it. I answered both questions.

My question about the head shot was this, in more simpler terms. If a perp
has his finger on a spring trigger that releases when he releases his
finger, and you shoot him in the head, what happens to the trigger?
It was only a rhetorical question.

There were two questions in the message. One addressed YOUR use of a gun.
The other addressed the reason why certain marksmen train for the head shot,
while cops (and you & I should) train for the chest shot first. If you
answered my question, you would have answered yours, too. Is it safe to
assume at this point that you do not know the answer?

Harry,
Using your logic, any terrorist who wanted to have some extra time to be
able to set off a bomb, all they would have to do is to "act like they were
manic or psychotic".

I think it is funny that the person who wanted to carpet bomb Iraq into the
stone age, now is upset when the Sky Marshals use deadly force because
someone is saying he has a bomb, tries to escape the Marshals, refuses to
lie down and reaches into his luggage.

Don't you think carpet bombing Iraq might have been a tad bit of overkill,
and allowing someone who makes bomb threats to reach into his luggage
"underkill"?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:24:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 18:31:54 -0800, wrote:

You couldn't begin to compare this situation with say, Kent State, for
example.
I'm betting that by tomorrow, it will be a racial incident and that
the Reverend Jackson will be right in the middle of it.

Interesting though that it's the second Brazilian shot dead in the
past six months or so for refusing to respond to police commands.

Anyway, there were more witness reports of the guy talking about bomb
that the two who said they never heard it, so it probably was a good
shoot. Those guys have a tough job - I hope the Marshall can handle
it without falling apart.
The fellow who was shot was a US citizen, and I believe he was a native
of Costa Rica.

Hmmm - report I saw said Brazil. Hey, critical incidents create a lot
of fog and false impressions - the guys main mistake was not stopping
when he was told to.


Yeah, well, if he were suffering from a serious mental illness, he might
not have heard the commands or he might have thought they were coming from
spiders, or, well, who knows, eh?




--
Energy independence: caribou witness relocation program.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Harry is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. He
knows the Marshal was right in what he did, but his local street cred
would suffer if he didn't take an opposing POV. :)

Tom,
Are you saying Harry just takes the opposing viewpoint to be difficult, that
he really doesn't believe what he says? You might be right, I have seen
Harry take strong stands on issues that are 180 degrees different than the
stand he took 30 days previous. That is the reason why he doesn't allow his
posts to be archived.

JimH,
How many sane suicide bombers are there?


" *JimH*" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 18:31:54 -0800, wrote:

You couldn't begin to compare this situation with say, Kent State,
for
example.
I'm betting that by tomorrow, it will be a racial incident and that
the Reverend Jackson will be right in the middle of it.

Interesting though that it's the second Brazilian shot dead in the
past six months or so for refusing to respond to police commands.

Anyway, there were more witness reports of the guy talking about bomb
that the two who said they never heard it, so it probably was a good
shoot. Those guys have a tough job - I hope the Marshall can handle
it without falling apart.


The fellow who was shot was a US citizen, and I believe he was a native
of Costa Rica.

Apparently, he's been here since 1986. More than enough time to
understand shouted requests to show his hands, put down the bag, etc.

Sure, unless you suffer from a serious mental illness.

As I stated, hopefully there will be a coroner's inquest.


So let me get this straight Harry. If one suffers from a mental illness,
claims to have a bomb, runs towards a building full of people, is ordered
to stop but does not...............that person should not be shot.

And how many sane and stable people would claim to have a bomb, run
towards a building full of people and then keep running when ordered to
stop by police?