Originally Posted by Andy W
Just to play devils advocate, couldn't we make the argument that the police choosing to take the suspect down in a crowded area as they did actually posed more danger to the public than did the original shooting? If I remember correctly, the guy was only there to shoot a couple of people with whom he had a dispute, not to go on a shooting spree and harm the general public. After he shot the two people he was after, he would have left. However, the police showed up and engaged in a gunfight with the suspect in a crowded street outside the Empire State Building, which greatly increased the amount of bullets flying through the air and as a result also increased very significanly the danger to the general public. Of course, The responding officers most certainly would not have known what the suspect's intentions were and therefore thought it best to try and neutralize the suspect immediately. After all, he had just shot two people. However, I think the shootout between the police and suspect undeniably had the result of placing the people in the area in greater danger than the original shooting did. The police could not possibly have known this at the time and therefore could not be expected to have considered it, but that's what happened.
Just putting that out there.
Nice to have the luxury of being able to call the play on Monday morning.
and if the suspect had taken a hostage, ot wasn't done yet?
If the guy had killed one more person after the police had him spotted then they would be getting blamed for NOT taking him immediately
Society asks these people to do things most people are unwilling and unable to do. on a good day, when everything goes perfectly, they still end up with at least 25% of the armchair experts telling them that they should have done it differently. I think we should be grateful that we have people still willing to make thosed decisions at all.
"Success has many step-fathers, but failure is an orphan"