NEWS: Police Shoot Man In US Federal Court

A man with a backpack strapped to his back and a WWII grenade in his hand has been shot in a Seattle courthouse. The man was shot after he was refused entry to a secure part of the building and refused to co-operate with police. The man is said to be in a very serious condition. His motive is still unknown.



Could this be an attempt to disrupt the sentencing of Ahmed Ressam, or was it just yet another nut who wants to blow himself up for five minutes of fame?

Whoever it was the police were right to shoot him and did an even better job by not killing him.

This incident just goes to show that the Tazer is not the best non-lethal means of subduing a suspect that all the police departments claim it to be. Just fire your gun, but don't go for the 9 or 10 point shot. A 4 or 5 point shot will stop most anyone, will be non-lethal and sends a much more accurate message to those considering challenging the cops.

Suspects don't need to be electrocuted until they are firmly strapped into a chair with a little metal helmet on...
A la Saturday Night Live...what you need is a good bleeding!

This incident just goes to show that the Tazer is not the best non-lethal means of subduing a suspect that all the police departments claim it to be. Just fire your gun, but don't go for the 9 or 10 point shot. A 4 or 5 point shot will stop most anyone, will be non-lethal and sends a much more accurate message to those considering challenging the cops.

Suspects don't need to be electrocuted until they are firmly strapped into a chair with a little metal helmet on...
A la Saturday Night Live...what you need is a good bleeding!

That's not what I got out of this, but to each his own. Firing a handgun at a person with "non-lethal intentions" is not at all a replacement for firing a non-lethal weapon at a person.

I suspect you don't want to get into the implications of a "non-lethal" gunshot policy. Among them, for starters, would be a new defense for people convicted of attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon - "attempt to non-lethally injure with a deadly weapon..." Do you really want to go swimming in these waters?

"We the jury find the defendent 'not guilty' of attempted homocide due to the fact that we cannot find the defendent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt due to his defense of firing non-lethally, as supported by the police officers' new handgun policy supporting non-lethal injury."

I can see it now...

EDIT: To add, of course, I'm not sure how familiar you are with handguns, but accuracy is by no means a guarantee for any shooter - especially not a law officer who is only required to fire 1000 rounds per year.

Zip

[edit on 6/20/2005 by Zipdot]

The lethal/non-lethal force isn't something I got out of it at all either...

One thing I'm curious about, is there any word on what was in the backpack? I didn't see anything when I checked out the link, I might have missed it though.

EDIT: To add, of course, I'm not sure how familiar you are with handguns, but accuracy is by no means a guarantee for any shooter - especially not a law officer who is only required to fire 1000 rounds per year.

The blind leading the...

Handguns can be, AND ARE, very accurate weapons. The only real limitation is the range of that effectiveness. I would guess that this guy was shot within twenty five yards. Any halfway decent shooter can "pick and choose a limb" at that range with a familiar handgun.
A police officer or lawful citizen with 1000 rds a year at the range will always be better than a crack addict with 10 shots in an alley.

Your comparison is relative. Your argument is without base. I never spoke about the accuracy of the gun, I spoke about the accuracy of shooters. It is subjective -- fallible. I don't know why you added the "blind leading the..." statement, but it smells like an ad hominem to me.

I shoot over 1000 rounds a year. I consider my accuracy to be very good. Would you trust me to shoot apples on your grandmother's head for practice? Maybe you'd prefer that I shoot a Tazer gun at apples on your grandmother's head for practice instead. (EDIT, given the two choices, and only those two choices.)

How about if I was shooting a handgun at an apple atop your grandmother's head while chaos broke out all around her, other family members were running to and fro amidst criminals, and every movement and decision I made was fueled by adrenaline?

Zip

[edit on 6/20/2005 by Zipdot]

Handguns can be, AND ARE, very accurate weapons. The only real limitation is the range of that effectiveness. I would guess that this guy was shot within twenty five yards. Any halfway decent shooter can "pick and choose a limb" at that range with a familiar handgun.

Yes, your comaprison is VERY weak. True, a skilled shooter can "pick and choose a limb" as you say, but real life is not at the range..at the range you have time, which is not a luxary to those of us that may be in a position to make that decision. In most deadly force encounters (you and a threat with means to kill you) you do not have time to "aim" in on the threat. And 90% of the time the distance will be within 10 feet.

Good and proper police training teach you to shoot center mass and incapacitate (kill) the target....why do they do this? If you have a bomb on your back with a trigger in your finger....or a gun in your hand and I shoot your leg or your arm, what's to say that you cannot finish the job and pull that trigger? Even after you get hit your body could have enough momentum to go forward and stab me with that kinife.....that's we we shoot centermass.

The torso is much easier to hit than a leg or an arm....and when he/she is aiming in on you, you only do what you can to stop them.

[edit on 20/6/2005 by SportyMB]

Point well taken, however...
This guy was holding a "GRENADE" an explosive device made to kill or incapacitate many people in a large radius. A taser may have given him the opporunity to pull the pin.
If I were the cop I would have taken a head shot just to be safe. This guy is lucky to be alive.

Is this the man with the paper cutter who ran into the building with a grenade in Seattle? Because I just sah iot on the news about 4:40 Pacific time.

Shot once in the head (Pistle) and once in the chest (Shotgun)

All the PAper cutter (Defence?) would do is make shapnle fly into your chest.

This guy was holding a "GRENADE" an explosive device made to kill or incapacitate many people in a large radius. A taser may have given him the opporunity to pull the pin.

Im not saying use a tazer on this guy.....Im saying unload on him. And yes he could pull the pin, that's why we shoot to stop...and wounding is not stopping.



[edit on 20/6/2005 by SportyMB]

I agree with most people, this guy should have been wearing a new zipper. Let's go over this again for all the police-hating freaks out there:

Create threat fo a lethal nature= you get shot.

Guy's lucky to be a live, but give it a few days and hopefully that'll change.

DE

Actually, part of a Taser's incapacitation process is to cause temporary paralysis. Having aimed at a limb or head, whether you hit your target or miss and hit a thirteen year old girl - in either case, you would have to answer as to why you selected that target.

I can tell by your romanticism of handguns, shooting, and accuracy that you have never taken a concealed carry handgun class and have not been subjected to law enforcement handgun training.

As you are no doubt unaware, shooting somebody in the head does not guarantee that they will become completely incapacitated. Even suicide victims that shoot themselves with certain common trajectories in their temples will be subject to all kinds of movement after the shot, including biting their tongues off, convulsing, et cetera - not to mention the fact that they may continue breathing and vomiting. This could easily provide enough movement, even if unintended to provoke the explosion of a device on their person.

Zip

To clarify, I believe that the correct course of action was taken in this instance, though I do not see how this relates either positively or negatively to the ongoing arguement about Taser weapons.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
To clarify, I believe that the correct course of action was taken in this instance, though I do not see how this relates either positively or negatively to the ongoing arguement about Taser weapons.

Zip

I think they should have shot his legs and arms but not his head and chest, they could have gotten some answers or info out of him.

But when a guy has a grenade, I think that the Force wont care about saving his life when he's a threat to others (lifes) and using Tasers.

Hmm... Tasers, sounds like seafood

Immagine invisability.


.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by The Surrealist]

I think the point to the story is what was the guy doing there and what did he hope to accomplish. Could it be part of a bigger event? Thats what I want to know.

As for when LE uses lethal vs non-lethal is a whole different discussion best suited to be answered by those in LE. It is not always as black and white as the general public would like to think.

Originally posted by The Surrealist

Originally posted by Zipdot
To clarify, I believe that the correct course of action was taken in this instance, though I do not see how this relates either positively or negatively to the ongoing arguement about Taser weapons.

Zip

I think they should have shot his legs and arms but not his head and chest, they could have gotten some answers or info out of him.

But when a guy has a grenade, I think that the Force wont care about saving his life when he's a threat to others (lifes) and using Tasers.

Hmm... Tasers, sounds like seafood

The police officers job is to shoot to kill when he/she has to. As you should know, the officers main target on a person who is a threat is the head, and mostly the center mass. Not legs or arms. This guy apparently was planning to do some major damage with such explosives on him, so why should the officers take a risk to lose their lives as well as other lives? The officers were aware of what the situation was, and they did what had to be done. If they had shot his legs, he would have fallen, but he still has his arms where he could just throw the grenade and probably injure or kill someone who was in that area at the time. With the officers shooting his mass, they are sure that he is down and in critical condition.

Originally posted by MickeyDee
A man with a backpack strapped to his back and a WWII grenade in his hand has been shot in a Seattle courthouse. The man was shot after he was refused entry to a secure part of the building and refused to co-operate with police. The man is said to be in a very serious condition. His motive is still unknown.

 

news.yahoo.com
"The suspect has been wounded, he is in very serious condition," Kerlikowske told reporters.

After the shooting, police cordoned off the area and sent in a bomb squad to investigate the grenade and the backpack.

Ahmed Ressam, convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles airport in the December 1999, is scheduled to be sentenced in July at the same federal courthouse.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Could this be an attempt to disrupt the sentencing of Ahmed Ressam, or was it just yet another nut who wants to blow himself up for five minutes of fame?

Whoever it was the police were right to shoot him and did an even better job by not killing him.

I do agree. Luckily the officers did not kill him. One main reason is to see rather if this is a conspiracy, who the person is, and much more. These are the things the FBI needs to know in order to get information on what and who this guy is, and why he did it. But as always in the United States of America, justice has been served!!

Update:
www.washingtonpost.com...

Turns out the guy has died from his gunshot wounds.