Re: Armored bulldozer rampage: How would you have
Question: Who's going to be dumb enough to drive the other bulldozer? And how easy is it going to be to take a person in a standard bulldozer and go up against a suicidal person in a heavily armored bulldozer with a lot of firepower? If it is that easy, what's stopping him from doing the same thing? And do you know that stupid who will get close enough to throw a bomb torwards an person with a gun, let alone one in an armored bulldozer?
I give the police a lot of credit for taking on situations like these. Not only do they have to make quick decisions and go up against an unknown enemy, they also have to deal with the repercussions from monday morning quarterbacks who have days to analyze every little detail and question their every decision after all the facts are known and. Don't forget the police didn't know how mentally competent this guys was, how much many guns he could've had inside, how skilled he was at operating a bulldozer, whether there was a bomb inside, etc.
This is reminds me of the North Hollywood shootouts. After the incident, the families of the so called "victims" wanted to sue to police saying they purposely let the gunmen die, that there were other "non-lethal" solutions. If I were the police, I wouldn't have let him die, I would've purposely killed him. Not all problems are solved by firepower, but when you're in a situation like that, you can't sit around trying to figure out what's the most non-lethal solution. I think the police did what they could at the time, yes there might have been a better solution after you know all the facts, but at the time there probably wasn't another way.
Question: Who's going to be dumb enough to drive the other bulldozer? And how easy is it going to be to take a person in a standard bulldozer and go up against a suicidal person in a heavily armored bulldozer with a lot of firepower? If it is that easy, what's stopping him from doing the same thing? And do you know that stupid who will get close enough to throw a bomb torwards an person with a gun, let alone one in an armored bulldozer?
I give the police a lot of credit for taking on situations like these. Not only do they have to make quick decisions and go up against an unknown enemy, they also have to deal with the repercussions from monday morning quarterbacks who have days to analyze every little detail and question their every decision after all the facts are known and. Don't forget the police didn't know how mentally competent this guys was, how much many guns he could've had inside, how skilled he was at operating a bulldozer, whether there was a bomb inside, etc.
This is reminds me of the North Hollywood shootouts. After the incident, the families of the so called "victims" wanted to sue to police saying they purposely let the gunmen die, that there were other "non-lethal" solutions. If I were the police, I wouldn't have let him die, I would've purposely killed him. Not all problems are solved by firepower, but when you're in a situation like that, you can't sit around trying to figure out what's the most non-lethal solution. I think the police did what they could at the time, yes there might have been a better solution after you know all the facts, but at the time there probably wasn't another way.