You're right of course Nick, we're all terrible people for being happy that the dirtbag won't be out there killing more officers and threatening the public. Where would you like us to report for reconditioning? Democratic National Headquarters? Local ACLU office? PETA?
Yes, the loss of anyone is unfortunate but this individual for whatever reason choose his course and it cost him his life. The outcome could be clearly seen as a result of his actions and in my opinion does not warrant any sympathy. Save your sympathy for those he left behind and the family of the slain officer.
Oops- scratch PETA, he killed a police dog.
If it had been me-68 shots would have been just for the head. I would have started at his toes and worked my way up.
1) the innocent don't hide
2) the innocent would have dropped their weapon and surrendered
3) there is no reason why police should risk their lives - they should make SURE the enemy (oh excuse me) the "suspected perpetrator" is dead-dead-dead before they risk themselves. remember the cops have wives, children, and friends .
oh btw "dead" means lots of bullets so as to render the target 100% ineffective. bullets are cheaper than medical care for a lifetime for the officers.
i am sure that your ACLU will extoll the virtuousness of this choirboy/honor student and the wrongful death suit is in the works.
dt
Ah yes, how typical. I have respect for human life and think shooting someone 68 times shows a wild lack of discipline so I must be one of "them-thar loony-lefties".
Angilo Freeland did create the circumstances that led to his death and he wasn't by any means a good man. If the account given by the officers is true and he did raise his weapon at the officers then they were perfectly justified in firing at him.
Here is where the problem comes in.
First, this was a SWAT team. They are supposed to be a highly trained unit. They shot 110 times and hit him 68? That's not exactly marksmanship.
Second, if Sheriff Grady Judd is correct that they fired everything they had at him that means one of two things. One, that they knew he was dead and continued to fire. Or two, that they didn't know if he was dead or not and they expended every last bit of ammo they had leaving themselves unarmed in the face of a man who does have a weapon and has already proven his willingness to kill. Neither scenario makes this SWAT team look professional in any way and proves that trigger discipline isn't exactly a priority.
Third, Sheriff Grady Judd seems to take this breakdown in discipline and/or clear indication of a lack of training pretty lightly. Personally, since these guys get to carry guns around on public streets, I'm a big fan of them showing the ability to ease up on the trigger a bit.
Now, I can sympathize with those officers. I've seen friends of mine killed. There are several differences though. First, my team and I would have never fired 110 rounds in a scenario like that. That would have been a waste of about 109 rounds. I have no desire to shoot someone 68 times. Seeing the result of one, well-placed round is unpleasent enough for me. Second, if for some reason we did load one guy up with 68 rounds I'm sure I would have at least been relieved as the team leader, maybe more as there are, at least for the military, rules regarding those things. And the Geneva Conventions don't make exceptions for people who are worried about their wife and kids. Third, no one on my team, myself included ever took any pleasure in shooting anyone.
