This policewoman very steady

[Ramseth]

Wow, another would be Dirty Harry in SB. I have some news for you. No cop in Sinkie land has a licence to kill. There is no such thing as a execution mission. There is definitely a legal requirement to affect an arrest of the suspect. Police officers can only use deadly force when they themselves or an innocent party is directly threatened with death. The use of deadly force by the police is a last resort. In this case, the police did not attempt an arrest. They did not ask him to put his hands up and give up. They did not see a weapon. They did not even ask him if he was the man they were looking for!. That is why we have a judicial process. For all everyone knew, this guy was the wrong guy, and the real killer is still at large.

There was a judicial process. It was a court warrant authorising the mission. The judge who signed that warrant was fully satisfied that the accused have been correctly identified, armed and dangerous to public.

It's title was an arrest warrant. But every officer who read the content understood it to be an execution order as all movements were restricted; i.e. if he moved, assume that he's reaching for firearms and shoot first.

Anyway, it's Singapore police tradition that all copkillers would be shot dead in the streets, from Oh Kim Kee to Lim Ban Lim etc. Only exception was when Pulau Senang was caught off guard by the rioting prisoners, but they ended up hung too, courtesy of no less than Francis Seow (later turned opposition hero) as prosecutor then.

 

[Papsmearer]

Agree that he should have been apprehended in other manner or approached in a less crowded area. The confronting of a dangerous, armed criminial in such a public area speaks of something else.

Though to be fair when they chose to go for him, they do not know if he was armed. The weapon he used was a .22 and its not a very large gun and can be easily concealed.

In this case however, they took no chances but it could have been settled in a less violent and definitely less bloody manner. The amount of .38 lead in him could be used to make a large fishing sinker.

He died without having drunk his morning kopi.

The reason why he was shot so many times is that one or more of the cops brought MP5s to the coffee shop. This is really too much. They were literally hosing this guy down with full auto. It was a miracle no one else including these numbnuts got hit. He therefore probably had more 9mm lead in him than .38. Yes, he allegedly used a .22 handgun to kill the cop. But than he was said to have avoided the manhunt that followed by escaping to Johore. Ask yourself why he would chance coming back to S'pore, where all the cops were looking for him, and came back unarmed to have kopi at this shop? Must be the bestest kopi in the world.

 

[Papsmearer]

There was a judicial process. It was a court warrant authorising the mission. The judge who signed that warrant was fully satisfied that the accused have been correctly identified, armed and dangerous to public.

This is the whole problem isn't it? Quite shocking you still don't recognise it. Obviously, the judge, fully satisfied or not, WAS WRONG. The man was not armed. Due to his lack of weapons, and his quietly sitting there drinking his coffee, I would also deduce he was no danger to the public. In fact, if he is the person they say he is, than he is a danger to the police not to the public. If the judge got 2 out of 3 wrong, this whole warrant was cock to begin with.

U and I know what really happened. Some senior super in the SPF when to judge, excited like fuck, and told the judge something to the effect that we found this guy, and for sure he is armed and dangerous to everyone. Being the old boys club there, and no real check and balances in the judicial process, and the judge suspecting that these cops have no real interest in seeing this guy alive, granted the warrant with a "you owe me one" comment. Hence u have the sequence of events.

 

[matamafia]

I don't think you can compare like that, this chinese woman cop is an executioner, plain and simple.

I agree with you that PRC Gong An woman was carrying out an executional order from officers above.

My comparison is between competent vs incompetent executioners.

There are lots of social injustice especially these days in PRC. That dead man was a victim of these, and all he asked after taking the hostage was to speak to the TV crews or media. The authorities aim was to silent him ASAP before he spoke to the TV cameras. This dead man pulled this live risking stunt to gain a chance to have the public hear him out, and paid for it with his live.

 

[wuqi256]

I think people like u need to go to the nearest vet and get yourself neutered. Why? U are fucking rabid. Has it ever occured to you this person is mentally ill, or emotionally distraught? Maybe the woman he held hostage is a cheating lying stealing wife or GF? Maybe he has hit such a low point in his life, he feels he has nothing to lose? If people who are mentally ill were to be executed, u would be one. This guy is armed with only a fucking knife. How much of a threat was he went all the other cops doing crowd control were not even drawing their weapon? How much of a threat was he when hundreds of bystanders allowed to crowd so near the scene? He was shot once, and was down on the ground. Not very difficult for another cop to put a knee into his back and handcuff him. No need to pump 3 more into him while he was on his stomach. Only as sicko like you think its ok. U better pray someday someone don't double tap you.

If by judging that the suspect only has a knife and as such have a lower threat level, i think many law enforcement officers in the world would die.

Example being the Tokyo slasher in Akihabara who was armed with melee weapons yet managed to slash more than one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/japan

We do not know his background and as such based on that alone, we cannot say whether his actions were justified but even if he was in grief, was this the only way to get attention. Is it reason enough to warrant risking the life of another? Isn't it a warped logic that you are supporting the actions of a hostage taker?

He posed a sufficient threat to the life of an innocent bystander, yes it may not be difficult to apprehend him if he was alone though lets not forget that even most unarmed combat practioners would most of the time, hand over the wallet if mugged by someone with just a "knife" In this case however, he was holding a knife to the hostage and showing he wasn't afraid to use it. Using violence on someone requires a lot of guts and a great lack of concern for anothers well being. It showed that he was already beyond reason and lost control. The situation escalated the moment blood was spilled.

The folks around did not draw their guns to downplay the tone of the situation as drawing arms and pointing at someone isn't the most effective way to negotiate. I hope that it was obvious that they did try to end this peacefully by drugging him and as such, the situation did not escalate and warrant deadly force. He indirectly forced their hand by slashing her, it might have ended otherwise if he didn't act in that manner which prompted the police to resort to violence.

We do not know how many amongst the crowd were trained police and if it was so simple to jump a man with "just" a knife and a hostage then the innocent girl woudn't be left in his grip and slashed twice.

Did you understand the video? The folks negotiating said to him that she was innocent and the news also infers he doesn't know her and she was an innocent bystander?

However, to an innocent bystander, he exhibited that he was not only just using her as a human shield but would not think twice about cruelly harming her even as she was bleeding away from the first wound. People who would harm women and children whatever their reasons are not ok in my book, so while it is wrong to shoot a hostage taker, its ok to harm innocent women? People who prescribes treatment for others should check to see if they need it themselves.

I did not say she was right, i just said she must have been too high or too fearful of him climbing up again and she just wanted him to stay down given the seriousness of the situation.

The world is already crazy enough as it is, we certainly don't need a potential slasher on the streets. Not all who learn defensive arts or firearms do so with the intention to kill. Some just want to be able to protect themselves or their loved ones if such situation arises. I certainly don't mind dying if it means i can save my loved ones for they matter more than me.

 

[longbow]

Also must take into account that just a few weeks back there were people entering schools with knifes and slashing students. A couple of copycat killers since.

So to the cops there, a knife, sissors is just as deadly.

In short if you want to make yourself heard, just post on the numerous forums. If you carry a weapons and threaten to kill hostage you deserve to be shot dead. I think this will happen anywhere in the world. Especially since he has already injured the hostage - meaning he is serious.

 

[Subok]

a criminal transgression is still no less a criminal transgression however small the weapon is.

Still....

We should not commit another "Greater" criminal transgression to right another criminal transgression.

If the rule of law is not given its due process, what for then, do we need law enforcers? Why not just empower each officers will power to carry out immediate judgment on a captive criminal in situ?

 

[scroobal]

There is no such thing as warrant of arrest for Ah Huat. He was not charged in court and did not abscond from court and therefore no arrest warrant was issued. An arrest warrant is not an execution warrant. You watching too many US Tv shows.

You are however right about cop killers. Its the universal rule all around the world. Its the only thing that makes people think before they shoot a cop.

By the way someone mentioned that Ah Huat was not armed and that he might not be the right person. Ah Huat is a hired killer and well trained. Before he was finally slayed, it was discovered that the gun that the killed the detective also killed the owner of the River Valley restaurant. This was not disclosed until he was killed.

The info that he would go to the coffeeshop early morning each day was verified when the previous day the surveillance team picked up his coffee cup he used and matched his fingerprint. He was a ruthless chap and made one dramatic escape when his hideout in Toa Payoh was uncovered. He nearly killed again but the officer slammed the door in time. For that botched operation, someone was charged.

There was no doubt that it was an execution because they could not afford another killing. They owed it to the stallholders and the people who sat nearby. They could not afford to let him let lose a single round. They had no choice as every surveillance attempt to pick him out in a safe zone failed because he was too good.

A decade later 3 policemen decided to wait for an opportunity to disarm an armed man in a Geylang market. While waiting for an opportunity, he lunged forward in a lightning move and stabbed an innocent bystander in the heart and he died. Not many people understand the extraordinary speed and strength that comes from an adrenalin rush. The 3 cops failed to protect members of the public in their misguided attempt to save the armed man.

Lastly Police officers all around the world are not taught to shoot at leg, hand, hair , beard, fingernail, your dick. Its meant for Indian and HK Movies.Its small arms and the accuracy is not good. They are all taught to kill in the first attempt. The second tap is standard ops the whole fucking world. The shoot doctrine is very clear - if the offender after he is shot then takes a life or harms someone else, the police officer who shot him is answerable as he failed in his duty.

Those who are into human rights and have no understanding of the wider world should form a voluntary unit and be given nets and wicker shield to apprehend these offenders. Until one of them gets stabbed and injured, they can continue to fantasize. I can just visualize these clowns approaching Ah Huat to see if he draws his gun or his lipstick. Maybe they hide behind pillar and ask him to surrender and if he fires a shot, then the order to shoot is given.

Now you know why doctors, lawyer etc have be licenced. If not too many clowns will be conducting surgery or representing some poor soul in court based on self belief and their own fantasy.

It's title was an arrest warrant. But every officer who read the content understood it to be an execution order as all movements were restricted; i.e. if he moved, assume that he's reaching for firearms and shoot first.

 

[Papsmearer]

There is no such thing as warrant of arrest for Ah Huat. He was not charged in court and did not abscond from court and therefore no arrest warrant was issued. An arrest warrant is not an execution warrant. You watching too many US Tv shows.

You are however right about cop killers. Its the universal rule all around the world. Its the only thing that makes people think before they shoot a cop.

Scroobal, I think you are the one watching too many cop shows. There is no such "universal rule" If there were, there would be no cop killers going to jail, as they would have been executed by other cops. There are many inmates in jails all over the world who are cop killers. How did they get there? Well the process started with a police officer arresting them. Note the operative word "arrest", not execute.

By the way someone mentioned that Ah Huat was not armed and that he might not be the right person. Ah Huat is a hired killer and well trained. Before he was finally slayed, it was discovered that the gun that the killed the detective also killed the owner of the River Valley restaurant. This was not disclosed until he was killed.

The info that he would go to the coffeeshop early morning each day was verified when the previous day the surveillance team picked up his coffee cup he used and matched his fingerprint. He was a ruthless chap and made one dramatic escape when his hideout in Toa Payoh was uncovered. He nearly killed again but the officer slammed the door in time. For that botched operation, someone was charged.

There was no doubt that it was an execution because they could not afford another killing. They owed it to the stallholders and the people who sat nearby. They could not afford to let him let lose a single round. They had no choice as every surveillance attempt to pick him out in a safe zone failed because he was too good.

U are telling me that a kopitiam full of armed police officers with their weapons drawn cannot ask him to put his hands up/freeze/surrender? U telling me that this Ah Huat is so fast on the draw he can reach for his gun, pull it out, aim and discharge it before any of the police officers surrounding him with drawn weapons can even get one shot off? U see how absurd your argument is? Is this guy as fast as Neo? No police officer should be so intimidated that they feel the only way they can beat this guy is to shoot first, and ask later. With all the police lead that was flying around I can guarantee u that the most danger to the stallholders and kopitiam patrons was the damn cops themselves.

A decade later 3 policemen decided to wait for an opportunity to disarm an armed man in a Geylang market. While waiting for an opportunity, he lunged forward in a lightning move and stabbed an innocent bystander in the heart and he died. Not many people understand the extraordinary speed and strength that comes from an adrenalin rush. The 3 cops failed to protect members of the public in their misguided attempt to save the armed man.

This is a totally different situation, and u cannot compare the 2. In the Geylang market situation, 3 cops cannot contain the situation. In a market, the assailant can still move around, and did so, with bad collateral effect. The 3 cops came upon the situation, and did not have enough manpower to clear the market and control the movements of the perpetrator. In the kopitiam situation, they already know where he is, they had everything preplanned. They brought a preponderance of firepower and manpower, they had the guy utterly surrounded, they already planned what to do, it was not a fluid situation like Geylang.

Lastly Police officers all around the world are not taught to shoot at leg, hand, hair , beard, fingernail, your dick. Its meant for Indian and HK Movies.Its small arms and the accuracy is not good. They are all taught to kill in the first attempt. The second tap is standard ops the whole fucking world. The shoot doctrine is very clear - if the offender after he is shot then takes a life or harms someone else, the police officer who shot him is answerable as he failed in his duty.

Again, u are watching too many movies and reading too much Tom Clancy or whatever shit it is. I can 100% guarantee u if a police officer in any major city in the US or Western Europe, and some parts of Asia shot a suspect, and than proceeded to put a second round into him for no other purposes than "standard ops second tap", he or she would be hauled to court, fired and jailed for manslaughter. They are taught to shoot when they or a member of the public are in eminent danger. If the suspect is down already regardless of where he is shot, and does not appear to be a threat anymore, they will be in serious trouble for "second tap" on him. If suspect is shot, and still appears to be a threat, yes, you keep shooting or exchanging fire with him. All police have rules of engagement, believe it or not. There is some news every week somewhere of police exchanging fire with criminals, and than criminals are shot and in stable condition or something like that. No second taps, ok?

Those who are into human rights and have no understanding of the wider world should form a voluntary unit and be given nets and wicker shield to apprehend these offenders. Until one of them gets stabbed and injured, they can continue to fantasize. I can just visualize these clowns approaching Ah Huat to see if he draws his gun or his lipstick. Maybe they hide behind pillar and ask him to surrender and if he fires a shot, then the order to shoot is given.

People like u will feel right at home in Nazi Germany. There is something call due process of law. Even if 10,000 people saw you shoot someone else to death, it does not mean the cops have carte blanche to shoot you or "second tap" you to death. They still have to attempt to arrest you, if they are successful, u are remanded to jail, go to trail, get a lawyer, etc. Maybe they hang you in the end, but you will still get due process. This is what civilised people do.

In your example above, I don't know if some of the cops hide behind a pillar or not. But they should have asked him to put his hands up and surrender. If he does anything other than that, they can shoot him, no need to give order. But they have to give him the chance and attempt to affect a surrender. Not sneak up behind him like cowards and fire 60 plus rounds at him.

Now you know why doctors, lawyer etc have be licenced. If not too many clowns will be conducting surgery or representing some poor soul in court based on self belief and their own fantasy.

I don't get this part.

It's title was an arrest warrant. But every officer who read the content understood it to be an execution order as all movements were restricted; i.e. if he moved, assume that he's reaching for firearms and shoot first.

I find it very sad that so many people here on this forum see this video and thinks the policewoman did nothing round. When the guy is lying there on his stomach after the first shot, and than she pumps 3 more rounds into his back, this is a serious moral problem. People need to get some values.

 

[Ramseth]

There is no such thing as warrant of arrest for Ah Huat. He was not charged in court and did not abscond from court and therefore no arrest warrant was issued. An arrest warrant is not an execution warrant. You watching too many US Tv shows.

An accused doesn't need to be charged in court first, then absconds, in order to be issued with an arrest warrant. The police can arrest anyone committing a seizable offence (i.e. caught red-handed at the spot) but not if the accused escaped after the offence. Investigation have to launched to establish the identity of the accused and evidence enough for an arrest warrant to be issued.

This case is different from stakeouts, e.g. staking out suspected drug dealers awaiting for dealings to be in progress, then pounce on them to arrest without a warrant.

Yes, the arrest warrant is in case was a formality for legal rearguard. If he was armed, he wouldn't agree to a bodysearch and would fire first (that was what happened in his copkilling case). If he was unarmed, you needed the warrant to arrest him. The grey area was, every officer was briefed to assume that he was armed and ready to fire.

 

[Ramseth]

I find it very sad that so many people here on this forum see this video and thinks the policewoman did nothing round. When the guy is lying there on his stomach after the first shot, and than she pumps 3 more rounds into his back, this is a serious moral problem. People need to get some values.

I understand where you're coming from but I tend to look at such a case from the point of view of whether it's legal or not, and is it in the interest of the broader innocent public. You've earlier cited what if the hostage taker was insane? I'd say the same, given a choice between saving an insane (violently and dangerously) and the innocent public, the choice is clear. However, had he put down his knive, released the hostage and surrendered, yes, he was entitled to all the legal and medical processes. The choice was in his hand. He made the wrong choice.

The point at which the officer should stop shooting should be the point at which he lost control of his weapon and the hostage was completely out of his grasp and range, whether he was dead or alive at the end.

 

[scroobal]

I was correctly your claim of arrest warrant which was patently false and rubbish. Police arresting anyone committing a seizable offence is obvious. You expect the person who commits the crime to arrest himself. You are devious. You will never admit what you stated is wrong thing and now tell us that the sun rises in the east.

An accused doesn't need to be charged in court first, then absconds, in order to be issued with an arrest warrant. The police can arrest anyone committing a seizable offence (i.e. caught red-handed at the spot) but not if the accused escaped after the offence. Investigation have to launched to establish the identity of the accused and evidence enough for an arrest warrant to be issued.

.

 

[scroobal]

You always jump into the deep end and get yourself muddled and can't see straight.

1) Ah Huat was armed, drew but was too late to fire.
2) The person's identity was verified the day before they shot him.

You kept referring to "someone" saying that he was not armed and what if they killed the wrong person by their approach. That is why I wrote that.

Can you imagine if you were the old man and having his authority. You will be running lose with no handle on facts and can't tell the difference between fact and fiction. The first rule is thumb is to ascertain the facts. You expect a gunman facing the gallows to be armed with viagra pills.

You and Ramseth should get married. One goes wild on wrong information and the other will furnish wrong information - potent brew.

You are however right about cop killers. Its the universal rule all around the world. Its the only thing that makes people think before they shoot a cop.

[/COLOR]

 

[Ramseth]

I was correctly your claim of arrest warrant which was patently false and rubbish.

Strong words. You failed to understand what I meant. The police can pluck out many reasons to arrest, or at least require attendance of any suspect at station for investigation. In this case, they didn't want to, because of the risk of he reacting by immediately opening fire again. So they went through the formality of getting a warrant, then ambushed him to finish him off under rearguard of the warrant, and wrote some reports about his gestures looking like drawing revolver to resist arrest.

Police arresting anyone committing a seizable offence is obvious. You expect the person who commits the crime to arrest himself.

Yes, there're cases like that not very uncommon. It's called surrender or turn oneself in. Can do it with a patrol officer on the road or at a station, or if one prefers, can even call a police car to come and ferry from home.

You are devious. You will never admit what you stated is wrong thing and now tell us that the sun rises in the east.

Stronger word. I'm saddened but I won't retaliate to that.

 

[kingrant]

I see some arguments here very academic. Don't forget this is China which includes HK.

This PRC lady cop's action was cavalier, but she got the job done. That is what's important in China. If more people go on rampage like this in populous China, the country will be destabilised. Stability is priced above human rights. The ends justify the means. Incidentally, same as Old Goat - no point philosophising ISA and civil rights. Shoot first, talk later - as he had done on many occasions with his dissenters.

Now if she had misfired, causing the hostage to take a bullet, or missed and provoking the hostage taker to stab the hostage to death, then her head will surely roll. Right now, her name and her career is on a roll instead.

However, the risks wld have been ratcheted up many notches if the hostage taker was armed with a gun instead of a knife. He also made the mistake of not placing the knife at the hostage's throat, which would be most effective in presenting a threat. That cld have caused the cop to think twice before rushing him. Maybe he wasnt sure he wanted to hurt anybody if he could help it.

As said, she got the job well done. Human rights is not an option in China. Nor in HK. More innocent people have been wronged than agitated maligned hostage takers. Her action sends the correct signals to would-be copycat hostage situations.

 

[Papsmearer]

I understand where you're coming from but I tend to look at such a case from the point of view of whether it's legal or not, and is it in the interest of the broader innocent public. You've earlier cited what if the hostage taker was insane? I'd say the same, given a choice between saving an insane (violently and dangerously) and the innocent public, the choice is clear. However, had he put down his knive, released the hostage and surrendered, yes, he was entitled to all the legal and medical processes. The choice was in his hand. He made the wrong choice.

The point at which the officer should stop shooting should be the point at which he lost control of his weapon and the hostage was completely out of his grasp and range, whether he was dead or alive at the end.

This is exactly what Old Goat said too. When he does things, He also looks at the case from his point of view and not whether or not its legal, in his interpretation, it is for the broader good of the public according to him. Look how fucked up we are now. I did not say the hostage taker is insane, I said he could be mentally ill, emotionally distraught, etc. For example, people who are bi-polar can react in unpredictable manners if they have not taken their meds. These people can be saved, there is medication to control that. They do not have the mental faculties to make the right choice at that point in time. But they need to be subdued first, shooting them to death does not help them.

I tell u a true story that happened when I was in Sec school. One day one of my classmates brought a large knife to class. He was going to stab and slash another one of my classmates to death. This other classmate was quite an asshole at that time, and was bullying him and picking on him for the whole school year. He finally could not take it anymore and brought the knife to school. Imagine ours and teacher's shock when he pulled the knife from his bag in the middle of class in front of everyone, and started going after the bully. Everyone was scared shitless. This guy was my friend, he was a loner, very quiet guy. But he was just pushed too far. Was he mentally ok that day, of course not. He needs help, he does not need cops to shoot him to death in front of us. Fortunately, the situation was resolved without him dying, and this is why I say what I say. It would have been a waste of his life if he had been killed that day. I can tell u he is not a bad person. Its easy for u to say shoot this and shoot that.

 

[zuoom]

Also must take into account that just a few weeks back there were people entering schools with knifes and slashing students. A couple of copycat killers since.

So to the cops there, a knife, sissors is just as deadly.

In short if you want to make yourself heard, just post on the numerous forums. If you carry a weapons and threaten to kill hostage you deserve to be shot dead. I think this will happen anywhere in the world. Especially since he has already injured the hostage - meaning he is serious.

almost forgot about those knife incidents.

yes, i think that would be on the back of the commanding officers mind when they send the lady in for the negotiation "kill".

May 5, 2010
Chinese police told 'shoot to kill' to protect pupils

Jane Macartney, China Correspondent

Police in a Chinese city have been given shoot-to-kill powers at schools after a series of attacks against young pupils left eight dead and dozens wounded.

The extreme measure is a sign of the nervousness across China as classes resumed after the three-day May Day holiday weekend.

China’s Ministry of Public Security issued an emergency notice at the weekend ordering tighter security at schools and kindergartens nationwide after three attacks on schools in as many days last week left nearly 50 children and several teachers injured.

In southwestern Chongqing, a sprawling metropolis of more than 30 million people, police have decided to take no chances.

more via : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7115702.ece

 

[kingrant]

It's always good if we can save the world, be kind and compassionate....

The disagreement point is always :

- when shld the talking stop and the shooting begin?
- do we aim to save the troublemaker or should we be considering the victim's and wider public's interest?
- is the situation salvagaeble?
etc .

Police everywhere has the same job to do - that of upholding public security and safety and keeping law and order. If it requires the use of force, so be it. Who has to decide? The commanders on the ground, nobody else.

Should the police wait to "understand" and "empathise" betterer while the hostage was in a life threatened situation? Wld you assume that one of ur family member was the hostage in assessing the situation, or the hostage taker?

The lady cop was right in stopping the knifeman in his tracks when the chance presented itself. Or else, the SWAT wld have been called in and the result wld still be the same.

This is exactly what Old Goat said too. When he does things, He also looks at the case from his point of view and not whether or not its legal, in his interpretation, it is for the broader good of the public according to him. Look how fucked up we are now. I did not say the hostage taker is insane, I said he could be mentally ill, emotionally distraught, etc. For example, people who are bi-polar can react in unpredictable manners if they have not taken their meds. These people can be saved, there is medication to control that. They do not have the mental faculties to make the right choice at that point in time. But they need to be subdued first, shooting them to death does not help them.

I tell u a true story that happened when I was in Sec school. One day one of my classmates brought a large knife to class. He was going to stab and slash another one of my classmates to death. This other classmate was quite an asshole at that time, and was bullying him and picking on him for the whole school year. He finally could not take it anymore and brought the knife to school. Imagine ours and teacher's shock when he pulled the knife from his bag in the middle of class in front of everyone, and started going after the bully. Everyone was scared shitless. This guy was my friend, he was a loner, very quiet guy. But he was just pushed too far. Was he mentally ok that day, of course not. He needs help, he does not need cops to shoot him to death in front of us. Fortunately, the situation was resolved without him dying, and this is why I say what I say. It would have been a waste of his life if he had been killed that day. I can tell u he is not a bad person. Its easy for u to say shoot this and shoot that.

 

[eatshitndie]

I understand where you're coming from but I tend to look at such a case from the point of view of whether it's legal or not, and is it in the interest of the broader innocent public. You've earlier cited what if the hostage taker was insane? I'd say the same, given a choice between saving an insane (violently and dangerously) and the innocent public, the choice is clear. However, had he put down his knive, released the hostage and surrendered, yes, he was entitled to all the legal and medical processes. The choice was in his hand. He made the wrong choice.

The point at which the officer should stop shooting should be the point at which he lost control of his weapon and the hostage was completely out of his grasp and range, whether he was dead or alive at the end.

in the u.s., the same situation (armed aggressor with hostage) would bring out the entire police cavalry. if the hostage taker is in public view and his head is exposed to sniper scopes, he would be taken out by a triangulation of police sharpshooters with very powerful rifles. if sniping is not possible, the wait is too long, negotiations or attempts at negotiation fail, and the swat team has to move in, they will overkill by expending as many rounds as they possibly can without harming the hostage.

 

[Papsmearer]

You always jump into the deep end and get yourself muddled and can't see straight.

1) Ah Huat was armed, drew but was too late to fire.
2) The person's identity was verified the day before they shot him.

You kept referring to "someone" saying that he was not armed and what if they killed the wrong person by their approach. That is why I wrote that.

Can you imagine if you were the old man and having his authority. You will be running lose with no handle on facts and can't tell the difference between fact and fiction. The first rule is thumb is to ascertain the facts. You expect a gunman facing the gallows to be armed with viagra pills.

You and Ramseth should get married. One goes wild on wrong information and the other will furnish wrong information - potent brew.

Wah lan, don't cut and post statements THAT I DID NOT MAKE. Those quotes are not mine.
1) Ah Huat WAS NOT ARMED! They did not find a weapon on him after they shot him. U need to get your facts straight. He never had a chance to draw.
2) The person's identity verified the day before means shit. It still does not explain why they did not attempt to arrest him. They can identify him before, during, and after the shooting, means nothing. The only question was why no arrest attempt effected?

U already mentioned that it was an execution, we are all in agreement. In an execution, u just shoot him in the back of the head, that's what they did. draw what weapon? U think they will let him get to that stage where he will draw a weapon he did not have? When they execute him, u better believe they will wait until his gun hand is putting a cup of coffee to his mouth, before they shoot him.

U can say what u want, u better pray that u or one of your family members don't get into a situation where a cop will find it more convenient to put 2 into u, instead of attempting to bring you in alive for help.