3 ms·
The guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminen
by merpnderp 10y ago
The guy was holed up with a rifle and had just been using it to kill people. He was refusing to surrender. Why would the police think that no one was in imminent danger? At any moment he could have started firing at police again. And granted it was unlikely they would be hit before killing him, but should they have to take that risk? Most people would answer no, the police shouldn't have to take that risk.
- lovich 10y agoIf they had time for a bomb, why didn't they have time for tear gas though? I agree that something needed to be done, but the first answer shouldn't always be the lethal option
- merpnderp 10y agoI'm more interested in what kind of bombs they have and what's the policy on use.
- ceejayoz 10y agoTear gas obscures visibility. Given how little we know about the layout, it may be that that would've been far too much risk.
- Kephael 10y agoTear gas would just force a reaction, likely with the assailant leaving the gas and shooting at the police. He would have been killed in returning gunfire but also may have managed to shoot more people. The outcome would have been the same and was decided by his failure to surrender.