2 ms·
Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment. Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after. But perhaps they co
by runnerup 4y ago
Because at the exact moment the bomb was detonated he wasn’t a threat at that moment.
Maybe ten minutes before, perhaps ten minutes after.
But perhaps they could have cordoned off a wide area until he got hungry or thirsty enough to come down. That would have been a massive hassle for the city and difficult to ensure the city’s safety but you could always blow him up next time he starts shooting at someone.
On balance obviously it was expedient to blow him up at that moment but it’s not clear it was strictly necessary.
- throwaway894345 4y agoIt's not clear to me that they would have had a better opportunity. "Lethal intervention" is among the best case scenarios in a mass shooting, I don't know why we are litigating it like the outcome was particularly tragic. It may not have been perfect, and I'm sure there's something to learn from it, but people are discussing it like it was Uvalde or something. It seems like it was as close to a desirable outcome as could reliably be secured--I'm glad police didn't roll the dice in hoping for a less lethal outcome with innocent lives hanging in the balance.