BF2S Forums "Because that's all the ammunition we had."

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I think the "Because that's all the ammunition we had." is a clever way of disguising the fact the SWAT team needed to discharge 68 rounds to kill one guy because of poor marksmanship as rdx pointed out.

Did you miss the part where it said they HIT him 68 times?

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Did you miss the part where it said they HIT him 68 times?

I must have.

Where they shooting him while he was on the ground then?

Don't know. Article didn't say. Possible that he wasn't. Possible, but not probable.

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I'm not going to bite, lowing. Let's try this again.


I've striked out the "liberal" part for you. Hopefully you can stay on track now.

lol, is there something there I have said that isn't true? In this case, or countless others where concern for the criminal outweighs that of the victim or the police?

Let's see.

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.

You insinuate that the media can "choke on it" for daring to ask whether or not firing 110 rounds and hitting a man 68 times was excessive. Then you suggest that the people who'd ask that question, or consider the shooting excessive, worry more about a criminal than his victims, a patently absurd notion that doesn't follow in any way, shape or form.

It's disturbing that this requires explanation. When a violent criminal is shot and killed while shooting at police, people generally consider it good riddance and move on. It's a common occurrence, and that's why national media doesn't extensively cover it. When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, people generally consider it a damned shame, and move on. It's a common occurrence, and that's why national media doesn't extensively cover it.

When a criminal is shot 68 times by police, people generally wonder who the hell needed to be shot 68 times to be brought down, and what kind of circumstances warrant that kind of massive force. It's an uncommon occurrence, and that's why national media carries the story and investigates the circumstances. The people who feel it excessive to put that much ammunition into a single individual aren't generally concerned about the individual, but about the officers who feel it necessary to do so. To suggest that it has anything to do with caring more for a criminal than an officer is massively dishonest, and wholly disturbing.

mikkel wrote:

Did you even read any of that?

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-05 12:33:27)

Ty wrote:

That is a crack-up of a quote.

Don't like the tone of the e-mail/article though. I mean it was a legitimate question to ask and stupid to try it make and look like it was asked by "the liberal media" out of concern for the criminal, illegal immigrant or not. Excessively shooting a perpetrator is unprofessional regardless of whether it's deserved, (which it was,) or if I find it funny, (which I do because I'm a cruel cunt.)

That's the problem with a lot of journalism and news reporting; factually true but tonally slanted.

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

That is a crack-up of a quote.

Don't like the tone of the e-mail/article though. I mean it was a legitimate question to ask and stupid to try it make and look like it was asked by "the liberal media" out of concern for the criminal, illegal immigrant or not. Excessively shooting a perpetrator is unprofessional regardless of whether it's deserved, (which it was,) or if I find it funny, (which I do because I'm a cruel cunt.)

That's the problem with a lot of journalism and news reporting; factually true but tonally slanted.

everyone is missing the point here. WHat makes this so great has nothing to so with the media. It has everything to do with the sheriff not giving 2 flying fucks what anyone thinks regarding this shooting. He didn't pull any punches, he didn't try to white wash their actions. He told it just like it was. They shot that fucker 68 times and only 68 times because they ran outta ammo. That is a classic.

Yes, and I get that and I think that's great. My objection is to the suggestion that questioning the Sheriff's actions is dismissively "liberal" or out of concern for the criminal. Whether I like the Sheriff's actions or not, and I do, I still recognise it as unprofessional and something that I wouldn't necessarily condone. His response to the question is classic but the question itself is totally warranted, that's all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Took 68 shots to drop the guy?

Can someone please spend some money on marksmanship training for these guys?!

Every shot is a potential stray bullet or ricochet, there's nothing clever about firing 68 shots...

lowing wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

But if a ricochet did hit someone, people would be calling for the cops heads.

68 rounds is excessive. Yes, it's a clever one-liner. Yes, the guy deserved it. But that doesn't mean that it was professional or safe.

Asking why they needed to fire so many rounds is a perfectly valid question.

we could "what if" this to death. It is obvious they did not do this in the middle of a busy intersection. THey were obviously well aware no civilians were in danger of their gun fire.

sure it was a legit question. Again, it is the answer that I applaud, by a sheriff who did not have the inclination to be questioned by the media at that moment in time.