Warrigul wrote:How bloody good am I, three of us drank four litres of Golden oak SPECIAL port last night and I still managed to get up at eight rebuild the alternator, change the water water pump, timing belt and tensioner in the 2.4 diesel and the old girl is ready to go(only lost a little bit of skin on the backs of my hands).
Actually I might have a nanna nap now.
North East wrote:It only takes one....let it rest.
Warrigul wrote:I can't go shooting as the alternator out of my hilux is on the bench in pieces so I think i'll go and have a gutful, ciao.
Westy wrote:
Yep that's me but we now have 3 people dead because the whole siege was Cluster f*** ( caused by the authority's) and because I'm a loud mouth that's the reason!!!! He was know to the authority's and he was a head case, yep they f***ed it up real good IMHO
But I'm a loud mouth for surjesting a few ideas that I might even have some idea about!!!Tell me North East are you trained in these situations if not just piss off will you Nob Head!!!!
cuvy wrote:I can imagine the media response if the police had just taken him out before he got a chance to hurt any of the hostages.... "Brutal police murder peace loving priest" or similar.
cooker wrote:Sometimes they can't win either way.
As I said earlier, if someone takes hostages with a weapon I say they've forfeited any rights to being heard or treated civilly.
If you can't win either way, still best to just drop the guy before he has the chance to hurt anyone IMO.
Baronvonrort wrote:I think the policy of waiting for the offender to fire first is flawed, by acting after the offender shoots someone it will always result in a gunfight risking others.
The best option is for the Police to shoot them at the first opportunity and avoid a gunfight, whether they use a head/heart shot or shoot to disable is debateable.
If you hold someone hostage with a gun don't whinge to me if a cop shoots you.
Westy wrote:You lost all your rights the minute you threatened someone else's
Westy wrote:Baronvonrort wrote:I think the policy of waiting for the offender to fire first is flawed, by acting after the offender shoots someone it will always result in a gunfight risking others.
The best option is for the Police to shoot them at the first opportunity and avoid a gunfight, whether they use a head/heart shot or shoot to disable is debateable.
If you hold someone hostage with a gun don't whinge to me if a cop shoots you.
Amen.
You lost all your rights the minute you threatened someone else's life after that you wear the consequences !!!I guess the Law firms wouldn't have a job if the world rolled that way
Baronvonrort wrote:I cannot think of any reason that would justify locking people inside a shop and surely that would be against the law to detain people for no reason.
headspace wrote:There's always a lot of second guessing in these situations but I thing 11 flash bangs in that confined space was a bit much. The better weapon for CQB (close quarter battle) is a Heckler and Koch MP in 9mm. AR's are far better in longer range scuffles. However the blokes on the ground did their job probably knowing they could get shot or blown up, and one casualty in that sort of thing is usually considered light. After 22 rounds the target dick head must have been well sorted anyway.