[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46724032]So did the terrorist shoot a hostage or...?[/QUOTE]
yes
Do we know the events leaving to the raid? Did he shoot a hostage and the other hostages made a break for it or did they make a break for it and then he shot a remaining hostage in anger?
[QUOTE=download;46724263]Do we know the events leaving to the raid? Did he shoot a hostage and the other hostages made a break for it or did they make a break for it and then he shot a remaining hostage in anger?[/QUOTE]
[I]Supposedly[/I], the manager tried to wrestle the gun away from the hostage-taker when he noticed he was dozing off, allowing the 6 or so hostages to escape together. However, the manager was shot in the struggle. Upon hearing the shot(s), the tactical team stormed the building.
[QUOTE=Apache249;46724306][I]Supposedly[/I], the manager tried to wrestle the gun away from the hostage-taker when he noticed he was dozing off, allowing the 6 or so hostages to escape together. However, the manager was shot in the struggle. Upon hearing the shot(s), the tactical team stormed the building.[/QUOTE]That terrorist is a real bastard, should have let the guy go after everyone else escaped. You lost, let the guy go.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46724327]That terrorist is a real bastard, should have let the guy go after everyone else escaped. You lost, let the guy go.[/QUOTE]
In an ideal world, that would've happened (well the whole thing wouldn't have happened), but unfortunately, real hostage-takers are going to be really pissed off after such an attempt.
What if the manager was successful and shot the hostage taker but was killed by the Police because he had the gun.
[QUOTE=Smoot;46724402]What if the manager was successful and shot the hostage taker but was killed by the Police because he had the gun.[/QUOTE]
A sniper watched the manager get shot then he called in "window 2, hostage down" then they moved in to respond.
that manager is a hero. it's absolutely tragic that he died trying to fight the hostage taker and save everyone, but if he didn't do anything the hostage taker might have started executing people instead. it could have gone much worse.
[QUOTE=BuDSpOoNce;46724467]that manager is a hero. it's absolutely tragic that he died trying to fight the hostage taker and save everyone, but if he didn't do anything the hostage taker might have started executing people instead. it wall could have gone much worse.[/QUOTE]
I think it's ill advised to provoke a gunman. The problem is that, if this is what happened, the manager was gambling with everyone's life. If you grab for the gun and fail, and he opens fire on the hostages, you just got people killed. If the gunman is sitting there not shooting anyone, why provoke him at that point? There's still a chance of a negotiated settlement where no one dies.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46724505]I think it's ill advised to provoke a gunman. The problem is that, if this is what happened, the manager was gambling with everyone's life. If you grab for the gun and fail, and he opens fire on the hostages, you just got people killed. If the gunman is sitting there not shooting anyone, why provoke him at that point? There's still a chance of a negotiated settlement where no one dies.[/QUOTE]
Maybe.
But the gunman has been proven to be a grade A nutcase, it isn't too unfair to assume he wasn't going to be reasonable. The police burst in as soon as he fired, so I see it more as a [I]ridiculously[/I] noble sacrifice from the manager than a gamble.
Manager was reckless, shouldn't have tried to be a hero.
[QUOTE=tommyc225;46724531]Manager was reckless, shouldn't have tried to be a hero.[/QUOTE]Fuck dude, it's self sacrifice. He did it so the others could get away.
[QUOTE=tommyc225;46724531]Manager was reckless, shouldn't have tried to be a hero.[/QUOTE]
I think he was pretty heroic for doing what he did. He potentially prevented even more people from being killed, despite getting himself killed (AFAIK) the other woman died from a heart attack and there were just 3 injuries vice countless more deaths.
Oh I'm not saying what he did wasn't noble, he had the best intentions. But there was definitely a better way this could have ended instead of him sacrificing himself.
[QUOTE=tommyc225;46724548]Oh I'm not saying what he did wasn't noble, he had the best intentions. But there was definitely a better way this could have ended instead of him sacrificing himself.[/QUOTE]Like what, they were worn out after 17 hours of this.
[QUOTE=tommyc225;46724531]Manager was reckless, shouldn't have tried to be a hero.[/QUOTE]
The gunman didn't have an exit strategy. It's unlikely he planned on letting all the hostages live.
Honestly it was probably worth the risk.
I don't claim to be a hostage situation expert, but I'm pretty sure any sort of escalation in the situation is a bad idea. Sure they'd be tired after 17 hours, but they should let the people who know what they're doing make the decisions.
But I must sympathise, I know I'd want to be doing what I could to get out of there.
[QUOTE=tommyc225;46724578]I don't claim to be a hostage situation expert, but I'm pretty sure any sort of escalation in the situation is a bad idea. Sure they'd be tired after 17 hours, but they should let the people who know what they're doing make the decisions.
But I must sympathise, I know I'd want to be doing what I could to get out of there.[/QUOTE]
You always want to avoid escalation but fighting is always a last resort if it seems like there's no other option. When you're dealing with an armed gunman the principle is "1. Run 2. Hide 3. Fight", it applies to hostage situations as well. If the situation seems hopeless then fighting is your last resort.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46724599]You always want to avoid escalation but fighting is always a last resort if it seems like there's no other option. When you're dealing with an armed gunman the principle is "1. Run 2. Hide 3. Fight", it applies to hostage situations as well. If the situation seems hopeless then fighting is your last resort.[/QUOTE]
If the situation was indeed hopeless, wouldn't the police/special forces have moved in?
[QUOTE=tommyc225;46724632]If the situation was indeed hopeless, wouldn't the police/special forces have moved in?[/QUOTE]
Because the police are omnipotent.
Here's how I see it:
If a gunman/terrorist takes hostages, and the point is to kill those hostages, that's going to happen relatively soon. Study all known cases of such to this point in time, you'll see.
If hours and hours go by and the gunman has killed no one, and is not currently violent, then this situation is NOT about randomly killing people, he has another motive. Maybe he wants money, maybe he wants his friends released from prison, or something else. In these cases the only time the hostages get killed is because someone, usually law enforcement, takes action and the gunman then starts opening fire.
This is why, if no violence is occurring, you don't want to provoke the gunman. Time is on the side of the authorities, the longer this goes on with no violence, the likelier it is this guy surrenders. You want the gunman relaxed and calm, you don't want him agitated.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46727598]Here's how I see it:
If a gunman/terrorist takes hostages, and the point is to kill those hostages, that's going to happen relatively soon. Study all known cases of such to this point in time, you'll see.
If hours and hours go by and the gunman has killed no one, and is not currently violent, then this situation is NOT about randomly killing people, he has another motive. Maybe he wants money, maybe he wants his friends released from prison, or something else. In these cases the only time the hostages get killed is because someone, usually law enforcement, takes action and the gunman then starts opening fire.
This is why, if no violence is occurring, you don't want to provoke the gunman. Time is on the side of the authorities, the longer this goes on with no violence, the likelier it is this guy surrenders. You want the gunman relaxed and calm, you don't want him agitated.[/QUOTE]
On that note, if the gunman does not back down even after an extended time, the safest course of action is typically to meet their demands, like it or not.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46719924]When he's forcing his hostages to hold up a flag saying "there is no god but allah, and mohammed is his prophet" written white on black and also demanding an ISIS flag to be delivered in exhange for a hostage
I'm just wiiiidly spectulaing, but it might just be a muslim extremist.[/QUOTE]
its important to remember that there are just as many sects in Islamic subculture as there is in say, Christians.
You would split it between extremists if they were Protestant, Catholic, Evangelist, etc, so why wouldn't you do it for Islam?
[QUOTE=Pokeman493;46727697]On that note, if the gunman does not back down even after an extended time, the safest course of action is typically to meet their demands, like it or not.[/QUOTE]
Define extended time. Most hostage situations last days. This one lasted around 16 hours. The police/military have no problem waiting these situations out.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46727598]Here's how I see it:
If a gunman/terrorist takes hostages, and the point is to kill those hostages, that's going to happen relatively soon. Study all known cases of such to this point in time, you'll see.
If hours and hours go by and the gunman has killed no one, and is not currently violent, then this situation is NOT about randomly killing people, he has another motive. Maybe he wants money, maybe he wants his friends released from prison, or something else. In these cases the only time the hostages get killed is because someone, usually law enforcement, takes action and the gunman then starts opening fire.
This is why, if no violence is occurring, you don't want to provoke the gunman. Time is on the side of the authorities, the longer this goes on with no violence, the likelier it is this guy surrenders. You want the gunman relaxed and calm, you don't want him agitated.[/QUOTE]
Realize though that this guy was working alone, so he had to do whatever he was going to do before he got too tired to function. Even if he only wanted to hold hostages alive and to make demands, after a long enough period of time, he would have to sleep and his hostages would have gotten away. Given all indication that he was willing to kill, it seems reasonable that should he get sufficiently fatigued, he would have started killing hostages to try and achieve his goals before he got too groggy to effectively control them.
[QUOTE=Pokeman493;46727697]On that note, if the gunman does not back down even after an extended time, the safest course of action is typically to meet their demands, like it or not.[/QUOTE]
Or to have a sniper put one through his skull one of the multiple times he came to the windows.
[QUOTE=darunner;46730967]Or to have a sniper put one through his skull one of the multiple times he came to the windows.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they considered that option, and I'm sure there's a reason they didn't try it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.