Video of Drug Smugglers Shot down

Status
Not open for further replies.
FiveO said:
Killbilly, to be perfectly honest with you I do not know enough about the subject to answer it. Sorry.



It can only be myself or a fellow on duty LEO. Someone can shoot someone sitting right next to me and I would not be allowed to respond with deadly force until I feel it's my arse.
Click to expand...


"Use of deadly force" is often granted to police when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man in a shopping mall shooting at random without regard to the safety of the people around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would likely warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to prevent further danger to the community. In the US this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
 
Interesting. Not digressing off the subject much, but I wonder what darrenf would say if someone shot an intruder in someone's home as would be legal in Texas. Again, would one bring up 'immediate threat' if an intruder were simply trying to steal some electronics device?

My point? It's the law. If you violate the law, there are consequences. Those consequences can result in the use of deadly force be it by private citizen, law enforcement, or the military.
 
Chewie von Nubbins said:
I feel you man. But you are arguing your point about a personal hangup that you have against a national/foreign policy that is implemented outside of our nation's shores. I disagree with a state's policy about a state income tax. But, that is just the way it is and there is not much that I can do about it. If I choose to live in a state that has a state income tax, although I disagree with it...I still have to pay. But I live in Texas...and we don't have a state income tax. They left it up to the counties and cities to rape you if you own a house.

/hijack
Click to expand...

Though that policy is in another country, it is the result of OUR policies. Even George Bush saw the problems with it clearly enough to shut it down in 2002.

MFT1Air said:
You grayed the line here and confused the issue. These are not officers as it relates to law enforcement; it is the military as it relates to the appropriate national laws applicable to their country. Rules for law enforcement and the military, as you already know, are different. We have the same rules in the United States as they relate to shooting down of aircraft, civilian or otherwise, or are in violation of the rules. Rules are designed to protect the public interest be it in the U.S. or Columbia. Violation of those rules no longer make you "an innocent." You are a violator. You are guilty. You are subject to punitive action. That makes it OK. :D
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with any laws allowing an aircraft in the U.S. to be shot down for carrying drugs. Care to show me those rules??
 
MFT1Air said:
My point? It's the law. If you violate the law, there are consequences. Those consequences can result in the use of deadly force be it by private citizen, law enforcement, or the military.
Click to expand...

My point, and this is the last time I am going to repeat it, is deadly force should only be used for an immediate threat to person. Nothing else! The consequence for violating EVERY law is not death. Very simple.


And as to how I feel about someone entering the house, I have a loaded gun by my bed, so that should answer that question.
 
Just a snippet from the Senate select Committee's review of shoot down procedures in 2001.....

Unfortunately, the history of the program had by then led to the development of an operational mindset that assumed a target plane was a trafficker unless proved otherwise, rather than the other way around.
The full text can be found here...
http://intelligence.senate.gov/perureport.pdf

That from the beginning of this thread has been my contention. Yes, I have an issue with assumption of guilt vs. assumption of innocence, especially when it comes to the use of deadly force. It surprises me that ANY American would feel differently. It is a core American belief!
 
MFT1Air said:
Interesting. Not digressing off the subject much, but I wonder what darrenf would say if someone shot an intruder in someone's home as would be legal in Texas. Again, would one bring up 'immediate threat' if an intruder were simply trying to steal some electronics device?

My point? It's the law. If you violate the law, there are consequences. Those consequences can result in the use of deadly force be it by private citizen, law enforcement, or the military.
Click to expand...

Only if the commission of a felony was witnessed, and the suspect is an immediate danger to life, is deadly force authorized.

In the case of a home intruder, the suspect has commited a felony (B&E) and is threatening life. If the person is trying to run out the front door, you'd better not shoot them because it doesn't meet the test.
 
darrenf said:
Just a snippet from the Senate select Committee's review of shoot down procedures in 2001.....

Unfortunately, the history of the program had by then led to the development of an operational mindset that assumed a target plane was a trafficker unless proved otherwise, rather than the other way around.
The full text can be found here...
http://intelligence.senate.gov/perureport.pdf

That from the beginning of this thread has been my contention. Yes, I have an issue with assumption of guilt vs. assumption of innocence, especially when it comes to the use of deadly force. It surprises me that ANY American would feel differently. It is a core American belief!
Click to expand...

Let's not let the facts (or the law, or ethics) get in the way of our shoot first ask questions later philosophy . . .out
 
bumblebee said:
"Use of deadly force" is often granted to police when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man in a shopping mall shooting at random without regard to the safety of the people around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would likely warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to prevent further danger to the community. In the US this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Click to expand...

You are correct but in situations like that SWAT teams are brought into action. They will obviously perform differently than uniformed officers.
 
FiveO said:
You are correct but in situations like that SWAT teams are brought into action. They will obviously perform differently than uniformed officers.
Click to expand...
Officer credited for quick response
An off-duty police officer being credited with helping stop the shooting rampage said his experience helped him react quickly to confront the gunman.
Kenneth K. Hammond, who was at the mall for an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his wife, said he first thought the sound of gunfire was construction noise but drew his gun and told his wife to call 911 when he realized what was happening.
“I’ve been in situations before where I’ve had to chase a guy who was pointing a gun at me,” Hammond, 33, said Tuesday from the Ogden police headquarters where he works.
Hammond, who fired on Talovic, is being credited with drawing the gunman’s attention until other officers could reach the scene. Talovic was killed, although it was unclear which officer fired the fatal shot, police said.
“I feel like I was there and did what I had to do,” Hammond said.

070214_shooting_hmed_11a.standard.jpg
Douglas C. Pizac/AP​

Ogden, Utah, police Officer Ken Hammond and his wife, Sarita, address the media on Tuesday. On Monday, his day off, Hammond confronted an 18-year-old who opened fire in a Salt Lake City mall, killing 4.
 
That exact story came to mind as I was typing out my response. I know the article says an officer fired the final shot but I'm about 99% sure it was SWAT. Regardless the guys saved a lot of other people.

Another reason why I never leave home without my gun.
 
darrenf]I am not familiar with any laws allowing an aircraft in the U.S. to be shot down for carrying drugs. Care to show me those rules??[/quote] Eureka said:
My point . . .deadly force should only be used for an immediate threat to person.
Click to expand...

Everyone has an opinion. I respect yours. Those in authority in that country disagree. I respect and agree with their position.

darrenf said:
The consequence for violating EVERY law is not death. Very simple.
Click to expand...

And again, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Succinctly put, and I put my editorials to rest as well. . .Violate THIS law, you run the rest of deadly force. Again, to this specific law, I agree with the potential consequences.
 
darrenf said:
Where did I cast judgement on someone from watching that video? In fact, if you were bright enough to follow the thought in this thread, you would see the entire point is about assuming too much from limited information. You state you KNOW that was a Columbian plane, in Columbia, shot down by Columbians. You managed to pick that out from within that video? You must be smarter than me than, because from watching that video, I cannot make out where that jungle is, or the tail number on the aircraft, nor does anyone in the communications identify themselves nor their location short of their own lingo "the frontier". I can see how someone like you who can make all those assumptions with such certainty cannot see the problems with this operation. :banghead:
Click to expand...


Exactly it was a 4 minute vid, so how can you say in your previous statement “They were not bringing drugs into the US,” and “What I am saying is that killing someone that early in the progression is immoral” How do you know how early in the progression they are…? How do you know they were or were not bringing drugs to the US, what is the source of your information. You don’t.

My point is none of us know if they throughout drugs prior to the vid, how long they were running.. we know nothing to make an assessment of the situation, or to call what should or shouldn’t happen. You’re making a judgment call off of your morals from a four minute video. The video headline is “Drug Smuggler shot down” Who posted the video? What if that statement in-it and of its self is wrong? We all including me need not to be so quick to call out wrong or rights on anyone with out knowing the source of your information. This is just a battle of morals, that’s it. You or I know nothing about the video. In-fact the video would be thrown out in any court of law, it only proves one thing, and that’s that a plane somewhere in the world was shot down. What, Where, When, Why, was never answered in this video. So don’t say it wrong or right… I shouldn’t have either…. Relax people….

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2778569/video/x1njrs_national-geographic-colombias-drug/1

This should open some eyes..
 
Okay....sorry to chime in late on this one, but I just found this post this morning.

First of all, a plane load of missionaries wouldn't be diving for the deck below radar, skimming the tree tops, and trying to evade.

Second of all, we see the video of the last minutes of that plane's existence. We don't see what led up to that chase and shoot down, we don't see the intelligence operations that led to them FINDING that aircraft in the first place, and we don't what actions were done prior to shooting down that aircraft.

Third, it sure seemed to me that it was a police matter. The FLIR operators sounded American to me, but they were not engaging the suspect aircraft. The plane was shot down by the Brazilians. It also sounded to me that the Brazilians were doing everything they can to contact that aircraft and bring it down peacefully.

You're absolutely right, we don't know if the pilot had a gun to his head or a gun to his family's head. But the chances are better that he was being well-paid to be a drug mule.

Anyway, I don't see this as a bad thing. If it did keep some drugs off our streets, I'm all for that. Am I in favor of just randomly shooting down aircraft you see heading towards a national border? Of course not, but there's nothing about that video that leads me to believe that it was anything but a drug mule ignoring threats of being shot down, running for the border, and getting shot down.

Cheers!

Andy
 
CAP_Flyer said:
First of all, a plane load of missionaries wouldn't be diving for the deck below radar, skimming the tree tops, and trying to evade.
Click to expand...
Unless they were afraid . . .

CAP_Flyer said:
The FLIR operators sounded American to me, but they were not engaging the suspect aircraft. The plane was shot down by the Brazilians. It also sounded to me that the Brazilians were doing everything they can to contact that aircraft and bring it down peacefully.
Click to expand...




If the US is helping them, then we're complicit.

Look, I support drug intradiction policy ( although if we legalized everything and made it a medical problem, we would have a lot less crime). . . I can not support force beyond a reasonable means. If this is another country, fine, they can blow up all of their own citizens they want. I would despise their leadership, but I would not have a lot to say about it. If we are using our resources to help, however, then the operation should carry our national ethics. If we shoot people down that do not represent an immediate threat to personel or national security, then we act more like a dictator than a nation of laws.

On that point I feel that most of the shoot first, ask questions later folks, and I will continue to disagree.
 
Funny the kind of conversations that go on. Let me share something with you, its fine to think that someone deserves to die for doing something that may cause harm to another; because you don't see their deaths, you don't see the after effects of a bomb or a gun shot that was supposed to kill someone on impact.

Being a medevac pilot in Iraq I carried everyone bad guys, good guys and children and until you see someones face half blown off or a kid not crying because he's in shock because his hand is blown off or how about this having your medic walk around picking up body parts with a flash light in the dark because the only thing you found was a torso.

Dude don't wish ill will on anyone for any reason.
 
brentg350 said:
Funny the kind of conversations that go on. Let me share something with you, its fine to think that someone deserves to die for doing something that may cause harm to another; because you don't see their deaths, you don't see the after effects of a bomb or a gun shot that was supposed to kill someone on impact.

Being a medevac pilot in Iraq I carried everyone bad guys, good guys and children and until you see someones face half blown off or a kid not crying because he's in shock because his hand is blown off or how about this having your medic walk around picking up body parts with a flash light in the dark because the only thing you found was a torso.

Dude don't wish ill will on anyone for any reason.
Click to expand...

I see death just about everday, and your point is?

I am still happy that plane went down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top