Page 3 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

06 May 2011, 2:48 am

If he's dead then that is what was planned to happen, if they wanted him alive they would have made sure to have taken him alive.
So they they wanted him dead specifically. Us uninitiated can only speculate why.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

06 May 2011, 6:57 am

Counting shots is a bit disingenuous, as "one in the chest, one in the head" double-tap might as well be a single shot for the sake of argument. Me personally, I might think about not shooting people in the chest when they might be wearing a bomb-vest, but maybe I'm just overly cautious.

I think the problem more than anything else is that the shooting of an unarmed man is going to be seen as an execution by many parties regardless of how much anyone dissects the actual fire-fight. And being seen to follow the rule of law is nearly as important as just following it.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 May 2011, 7:47 am

Subotai wrote:
If he's dead then that is what was planned to happen, if they wanted him alive they would have made sure to have taken him alive.
So they they wanted him dead specifically. Us uninitiated can only speculate why.


Use the most obvious explanation. Revenge.

ruveyn