man killed at outram park mrt?
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
He was just fxxking luckly that he is armed with a Taurus Model 85 with laser sight which help him a lot to shot well !!! But i do question on his training.
Why ? Because he just trigger a shooting in a packed crowded place infront of a lot of singaporeans and tourists risking their lifes !!! Ok he was lucky .... things went well, he may be call a hero ...
So what the guy just kill someone, the police should still have put more thoughts to the by-standers !!! But what happen if things went wrong .... by-standers are going to die ..!! What happen if the bullet have over penetrated. What happen if he missed and bullet ricoshae . What happen if the man instead of charging toward them, charges into the crowds and take someone hostage !!!A well train police would not have try to approach the guy to trigger this shooting incident with so many by-standers so near !!! They should have taken a more careful approach to clear others out first and contain him before trying to approach him ....which by then even if they need to shoot - the risk of by-standers casaulties is minised !!
. Why ... what happen if they confronted the man ... he did not charge
as usual lor, here complain there complain here whine there whine..newspaper frontpage big big with bold somemore.
thn spf will say we will investigate.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
He was just fxxking luckly that he is armed with a Taurus Model 85 with laser sight which help him a lot to shot well !!! But i do question on his training.
Why ? Because he just trigger a shooting in a packed crowded place infront of a lot of singaporeans and tourists risking their lifes !!! Ok he was lucky .... things went well, he may be call a hero ...
So what the guy just kill someone, the police should still have put more thoughts to the by-standers !!! But what happen if things went wrong .... by-standers are going to die ..!! What happen if the bullet have over penetrated. What happen if he missed and bullet ricoshae . What happen if the man instead of charging toward them, charges into the crowds and take someone hostage !!!A well train police would not have try to approach the guy to trigger this shooting incident with so many by-standers so near !!! They should have taken a more careful approach to clear others out first and contain him before trying to approach him ....which by then even if they need to shoot - the risk of by-standers casaulties is minised !!
. Why ... what happen if they confronted the man ... he did not charge
Not that we take it for granted, but the .38 bullets generally do not over-penetrate a human body. Rounds such as these are made to transfer as much kinetic energy to the body as possible. IIRC, thats also known as "stopping power." A person hit by it, will stop.
The average Singaporean Policeman spends about 2 years in training, or at least so claimed MM Lee. I'm sure they are more than aware of innoncent bystanders when they actually have to draw their weapon and fire.
-
Originally posted by browniebaobao:
i see no reason to shoot him if he was not armed with any weapon.
platform leh.. wonder wat time was that.. outram mrt always v crowded.. they know how much alarm and inconvenience they caused or not?
i thought he was armed with a knife. imagine you are being attacked by a man with a knife at a short distance. would you have time to think what you should and not do? of course natural reaction is to protect yourself first. its human nature. if the armed attacker is of far distance( is to be judged by personal opinion), then he can aim his leg or arm, or whatsoever.if the victim think so much, he may be the one lying there liao.
-
police only small tiny gun mah...unless they are trained in aikido like the gurkha contigent........which i think could handle the man without shooting him
-
Originally posted by Deino:
police only small tiny gun mah...unless they are trained in aikido like the gurkha contigent........which i think could handle the man without shooting him
if Gurkha, they'd probably pull out their kukri and hack off the guy's arm or something
that being said, the kukri was traditionally used as a weapon for decapitation
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
if Gurkha, they'd probably pull out their kukri and hack off the guy's arm or somethingthat being said, the kukri was traditionally used as a weapon for decapitation
nah...i'd imagin them paralysing him without landing him with a scar like steven segal....
-
Originally posted by mancha:
yeah lor, I wonder why the policeman did not shoot at that guy's little toe. That would guarantee to have that man hopping around.
If I am not wrong, our policemens' revolvers don't shoot like cowboy guns. I think they need to firstn squeeze the trigger, to cock the weapon, then squeeze again to fire. When they decide to shoot, they got to do it quick. They cannot panic and fumble, or they be the one that's dead. Then we'll be saying "He got gun what, why never shoot!"
Singapore no more warning shots, highrise flats, built up area, dense population, enclose space, etc., now only loud verbal warning. And if the suspect charges, even with a toy knife, or iron pipe, he had it. His best chance is to run away from the policeman, they will not shoot.
i strongly agree. it is not up to us 3rd party to analyse how the 'victim' should react. you can see as nothing dangerous, but to the victim, it could meant life and death at that point of time.
it is like a teacher who trying to educate the student, ended up being complained about his method. we should not ever jump to conclusions as to who is wrong and right. 3rd party has no right to judge. we are not even there!!
-
Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:
seems like the first time in don't know how many years. to fire a round in the army is already headache enough, its worst to fire in spf especially on duty in the public. the policeman who fired should have more than enough explaination for it. furthermore its in the mrt station where there are countless of security cams.did the attacker die? or still unknown? luckily sgh is just nearby.
Don't you think if the man really attack the cop and the cop is forced to shoot at him, have camera recording better, no need to do so much convinving work. If the cop is trigger happy, then also good luck to him lor.
-
Originally posted by jacqn:
i strongly agree. it is not up to us 3rd party to analyse how the 'victim' should react. you can see as nothing dangerous, but to the victim, it could meant life and death at that point of time.
it is like a teacher who trying to educate the student, ended up being complained about his method. we should not ever jump to conclusions as to who is wrong and right. 3rd party has no right to judge. we are not even there!!
3rd parties have the right to judge. provided he/she witnessed the whole incident. thats why you have witnesses. -
Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:
3rd parties have the right to judge. provided he/she witnessed the whole incident. thats why you have witnesses.3rd parties judge becoz they're not the person who experienced it.....sometimes even poliemen can freak out and shoot people...they're only human
-
Originally posted by cairocks:
Don't you think if the man really attack the cop and the cop is forced to shoot at him, have camera recording better, no need to do so much convinving work. If the cop is trigger happy, then also good luck to him lor.
you watch too many movies..
who is going to wield the camera? the police guy? by the time he pulls out the goddamned camera, he'd have a knife sticking out of his chest..
btw.. we're taking another step towards an idiot country like the US where 100 lawyers jump to the aid of a criminal to protect him when anyone uses force to stop him... while no one helps the victim of the crime..
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
you watch too many movies..
who is going to wield the camera? the police guy? by the time he pulls out the goddamned camera, he'd have a knife sticking out of his chest..
btw.. we're taking another step towards an idiot country like the US where 100 lawyers jump to the aid of a criminal to protect him when anyone uses force to stop him... while no one helps the victim of the crime..
mrt station....sure have cams that caught the incident.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
you watch too many movies..
who is going to wield the camera? the police guy? by the time he pulls out the goddamned camera, he'd have a knife sticking out of his chest..
btw.. we're taking another step towards an idiot country like the US where 100 lawyers jump to the aid of a criminal to protect him when anyone uses force to stop him... while no one helps the victim of the crime..
I am replying to an earlier post where the poster says the shooting occur at the mrt station where there are countless cameras...check earlier post
-
Originally posted by cairocks:
I am replying to an earlier post where the poster says the shooting occur at the mrt station where there are countless cameras...check earlier post
hmmm.. that.. remember the various incidents where people jumped to their deaths at the stations?the cameras "weren't working"
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
hmmm.. that.. remember the various incidents where people jumped to their deaths at the stations?the cameras "weren't working"
really? (not trying to be sarcastic) but i think perhaps they don't want to release anything to the public? maybe only the related ones know what happened? otherwise, maybe those incidents happened at raised platform stations which are older compared to NEL where there is better coverage.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
hmmm.. that.. remember the various incidents where people jumped to their deaths at the stations?the cameras "weren't working"
Remember that they say they are upgrading them to recordable ones, after the non recordable ones are made public. Also they using the terrorist bombings in UK as excuse to install lots and lots more cameras all over the country.
-
Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:
really? (not trying to be sarcastic) but i think perhaps they don't want to release anything to the public? maybe only the related ones know what happened? otherwise, maybe those incidents happened at raised platform stations which are older compared to NEL where there is better coverage.
They should have recorded the incident. What happened to all the anti-terrorism surveillance? -
maybe its all for show only.
just like red light cameras. it could just be an empty shell.
-
anybody who thinks the officer who made the shot is wrong, think again.
put yourself in his shoes. suspect charging straight at you with a knife that's bound to kill you, and your only chance at the moment is drawing your revolver to shoot him.
better he dies, than you die, isn't it?
shoot his leg, lower hit percentage, or any non-lethal part of his body, it's still possible for him to attack.
shooting him straight in the chest stops him almost immediately.
the use of lethal force is justified. and pls lah, warning shot. wtf? do you know how many innocent civilians can be in an enclosed area like Outram MRT?
-
Originally posted by kenn3th:
Why must the policeofficer, shoot the man ON the chest at point zero?
why cant he shoot him on the legs?
Why dun u ask, why must that guy charge at the police with a knife? But then again, i wasnt there to see if what was claim is true. Thing have a way of being told in favour of the one still alive since the suspect is dead.
As for shooting the leg, .... hmmm let role play what is going on in the mind of the police; What if, I miss? What if I hit him but he carry on and stab me, killing me? What if I miss and hit someone else? What if this was another guy that happen to look like he is charging my way with a packet of tissue? There can be 1000 "what if" but I only have a split sec to choose,fight or flight, his life or mine.
-
We dont really know what went down and how threatening the 43 year old was to the policeman but It is more likely that a cop would approach an assailant rather than the other way around,if that is so then cop has more time to think and react
-
i tot they only can shoot at non vital parts?
-
Originally posted by caleb_chiang:
i tot they only can shoot at non vital parts?
you shoot to stop a person from endangering your life and safety or the general public's safety..
and shooting a person is to stop a person, whoever said shoot the "non-vital parts" has never shot a revolver before..
-
those who had been through NS would know what is ROE.
if u have someone charging at u with a weapon, with the clear intention of hurting u or ur fellow citizens, u have every right to use lethal force
-
coming to think about it, if someone who had already murder someone else, and now this fellow comes charging towards me, i would give him a one time good one.