Those points: Re - Shooting Huey Walker in the movie 'Flashback' are well taken indeed.
In the context of the movie Walker uncoupled the rail-car from the train before the shot was taken from the same train (meaning that the cars were apart but on the same track.)
As I say the point yo made are valid indeed.
Re - Legal justification : The Walker character was on the run after escaping federal custody (on two separate occasions) for a twenty-year old crime he had committed (malicious mischief.)
It was not Sutherland who took the shot but another FBI character.
My impression is that this shooting would have been out of policy for the FBI. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main ones are that it was not in self defense. Unless Walker was aiming a gun at him, then it could have been.
Another reason would be that the agent doing the shooting would have no way of knowing that the bullets fired at Walker would not injure another person behind him. I am assuming a passenger train.
OT, but I'm going to do it anyway. A case many years ago that left the Seattle media outraged was an emotionally disturbed person (EDP) shot by Seattle Police (SPD). My brothers were on the county force at the time, so this sticks out as an example of how unfair and downright ill-informed the media can be. A county officer had served an eviction notice on the EDP, which EDP takes a sword and stabs the county officer. The wound proved fatal. Both my brothers knew the slain officer. SPD showed up and their TAC squad was called in and tried to talk to the EDP for something like 21 hours. Talks were getting nowhere, so the TAC squad moved in. His apartment (flat is what you'd call it, I believe) was on the ground floor, and the EDP could hear the TAC squad getting ready and lay in wait for them with his sword. He didn't see the TAC squad people at the window.
They broke the door down and the EDP raised his sword to strike and the guys at the window fired in defense of their fellow officers, killing the EDP. It sounded to me at the time like it was a righteous shoot, and the courts and the inquest later ruled that it was, but the press and the broadcast media just raked the SPD officers over the coals. Why? Because the EDP had been hit in the back 21 times. The TAC people used UZI's, and if memory serves, the selector switch was on full automatic. Plus, more than one officer fired. IIRC, there were three or four who fired. Evn K-I-R-O, the CBS affiliate (owned and operated by a subsidiary of the Mormon Church) joined in, emphasizing that the EDP was shot 21 times in the back. The county officer who got killed was lost in the coverage of the EDP's death. So were the members of the TAC squad that the EDP was going to try to kill if he had not been stopped.
I guess my point here is not to rely on the media for accurate information concerning firearms or their use. Take anything you hear from them with a great big lump of salt.
Anyway I'm now off my soapbox.
Why would Nolly be disappointed that there was no bank in the town of Salem's Lot?
(Clue: it had nothing to do with a desire to withdraw money from his account!)
Cheers for now.
As I remember, he wanted to foil a robbery, wasn't it?
What was the small pun that Father Callahan allowed himself?
reply
share