At the begining of this film at the Bank robbery scene one of the SWAT guys shoots a hostage, erm forgive me for asking this silly question : Would a real life SWAT member actually perform this tactic ?
"Here's where watching 'The World's Most Exciting Police Chases' pays off."
[deleted]
What did you think of Birmingham ?
sharelol it wasnt a tactic, he missed the shot. he meant to shoot the guy in the head but shot the hostage cuz he cant aim.
shareOK thanks, just to anyone who has a interest in me. I am trying to get round to studying the art of films. Seizing the day
"Living the dream baby !, living the dream !"
"To God be the Glory !"
of course they wouldn't do that deliberately
the sights Gamble used on his M4 are about 2 3/4" higher than the center of the bore (barrel), so when he aimed at the suspect's head (?) the bullet actually hit approximately 2 3/4" lower than the cross hair was pointed (though a trained SWAT officer would be very aware of the sights offset at those ranges, and aim higher)
No, a real S.W.A.T-officer wouldn't risk the hostages life with a shot like that, you just don't.
Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.
eventhough ur right about that lesson in weaponry, ur wrong. in the film u can clearly see that he is aiming dangerously close to the hostage's shoulder. he just missed the shot.
shareI think they would. Its probably one of those things embedded in careers like that where they have things they do behind the scenes for the good of the situation but would never let the public/people outside the career know.
(yes also fiction) but it makes me think of that episode of House MD when the coast guard(??) was trying to save that guy who was in the ocean in a storm, but kept refusing to let them save him b/c he didnt want to drop his suitcase with his wife's medical records. The coast guards looked at each other like they were confirming something, then dunked his head under until he dropped the case and they could save his life w/o him fighting.
Obviously in this movie Gamble's superior didnt agree, but Sam Jackson's character might've if he was his boss instead. Hell everyone else seemed to agree with the decision.
**Girls Club!**
Go D Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd23un9m6s
Honestly, when I saw that scene, I immediately thought of the "Shoot the Hostage" conversation scene in Speed. I remember thinking of that when I saw this movie at the theater.
All I need is one mic...
I think they would. Its probably one of those things embedded in careers like that where they have things they do behind the scenes for the good of the situation but would never let the public/people outside the career know.
Right, I said 'I think they would'. And I wouldn't be surprised if in real life they would risk shooting a hostage in a nonvital area to save the rest of the hostages and end the situation. I'm saying they would never admit it, it would be something people in the career know to do as a last resort to get the job done. Hell if I was that woman and I got shot in my shoulder to end the situation before some nut blew my head off, I can't say I'd be mad.
**Girls Club!**
Go D Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd23un9m6s
Right, I said 'I think they would'. And I wouldn't be surprised if in real life they would risk shooting a hostage in a nonvital area to save the rest of the hostages and end the situation.
they would never admit it? how would they explain the friggin hostages gunshot wound dumbass.
look ive said it once ill say it again...some people shouldnt be allowed to procreate.
Yea I agree, you shouldn't be allowed to procreate. Learn to read so you can operate those little rubber things and catch those kids. I was saying they'd never ADMIT it, IE, they'd lie to the public and say something else happened, while knowing what really happened. They would shoot them somewhere NONVITAL, to distract the suspect like in the movie. And like I also said, the bitch was about to get her head blown off, and when she got shot in the shoulder, her ass and everyone elses was saved.
Jeeze, did you comprehend that time? Remember those rubbers, jackass. You must be one of those people that trusts the government's explanations 100% too.
**Girls Club!**
Go D Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd23un9m6s
I was saying they'd never ADMIT it, IE, they'd lie to the public and say something else happened, while knowing what really happened. They would shoot them somewhere NONVITAL, to distract the suspect like in the movie. And like I also said, the bitch was about to get her head blown off, and when she got shot in the shoulder, her ass and everyone elses was saved.
That's true, but dont police officers do the same thing to suspects sometimes when they have to shoot them to get them to comply, but not somewhere where it'll kill them? Like if they have a hostage and can get a clear shot. So in that case there would be a standard for 'nonvital' vs 'vital' areas even though anywhere can be vital.
And of course the hostage can talk. Everyone will know she got shot, but she cant say, oh well they shot me on purpose. She'll just be yelling 'I got shot.' Im talking about the reason for doing so.
**Girls Club!**
Go D Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd23un9m6s
That's true, but dont police officers do the same thing to suspects sometimes when they have to shoot them to get them to comply, but not somewhere where it'll kill them? Like if they have a hostage and can get a clear shot. So in that case there would be a standard for 'nonvital' vs 'vital' areas even though anywhere can be vital.No, if deadly force is not justified you cannot shoot a person.
Lol, I mean its happened w/shows w/actual police showdowns, not just stuff like Law and Order, but that's fine...
**Girls Club!**
Go D Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd23un9m6s
Lol, I mean its happened w/shows w/actual police showdownsNO it hasn't. Not in the US and not intentionally.
Im sorry man, I was referring to your 'Deadly force is not justified to get someone to comply' comment, where i'm sure i've seen on police video shows when people have tried to outrun cops in cars and the chase ends with them being shot for not stopping/getting out of the car. I have NEVER seen videos of them shooting hostages to get to suspects. Just want to be clear on that.
**Girls Club!**
Go D Woods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd23un9m6s
Im sorry man, I was referring to your 'Deadly force is not justified to get someone to comply' comment, where i'm sure i've seen on police video shows when people have tried to outrun cops in cars and the chase ends with them being shot for not stopping/getting out of the car.
Besides, if they are running, they are probably going to exit the vehicle pretty soon anyway.
share"Would a real life SWAT member actually perform this tactic?"
*beep*, and, no. What time of bizzaro movie world do you live in dude? Even J-SOC snipers in Somalia could take shots until that captain was no where in the frame.
It all about covering your ass.
Police is liable since that institution trained those two.
Internally they're reprehended because they didnt follow orders (hold position when they were in the air vent shaft). So being off SWAT is reasonable punishment.
If they followed orders and still get the hostage injured/killed. No punishment would've followed (well at the very least no OFF SWAT), they did their best and failed. (But the police wouldve still been liable)
That's why you must always follow orders.
It does seem silly that the hostage sued the LAPD, they just saved your life after the criminal just said "Kill her, so they see we mean business". That DID bother me a lot. That's a frivolous lawsuit that it probably wouldnt hold. Because the alternative would be let them kill her and her families sues the dead criminals, lets see how she gets millions out of them.
What a b*tch.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that was a total b!tch move on her part. I'd take a slug to the shoulder over one in the temple any day!
If we wanna hear you talk, I will shove my arm up your ass and work your mouth like a puppet!
Could be just said without truth behind it because it is possible and always a risk that one who got hurt has the right to sue (think of medical costs and other compensations) and Fuller was damn pissed anyway.
If the robber hurt her she can sue him as well. But that would be a lost cause. Better getting shot by the police. More to obtain.
And because of the suing part and the general risk for a person to die (if you hit a large enough blood vessel a person can bleed to death rather quick) I doubt that considering to injure the hostage in order to kill the culprit is an official tactic.
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
I always thought he took a non lethal shot at the hostage on purpose to get her out of the way so he could get a clear head shot on the bank robber. I never got the impression that he was aiming for the robber and missed.
share