Man in animal suit shot

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, 6tails said:

America's Army is literally online military training. Made and developed for the US Military.

By the way, these are also common tactics in any wargame. Paintball, airsoft, also part of SWAT and they also part of military E&E exercises, which I have done during Aviation Challenge in Huntsville, AL, (the military-oriented adult version of Space Camp where you learn to fly planes, jets, and do a lot of military jet flight simulations.)

You *DO* realize many of these games are developed with military people doing the consultation, right?

And I feel for you dude!  You served the county during WWII, fighting off the Nazi's Demonic summons from taking over the world, meanwhile you continue to be shafted by the VA!  It's entirely unfair I tell you!  When will America support it's Video Game Veterans and acknowledge the service they gave their nation!  Even today, America's brave counter-terrorism teams in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive receive ZERO funding from congress!  It's a national shame.

[Spot]

28 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I don't think you quite grasp the situation: Even less lethal presents the risk you speak of.  ...Their intention was to stop him.  He was in the open, surrounded, and unable to harm others so long as he remained in that spot.  His refusal to comply also presents another issue: They didn't just have to 'knock him down'.  They had to KEEP him down.  For the entire duration, even AFTER the robot approached his bleeding body and examined the 'bomb', it took multiple police officers to hold him down once it was safe to approach.  What did you expect the police to do with less lethal?  They needed to examine and possible disarm the bomb.  This requires TIME.  Time that he was unwilling to afford them by COMPLYING.  Did you expect him to land on his ass and for a cop to run up, grab the would be bomb like a suicidal football player, and run off with it to examine elsewhere?  How were the police to keep him down for the necessary time for the robot to approach, examine, possibly disarm, with less lethal weaponry if he had no intention of complying?

No no, I grasp the situation just fine. But you're telling me that rubber bullets are not an effective way to incapacitate someone?

What about a shot to the head? Have you ever been punched in the jaw or the head and knocked out? I've seen people knocked out for hours. Believe it or not, a relative of my sister in law killed someone here by punching him in the head.  

Point is, a projectile of that size travelling at the velocity is more than capable enough to incapacitate a person, if not the first round the second would do the job. The person I cited was dropped cold in 4 shots, incapacitated, and he wasn't even shot in the head.

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Mr. Fox said:

No no, I grasp the situation just fine. But you're telling me that rubber bullets are not an effective way to incapacitate someone?

What about a shot to the head? Have you ever been punched in the jaw or the head and knocked out? I've seen people knocked out for hours. Believe it or not, a relative of my sister in law killed someone here by punching him in the head.  

A projectile of that size travelling at the velocity is more than enough to incapacitate a person, if not the first round the second would do the job. The person I cited was dropped cold in 4 shots, and he wasn't even shot in the head. 

So yo want to strike someone directly in the head to unreliably induce unconsciousness via concussive force, for a very unpredictable length of time, risking brain damage and fatality in the process, as a 'safe' alternative to just shooting them with a bullet...

[Endless/Nameless]

Don't run around with bombs, kids. 

[Spot]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

So yo want to strike someone directly in the head to unreliably induce unconsciousness via concussive force, for a very unpredictable length of time, risking brain damage and fatality in the process, as a 'safe' alternative to just shooting them with a bullet...

You're acting as if the use of live rounds, something that is designed to maim and kill is still a better alternative to using something less lethal that can still do the job.

topkek

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Mr. Fox said:

You're acting as if the use of live rounds, something that is designed to maim and kill is still a better alternative to using something less lethal that can still do the job.

Well, we've conclusively underlined facts that that less lethal rounds won't induce indefinite incapacitation to allow a bomb to be safely dealt with.  So far the best you've come up with is a video where it takes 17 seconds for police to discharge 4 beanbag rounds into a subject to get them to fall to the ground and be complaint.  You falsely claim that he's 'out cold' in the video but there's nothing in the video to indicate that.  He does fall over, complies, and then the police swam him to apprehend him.  That swarm is of course something police would NEVER do to someone who said they had a bomb because, well, ya know, BOMB.  I mean, that's WHY he was left there until the robot checked out the bomb.  Because no one was going to go near him until it was safe.  You've offered nothing that can indicate less lethal weapons can cause reliable incapacitation for a length duration.  Less lethal weapons achieve compliance through pain and that's really it.

And frankly, yes, I'm okay if shooting him had been fatal.  It would be UNFOURINATE that a mentally ill person died as a result claiming he had a bomb when he only had a mock up and never truly had the means to harm anyone but no one else knew that.  He presented himself as having an extremely lethal weapon and expressed the will to use it.  That was the information necessary and if killing him in the open would have been necessary to prevent him from getting closer to others with the bomb then it still would have been justified.  There's no 'Maybe' with bomb threats, no matter how badly you think there should be.  The appropriate response would have been 'IT'S NOT REAL.  I'LL DO WHAT EVER YOU WANT JUST DON'T SHOOT ME!'  ...And they STILL would have sent that robot at the bag after he had put it down and walked away from it because it STILL could have been a trick but they wouldn't have shot him if he had complied.

[Endless/Nameless]

The moment you step outside with a bomb, you forfeit the right to not get fucking shot.

The cops aren't going to stand there trying every trick in the book while the possible blast radius is inching ever closer to innocents.

We should be thankful they even went for the beanbags first; it would have been easy enough to just open fire.

[Spot]

You're still overlooking the fact that bullets don't always incapacitate you! 50 Cent alone is proof of that.

Unless the would be bomber was shot in a way that would put him down for good, or was in so much shock that his mind couldn't register with his body, if he actually had a bomb and intent to use it, what would stop said person? 

Now I'm not overlooking the fact that extra precautions had to be taken given the situation, but your argument is that every other effective alternative was exhausted before the use of lethal intent, which is not true. 

That begs another question: if the local law enforcement are so concerned about the suspect being such a threat and the need to be incapacitated, why use bean bag rounds in the first place? You said so yourself that the use of them may not be fully effective, but than again neither are live rounds.  

And I'm not saying that the local law enforcement didn't make the right call, but less lethal alternatives have proven effective enough in the past to incapacitate someone to the point where they can be subdued.   

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, 6tails said:

They used the beanbags on the wrong bag! I wanna see someone try to detonate a bomb while they're on the ground clutching their nuts because they just took a couple thousand joules of kinetic energy directly to them. That's assuming they're able to grab their nuts, instead of grabbing their abdomen and doubling over, puking violently from the pain. I've seen that happen, good swift nut kick, instant puke-fest.

That's instant incapacitation. And mean instant. You'll forget you even own a bomb.

[Khaki]

There was a similar scenario which happened here a year back in which a man held another fella hostage in a public throughout the night with a fake bomb vest, the cops were set up in a similar manner with the tactical response group set up with with their sights aimed ready to zap him and just had a Mexican standoff with him throughout the cold night until he eventually gave up and surrendered his hostage.

3 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

And hello, ever hear of cooking a grenade? Should sort out the delayed fuse problem.

Only from people who play videogames or use holy hand grenades. 

28 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

We should be thankful they even went for the beanbags first; it would have been easy enough to just open fire.

They're still using beanbag rounds?

I thought those were stopped due to people complaining about their boo boos from riots.

Also someone mentioned the use of Sound cannons, if that is so, that's pretty awesome, it's right up there with microwave area denial systems.

58 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Don't run around with bombs, kids. 

You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real dad!

 

[Gamedog]

Criminal: Approaches people in a dangerous, aggressive manner with the intent of doing harm or killing someone

The Left/Phoenix: *Defends him to exhaustion and tries to justify sparing the life of someone who would have no problem killing you*

What would you fuckers do if someone grabbed you in an alley, broke into your house, or started to fight you on the street?
I'd try and kill them, you'd try and talk it out with em

This forum os ridiculous

[WileyWarWeasel]

1 hour ago, Khaki said:

Also someone mentioned the use of Sound cannons, if that is so, that's pretty awesome, it's right up there with microwave area denial systems.

That stuff is child's play; real police in the future will use disruptor cannons:

[Khaki]

5 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

That stuff is child's play; real police in the future will use disruptor cannons:

 

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Criminal: Approaches people in a dangerous, aggressive manner with the intent of doing harm or killing someone

The Left/Phoenix: *Defends him to exhaustion and tries to justify sparing the life of someone who would have no problem killing you*

What would you fuckers do if someone grabbed you in an alley, broke into your house, or started to fight you on the street?
I'd try and kill them, you'd try and talk it out with em

This forum os ridiculous

Nobody's mentioning the arson attack, in which a car was set alight by a lit rag that was stuffed into its fuel intake. This was likely the man's doing, and part of his attempt to garner attention. This could have genuinely hurt people.

I still feel sorry for him, because he's obviously a deranged conspiracy nutter and has wound up being seriously injured by behaving stupidly. It's lucky that the arson didn't injure anybody else.

If he has delusions of grandeur, being shot by the police and the centre of all the media attention might might his nuttery even worse.

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Nobody's mentioning the arson attack, in which a car was set alight by a lit rag that was stuffed into its fuel intake. This was likely the man's doing, and part of his attempt to garner attention. This could have genuinely hurt people.

I still feel sorry for him, because he's obviously a deranged conspiracy nutter and has wound up being seriously injured by behaving stupidly. It's lucky that the arson didn't injure anybody else.

If he has delusions of grandeur, being shot by the police and the centre of all the media attention might might his nuttery even worse.

If someone like that lashed out this forum would cease to exist. 

[Saxon]

31 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

If someone like that lashed out this forum would cease to exist. 

?

[Troj]

You feel bad for the dad, because it sounds like this kid was starting to show signs of what may be Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder, and dad was just way in over his head. It sounds like the kid's mom also had some kind of mental health history.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/man-shot-tv-station-charged-arson-other-charges

[Wax]

55 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

If someone like that lashed out this forum would cease to exist. 

 

15 minutes ago, 6tails said:

I don't go for conspiracy, thanks though!

amazing

[Saxon]

30 minutes ago, Troj said:

You feel bad for the dad, because it sounds like this kid was starting to show signs of what may be Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder, and dad was just way in over his head. It sounds like the kid's mom also had some kind of mental health history.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/man-shot-tv-station-charged-arson-other-charges

This article is poorly written; it first says he was shot 'at least 3 times' before stating he was shot '4 times'. Why not just say '4' once?

 

[AshleyAshes]

9 minutes ago, Saxon said:

This article is poorly written; it first says he was shot 'at least 3 times' before stating he was shot '4 times'. Why not just say '4' once?

"When the Brizzi removed the fake bomb".  Can't tell if terrible proof reading in the article or if the police named the robot after the would be bomber...

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

"When the Brizzi removed the fake bomb".  Can't tell if terrible proof reading in the article or if the police named the robot after the would be bomber...

Overall I'm surprised they're bothering charging someone who is, by all indications, mentally ill and got himself shot 4 times. It sounds like he already got punished.

[AshleyAshes]

"He was found sleeping in a neighbor's yard and it took seven police officers to hold him down as he was taken to a local hospital, he said."

Not joking this time: I can't tell if the author of the article just entirely cocked up this sentence, referring to the time after he was shot and police had to hold him down (Which other sources have reported) or if he was EARLIER arrested and taken to hospital, before his would be bombing, after being found sleeping in a neighbors year.

Is this 'CNS News' even a REAL news service?

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Overall I'm surprised they're bothering charging someone who is, by all indications, mentally ill and got himself shot 4 times. It sounds like he already got punished.

It would be up to a court procedure to determine if he was sufficiently ill to not understand the harm he was causing or his level of actual responsibility.  After setting a car on fire and threatening to blow people up, court proceedings of some kind ultimately become necessary, regardless of their expected conclusion.

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Facts written in the anesthesiologist handbook is armchair pharmacology.

Yea, I want to see you go tell the ABA that they're fucking armchair doctors, please.

Ashley was right about this one. Administering anaesthetic can be dangerous and fiddly. Tranquiliser darts do not render subjects unconscious or immobile with immediate effect.

There are already other conventional weapons which do render people immobile with immediate effect, such as the taser. Maybe police would not want to use a taser in situations when completing a circuit could cause an explosion.

Police usually shoot people who claim to have bombs on their person in the head, to avoid striking the bomb.

 

There was a case in England some years ago when an innocent Brazilian man, who happened to unknowingly live next to a terrorist, was placed under surveillance. He was late for his train one day, so he ran to the station, and happened to be wearing a jacket. The police surveying him thought that he was frantic because he was about to detonate a bomb they suspected was hidden in his jacket. Plain clothes policeman followed him on board his train and shot him 7 times in the head. :\

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

 

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Depends on the tranquilizer. There are sedative cocktails that when administered intramuscularly take  under one minute to start working. Amidate takes about 30 seconds and that's one of the slower-acting ones. As I said before, add some ketamine to make it acidic, the person will be too damned busy dealing with intense burning pain and clutching at whatever area got affected to do anything by the time the Amidate kicks in. Amidate also works with very low risk of cardiovascular side effect, a huge risk with most anesthetics, which makes it a more attractive option for use in dealing with troublesome people.

 

Drugs intended to induce general anaesthesia in a controled hospital environment are not always appropriate for use in tranquiliser guns.

The drug you mentioned is not used in darts and, even if tranquiliser darts are used, an accurate estimate of the weight of the subject is first necessary to administer it, to preclude overdose.

This is why the police don't use dart guns; they would take too long to immobilise the suspect and would entail a significant risk of killing them anyway. So there is no strategic advantage. 

The experts employed by the police know more about drugs than you do.

[Saxon]

Just now, 6tails said:

No, they are not. Do you think that's going to stop a country that's heading towards fascism and military police who already perform medical procedures like drawing blood from people without a medical license?

You don't live here, but we had a nice little incident in Chicago. It's been discovered that police are disappearing people.

you think it won't happen. I can almost guarantee you it has or will.You do NOT know the true state of this country.

....so, given that you would expect routine use of general anaesthetics by police to only be permissible in a fascist police state, I am guessing that you have realised that darting suspects is not a realistic option?

[Saxon]

14 hours ago, 6tails said:

You've mistaken my words and put them out of their meaning.

I said nothing about being permissible only in a facist state.

Re-read my words again.

Right. Whatever.

Have you realised that tranquiliser darts are not viable for military or police use?

[Saxon]

5 hours ago, 6tails said:

My face when, right in the Police armory here at the Citrus State Park, there are:

(2) AR-15

(1) M-79

(2) Tranquilizer rifles

(6) 9mm Ruger pistols

(2) Mossberg M500 tactical shotguns

Those tranquilizer rifles aren't for animals. There's nothing in that area that would require them, not even a Zoo. Everything that would need a tranq rifle is about two hours north in the mountains, or in the case of a zoo, about an hour and a half west. Even coyotes are at minimum 45 minutes drive away, closest possible origin spot being Box Springs Canyon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquillizer_gun#Military_and_police_use

I've found references to police using darts for dangerous dogs, although the darts were lethal.

 

Essentially, you're wrong. You know you are wrong, and you know that Ashely was right to criticise you for pretending to know more about pharmacology than experts. Why keep pretending you can still win?

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquillizer_gun#Military_and_police_use

I've found references to police using darts for dangerous dogs, although the darts were lethal.

 

Essentially, you're wrong. You know you are wrong, and you know that Ashely was right to criticise you for pretending to know more about pharmacology than experts. Why keep pretending you can still win?

In conclusion:  1) No one here can prove the existence of a dart that insta-tranqs, and we all know some manufacturer would totally have a site for it, boasting about how it could stop a wayward deer in the suburbs without needing to wait for it to pass out.

 

2) Police can't administer anesthesia because its fucking dangerous and yoyd also see some evidence of it if they could.  'Florida man instantly passes out after police shoot him with dart.  Click here for video!'

So the counter argument is bullshit and based on conjecture without fact for the sake of having a fight online as some attempt to 'superiority' and 'dominance'.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, if I am, surely someone will link a relevant news report or incident report.  Because if its real, you should have zero trouble solidly proving it.  Let's see if that happens though.

[Gamedog]

We do not need to waste time coming up with video game-like situations to harmlessly apprehend a dangerous criminal looking to harm others

put a bullet through their head and be done with it.

[AshleyAshes]

He's still ranting, using LOTs of words in fact, really wants to drive his point home and 'prove' it... Huh, no cited examples which would be easy to post if one could find them though.  Golly, imagine that.  $10 says he responds with another screen full of words but still can't cite a single use of anyone selling any kind of 'insta-tranq' product from a manufacturer or a case of police tranqing man.  But hey, MAYBE he will do something unpredictable with the next post.  Maaaaaybe.  

[Spot]

Don't worry about Ashley, she enjoys being a massive hypocrite; it's her fet. 

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, 6tails said:

Because you're TOO LAZY TO LOOK UP MY WORDS, amirite?

Note you couldn't provide references, either. Uhh, try again hypocrite!

Reference: Professional drug user and abuser who's done and experienced more drugs than times you've shat yourself, for two decades.

Just a list of excuses I see.

Just now, Mr. Fox said:

Don't worry about Ashley, she enjoys being a massive hypocrite; it's her fet. 

My fetish happens to be being a TINY hypocrite in a weird, Honey I Shrunk the Kids kinda way.  There's a DIFFERENCE, asshole.

[Spot]

Triggered...

[AshleyAshes]

I'm not really sure what a photo of a reference book is supposed to do.  But I am entertained that I'm able to get you to go this far for the argument.  I will -not- be taking any photographs of books in my home or writing any notes in response because I'm super busy watching TV on the couch.

Still no likes citing product or usages though.  Funny that, but a photo a book to deflect.  For someone who's saying he can't be assed, you sure are assing a lot.

 

[Spot]

It's OK, snowflake, you can't win them all.

[AshleyAshes]

I've manipulated him into just straight 'hate bragging' now. ^^

[#00Buck]

Please everyone calm down!

If he lashes out this forum will cease to exist! 

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, #00Buck said:

Please everyone calm down!

If he lashes out this forum will cease to exist! 

Well, he'd sue the forum BEFORE he hacked it.  Or at least spend a lot of time talking about how he could so totally, oh my god, you have no idea, just you wait, JUST YOU WAIT, sue the forum.

[Spot]

4 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I've manipulated him into just straight 'hate bragging' now. ^^

So you're a Sadist, too?

Good to know...

[Clove Darkwave]

Alright people, please take it to PMs or get back on topic.

[Endless/Nameless]

[Saxon]

10 hours ago, 6tails said:

>relying upon wikipedia for anythign when it's been proven to be unreliable

How about... you come over here and go walk into that armory and ask those boys what the tranq guns are for. The response I got? "Not for animals."

You'll get the same response.

BTW, yes, concoctions DO exist that are instant. PICK UP A NURSE PRACTITIONER'S REFERENCE BOOK and start reading, you're even given the titration directions.

I've helped plenty of addicts concoct cocktails straight from the reference. Even IM, they're within SECONDS effective.

I noticed Ashley can't contradict what I said because it has no actual *USING* experience like I have with the stuff. Instead, it decides to talk nonsense as if I didn't already come with 1. First Responder medical certification 2. Drug and Alcohol counselor certification and 3. PHlebotomy certification (did you know - just tip the needle with the tranq and it's in the bloodstream as it's pushed through capillaries well before it ever touches muscle tissue.)

*yawwwwwn*

It can, and it eventually will, happen.

BTW, plenty of tranq accidents at zoos where other people have been shot. Telazol isn't something to screw around with despite being safer than most actual barbiturate and narcotic tranqs. Very few deaths, historically speaking. It's actually caused fewer deaths versus electrical incapacitation. The human body is much more tolerant of chemical issues versus electrical ones.

Ashley wouldn't know jack about drug usage, various means of administration like us professional drug users (oh, yes, we are considered professionals by the mental industry, so much so that we're given the title of sponsor, well before AA/NA usurped the word) and is thus very, very ill-qualified to even speak upon the subject. We've got research chems out right now that can with single-digit microgram range put you out of your mind almost instantaneously. I play with them on a weekly basis. I know what's out there, none of you do, guaranteed.

Try again when you actually know HOW TO GET HIGH.

Actually, try a 5cc IM injection of  Xylazine. Let's see if you can even get through a 2.5 second routine injection. I sure as fuck couldn't.

You claim wikipedia is unreliable, but simultaneously expect me to believe your anecdotes about (ab)using drugs yourself and taking to policemen, which is even less relaible because it can't be verified. :\ I would, unfortunately, suspect that you would make anything up just to win an argument.

Police and military use of tranquiliser darts is not mainstream, due to numerous problems which have been detailed.

Your musing about the drugs you think should be used in dart guns was pointless, because you're not a pharmacologist. Ashley was correct to identify your attempts at armchiar pharmacology as bogus, especially since the drug you identified is a general anesthetic that is not used in darts.

[Saxon]

10 hours ago, 6tails said:

Because you're TOO LAZY TO LOOK UP MY WORDS, amirite?

Note you couldn't provide references, either. Uhh, try again hypocrite!

Reference: Professional drug user and abuser who's done and experienced more drugs than times you've shat yourself, for two decades.

Rather than having this silly fight, why not just cite a news article about police darting a suspect, who is immediately incapacitated?

According to you those sorts of events must be commonplace, so they should be just as easy to find as videos of police tazering people.

 

[Saxon]

50 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Because you're fucking misconstruing my words.

My only words are - and I fucking swear I best not have to repeat myself - WERE THAT TRANQUILIZERS ARE A VIABLE METHOD.

You can claim that they are not all day long, but I have ACTUAL MEDICAL REFERENCES (posted in thread) THAT SAY YOU'RE FULL OF GARBAGE.

And that was all I said. See, Saxon, you have a very shitty habit of reading too far into things and putting words in that were never said or implied. I suggest you stick to your Geography (assuming you're even passing) and stay far away from Medical, because you've already proven yourself a failure at it by referencing Wikipeda instead of reliable pharmacological references.

I don't study geography; I'm a geologist.

I think police don't use darts because they're not viable.

[Troj]

This is outside of my wheelhouse, but this is definitely a tricky question. In theory, you could dart someone, and in theory, that would allow you to bring them into custody safely, because tranquilizer darts are safer than bullets.

In the field, though, lots of things can go wrong, and you've also got to consider effectiveness as well as safety and feasibility. There are even times when tranquilizer darts could be unsafe or even deadly.

So, it's always a question of cost/benefit analysis.

[Saxon]

56 minutes ago, Troj said:

This is outside of my wheelhouse, but this is definitely a tricky question. In theory, you could dart someone, and in theory, that would allow you to bring them into custody safely, because tranquilizer darts are safer than bullets.

In the field, though, lots of things can go wrong, and you've also got to consider effectiveness as well as safety and feasibility. There are even times when tranquilizer darts could be unsafe or even deadly.

So, it's always a question of cost/benefit analysis.

If somebody did have a bomb and realised they'd caught a dart, they could detonate the bomb.

But I suppose the same is true of guns, for somebody using a dead-man switch though.

The pretender who got shot this time was left lying for a long time, before a bomb-disposal robot pulled the pretend bomb away, so I gather he was afforded plenty of opportunity to detonate the bomb, if it were real, anyway.

 

There's not a good way of responding to somebody who claims they have a bomb, really, is there? :\

[Troj]

Well, and real life doesn't always play like simulations or controlled experiments. All you can do is decrease risk, not eliminate it.

There is no "perfect" way to respond to, say, a person with a bomb.

[AshleyAshes]

I am admittedly surprised that this kid was hit by a sniper while moving at a walking pace, then had to lie in wait without medical assistance while the robot checked out his 'bomb', then he still had the strength to need to be restrained by multiple responding officers before any medical aid could be rendered, and he still survived.  I mean, I realize they were probably fast with the robot and had the bomb squad right there, but still, he musta took the bullet in a pretty non-lethal area.  I wonder if the sniper was aiming only to incapacitate or if the sniper just made an awful shot.

[Saxon]

7 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

I am admittedly surprised that this kid was hit by a sniper while moving at a walking pace, then had to lie in wait without medical assistance while the robot checked out his 'bomb', then he still had the strength to need to be restrained by multiple responding officers before any medical aid could be rendered, and he still survived.  I mean, I realize they were probably fast with the robot and had the bomb squad right there, but still, he musta took the bullet in a pretty non-lethal area.  I wonder if the sniper was aiming only to incapacitate or if the sniper just made an awful shot.

He caught 4 bullets. None of them were from snipers, though. It's surprising he is alive and his father suggested he may have been trying to commit suicide.

[AshleyAshes]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

He caught 4 bullets. None of them were from snipers, though. It's surprising he is alive and his father suggested he may have been trying to commit suicide.

Yeah but the first three were the bean bags.  And the article does specify sniper for the 4th.