Boom HeadshotFollow

I concur.

The situation held too many unknowns to allow for another course of action. The man presented a danger to his hostage.

While I accept the argument that his main desire may have been escape, I cannot rationally accept the presented conclusion - that, if disabled, the man would have attempted flight rather than harm the baby. That conclusion only holds if the hostage-taker is following a rational course of action. As holding a baby hostage at knifepoint is not particularly rational, I cannot assume further rationality on the part of the man in the video.

The officers appeared to act appropriately for the situation.

What country did this happen in, it's definitley not the U.S., Canada, or any country in Western Europe.

This is one of the few times idealism and pragmitism/reality do not clash.

The focus needs to be on the word deserve. Do I feel he needed to die? I believe I might agree that he had to in order to protect the child. I would have rather had it another way though and I can be unsatisfied with the outcome. But I don't think he or anyone else deserves death. For a person to deserve death implies so many other horrible things.

Not everyone has such a faith.

I don't want this to become a religious debate so I'll try to be careful about my words.If you choose to believe in a kind of afterlife or reincarnation then that's fine, but I don't think one should then discard what's what's here and certain.

That is a question of mercy and desire. Not of deservance.

This is the wrong crowd to be having this type of discussion with, but deservance is the only thing of relevance here because it is the only challenged statement.

The officer's decision is irrelevant because it is an undebated choice as well as being the rather obvious and realistically only option.

I can see that this is not going to move in the direction it needs to.

The only people who used the word "deserve" were CaptainOmelette, who for some reason wandered here from the WoW forums, and a 16-post user named "thingnumberone."

Why don't you continue the discussion with them ***************************************************************************************************

well it was entertaining. At least he contributed that much.

I'll say he courted death. Anyone stupid enough to kidnap a child and threaten him with a knife while half-a-dozen cops try to get him to put his weapon down made choices that affected the probability of getting himself shot.

Edited, Fri Jan 13 17:38:55 2006 by Atomicflea

It's not that some people deserve to die, it's just that some people deserve to live more than others.


Most of us think the baby had a better chance at life than the man holding a knife to it's throat. By that logic we decide to ensure the baby will live by killing the criminal.


Besides, these are the actions of a trained professional, not just by a random person off the street. I tend to trust the actions of professionals.

I agree with that. anyone ever read animal farm? "all animals are created equal. some are more equal than others."

even though this is crime was not taking place in the United States, many of us are commenting from it. this means most of us would normally be commenting from the perspective of americans. if you want to look at things in an american perspective you have to think about our system. someone already said that by threatening the child's right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the criminal immediately forfiet his own right to such. some of you say that the force used was excessive. I challenge that "excessive" is a matter of opinion and perspective. you can never look at a matter of life and make a generalization. you cannot say that the man would not have killed the child. if he didnt have it in him to kill the child, he would not have had it in him to put a knife to his throat. and even if you passed the taking of hostages as a misjudgement, it is clear that he was given chances to give himself up. the police didnt just walk up and shoot him in the head. it was stated that the negotiator had tried to get the man to put the child down and surrender. i can grant him the clemency of making a bad judgement. i cannot grant that same clemency for sustaining that judgement. he had already sewn the seeds of his own demise and for that you can forgive. but he also watered those seeds. deliberately resisting. in such a case you cannot speak of what someone deserves or does not. it was stated earlier that the man dying in a hospital does not get the title of deserving, but the title of mercy/DESIRE. take a look at that. by threatening another humans life directly in the face of law enforcement officers, you have ASKED for them to slaughter you. and like cattle to slaughter, the good farm-hand gave him a stake in the forehead. while i dont detest anyone being an idealist, you must use context. Allegory speaks of the subject like a defense lawyer would. looking at only the parts of the big picture that fit the argument being made. of course if you leave out key points of the facts presented in the video, it is easy to say that the mans life still had value. but as was stated before, value is a matter of perspective. in this case the point has been proven that hindsight is 20/20. there is one more point i would like to make. it is extremely easy to sit in your armchair and tell others how the mans life had worth in lieu of the situation. it easy to say that the police should have shot him in the arm and tried to end it without deadly force. and moreover it is easy to tell others to think long and hard before saying things. well maybe ones best medicine is his own. think for a second if you had been in the childs shoes. a crazed knife-wielding man holds you hostage in front of several police officers. when that happens, will you be screaming to the police not to kill him because his life has worth? will you still feel that he should be granted another chance. would you then be so sure that he wouldnt slit your throat just for the hell of it if given just 5 more minutes. these are the things the police are trained to deal with. in the heat of the moment there is no time to sit down and try to figure out the mental stability of this person and the only thing one can do is look at how they are acting at that precise moment and make a life or death judgement. as far as police training goes, and as far as most national law goes, when someone is threatening death to another human, it is not grounds for deadly force to be used against them. however, when someone threatens death to another and shows at that instant the tools with which to accomplish the threat, deadly force is authorized unequivocaly. anyone who says that the force was excessive should stop and consider this. the moment that the knife was at the childs throat, the police were authorized to use deadly force. however, there was a negotiator there which meant they were restraining from using that force unless absolutely neccesary. showing restraint is the opposite of showing excess. no amount of arguing can change that. although, you can be my guest to try.

You know I really don't think this has anything to do with choosing one life over another or assigning value to certain people.

The guy was decidedly an imminent threat to the public, evidence by the fact that he was holding a knife to a kids throat.

The cop's goal was to eliminate the threat - that's what they do. Could he have done it differently? Maybe, but only in hindsight can we predict the best course of action.

If I were in the same situation, I would have done the same thing. The man was holding a weapon to the child. I think I would have dove for the kid immediately after firing the gun as opposed to watching him fall, though.

Not likely. I'm not a lucky guy, but I avoided the double whammy of being the ultimate stereotype women should be AND demonic possesion.