"Christopher M." wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > "Christopher M." wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> .com...
> >> >
> >> > graham wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Andy" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > OT: Craziness in NYC!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Noon TV news reported earlier this morning, a crazed gunman at the
> >> >> > Empire
> >> >> > State building in midtown Manhattan at 34th Street and Fifth Avenue
> >> >> > shot
> >> >> > randomly at passers by. Two dead, nine injured.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The mayor reported some injured were, in the confusion, were shot by
> >> >> > police.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Crazy nuts to my left <---> crazy nuts to my right!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Crazy!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Andy
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Guns don't kill people!
> >> >>
> >> >> But people with guns sure as hell do!
> >> >
> >> > Police with guns sure do. As a non-criminal civilian your odds are much
> >> > higher for being shot by careless police than by a civilian.
> >>
> >> You could make the same argument with car chases. But if no one enforces
> >> the
> >> law there's chaos. The thin blue line must be preserved.
> >
> > Have you noted that nearly everywhere the police now have rules
> > prohibiting nearly all car chases? Nearly every car chase scenario ends
> > worse than simply letting the suspect get away and finding them later in
> > a safer environment. In this NYC case the police did not have an active
> > shooter to respond to until they initiated the confrontation, prior to
> > that they had a suspect leaving the area, nothing more.
>
> How do you know the suspect wasn't planning to shoot more people? Could you
> read his mind?

You don't know, and at that point the police hadn't ever observed the
suspect with a weapon at all. They were not responding to a "active
shooter", they were responding to a report of a shooting and a suspect
leaving the area, nothing more.