Posted on 03/29/2017 4:53:31 PM PDT by MtnClimber
A dramatic incident unfolded during a hostage standoff in Baltimore when a SWAT officer was told by his supervisor to walk into a room and execute a hostage taker.
The sergeant’s instructions are unequivocal. “I want you to walk in there and kill this guy,” he tells the shooter, Zachary Wein, who is a 14-year veteran of the Baltimore Police Department, and an eight-year veteran of the SWAT team.
“He’s high on drugs. He can kill the girl at any second,” the sergeant, who police officials declined to identify by name, continues. “I don’t see any need for less lethal.”
A bald lieutenant asks if there aren’t some other negotiating tactics available.
There are not.
The exchange is captured on body-worn cameras just seconds before Wein shoots Reno Owens in the head at 7:41 a.m. on Friday, March 24. Owens, a 39-year-old African-American man with no fixed address, was sitting on a bed with two children, aged 1 and 4 years, in his arms. He had a butcher knife with an eight-inch blade. He was talking crazy.
Police showed the video to members of the press today, but forbade audio or visual recording of it, save for a short clip of the SWAT team heading up the stairs. They will not release video publicly, according to spokesman T.J. Smith, in order to protect the children from discovering the video, years from now, and being re-traumatized.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
Good call by the sergeant.
I approve of the order exactly as given. By removing the delay inherent in the shooter making that decision based on direct observation, the supervisor both increased the safety of the children and potentially reduced the guilt the shooter may feel. He’s a good man to work for. “The buck stops here”.
nope bad call
At the link there was a link to the original news story in the first paragraph. I looked at that too and did not see anything wrong. Do you see something I did not consider?
Yup. Men being men. Bravo....
Couldn't agree more. Decisions and actions have consequences. For the {expletive} hostage taker, his decision to do something stupid and dangerous has a consequence - he loses his life. Done.
Self defense or defense of others, from violence, is not violence.
I’m just going to note that the reason for not releasing the video is obvious BS, which begs the question as to the veracity of the rest of the story.
depends on if the kids were black....if the kids were white the shooting was just another senseless murder of a good black guy...
Works for me.
Hearing crap like that embarrasses me for being old and delusional by association.
“Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink.”
Some of the best advice I ever heard. I passed it on to many people.
I’m not disputing the commander’s decision or the use of lethal force in this case. Were I in that situation I probably would have given a green light too.
I was merely correcting a misconception that the singular role for SWAT is to employ lethal force. Lethal force is just one option of many available with a properly trained, organized and equipped tactical team.
And we have a winner.
When you send in SWAT it is just like us sending in a sniper.
Deadly force is the ONLY reason you need them.
then you’re an idiot
Are you people just not even TRYING to see the distinction I am making?
I am not saying it was wrong to shoot the guy, and it was probably the only option.
I am only objecting to the order given as “I WANT YOU TO KILL THIS GUY”.
Do we really want cops deciding who they want killed? The cops already know they are authorized to use deadly force to save lives, but saying “I want you to kill this guy” makes me cringe.
They ONLY authorization cops do have is to use deadly force when necessary NOT to decide who they WANT dead. In fact giving such an order is probably ILLEGAL.
I’ve work in and with LE for a lot of my life and half my family is STILL in various LE, including FBI, NY state police, and local sheriff.
This sounds like a guy who is watching too much TV.
I am quite sympathetic to your point. I am usually very adamant about “you shoot to STOP, not to KILL”.
This, however, may be a rare case where the distinction matters the other way.
In most cases, focusing on “stop” is absolutely correct. It may overlap with “kill” but not completely equate. The difference can be discerned.
In this case, however, the hostages were in such extreme danger that - after much contemplation by experts - the _only_ way to “stop” the guy, with any assurance of saving innocents, was in fact to kill him.
“But the wording!” I know. I understand. I’m with you.
Except that the officer actually pulling the trigger didn’t have time to evaluate the situation once he rounds the corner. That minuscule delay could cost hostages’ lives. His superior needed to remove absolutely all doubt, eliminating the delay, taking responsibility if it was a bad shoot after all (which in all likelihood it wouldn’t be), and give his subordinate the full confidence to instantly do what needed doing without hesitation and with full knowledge & acceptance of the consequences.
Incapacitation wasn’t an option.
Assessing the situation _again_ wasn’t an option.
The perp had to be switched off, instantly, the moment the SWAT cop rounded the corner.
The reaction time had to narrowed.
The assessment had already been made.
The decisions had already been made.
And the only way to do that, for this unusually imperative situation, was to _order_ the subordinate to kill the perp.
And that’s the kind of decision SWAT teams are empowered to make.
You still missed my point
I understand every bit of that, I’ve lived it.
The guy should not SAY that- watch for a lawsuit now saying they wanted to kill him”
“This sounds like a guy who is watching too much TV.”
Okay - I can see your point there. And just “killing that guy” probably isn’t all that accurate either - I’m guessing what was meant was to instantly kill the guy - so he doesn’t get the chance to use the knife on a little kid.
(Hmm, has anybody come up with the “why couldn’t they have just shot the knife out of his hand?” line yet?)
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.