Friday, August 27, 2004

Empty threat

Babble on.

The Globe and Mail has revealed that the weapon Tony Brookes held to the head of his hostage outside Union Station on Wednesday was jammed. That's why he used it to beat his estranged wife instead of using it to shoot her.

Does this mean the police actually murdered this man? The sawed-off .22 was essentially useless. The cops could have walked up to this guy and wrestled him to the ground with no loss of life. They could have continued to negotiate with him, convinced him to put the gun down. It turns out he wasn't a threat at all, was he?

I'm waiting for those enlightened Torontonians who have gloated about the failure to find WMD's in Iraq; those who have called the Bush administration liars and murderers; those who have argued that Saddam Hussein posed no real threat, that he had been contained, that inspections were all that was required, to apply the same empty arguments to Tony Brookes. I'll be watching for the letters in the Star.

Babble off.

7 Comments:

At 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you really think that the two situations are even remotely comparable? Come on.

 
At 2:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How could the police know for sure that the gun was jammed? It's quite conceivable that he could have somehow unjammed it.

And for the record, even if the police KNEW the gun was jammed, I feel they were still quite justified in taking out this particular piece of trash. Any man who puts a gun (jammed or otherwise) to a hostage's head deserves everything he gets.

Ever notice how the best justice rarely involves a lawyers and judges?

-- Sean (www.polspy.ca)

 
At 3:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"involves lawyers and judges."

Jeez. Mine eeeegleesh sux twoday.

-- Sean (www.polspy.ca)

 
At 3:13 PM, Blogger Jaeger said...

A similar thing happened in Hull back in February, but rathner than a jammed gun some nutbar was waving around a fake gun. He managed to get himself plugged after a twenty minute standoff with the cops.

I had the same thoughts on the topic back then. A guy was crazy enough to wave around empty threats and got himself shot/invaded. Kinda strange that they would do such things to themselves, but I'm over it.

 
At 4:12 PM, Blogger Greg said...

Your analogy only works if Saddam had ICBM's aimed at the U.S., that upon closer inspection proved to be defective.

 
At 4:27 PM, Blogger Greg said...

I would have agreed with your analogy if the man had been unarmed but the cops kept screaming to everyone that they "knew" he had a gun. Also for your analogy to work, the bystanders would have had to said to the cops "we don't see any gun", which the cops then ignored and killed the guy anyway. At which point they searched the guy and found no gun. Finally, the cops would have to have then said, "well, he didn't have a gun, but he beat his wife, so we were justified anyway". If that had been the case you would have been spot on.

 
At 9:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, way off man. Nobody went up and inspected the gun and told the po-lice that it was jammed, then because he had lots of cash on him, the police decided to take him out and take what he had with a lame excuse.

I know I will be proven wrong by this, but I don't see how anyone can find fault with the actions taken by the police.

Our society as a whole is better off without him.

I am shocked by this post man...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home