Re: reason for using the SWAT

"hal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[tells story about a SWAT team assult that results in subject attacking then
being killed]
>
> What puzzles me is this: Extremely dangerous animals are captured
> routinely with little risk to the animal or capturers via the use of
> tranquilizer darts fired from air rifles.  Why is this technique not
> employed in cases like this? (ie, someone who is quite dangerous but
> who is not a criminal.)  Are there medical, legal, or law enforcement
> reasons for not using such an approach?  It seems simple and obvious
> to me, but perhaps I'm missing something.
>
I'm no expert, but do know from talking to vets that it's a myth that
animals can easily and reliably be tranked. In many cases the trank is too
weak in which case the animal doesn't seem much affected. In others, the
animal dies.

My *guess* is that humans are the same. There is a likelihood of the trank
killing out of hand AND it's necessary to get a good shot in too and then
leave the subject a while to feel the effects. In the scenario you describe,
there was no way to shoot the guy with a trank dart and for the police to
remain safe.

Also it may be simply that when folks look at this, they figure that the
trained SWAT team, which you agree was trying to take him alive, had a
better shot of subduing him unharmed than if they did have a shot with the
trank gun.

Re: your story. I'm skeptical that any police interference in a person who
is 'barricaded' but alone is justified. Last night I was barricaded in my
house. I also had several knives and an ax (and a meat cleaver!!!). What was
I about? I was reading with the doors locked. What business had the police
with me?

-paul