Why didn't they
Shoot the guy when they had him in their sights more than once. It made no sense at all to me.
shareBeing a small town cop in rural New Zealand it seems reaonable that he would "hesitate", not being a total homicidal looney like Gray was. I presume that for a normal person killing someone is not as easy as movies might make it seem.
At least that's my take on it.
"The King wore enough clothes for both of us." Mohandes Ghandi
Thank you for your reply. That must be the reason. After the first time he came out the door and everyone knew there were bodies lying around and knew he was the killer he wouldn't have made it a step further in the small town I live in. The part that really got to me was when the cop saw him walking up to his friend with the handgun extended and just watched him shoot him. I'm not for violence but they could have saved many lives if they had taken action right off but I assume you are right.
shareYes i thought that he was going to kill the guy but thats what the movie portrays. Fraility in human behaviour. he knew that Gray was going to kill his partner but he couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger. maybe the reason is if he had missed then Gray would have knew he was there and therefore would have shot at him and possibly kill him. You also forget that Gray had a state of the art rifle and the cops only had fibre scopes so they didn't have the scope as Gray did. Thats how i analyse that scene.
SharkattackUK- "What you call hell, he calls home."
Shopnowandsave I am curious if you agree with me on something. When Hitler invaded Poland I recall the thoughts were "Maybe he will be satisfied with just the one country". Of course we all now know he was not. Do you believe that violence should be stopped at the first available opportunity? Thank you for your input.
shareYes I do believe that violence should be stopped at the first opportunity, which in this case would have been by making it impossible (through law) for Gray to obtain copious assault weapons and ammunition. It would have been the ultimate pre-emptive strike.
Without wanting to expand the discussion into different areas, the invasion of Poland (after the Anschluss and annexation of the Sudetenland) actually WAS the catalyst for beginning the biggest war ever. Britain and France declared war on Germany for that action.
That however takes us into the world of the megalomaniac, not the paranoid schizophrenic. Two separate cases of dangerous mental conditions.
"The King wore enough clothes for both of us." Mohandes Ghandi
You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. I grew up in the state of Vermont and everyone had a gun. There was never a murder by gun until the 1950's. You don't have to worry about law abiding people with guns and no matter how many laws you pass the criminals will always have guns. I certainly agree that the paranoid schizophrenic should never have been allowed to have a gun. If I had my wish the guns would never have been invented but as they have been I want one in my house so I will not be at the mercy of criminals that will always have them. Very nice talking to you.
shareThe point I was trying to make with the WWII example was violence regardless by whom it is committed has to be stopped at the earliest moment.
shareShopnowandsave, I unfortunately live in a very violent society. The US. Not a day goes by that there is not a story about people's homes being invaded by thugs. I consider it irresponsible to not have the means to protect my family. This is just one opinion and I understand that. If you have a solution , other than a law that is never followed by criminals, I would very much appreciate to hear it. I am always willing to listen to a different view from my own. I appreciate the civilized conversation on a very controversial subject.
sharehttp://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm
Go to this site and read the case histories, as I have done. There is not one instance of an armed victim successfully defending themselves against an armed aggressor. On the contrary, there are several instances of the victim being killed by their own weapon.
I don't own a firearm and never will because I don't think I need to. I am middle-aged and grew up in Australia, which has very strict gun-laws. I don't expect to get shot, so I live my life in the world without fear as much I can. I know I might be invaded by thugs, but I also might be eaten by a shark, still, I swim in the ocean.
I have no intention of being confrontational, but I believe that the fewer guns the fewer the shootings. Wyatt Earp when he was working as an advisor on Western films in Hollywood was asked how fast a draw he was. He said that to be a killer was not dependant on how fast you were but on how willing you were to kill.
Which brings us back to your opening post, the cop was not as willing to kill as was the psychopath. And bad guys being more willing to do wrong than even armed good guys must give them an advantage. So I believe take away their guns and the worst you'll get is a broken nose rather than a few ounces of 7.62.
"The King wore enough clothes for both of us." Mohandes Ghandi
I went to the site you mentioned. I must have missed the topic you talked about. Could you point out your assertion that says no one had ever saved themselves against an armed aggressor? I missed it somehow. All I saw was executions. I personally know of three such cases where an armed aggressor has been prevented from killing a person with a gun.
I will look up the statistics of being eaten by a shark and being shot by a criminal. I am sure they will not be close unless it is in Australia. Maybe the whole issue is because you are in Australia. We have thousands of deaths per year in the US by guns carried by criminals. How would you take away guns from criminals? If you could tell me how that could be done I would agree with you but I just don't see how unless you have an army break into every home and frisk every person and look into every square inch of land and buildings and confiscate weapons. I would never advocate anyone having a gun that does not know how to properly use it. That would just add to the problem.
I do not want to antagonize you so maybe we had better discontinue the conversation. If the toothpaste could be put back in the tube I would be all for it but in reality there are millions of guns in my country and I have not heard a solution of how to deal with this fact. You keep saying "take away their guns" but I hear no viable solution for doing so. I wish you well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think, it had something to do with the laws regarding police and firearms at the time. I don't think they were allowed to shoot Gray. I could be wrong but I think I read that somewhere.
share[deleted]
As a person who owns several and carries firearms on my person, I can say without a doubt that if gun laws were inacted that outlawed guns, it would only hurt the law abiding citizens. The criminals will ALWAYS get them no matter what laws and regulations are put in place.
You'll find that in this country (U.S.) that the minority want to take away the rights of the majority. Taking guns out of the hands of the population is not to deter gun crime, it's for the government to have just that much more control over the population. People in the U.S. seem to forget that the right to bear arms is not only to protect yourself from criminals, but it was originally intended to give the people of the land the means to defend themselves against the tyrany of the government. The governemnt of today is no different than the British governemnt this country, and many others, fought to get away from.
Owning and carring weapons for personal protection doesn't mean that I am completely safe from an armed assault, but it does give me the peace of mind knowing that if the situation ever arises, that I'll at least have the means to protect myself instead of being at the mercy of a criminal because he/she has a firearm and doesn't care what rules are in place to stop him/her.
I see what you mean. Thanks for sharing the truth. I appreciate you.I plan to own guns, because it's necessary to protect anyone like my loved-ones.
Seek The Truth.
Shopnowandsave is in my humble opinion exactly right in his reasoning about the willingness or otherwise of 'normal' people, even highly trained ones like the police are, to kill another human.
The fewer guns there are around the less likely we are to become victims of a maniac shooter.
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm
Go to this site and read the case histories, as I have done. There is not one instance of an armed victim successfully defending themselves against an armed aggressor. On the contrary, there are several instances of the victim being killed by their own weapon.
I didnt see any case histories, only tables of statistics of people who have been executed by the state.
There was nothing to back up your ludicrous claim that no one has ever successfully defended themselves against an armed aggressor.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html
Go to this website and read it's case histories. Think about how they could be applied to this film.
------------------------------------
No f-----g s--t lady, do I sound like I'm ordering a pizza?? share
I was actually screaming at the screen...lol. "shoot him" "shoot him" I was so pissed that they didn't shoot him earlier.
I felt he got his sergent killed because he hesitated.
In my opinion, don't become a cop if you aren't able to use your weapon.
I agree with Ppump. I own a gun. Only to protect my son and wife. I don't want to be caught helpless in such a situation.
Trust me if someone threatened my family they would be dead if they don't get me first.
Less people would be robbed and have their house broken into if more people fought back.
if you were going to rob a house and you knew you might be shot. I don't think they would rob. But there's to many people totally defenseless.
I understand peoples feelings when it comes to gun laws. But It's just like when they outlawed booze. Who had the booze? the crimminals. It would be the same with guns.
And guns aren't the problem....look at what happened in Africa, they used machetees.
If one human wants to kill another human. They will do it regardless if they have a gun or not.
That's my soapbox speech.
I'm always bemused by the attitude that the best way to prevent gun violence is to throw more guns into the mix.
I agree that if you outlaw guns the only people who'll have them will be criminals. But instead of arming everybody else, maybe the best solution is to try to prevent some of the criminals becoming criminals in the first place? Maybe have the country as a whole put more work into education and employment and rehabilitation so the kid who's going to break into your house one day might end up with a degree and a job instead?
I know it won't completely eliminate crime, but it's a step in the right direction. Nor is it as simple (or entertaining) as flogging some obsolete amendment, buying an NRA bumper sticker and blathering on about your "cold dead hand", but in the long run I think it might work out better.
And for the record: The reason Nick Harvey didn't shoot David Gray is because he was a small-town cop who'd never expected to be in that situation, and he froze up - and I suspect the same thing would happen to most of the people advocating the carrying of guns for personal defence.
As for Nick Harbey "getting his sergeant killed" - I'm not 100% on this, but I think that scene was dramatised somewhat. Harvey wasn't watching through a rifle scope when Stewart Guthrie was shot, though I believe he later had Gray in his sights and hesitated to shoot him, which is where that scene came from.