.

PJfanwillneverleave1

.

mickeyrat

They were headed toward Canada looks like.

Last-12-Exit

I'm thinking this guy broke off from the guy that got killed well before he was shot. The dude was getting drunk and may have been sick from food poisoning or bad water. This guy figured he was ringing him down and decided to bail.

Either way, I'm glad they got o e back alive without injuring anyone else. I'm sure he will be able to spill the beans over the rest of his life in isolation.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat said:

They were headed toward Canada looks like.

Too bad for them they didn't make it.

We would have immediately set them up with social assistance, got their teeth cleaned, and moved them into a house with a view.

We rock, eh?

brianlux

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-new-york-prisoners-idUSKCN0P80TT20150629

"Sweat's mother Pamela told a CNN affiliate in upstate New York that she sighed with relief and then started crying when she heard her son was caught but not killed.

She said he had known better than to seek help from her.

"If he would've come here, I would've knocked him out and had them guys take him to the jail," Pamela Sweat said. "I've always done to it to him when he was bad."

OK, wait a minute... whenever he was bad she knocked him out? Gosh, wonder why the guy became a criminal? F'n A! Put that lady in the can with him!

callen

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

mickeyrat

brianlux said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-new-york-prisoners-idUSKCN0P80TT20150629

"Sweat's mother Pamela told a CNN affiliate in upstate New York that she sighed with relief and then started crying when she heard her son was caught but not killed.

She said he had known better than to seek help from her.

"If he would've come here, I would've knocked him out and had them guys take him to the jail," Pamela Sweat said. "I've always done to it to him when he was bad."

OK, wait a minute... whenever he was bad she knocked him out? Gosh, wonder why the guy became a criminal? F'n A! Put that lady in the can with him!

literalists eh? My read was she never covered for his bad acts and had him held accountable by calling the law herself.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Yes you are projecting. What I wrote were facts not opinions.

jeffbr

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Were rules of engagement altered? It is pretty standard that cops will shoot a fleeing suspect if there is imminent danger to the community. These guys were lifers. Violent criminals with nothing to lose. I don't think the shooting of a feeling escapee who evaded massive law enforcement searches for the better part of a month showed anything but a successful operation.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Yes you are projecting. What I wrote were facts not opinions.

So conversation over? Spit the facts out and leave it at that?

Do you have an opinion regarding those facts? Or was that entry of yours what it was a simple uttering of facts with no emotional content?

You will have to forgive me if it was, Callen. We have exchanged pleasantries many times over the years and if there is one thing I thought was certain... it was that you have no problem asserting your opinion in nearly every issue- to which I have no problem with and actually enjoy.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

jeffbr said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Were rules of engagement altered? It is pretty standard that cops will shoot a fleeing suspect if there is imminent danger to the community. These guys were lifers. Violent criminals with nothing to lose. I don't think the shooting of a feeling escapee who evaded massive law enforcement searches for the better part of a month showed anything but a successful operation.

Absolutely.

benjs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Thirty, this was not an assertion. Standard rules of engagement do not allow for 'shoot on sight'. Obviously 'shoot on sight' mentality affords greater effectiveness than a tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand. A tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand being unfounded are all much less harmful (and more reversible) than, say, a shot to the head. These rules of engagement exist so that those who are falsely tried, or those who are being prosecuted with potential bias, are not subject to such irreversible methods of attaining obedience.

To argue that standard rules of engagement offer ineffective results is one thing, but in that case, it's actually you who's beating around the bush here, and not Callen.

EDIT: I have to apologize for writing something I wasn't sure about enough, and that's how standard rules of engagement are altered (in still standard ways) in such a situation as an escaped criminal who is proven to possess harm to a community. If this is a standard alteration, consider everything that I wrote above to be a moot point.

JimmyV

Two thoughts come to mind on this.

1) Violent criminals are sometimes apprehended violently. These weren't suspects, these were convicted murderers.

2.) If these escaped convicts were black and the apprehending officers acted in the exact same way that they did, today we would be hearing that the use of force was racially motivated.

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Yes you are projecting. What I wrote were facts not opinions.

So conversation over? Spit the facts out and leave it at that?

Do you have an opinion regarding those facts? Or was that entry of yours what it was a simple uttering of facts with no emotional content?

You will have to forgive me if it was, Callen. We have exchanged pleasantries many times over the years and if there is one thing I thought was certain... it was that you have no problem asserting your opinion in nearly every issue- to which I have no problem with and actually enjoy.

Nooooooo Thirty, facts to generate conversation. As what's happening. Found this whole story fascinating. Up to the end including final confrontations.

callen

JimmyV said:

Two thoughts come to mind on this.

1) Violent criminals are sometimes apprehended violently. These weren't suspects, these were convicted murderers.

2.) If these escaped convicts were black and the apprehending officers acted in the exact same way that they did, today we would be hearing that the use of force was racially motivated.

Interesting thoughts.

So they were considered armed and very desperate and violent in past.

So do you think Shoot to kill on sight order" was the go to plan?

JimmyV

callen said:

JimmyV said:

Two thoughts come to mind on this.

1) Violent criminals are sometimes apprehended violently. These weren't suspects, these were convicted murderers.

2.) If these escaped convicts were black and the apprehending officers acted in the exact same way that they did, today we would be hearing that the use of force was racially motivated.

Interesting thoughts.

So they were considered armed and very desperate and violent in past.

So do you think Shoot to kill on sight order" was the go to plan?

I don't know what the go to plan was. I do know that U.S. Marshals, for instance, operate under different rules than do police officers.

stuckinline

“Article 35 of the (New York) penal law permits you to use deadly physical force to stop a fleeing felon who is either charged with a felony or convicted of a felony,” Gavin said. “So the police officer was spot on.”

http://fox8.com/2015/06/29/source-former-prison-escapee-david-sweat-says-he-planned-to-go-to-mexico/

callen

Thanks stuck, just read that as well. Interesting.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Thirty, this was not an assertion. Standard rules of engagement do not allow for 'shoot on sight'. Obviously 'shoot on sight' mentality affords greater effectiveness than a tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand. A tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand being unfounded are all much less harmful (and more reversible) than, say, a shot to the head. These rules of engagement exist so that those who are falsely tried, or those who are being prosecuted with potential bias, are not subject to such irreversible methods of attaining obedience.

To argue that standard rules of engagement offer ineffective results is one thing, but in that case, it's actually you who's beating around the bush here, and not Callen.

EDIT: I have to apologize for writing something I wasn't sure about enough, and that's how standard rules of engagement are altered (in still standard ways) in such a situation as an escaped criminal who is proven to possess harm to a community. If this is a standard alteration, consider everything that I wrote above to be a moot point.

I have read this, Benj.

I'm responding because I feel I should in the interest of maintaining good relations. You've offered an apology and I don't think one was necessary (I realize the apology was a broad based one and not directly to me).

benjs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Thirty, this was not an assertion. Standard rules of engagement do not allow for 'shoot on sight'. Obviously 'shoot on sight' mentality affords greater effectiveness than a tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand. A tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand being unfounded are all much less harmful (and more reversible) than, say, a shot to the head. These rules of engagement exist so that those who are falsely tried, or those who are being prosecuted with potential bias, are not subject to such irreversible methods of attaining obedience.

To argue that standard rules of engagement offer ineffective results is one thing, but in that case, it's actually you who's beating around the bush here, and not Callen.

EDIT: I have to apologize for writing something I wasn't sure about enough, and that's how standard rules of engagement are altered (in still standard ways) in such a situation as an escaped criminal who is proven to possess harm to a community. If this is a standard alteration, consider everything that I wrote above to be a moot point.

I have read this, Benj.

I'm responding because I feel I should in the interest of maintaining good relations. You've offered an apology and I don't think one was necessary (I realize the apology was a broad based one and not directly to me).

Thanks Thirty, but sharing something like this without validating facts first is something I do feel is demanding of an apology. And for what it's worth, I never want to sour a good relation here, so I hope I didn't come close to doing so with you!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Thirty, this was not an assertion. Standard rules of engagement do not allow for 'shoot on sight'. Obviously 'shoot on sight' mentality affords greater effectiveness than a tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand. A tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand being unfounded are all much less harmful (and more reversible) than, say, a shot to the head. These rules of engagement exist so that those who are falsely tried, or those who are being prosecuted with potential bias, are not subject to such irreversible methods of attaining obedience.

To argue that standard rules of engagement offer ineffective results is one thing, but in that case, it's actually you who's beating around the bush here, and not Callen.

EDIT: I have to apologize for writing something I wasn't sure about enough, and that's how standard rules of engagement are altered (in still standard ways) in such a situation as an escaped criminal who is proven to possess harm to a community. If this is a standard alteration, consider everything that I wrote above to be a moot point.

I have read this, Benj.

I'm responding because I feel I should in the interest of maintaining good relations. You've offered an apology and I don't think one was necessary (I realize the apology was a broad based one and not directly to me).

Thanks Thirty, but sharing something like this without validating facts first is something I do feel is demanding of an apology. And for what it's worth, I never want to sour a good relation here, so I hope I didn't come close to doing so with you!

Never came close.

Indifference71

It's amazing to me that these guys were able to evade police for so long when they were so close to where they escaped from. Can't wait for this whole story to become a movie!

mickeyrat

looks like that woman as getaway driver wasn't plan B afterall.

WhatYouTaughtMe

Indifference71 said:

It's amazing to me that these guys were able to evade police for so long when they were so close to where they escaped from. Can't wait for this whole story to become a movie!

The terrain where they were is pretty intense. Would make a manhunt difficult.

Last-12-Exit

He wasn't shot on sight. He was shot when a chased ensued that almost resulted in Sweat making into the woods. We give police the right to shoot people. Especiallly when those people are escaped convicts. Because we all know escaped convicts are considered a danger to the public.

PJfanwillneverleave1

So glad to hear this.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/05/captured-ny-fugitive-david-sweat-moved-back-to-prison