TexasCHLforum.com

crazy2medic wrote:This raises a question, suppose following a shoot out you have a wounded bad guy and a wounded good guy, as a paramedic I would go to the wounded good guy and render whatever medical assistance I could, but I would have a concern with the wounded bad guy doing something while my attention was on the care of the wounded GG, is a coup de grace ever justified?
Never leave a wounded enemy at your back!

Make sure bad guy and any weapons he may have been carrying are secure and let him bleed out. There is no moral obligation to save the life of a murderer, especially if that same resource can be used to save an innocent.

allisji wrote:

C-dub wrote:I have no sympathy for those two terrorist wannabe used to be's.

Here's what stuck out to me from that article. Suspects were DOWN, but still twitching, so they get shot some more. Okay.

SWAT arrives on scene and because the, probably dead, suspects won't comply with their commands get shot some more. Okay, but didn't an OK pharmacist get jail time for that or something pretty close to that?

I don't know about the case that you're referring to, but it seems like it would be very situation dependent. It does raise the eyebrows to read that they continued firing until all movement had ceased. In this case they are clear to indicate the elevated concerns that the pair could be carrying IEDs and could operate them even after being taken down by gunfire.

Just be thankful right now that left wing liberals have not completed their take over of the Texas political system. Recently in Israel an IDF soldier was sentenced to prison for doing exactly what those SWAT team members did - making sure that the terrorist threat was eliminated and that the scene was secure, including making sure that the terrorist could not detonate an explosive vest. We in the West are doomed unless we stop the political correctness that seems certain to destroy first Europe and then the USA.

BRAVO ZULU to the Garland PD!