Posted: 5/4/2008 7:17:11 PM EDT
|
Dad and I saw a vehicle that had a sticker on it sporting the silhouette of an AK-47 and saying "defend Tacoma." Anyone know what that's all about?? On a side note, there was also a bumper sticker that said "Stupid doesn't kill often enough." |
"Things have become so much better, in fact, that some community activists worry that gentrification will squeeze out some middle- and low-income residents, much as it did on Seattle's Capitol Hill." Why do I always hear this everytime someone decides to clean up a neighborhood? "Oh noez, property values will go up now that we're no longer living in a shithole." |
I love that bumper sticker "Stupid doesn't kill often enough." I must get one! |
That is one embarassing article...
300 rounds? And not one hit? So much for Ranger training...Aim, boys! AIM! Pretend you have single-shot muskets, like our forefathers did.... |
The really funny thing is that the shootout happened almost 20 years ago....
 |
From what/whom? Urban redevelopment? Gangbangers, who according to the article, off themselves efficiently anyway? 'Rangers' who evidently can't shoot worth shit? Or is this a general macho statement to make oneself look cool? |
My buddy and I, both of us here for work from VA, were driving around downtown Tacoma Saturday trying to find a bar with his TomTom and happened to see that Mustang. |
| The general consensus, at the time, was that the Rangers were trying to scare the lowlifes to death as opposed to killing them. Do you really think they're that poor shots? That wouldn't seem to be a very well reasoned opinion, unless arrived at in 0.002 seconds. Given that most of the shooting occurred at ranges well within the effective area of an accomplished pistolero, I'm disinclined to think the soldiers were genuinely unable to put lead where they wanted it. |
We've done this. The newspaper article misrepresented the event--there had been weeks of buildup, initiated by crips (or bloods, I forget, it's probably irrelevant) picking a fight at the Tacoma Mall with a few rangers, and getting their asses handed to them. The final "300 Round And No Hits" shoot out was sort of a reverse ambush, the Rangers knew they were going to be attacked, and were prepared. They had the whole thing on video tape, and a sealed (and, ISTR, notarized as well) copy of a five page operations order they handed over to the police, which included instructions to shoot into the ground. I got this from the MP SFC who was serving at the time as the I Corps/Ft Lewis Law Enforcement Liaison to Pierce County Sheriff and Tacoma PD. BTW, I Googled "Defend Tacoma" and all I got was some punk's MySpace page, and several newspaper articles, mostly about zoning...
|
|
To continue with the hijack (Sorry Jet :) )
If that is the case (and I obviously don't have access to inner knowledge to confirm), then I think that's a poor decision. (Achieved in less than .002 seconds) I'm sorry, but if someone is shooting at me, I'm not shooting back to scare, I'm shooting back to hit them. I can't imagine not deliberately aiming at someone who is trying to take my life or that of someone around me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're in a gunfight with someone, shouldn't you be trying to take them out before they take you out? We're not talking paintballs here. I've heard that bullets can kill a person. The surprise in this gunight was that an innocent bystander wasn't killed/wounded by one of the 300 bullets flying around the neighborhood. If you're making the judgement call to voluntarily engage in a gunfight, then you need to be willing to step up and accept responsibility for taking a life. Otherwise, back off and let the police do the job for you. |
Now that is STUPID. Shoot into the ground? For what purpose? If they knew they were going to be hit, and notified the police, and the police weren't there to stop the brawl...then they should have SHOT TO KILL. One shot--one kill. It is an absolute defense (in WA) to stand your ground when attacked, and even if you know you're going to be, if the bad guys come to your door (as in this case) you don't have to flee. Police were notified; that would be one heck of a lawsuit. Either they were poor shots--or incredibly stupid. And yes, modern combat studies (which I don't have on hand right now) suggest that the more "advanced" firepower we have, the fewer hits we achieve. The numbers below are incorrect, but representative: WW1 : 1 kill for every 10 shots; WW2 : 1 kill for every 50; Vietnam : 1 kill for every 1,000 Recent wars: 1 kill for every 5 cruise missiles 
|
Notice the the amount of American deaths also had dropped a bit? Ever since the civil war (or whatever you want to call it) and the huge amount of live wasted, the US has decided that it's better to expend things instead of lives. We go into battle with the goal of outnumbering them 3 to 1, then try to put more lead at them than they can even think about so that they keep their heads down while another element kills them from a different direction. |