[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_2002000/2002249.stm[/url]

[img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/37960000/jpg/_37960734_punchafp300.jpg[/img]

[b]Lord Have Mercy![/b]

I can't imagine anyone throwing a punch at a woman, much less a woman with a child in her arms.

And this is precisely why!

I'm sorry, but I don't even care what the protest was about now.

The officer did a horrible thing that should not be permitted in any country on earth.

Jesus would say that it may have been better for that man had he never been born.

Eric The(ApologizeProfuselyToTheFamilyAndEspeciallyTheLittleGirl!Now!)Hun[>]:)]

He wasn`t hittin` her.....he just needed a pacifier.................[rolleyes]

That's just plain wrong, anyway you look at it.

[stick][stick][stick][stick][stick][stick][stick]

Over and over again....

[stick][stick][stick][stick][stick][stick][stick]

I just got a kick out of the picture.

... and it fit in with the "cop bashing theme" that I seem to get stuck on from time to time.

To be fair, the article says the woman may have been attacking the cop with her kid in her arms. If so, blame the stupid woman.

Obviously the kid had it comming.

funny. in a guilty sort of way.

                                            Scarecrow......do you know where the canadian warplane heitage museum is?.....can you get a website.....or contact info?.......thanks

Ban russian cops....for the childrens.   but seriously  never hit woman! unless they are trying to take your life.

[img]news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/37960000/jpg/_37960733_punchafp150.jpg[/img]


Its made worse by the fact that if it was not on film it would be denied and belived......

Its about 45 minutes from my house at the Hamilton Ontario Airport.

[url]http://www.warplane.com/[/url]


If you are comming up drop me a line!!

Plan on it within the next 2 months.....thanks

Storm, you beat me to it!

shouldn't it be a crime to use children as human shields?

According to the story, it was a woman carrying her daughter.  I suppose my upbringing makes it hard for me to believe that a mother would use her child as a shield and a political pawn.

But then again, I've seen enough in my life so far that nothing should surprise me.

Some folks gotta learn the hard way....

Obviously you don't know much about liberal pukes.  Liberal pukes will do anything in the furtherance of their unenlightened "causes."

According to the story, it was a woman carrying her daughter.  I suppose my upbringing makes it hard for me to believe that a mother would use her child as a shield and a political pawn.

But then again, I've seen enough in my life so far that nothing should surprise me.[/quote]

If you look at the "after" picture, you will notice that the mother is more concerned with her injuries than she is with the injuries to her daughter. That speaks volumes about her as a mother.

What do you wanna bet this kid grows up a LOT smarter than her mother and knows not to fuck with the police.

On a flight I took a couple of years ago, some dickless wonder was being a violent asshole for the entire damn three-hour flight, all while carrying his baby in his arms.

When he got off the plane, the airline had called the police to come pick him up.  He held on to the kid in his arms and told his wife to videotape the "police brutality" in case they did anything that might cause him to drop the kid.

I don't know how it all resolved.  I hope they hauled him off to jail for the night, and I hope he got a heavy fine and some prison time.

Boys, boys, boys, are you guys Americans or what?

Just because some pinhead (?) protestor does something stupid like smack a policeman with her purse while holding her baby, does not give the policeman the right to endanger the child's well-being by swinging back wildly!

That's the way a civilized police department would act. Obviously, this particular policeman got all of his training under the former Soviet system, which was not very civilized at all.

Let's see. Suppose the woman had a gun and was threatening the [u]police[/u] with it.

Who thinks it would be a wise and justifiable course of action for the [u]police[/u] to shoot back at the woman with the child in her arms?

If you are an American LEO and you said yes, please turn in your badge.

But don't worry about a job. I hear there may be an opening in the Vladivostok Police Dept. very soon.

Eric The(TheyMayLoveYouThere)Hun[>]:)]

Your taking this thing in a bad direction so I'll give you a hand.

If I understand you correctly, what your saying is that if I want to kill you all I have to do is hold my daughter in one arm and blaze away with my gun in the other and you will not defend yourself. If you did you would be some kind of low life? Would your scenario only apply to a Police Officer? Under those circumstances it would be O.K. for anyone but a cop to defend himself? I put my child in harms way but whomever injures my child (shield) is to blame? You truly have the mind of an attorney. Blame anyone except the person who created the situation. Especially when you can blame the Police.

Can you say attorney fees boys and girls? I thought you could. [green]$[/green][green]$[/green]

[red]DISCLAIMER[/red] I do not in any way promote the injuring of children.

ETH I have to disagree with you on this one.
A woman using a child as a human shield and pointing a firearm at ANYONE should be SHOT!!!
The child of course is an innocent victim...
however;that doesn;t justify allowing yourself to be shot by the woman cause you don't want to kill the child.(hint:AIM)the woman doesn't even care about the child she will only appear to when she can't control the situation with the child.FUCK HER!!She NEEDS to get punched in the face for even BRINGING the child to a protest
that could possibly become violent.SHE DOESN'T
CARE ABOUT THE CHILD

Post from Sukebe -

Thanks, I need all the help I can get these days.

Well, you may try to kill me, but you would have to do so by blazing away at me while I am behind cover.

What is the capacity of your weapon? 17 rounds? 32 rounds?

[b]I can wait you out[/b]. You will soon be out of ammo, while I emerge unscathed from behind my protected cover.

No, a low life would be someone who would risk hitting the child to protect their stupid butt for being out in the open in the vicinity of an angry woman with a gun!

[b]Not at all![/b] It would apply to any civilized and thoughtful person who found himself or herself in such a predicament as I've described.

Nope, it applies to non-cops as well! But I wouldn't expect that well-trained LEOs would do it any other way! I hope I'm not mistaken!

No, the woman who puts her own child in harm's way is much more to blame than anyone else at the scene. But for anyone to compound her stupidity by opening up on a woman with a child in her arms is [u]almost[/u] as culpable as the woman herself!

Why the rush to end the confrontation? Is there someplace else you need to be? Wait the woman out! Her weapon is not some movie gun that continues to load itself out of thin air!

Thank you, but is my Christian mind, as well as my 'Made in the Good Old USA' mind that prevents me from endangering a child any further than its parent has already endangered it!

Blame? Now [u]who's[/u] thinking like an attorney![:D]

Nonsense. Forget that there are LEOs involved at all, just simple civilians caught in a very serious situation.

I have no law enforcement training at all, but I would think that the first thing they would teach you in such a situation is to TAKE COVER!

Then wait it out. Unless you are G-d, you have no idea what you are facing.

Hell, it might not even be the woman's child, but a neighbor's child, or a kidnapping victim!

Would your views be the same as before, if you 'knew' it wasn't the woman's child?

Ah-hah! Caught you at the [b]Gates of Hell[/b], didn't I? [:D]

Eric The(AskQuestionsFirst,Shoot?Hell,There'sAlwaysTimeForShooting!)Hun[>]:)]

I could see using pepper spray or a taser on the child, but a punch.  That's a little overboard. :)

Post from MAC-DADDY -

Just take a number and get in line, it seems!

That is a hard one to answer. Yes, if you are absolutely caught out in the open [b]with no, repeat, no way of escaping her shots[/b], then and only then I suppose that shooting the woman would be [u]one[/u] choice.

Another choice would be to duck and run for cover. I've been telling women for decades that if anyone pulls a gun on them in a mall parking lot - notwithstanding how close the bastard is - run, scream, holler, zig, zag, flail your arms in the air, but under no circumstances should you get in the bastard's car.

If you do that, chances are he won't fire. If he does, he'll likely miss. If he doesn't miss, you will be transported to an emergency room within minutes.

Better than a violent rape in the countryside and then a bullet behind the ear, [b][i]n'est-ce pas[/i][/b]?

So then, what you are saying is that I've been wrong all along? That it is so certain that a woman with a child in her arms would be such a good shot that you are one dead sob?

She wouldn't miss, as you ran for cover. If she didn't miss, you would lie in the street and bleed to death. No one would come to your aid, and that would be the end of that and you? Right?

But I assume that this Russian policeman had no intention of hitting the child whatsoever, so I suppose that's [u]not[/u] the child's face bleeding in the photo, that's [u]not[/u] the child who is traumatized, that's [u]not[/u] the child who has serious internal injuries from the blow of an adult male, right?

Nope, it's the child!

I hope [u]your[/u] aim is better than the Russki's!

Just because you can't get behind protective cover is no reason for you not to try.

What do you want to do? Stand there in the middle of the street, as if it were Dodge City and Marshall Dillon was out of town, blazing away, the two of you, until one of you drops?

Sheesh! I can't wait to hear what Marshall Dillon has to say about [u]that[/u] when he gets back! You'd better be dead, that's all I can say!

Shoot, maybe the child [u]wanted[/u] to come to the protest and so deserved everything she got that day![:D]

If the mother doesn't care about the child, if the child doesn't care about herself, that still leaves you.

And you should care about the child, dare I say it, even more than you care about yourself!

But pardon me, I speak as a Christian and not as a gun-toting attorney on this one!

I pray that Our Father never places me in such a situation, or that if He does, that He will see me safely through. And the child, as well.

As He always does.

I would hope that anyone would value the life of this child more than their own life. That may be too much to ask.

It didn't use to be that way. 'Nuff said.

Eric The(IAin'tComplaining!)Hun[>]:)]

Hey ETH it's OK if we disagree sometimes........
isn't it?

Seriously though;I may have gone off the deep end on this one HOWEVER.......


You say that the child may have WANTED to go to to protest....EVEN IF(BIG IF)the child WANTED TO GO the mother should have used better discresion than she did and should NOT have confronted the police.The cop was wrong in striking the child but that doesn't make the mother RIGHT for putting the child in harms way in the first place.You KNOW that she most likely egged on the cop into the confrontation in the 1st place causing her child to become a victim.SAD as it is.......

Actually, [b]MAC-DADDY[/b], I was being facetious when I said the child wanted to go to the protest, just to remove that factor from our consideration!

Of course, the mother was stupid for bringing the child, but that doesn't make the policeman any [u]less[/u] stupid for attempting to hit the woman with a child in her arms!

Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]

Sorry ETH,I missunderstood and I stand corrected.BOTH parties were at fault ...you agree?

ETH, you are just throwing into your line of reasoning that you can easily "run to cover".  That doesn't sound too realistic to me.  BTW, are you faster than a bullet, cuz I sure as hell ain't.

Post from MAC-DADDY -

Absolutely! But when one of them is a policeman, armed and representing his society, his fault is the greater, if you know what I mean!

Sort of like the FBI's fault in events that led up to the disastrous fire at Mt. Carmel Church was [u]greater[/u] than any fault Koresh may have committed!

After all, [u]he[/u] was the one who was supposed to be the 'madman', not Janet Reno!

Eric The(IfYouGetMyDrift)Hun[>]:)]

Post from biggun1 -

Wouldn't [u]you[/u] 'run to cover' if someone in your vicinity was waving a weapon around?

Well, let's just say that I would run like a banshee for cover, and while I might not be able to outrun a bullet, I probably don't have to, either!

That's the good thing about drawing up a hypothetical situation - you can change or rearrange the facts to your heart's content.

So in my scenario, the woman is generally threatening the crowd of police.

In your's, she's got her weapon, what? Placed on your forehead? In your ribs? What?

[u]If[/u] you can take cover in your scenario you should, but blazing away in a crowded street scene at a mother, albeit armed, with a child in her arms, is the height of stupidity, IMHO.

Do you hit everything you fired at? [b]Neither does this woman with the child in her arms![/b]

You don't have to be - you just have to happen to be out of its trajectory!

[b]NOW LET'S CHANGE THE SCENARIO JUST A BIT![/b]

[b]biggun1[/b], a crazed woman has picked up [u]your[/u] little girl and is threatening the police and/or assembled citizens with a weapon.

Now, what is [u]your[/u] advice to the police and/or assembled crowd of onlookers:

1. Shoot the bitch, put her down, [b]now![/b]

2. Take cover and let's try and reason with this crazed woman. Let's not anyone try and be a hero and get my little girl killed, ok? Let's get some specialized folks in here who know shit from shinola about negotiating with the woman, maybe someone with some less than lethal weaponry, etc.

Well, quick, which choice did you pick?

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you picked #2, right?

Point made!

Thank you, thank you very much.[:D]

See how different you might feel when it's your little girl on the receiving end of that Russian policeman's punch, or in the scenario, when it's your little girl in the arms of a mad woman?

Well, there is a Russian father somewhere in Vladivostok today that is very angry that his little girl was punched for whatever reason.

Just as you would be.

Eric The(ShootingIsTheVeryLastOption)Hun[>]:)]

As I've said, using a child as a human shield should be considered a serious offense with a long prison sentence.

Wow, Both of with one punch!  Good shot.  [}:D]



Q. What do you tell a woman with a black eye?
A. Nothing, you've told her twice already.

Post from jz02 -

Indeed, it is called 'Endangerment of a Child' in Texas.

And punching a child with your fist is also considered an offense in this State as well. It's called 'Battery of a Child.'

Both are very 'serious' offenses.

Eric The(Legal)Hun[>]:)]

I am trained as a Texas Peace Officer and think that the armchair quarterbacking and hindsight pontificating which surrounds these types of incidents is silly, at best.  That being said, it's now my turn to be silly.  It takes a knife-wielding offender only 3 seconds to cross 21 feet of space to engage his victim.  That is FAST!  I qualified as the Top Gun of my academy cycle and I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to shoot the woman without knowing I run the risk of hitting the child.  So, I wouldn't shoot. There are too many variables involved in this type of crowd-control situation, to give a green light to deadly force.  So the cop did the right thing in using less-than-deadly force to defend himself.  I think that this Russian policeman's only offense is the bad luck, and bad aim, which caused him to strike the child instead of his INTENDED target.  I know that intentions carry only limited weight in the courtroom, but in the court of public opinion, intentions are not considered at all, most of the time.  Here in Austin, there was an incident where an offender threatened an officer with a screwdriver.  This is after he set the back seat of the car he was riding in on fire, endangering his sister and mother in the front seats.  He was mentally unstable, it was discovered later.  The officers responding ended up having to shoot the offender.  My father said to me later, that he thought the officer should have aimed for his leg or some other "non-lethal" part of the body.  I had to explain to Dad, that for ANYONE to aim for and actually hit someone's rapidly moving leg in that type of situation, it would have to be written into the script, because only Hollywood can make that happen.  We, as firearm enthusiasts, know how difficult it is to hit the ten ring consistently on a non-moving paper target, let alone in an adrenaline-charged, shoot/no-shoot situation.  Now, y'all might flame me for some of what I am saying, but you'll have to agree that Hollywood and network TV has given the the general public the idea that aiming and firing a firearm is as easy as falling off a log.  Only the bad guys miss and the Hero is a dead shot who only wounds the bad guys so they can be brought to trial.  I wonder what that Russian cop is putting up with today, after his actions have been given the typical media spin...

Hypothetical scenarios like these really are a waste of time.  It looks like the woman flinched away and pivoted the kid into it. Don't ya'll be surprised about adults using children as shields, It's pretty common.  I've worked two cases where the kid was used as a club against another adult.  In the first case the (7mo old) child died.  His father used him to beat on girlfriend.
Eric,  "Battery"  is a legal term not much used in Texas. The true charge would be "Aggravated assault with serious bodily injury to a child"  the charge is dependant on the age of the child. For mom it'd just be assault.
As for hitting women, given sufficient reason, I'll hit, kick, punch, bite, pepperspray, handcuff and in extreme cases, shoot women. It's the one part of that "Equality of the sexes" thing that I agree with.

Eric, if a person who was holding a child pointed a firearm at me, I would shoot them as fast as reasonably possible. YES, this would endganger, and possibly kill the child, but I would do it the first time, everytime.

But to put it into a situation even YOU would understand....


YOU are a peaceful Jewish settler out to market with your UZI.

A EVIL PAELESTINAIN crazy person runs in with a gun and is using a child as a protective "human shield." The Palestinian terrotists then begins to shoot Jews withing the viciniity, DO YOU SHOOT THAT PERSON?

Eddited to add: But in the REAL situation that had NO GUN, I would have probably taken the kid from the woman before I began to punch her lights out. The woman, not the kid.

Oh SteyrAUG, not only did you make the baby Jesus cry, you made me cry I'm laughing so friggin' hard.

[beer]

Not me, [b]SteyrAUG[/b], never. A child is a child is a child. His life is more precious to me than my own.

Just think of this for a moment. If you were in a situation where it was either going to be you to die (parachute/life preserver/whatever) or the child to die, you would not pick yourself over the child to live would you?

Why not?

Because you're a moral individual who believes in women and children first in such situations.

Why would you change your choice when the threat comes from the child's mother or from a crazed woman kidnapper? Either way it's the same choice.

And in the Palestinian terrorist situation, I would simply tell everyone to drop down and wait for the opportunity to get a clean shot at the terrorist. If he holds the child high, shoot for the legs, if held low, shoot at his head, but if you can't get a clear shot, then wait for him to stop firing to reload.

I value the lives of Palestinian children just as much as any others.

Now, if the terrorist, let's say, breaks into an Israeli settler daycare, picks up one of the Israeli settler's children and begins to methodically kill other children, then I would not have any choice but to shoot at the terrorist (and the child) in order to prevent an even worse tragedy.

You seem to have the same opinion of these Palestinian terrorists as I do, since you know they would endanger the lives of their own children just to kill Israelis!

Thank God, the Israelis don't act the same way!

But that's another thread![:D]

Eric The(Wise)Hun[>]:)]

Yea !!  steyr nailed this one !!!!!  Make sure we all teach our kids that you never EVER mess with Vlad fife or you'll get the iron fist. Always fall in line with the sheeple and never protest, but if you do, be ready to be beat into submission.  Thank you steyr for your wisdom. [rolleyes]

Oh, and BTW, I guess those kids at Waco had it coming. [stick]

NOT TRUE. I would shoot at the first opportunity EVERY TIME. Even as the risk of killing the child. You see "I" have a family and me being around to take care of them takes higher priority than ANYONE's child. I would NOT try and kill the child but I would not sacrifice MYSELF for that child if the person was trying to kill me.

Now would I risk my life in a rescue type situation to save a child? YES. Especially where a reasonable expectation of survival on my part exists. But when a gun is pointed at ME, that changes things.



NO opportuntity exists. People are dying NOW, she is still shooting. YOU have a gun, another JUST got shot, what do you do? Damn, another one just got shot while you think about it.



Finally catching on.



I never said they wouldn't. And it ain't just the Palestinians. Terrorism is terrorism.

Do you really not see the HUGE difference between a protester ATTACKING a police officer with her child in her arms...

AND

A FBI sniper shooting Vicki Weaver with a child in her arms?

Ummm, just how much "attacking" can a woman carrying a child do ?????  unless she has a gun or a knife in that other hand, and from the pics it sure does'nt look that way, HELL NO !!! there is no reason to punch a child !!!

Nope, I'm not catching on to anything. You've just presented me with a situation that has no possible satisfactory conclusion, so I must make do with the scenario as you have laid it out.

In such a situation you must do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Period.

But let's get back to our original situation where you said you would take the shot 'cause you want to go home at the end of your shift (if you're an LEO) or simply go home (if you're a civilian).

Let me make the same change I made for others.

The child being held by the crazed woman is your daughter.

A LEO/civilian is in the same position that you were just a few minutes ago in this thread.

Do you want him to think the same way you did when the shoot/don't shoot call was yours? Eh?

See, you can afford to think the way you do when it's some other schmuck's child endangered.

When it's yours, the rules change a bit don't they?

It's a difficult decision, but one that I am certain that not only LEOs, but civilians are faced with every day.

I hope for the sake of humanity that those who are faced with such choices make the same choice that I hope I would make on such a day.

Yes, I want to see my family again. Yes, I do not want to die.

But there are some things worse than dying and killing a child is right up there with the very worst thing you can do.

As a matter of fact, it's at the top of the list!

Think it over.

Eric The(ItWouldn'tBeEasy,ButThenWhoSaidItWouldBe)Hun[>]:)]

OK. Gotta chime in on this one. I have run into a lot of situations wher people use their kids as shields. They're generally crappy parents anyway and don't care about their kids at all.This is a fluid situation. Constant movement and action, not a frozen moment in time. You cannot see her other hand in the picture. If she did in fact hit "Vlad" with her handbag how do we know what was in the bag? I've seen em with bricks and rocks and such for use as a weapon.    
 I disagree with the punch in this situation but I've gotta say if you think you wouldn't ever hit a woman you need to try fighting one in a real life or death situation. Been there a couple times and they get hit.

The woman yes, the child no. It makes no difference whether the parents are shitbags or not. The police need to use caution and PATIENCE when dealing with protestors or they risk looking just as bad as the idiots who are causing trouble. It would be my guess that in a protest/riot type situation the police would be wearing some form of protective/riot gear, helmets with face shields, large see-through shields and some form of body and leg protection and I would think that lack of proper crowd control training is a major factor.

OK first, as I noted above, if it were me, I'd have removed the child BEFORE kicking the womans ass. So on that issue I agree.

But let me try and re explain my original point.

I would find it unnaceptable for a woman with a child to attack ANYONE.

Situation ONE: You are a white person walking past a civil rights demonstration. A black woman carrying her child (as a human shield and for later photo propaganda) attacks YOU the evil white man. Do you defend yourself?

Situation TWO: You are a black person walking past a white power demonstration. A white woman carrying her child (as a human shield and for later photo propaganda) attacks YOU the evil black man. Do you defend yourself?

I also find these types of attacks on LEOs just as offensive. The point I was trying to make IS - IF YOU HAVE YOUR CHILD YOU DO NOT TAKE THEM INTO HARMS WAY. That is because people, including those in law enforcement WILL defend themselves.

Brings to mind our own homegrown POS, Lon Horiuchi.