Conference back40::soapbox

    
    a guy stole an M60 battle tank from an ANG base in San Diego.
    
    he was shot and killed when he failed to surrender, and after
    flattening several houses.

    the rumor is that the tank was hung up on some jersey barriers
    and the police flipped the hatch and blew him away.
    
    this will be an interesting investigation if the perp didn't have
    a firearm. was he or wasn't he armed? (tank-wise)
    
    Chip 

I heard, on the radio, that he wouldn't surrender as ordered, proceeded to
try to restart the tank, and then they killed him.

Apparently unarmed in a stalled tank.

    
    
    I have a problem with that last statement.....
    
    
    Isn't 'unarmed' and 'in a tank' an oxymoron, or something???
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    "Armed" presumes that the subject is in possesion of ammunition. 
    Ammunition is not, repeat NOT, stored in tanks.  It is loaded aboard
    when they go into combat or into combat-simulation exercises, and it is
    unloaded when they return to the motor pool.

    
    kaliph kops don't mind blowing away unarmed "perps", esp. socal ones.
    
    will be interesting to see if the shoot is held to be righteous by
    the local justice.
    
    life is cheap to the wannabe dirty harrys.

    
    
    I take armed to mean that the person is in possession
    of a deadly weapn.  I do believe that a tank could be
    construed as a deadly weapon.
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    >I take armed to mean that the person is in possession
    >of a deadly weapn.  I do believe that a tank could be
    >construed as a deadly weapon.
    
    ..., the right of Chesty Morgan to keep and bare...
    
    oh never mind.
    
    -b

    .1859
    
    A tank is an armored vehicle designed as a mobile gun platform.  With
    no ammunition, its guns are not dangerous except to someone foolish
    enough to stand there while the operator clobbers her over the head by
    swinging the turret gun.
    
    If a tank were ipso facto a deadly weapon - emphasis on deadly - then
    so is a Caterpillar tractor - it's heavy, it has tracks and an engine,
    and it can do pretty much most of what a tank can do.

	Terrie's right though - you don't have to have ammo to be armed.

    
    
>    I take armed to mean that the person is in possession
>    of a deadly weapn.  I do believe that a tank could be
>    construed as a deadly weapon.
    
    	so could your car. If you were running into things with your car
    and you refused to give yourself up to police, would they be justified
    in shooting you? Especially after your car had stalled an they had
    opened the door (the cops in the tank incident had opened the hatch of
    the tank and shot him through the hatch. the tank had stalled)?
    
    jim

    
    
    
    If I was in my car, trying to run down everything in sight,
    I would concider it a favor if they shot me.  Put me out of
    my and everyone elses misery......
    
    
    
    

    -1 exactly Jim... it's in the use of the implement.
    
       Terrie, my entry about being armed was more of a tongue-in-cheek
       remark :-)
    
       the tank will definitely get classified as a dangerous weapon
       given the destruction and lack of consideration for human life
       involved in the incident... (IMHO)
    
       Chip

    
    
    	the point is, they had an opportunity to end the situation
    non-violently and they didn't take it. the guy was in a stalled out
    tank and they had the hatch open....why not spray him with OC spray or
    dump in some tear-gas? Why did they have to shoot him?
    
    jim

    The way I heard this story was that the tank driver was driving
    along a path chosen so as to crush and destroy *things*, rather
    than people, i.e., he avoided houses and the like.
    
    Furthermore, the tank was either partially or totally immobile
    due to some tread loss or malfunction, when the police killed
    the driver.  In other words, there does not appear to be an
    immediately life-threatening situation here that would justify
    a killing.
    
    Chris

    
    
    then again, what the police/govt consider deadly/dangerous is pretty
    vague at times...my father was once arrested for assault and battery
    with a deadly/dangerous weapon (cant remember what they called it)...
    his foot.  so if a foot is deadly/dangerous, then why can't a tank be??
    
    
    (not that i am defending the actions of the officers involved...just
    arguing some points...)
    
    

    
    
    Maybe we will never know the answer to that question Jim.
    But I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Something
    about 'innocent until proven guilty'.  I'm sure we've not 
    heard the entire story.  Maybe they never even brought anyone 
    within view of him.  Maybe they just opened and shot, trying to
    keep from endangering the life of some innocent by making them look
    down that hole to see if this raving lunatic had a gun.
    
    I'll tell you what....next time something like this happens, *you* 
    go volunteer to crawl down the steps of the tank hatch, with some luney
    waiting at the other end to shoot you in the ass.
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    its just more convenient to off the guy and let the coroner guys
    police up the remains.
    
    

 ZZ   .my father was once arrested for assault and battery
 ZZ   with a deadly/dangerous weapon (cant remember what they called it)...
 ZZ   his foot.  so if a foot is deadly/dangerous, then why can't a tank be??
    
    Easy...he was a resident of Brockton and that puts him in a completely
    different category altogether! 
    
    -Jack

Wouldn't it have been possible to throw in some tear gas or something?

    I think I follow this now. When the police are inside the
    tank, using it in violation of the Posse Comitatus law against
    civilians, it's ok, but when the civilian is in the tank,
    he's toast.

    Seems less dangerous to me to uncork a canister of tear
    gas and throw it down the hole than it is to fire a gun.
    Bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting and could have
    made their way back out of the hole, endangering those
    doing the firing.

    -b

    
    maybe he was a branch davidian.

    
    
>    But I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Something
>    about 'innocent until proven guilty'.  
    
    	Wasn't the tank driver entitled to a trial? Or had he foreited his
    life even tho' he harmed no one, only things?
    
>    I'll tell you what....next time something like this happens, *you* 
>    go volunteer to crawl down the steps of the tank hatch, with some luney
>    waiting at the other end to shoot you in the ass.
    
    	I'd call it like this:
    
    	Open the hatch and toss in a tear gas grenade. close the hatch for
    a few seconds and then stand back behind some cover and see if he comes
    out. Not all that difficult, especially if the tank was permanently
    disabled and wasn't going anywhere.
    
    	On another note, this is a switch isn't it? You have me, who regularly
    carriers a loaded .45 pistol and says deadly force is ok and necessary
    in certain situations. Then you have Terrie who doesn't believe in
    carrying or owning firearms, nor that they should be used by citizens
    and generally abhors the use of deadly force (and I do respect your
    position on those issues terrie). YET I'm saying that a peaceful
    resolution may have been achieved and terrie is saying the cops
    should've shot him just for the fact that he MAY have been armed. Whoa,
    I feel dizzy....am I turning into a criminal coddling lib?
    AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.....!!!!
    
    
    jim
    

     Why didn't they wait for him to shoot them first? Then it would have
    been sufficiently righteous for just about everyone.

    
    
>     Why didn't they wait for him to shoot them first? Then it would have
>    been sufficiently righteous for just about everyone.
    
    	Was he even armed?
    
    jim

    Re: .1876
    
    >Why didn't they wait for him to shoot them first?
    
    Perhaps because police have as much aversion to being dead as anyone
    else ....

    
    
    When in a situation that demands immediate attention, it's not always
    convenient, or safe for that matter, to sit around waiting for some
    supply person to show up with tear gas, or whatever else you'd have
    liked them to use first.
    
    
    Look at all the maybe's before jumping up their butts for doing
    something that could have been absolutely necessary.  I'm not saying
    there was no other way.  You're the one saying the way they chose was
    wrong.  I'm not saying it was certainly right, but it MIGHT have been,
    and until I have heard the WHOLE story I'm not going to lower myself to
    the level of these so called militia idiots out there that think that
    every move that every cop in this country makes is wrong unless I say
    otherwise.
    
    
    Terrie
    

    >Was he even armed?
    
     How were they supposed to know? Were they supposed to ask him? The
    dork stole a tank and didn't get give it back when he was told. He was
    destroying things in a very dangerous vehicle. Expecting the anyone to
    put themselves in any more danger than they already were is
    unreasonable, IMO. If they'd tossed a tear gas cannister in there and
    he came out and popped a couple of them, you'd be blaming the cops for
    not taking him out when they had the chance.

RE: 431.28 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> If they'd tossed a tear gas cannister in there...

and he took out a school with a high explosive round,  can you imagine the
screams from that Waco_proves_we_should_not_use_tear_gas_in_confined_spaces 
crowd?


Phil

    
    cain't fire the main gun from the driver seat.
    
    gotta be in the cupola or loaders seat

RE: CALDEC::RAH "an outlaw in town"

> cain't fire the main gun from the driver seat.
> gotta be in the cupola or loaders seat

So how many seconds would it take to get there?  Three?  Four?  And how 
would someone outside the tank notice and stop such an event?


Phil

And is the tear gas EPA approved for use in populated areas?

And what if the tear gas started a fire?

 Maybe they should have, upon removing him from the tank, presented him with
 a plaque for the succesful operation of a tank without having been trained,
 and held a parade in his honor?




 Jim

>    	Was he even armed?

Most people are.  Some have only one arm.  I don't think there are any
three-armed men, although I've heard of three armed men robbing a bank.

    
    
    How about a one armed bandit wiht a two armed partner?

    >> cain't fire the main gun from the driver seat.
    >
    > So how many seconds would it take to get there?
    
    It's still irrelevant because tanks sitting on the pad do NOT carry
    ammo.  The guy would have to have broken into a locked and guarded ammo
    dump.  Is there any evidence that he did so?  I thought not.

RE: 431.37 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot"

Oh?  Is every tank round in the world accounted for?


Phil

Didn't I hear a story about lots of ammo missing from military bases?

    He must have seen the Dukakis-in-a-tank newsbite once too often  
    and had an urge to emulate sgt. dork...

    
    Glad the cops blew the sucker away, why I realize he didn't kill
    anyone, he surely could have. What's the difference between attempted
    murder, and actual murder?? The dead body(s) of course.

    
    it takes more than a few secs to climb out of the seat and get into 
    the loader seat in the turret, operate the breech, slam the round in, 
    then clinb into the cupola and decide what to aim at.
    
    it takes 3 people to operate the main gun.
    
    people stealing ammo would probably want small arms, or AT or AA
    missiles, or possibly some nice C4 and/or det cord.
    
    whats someone going to do with a 105mm APSD round?

>>    Glad the cops blew the sucker away,


	the 'box is a scary place at times, yesirree-bob.
	

    
    well Di, so is the real world.

    
    >whats someone going to do with a 105mm APSD round?
    
    
    	Well, yesterday I would have asked myself, "What's someone going
    	to do with a stolen tank?".
    

Stolen from a National Guard armory. that means no ammo was available at the 
site he stole the tank.
The tank was hung on the jersey barrier completely disabled.

From video it appears the cops offered him no chance for surrender, just 
opened the hatch and popped him.
Not the way for police to act. 

Amos

    re: .46
    
    
    I'm not gonna touch that one......
    

RE: 431.42 by CALDEC::RAH "an outlaw in town"

If I was going to go to the bother of not only stealing a tank,  but stealing 
ammo for it as well,  I sure wouldn't fail to take the first chance to chamber 
a round.


> whats someone going to do with a 105mm APSD round?

Steal a tank to try it out?


Phil

    >sold a lot of tanks to private citizen recently.
    
    This is only legal if the armored units have been 'permanently
    disabled'.  Most are sold with strict licensing restrictions, only to
    legitimate museums.
    
    5 APCs were seized back from citizens who had legally purchased and
    restored such units just four or five months ago. 
    
    DougO

RE: 31.47 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS"

> From video it appears the cops offered him no chance for surrender, just
> opened the hatch and popped him.

How many seconds of video did you watch?


Phil

    
    
>    When in a situation that demands immediate attention, it's not always
>    convenient, or safe for that matter, to sit around waiting for some
>    supply person to show up with tear gas, or whatever else you'd have
>    liked them to use first.
    
    	True, and neither of us were there to make that decision. From the
    facts/news/heresay that has been presented here I am of the opinion
    that the police used excessive force. The tank was disable, i.e. - not
    going anywhere fast. They popped the hatch, stuck a gun in and blasted
    away. Were they justified? Maybe so, maybe not. At the moment, I'm
    trying to throw a little questioning at their actions. I am NOT saying
    they were definitely wrong, but it's a possibility...
    
>    and until I have heard the WHOLE story I'm not going to lower myself to
>    the level of these so called militia idiots out there that think that
>    every move that every cop in this country makes is wrong unless I say
>    otherwise.
    	
    	Whoa, I didn't realize I was a "militia idiot" for questioning a
    shooting! Wow, my uncle (Narcotics officer in Pittsburg), my brother
    (criminal justice major who's applied to be on the U.S. Border Patrol),
    my good friends father (police chief of my town) are going to be real
    p*ssed at me when they realise how anti-cop I am. I guess I should
    cancel my membership to the LEAA (Law Enforcement Alliance of America).
    I'm so ashamed.
    
    	C'mon Terrie, we've been friends a long time and I hardly think you
    would lump my statements in with extremist anti-cop rhetoric. 99% of
    the cops I've ever had dealings with were great people and would help
    you with anything you asked. All I'm saying here is that I question
    their actions as I would questions anyones actions in a shooting
    (civilian or police). The taking of a life is the ultimate escalation
    of force and is only called for when there is fear for ones life. Maybe
    these cops had been told he might have ammo inside, maybe he did have a
    gun and was threatening to shoot the officers, maybe they just
    overreacted, I dunno. But let's not just say it's ok because of alot of
    maybes. I do hope there's a full investigation and the cops are found
    to be in the right. Other possibilities exist tho'.....
    
    
    jim

    
    
    Jim...I did not mean that you were part of that
    'militia idiot' group.  I was merely making a statement.
    You're right, we have been friends a long time, and
    I know you better than that.
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    Phil,
    
     You're always looking for logic in things so I'll give you some.
    
    I was in an armored division whilst in the god ol US of A Army...
    
     I worked on M-60's for a very long time, and, unless this guy was
    trained (and if we eventually find out he was, I'll apologize) there's
    no way he could have fired anything out of that tank!!
    
      Before I became a mechanic for those things, I was a loader... there
    are so many safety features involved, it's not funny! Being a loader, I
    was initially shown how to fire the darned thing in case the gunner was
    unable to. I soon forgot about firing, as I was a loader... a month
    after that "training", I couldn't fire that thing if my life depended
    on it!! 
    
      I doubt the guy could have even come close to understanding what it
    was all about...
    
      and I won't accept that being able to drive that thing is a
    precursor to anything.... It's a very simple vehicle to drive.. no
    harder than a car... Steering wheel, shift lever fro low to high and a
    brake... nothing more, nothing less..
    
     Dick Binder is right about the ammo.... there is no way, unless the
    guy was the armorer, that he could have gotten a round of the stuff..
    

Talking of being easy to drive, that reminds me of an article in `Car'
magazine where one of the journalists took a Challenger (70 ton monster
of an MBT) for a test drive.  After raving on about the hugely powerful
engine and the 5-speed automatic gearbox, the first thing he did was
to stall it (he forgot to release the handbrake).  Embarrasing or what!

Chris.

.1 says the guy flattened houses.  .15 says he avoided houses.  Which is it?

    
    
    	re: Terrie
    
    	Thanks hun...I feel better now. :*)
    
    
    jim

    .57
    
    He flattened cars and utility poles.  Not houses.

    
    Poor cars and helpless utility poles!?!?!?
    

    
    	re: .60
    
    	Oh, the horror.....
    
    

 He avoided flat houses?

    
    
    And, what if someone had left their car at the side of the road
    with their little baby in a car seat in the back, and bent over to pick
    something up off the floor of the car, and the guy driving the tank
    thought the car was empty, and ran it over, killing the parent and the
    baby.  Then how would you feel about it??
    

    
    NPR said houses. Guess they lied.
    
    

    .64
    
    The report I heard on NPR said cars and poles, no mention of houses. 
    Guess they lied.  :-)

    
    	re: Terrie
    
    	facts are he ran over no one. Even if he did, he was immobil at
    the time of his being shot (therefore no one was in danger of being run
    over).
    
    	What if's are alot of fun, but let's just stick with what happened.
    
    
    jim

If he has a prior record as a thief or druggie, then that'll exonerate the cops.

Fer shure.

    He destroyed 44 cars, knocked down power lines and knocked over
    fire hydrants.
    
    Have the police issued any statements as to why they shot first?
    Did they give him a chance to surrender?  
    
    

and if any of those actions lead indirectly to someone's death, what is his
culpability? (Man-slaughter?)

    	How can a tank get hung up on a Jersey barrier?  These things
    	can climb hills and jump over narrow ravines (the current Army
    	commercials show this) and can flatten cars and trees -- why
    	didn't it just flatten the concrete barrier too?
    
    	As for continued danger once he was "disabled", well I admit that
    	I was educated to some degree about ease of loading (or lack thereof) 
    	through reading this string.  How is some local cop supposed to
    	know how easy or difficult it is to load?  How is the cop supposed
    	to know that he didn't have ammo at all?  We can sit here in the
    	calm of our offices and play armchair officer with after-the-fact
    	info, but you have to realize that the cops were acting in the
    	heat of battle.  And as far as I am concerned, it was a battle.
    
    	Given the guy's behavior up to that point, it is not unreasonable
    	for a cop on the scene to think that he might next come out of the 
    	tank with guns blazing.  "Crazy is as crazy does."
    
    	And given the current legal system (as opposed to justice system)
    	with the likelihook that some lawyer would get him acquitted, 
    	maybe more and more of these types of situations are going end
    	up this way.

         <<< Note 431.70 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	How can a tank get hung up on a Jersey barrier?  These things
>    	can climb hills and jump over narrow ravines (the current Army
>    	commercials show this) and can flatten cars and trees -- why
>    	didn't it just flatten the concrete barrier too?
 
	From the video, it appears that he crossed the barrier and turned
	too soon. One tread on one side, one on the other. Amongst 4-wheelers	
	this is reffered to as "hi pointing". You can't get any traction
	because the chassis is supported in the middle. The video shows 
	the treads spinning.

	On a few other points......

	WE can all agree that NPR lied, but we can ususally make that
	assumption. ;-)

	Now, a show of hands. How many of you have DREAMED about taking
	a Main Battle Tank for a little spin on the freeway. ;-)

	On a more serious note. The cops used excessive force.

Jim

    
    <---------
    
    Been there... done that.... :) :)
    
    One night, a drinking buddy and fellow Spec 5 and I got blasted...
    
    We decided to see who's tanks were faster...
    
    Broke into the Motor Pool and stole two M-60s...
    
     There's a stretch of concrete up in Fort Drum know as "Gasoline Alley"
    and is nothing but gas pumps for about a 1/4 mile....
    
     We decided to have a drag race with our 60s... (didn't matter that
    they had governors on them... nossiree!!! :)
    
      Just about half-way down, and at about 26-28 mph, some idiot MP in a
    Jeep tries to cut us off!! In a Jeep no less!!!
    
      Needless to say, we "pulled over" :) and were escorted to the brig...
    
    Lost a stripe and 2 weeks pay for that one...
    

    
    steve  mcqueen used to soup up gas powered m48s while in the USMC.

    
    
    re: .72
    
    	Yer just lucky he didn't blast ya....
    
    
    

    
    <------
    
    Nope.... he's lucky one of us didn't run over that little Jeep with him
    in it!!!! :) :)
    

    
    
    	yeah, then you woulda lost two stripes....:*)
    
    
    

    One report I heard last night said that the driver was armed.  It's the
    only report to date that I heard that mentions this, and it was a local
    Atlanta newsdroid.
    
    Papers say the cops shot the driver because they feared that he was
    going to steer the tank into oncoming traffic and that they had no
    other option.  Maybe they didn't realize that the tank was hung up and
    that there was little possibility of it moving (IMHO, YMMV, etc.)
    
    Dan 

Heard on the news last night that he had had tank training in the army. So 
he probably knew how to fire the damn thing, had he had any ammo. Like joe 
said, how are the cops on the scene to know A) whether he had any ammo; b) 
whether he knew how to operate the guns if he did; c) if he had some 
sidearms? As I understand it, they climbed on the tank and asked 
(demanded?) that he surrender. Suppose he shouted back something like "F*** 
you! I'll blow your f***ing head off and take out a few of your cop cars 
while I'm at it, you sons of b****es!"

What would you do?     
    

    
    
    	re; .78
    
    	if he did tell the cops he was going to kill them, the he should've
    been shot and it was a justifiable use of force. This is the first I've
    heard of him threatening to shoot the officers....
    
    
    	jim

        <<< Note 431.79 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

The point is, Jim, that none of us know what really went on, so 
denounciation of what the cops did is premature at best.

There once was a yank in a tank,
In desperate need of a wank,
He flattened some cars,
But then he saw stars,
Cos the cops put an end to the prank.

    {applause}

    
    
>The point is, Jim, that none of us know what really went on, so 
>denounciation of what the cops did is premature at best.
    
    	and immediately writing it off as acceptable is premature also.
    
    
    

        <<< Note 431.83 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>

>    	and immediately writing it off as acceptable is premature also.

Who did that?    
    
    

    
    
          <<< Note 431.41 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>
>    Glad the cops blew the sucker away, why I realize he didn't kill
>    anyone, he surely could have. What's the difference between attempted
>    murder, and actual murder?? The dead body(s) of course.
 

        <<< Note 431.85 by SUBPAC::SADIN "One if by LAN, two if by C" >>>
                            -< here's one example >-

I stand corrected

    
    	tanx.....errr...thanks....:*)
    
    
    

    
    tell me Jim, if you were a cop at the scene, how would you have handled
    the situation??? You seem pretty quick to judge the cops reaction, for
    shooting the guy. Having worked for the police dept years ago, I
    learned that they have to make fast decisions on occasions, sometimes
    without all the information. It's pretty easy to second guess their
    actions, after everything has come out. result, one less tank thief
    in the world.
    
    Mark

The guy had a 20 foot deep hole in his yard.  He was apparently
mining for gold.

Well, there _was_ a gold rush in California.

That hole was the tank's new home.
tank hole tank hole tank hole.

    
    actually, jack, my father was never a resident of brockton...just me...
    

    
    re, .86 - to stand corrected, do you need orthopedic shoes ?
    
      bb

<---- nyuk, nyuk

          <<< Note 431.88 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>


	Different Jim, but.....

>    tell me Jim, if you were a cop at the scene, how would you have handled
>    the situation??? You seem pretty quick to judge the cops reaction, for
>    shooting the guy. Having worked for the police dept years ago, I
>    learned that they have to make fast decisions on occasions, sometimes
>    without all the information. 

	You would have also learned, as I did when I went through the
	Academy, that you use the MINIMUM amount of force required
	to apprehend the suspect. In almost every case this means
	the use of NON-lethal force. The tank as stuck. It wasn't going
	anywhere. Therefore the PROPER procedure would have been to
	treat the situation as a "barricaded suspect" incident. You
	order him out and resort to gas if he refuses. You DON'T
	open the door and start shooting.

Jim

    8^@

Glenn, you've got a snail stuck in your mouth.

    <--- I oughta slug you.  ;-)

Before Chrysler came up with the K-car, they spent lots of time and money
on the S-car, but they couldn't figure out how to make the S-car go.

re: .95
    
        >> You DON'T
	>> open the door and start shooting.
    
    That's what I always thought, minimum necessary force.  Besides,
    which of these alternatives poses more risk to an officer:
    
    1.  Opening the hatch a little bit, while being "covered" by
        your fellow officers, with another officer there holding
        his foot on the hatch to prevent further opening, dropping
        a gas grenade (or whatever it's called) in without even
        looking inside, and then backing off.
    
    2.  Opening the hatch all the way, looking into the dark depths
        of the tank, and taking the time to aim and shoot.
    
    If I were an officer, I'd have done #1 just to minimize the risk
    to myself.
    
    Chris

RE: 431.103 by DECWIN::RALTO "It's a small third world after all"

> 1.  Opening the hatch a little bit, while being "covered" by your fellow 
>     officers, with another officer there holding his foot on the hatch to 
>     prevent further opening, dropping a gas grenade (or whatever it's 
>     called) in without even looking inside, and then backing off.

Would you read the lable on the gas grenade first?  What if it's not
approved for enclosed spaces?  What if it starts a fire?


Phil

 <<< Note 431.104 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

>Would you read the lable on the gas grenade first?  What if it's not
>approved for enclosed spaces?  What if it starts a fire?

	Standard police teargas cannisters are used in enclosed spaces
	all the time. The CAN start fires (standard procedure is to 
	have the fire department standing by), but I would expect that
	the inside of an M60 has been desinged to be more than a little
	fireproof.

Jim

Desinged?  Does that mean that the burn marks have been removed?

    
    well Jim, I have to disagree with you on this, the dude steals a tank,
    crushes 40+ cars. as well as other property, I would have to say he
    was an endangerment to the general public. The use of deadly force is
    justified when you feel either your life, or the public's is in
    emminent (sp) danger. How do the police know, if he was armed or not,
    or what else he had in the tank. Would you have felt better, about the
    decision if the guy had killed or maimed a few people, before being
    shot to death?

  <<< Note 431.106 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Desinged?  Does that mean that the burn marks have been removed?

	Now you know why my Highschool typing teacher contemplated
	ending it all. ;-)

Jim

    Regardless of what he did, how many cars he crushed, etc., prior
    to the disabling of the tank, the fact remains that at the "capture
    opportunity" he wasn't an endangerment to anyone, unless he was
    carrying a gun.  This makes the situation no different than capturing
    a cornered suspect in, say, a room with only one door.
    
    What's the standard police procedure for that situation?  Open the
    door and start shooting?  They sure didn't do that on Dragnet...
    
    Chris

          <<< Note 431.107 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>

    
>    well Jim, I have to disagree with you on this, the dude steals a tank,
>    crushes 40+ cars. as well as other property, I would have to say he
>    was an endangerment to the general public. The use of deadly force is
>    justified when you feel either your life, or the public's is in
>    emminent (sp) danger.

	Once the tank was hung up there was no longer an immediate threat.

> How do the police know, if he was armed or not,
>    or what else he had in the tank. Would you have felt better, about the
>    decision if the guy had killed or maimed a few people, before being
>    shot to death?

	You can spend a LOT of time on "what ifs", but the fact of the 
	matter is that they shot an unarmed man. They overreacted, plain
	and simple.

Jim

    
    well Chris, this isn't dragnet, or hollywood. The police had no way
    of knowing whether he was armed or not. Under the circumstances,
    discretion is the better part of valor. If he didn't steal the tank
    in the first place, he would be alive today.

    
    Jim, hindsight is always 20/20. What would have been your reaction if
    the guy was found to have had a small arsenal on him when killed?
    Or, the guy had killed a cop first, before being sent to the hereafter?
    
    I think you would probably have a different opinion.
    
    Mark

    The "Dragnet" comment was a bit of humor, arr-arr.
    
    The question remains:
    
    If a suspect is holed up in a room with one door, and the police
    have no way of knowing whether he is armed or not, what is the
    standard police procedure for apprehending the suspect?
    
    They *do* have these scenarios worked out in advance, don't they?
    Or do they just "wing it"?
    
    Chris

          <<< Note 431.111 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>

>    well Chris, this isn't dragnet, or hollywood. The police had no way
>    of knowing whether he was armed or not. Under the circumstances,
>    discretion is the better part of valor. If he didn't steal the tank
>    in the first place, he would be alive today.

	Where in the world did you go to cop school? You DO NOT get to shoot
	someone on the mere SUSPICION that he may be armed. At least not
	in THIS country.

Jim

          <<< Note 431.112 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>

    
>    Jim, hindsight is always 20/20. What would have been your reaction if
>    the guy was found to have had a small arsenal on him when killed?
>    Or, the guy had killed a cop first, before being sent to the hereafter?
 
	If he was armed, there wouldn't be all this discussion. He wasn't
	so there IS a discussion.

Jim

RE: 431.109 by DECWIN::RALTO "It's a small third world after all"

Risk #1.  He'd get the tank loose and start crushing cars again.  Maybe this
time cars with people in them.  Fun fun fun.  

Risk #2.  He'd have a little ammo for .50,  more fun fun.

Risk #3   He'd have a little ammo that Ducking Monster Gun. Fun.


Phil

    
    Jim, I didn't go through any police academy training, my work with the
    police department was as an intern, to finish my college degree. i was
    never a sworn (or cursed) officer.

Where's Mailroom when we really need him?

    Mailroom is probably hanging out with Meowski :-)
    

    
    re: 431.14
    
    Jim, I have to strongly agree with you.
    
    In the past I've been pro law enforcment.  But some of what I've been
    seeing on TV and reading about I'm starting to think they are getting
    just too trigger happy.  I react to this they way I felt about that 
    incident where that guy with a knife got shot in front of the
    whitehouse.  Just too much use of force.
    
    There where other options.
    
    al
     

    
    it's interesting for me to note (haven't been in here for
    coupla weeks) how fast the responses and conclusion been drawn
    that this is a case of yet another too much police, when all
    through 115 replies, not one mentioned or confirmed the fact whether
    this guy was armed (on his person) or not. By the way, I did hear
    very early that morning on NPR that he WAS armed, and was going to shoot
    the cop who opened the hatch.
    
    abt NPR, I take all reported news with grains of salt, some so large
    that I won't swallow :-), but NPR at least has some decorum of
    integrity than most. it is ridiculous to think  that it would plain lie 
    when reporting an incident like this.
    
    
    come on folks, I mean, I am not fond of the cops by and large,
    but let's not be so hasty to judge without even knowing the facts.
    
    

    
    Poor police work.  If they were Japanese luxury models he crushed,
    they could of given him the National Service Award.
    
      bb

          <<< Note 431.117 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>

>    Jim, I didn't go through any police academy training, my work with the
>    police department was as an intern, to finish my college degree. i was
>    never a sworn (or cursed) officer.

	I DID go through the Academy and I spent 18 months as a sworn
	officer. You may want consider this when forming an opinion 
	about my opinions in this matter.

Jim

                       <<< Note 431.120 by PATE::CLAPP >>>

>I react to this they way I felt about that 
>    incident where that guy with a knife got shot in front of the
>    whitehouse.  Just too much use of force.
 
	We are not in agreement about the guy with the knife. A person 
	with a knife IS an immediate deadly threat and after repeated
	commands to drop the knife, or to at least go prone, he refused.
	At that point the cops had very few options and no options that
	did not risk officer safety.

Jim

    
    	Who'd that guy stab ... anyone?
    
    	He's more dangerous than a guy with a tank that just ran over
    	30+ cars and a few telephone poles?
    

                     <<< Note 431.121 by SX4GTO::WANNOOR >>>

>By the way, I did hear
>    very early that morning on NPR that he WAS armed, and was going to shoot
>    the cop who opened the hatch.
 
	NPR seems to be the only new agency with this info. All other
	reports have been that the man was unarmed. If that info is
	in error, then the basis of the disagreement may not exist.

Jim

      <<< Note 431.125 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Trouble with a capital 'T'" >>>

    
>    	He's more dangerous than a guy with a tank that just ran over
>    	30+ cars and a few telephone poles?
 
	He's more dangerous than a guy in a tank that is stuck, unable
	to move.

Jim   

    
    Jim,
    
    my response to the guy with the knife was based on a tape I saw
    where he was about 10 feet (or more) from the officers involved
    and did not appear to be moving towards.  
    There were at least 3 of them facing him (in the camera lense)
    They just seemed to pop the guy with the knife.  Couldn't understand
    why nobody seemed to even question this incident.
    
    al
    
    

    
    Jim, the fact that the guy may have been unarmed, wasn't unearthed
    until, after he was killed I believe. So, if they thought he was armed
    prior to storming the tank, I believe that would make it justified.
    MO 

    
>>    	He's more dangerous than a guy with a tank that just ran over
>>    	30+ cars and a few telephone poles?
> 
>	He's more dangerous than a guy in a tank that is stuck, unable
>	to move.
    
    
    	OK, let me add to that.  He just ran over 30+ cars.  What else
    	is he capable of, and if you were an officer on the scene what
    	chance would you take ... if any?
    

    .129
    
    That would not make it justified.  They popped the hatch and popped the
    guy.  They could as easily have popped the hatch, dropped a CS grenade,
    and sat on the hatch for a few seconds until he came out.  They would
    then have been able to see if he was packing.

 .131   ooooh - "packing" - i love that kinda talk.

    
    Di, have you no shame. :-) :-)

It's a pistol in his pocket.

 er, i didn't even mean that.

    re: .129, etc.
    
    It makes no difference at all whether it turns out that the driver
    was actually armed or not.  When the police shot the suspect, they
    did not know whether he was armed or not.  Is it standard procedure
    to shoot a suspect when it is not even known if he is armed?
    
    What is the proper police procedure in this case?
    
    Chris

                       <<< Note 431.128 by PATE::CLAPP >>>

>    my response to the guy with the knife was based on a tape I saw
>    where he was about 10 feet (or more) from the officers involved
>    and did not appear to be moving towards.  

	A person with a contact weapon inside 21 feet is a deadly 
	threat. From 10 feet it would have taken less than .5 seconds 
	to use the weapon against one of the officers.

	The alternative would have been for one of the officers to
	actually try and wrestle with the guy. Would you want to
	go hand to hand with a guy armed with a knife?

>Couldn't understand
>    why nobody seemed to even question this incident.
 
	There was quite a lot of discussion in here at the time of the
	incident.

Jim

    >> Couldn't understand
    >> why nobody seemed to even question this [D.C. knife guy] incident.
    
    Some of us questioned it here in the 'box, but everyone else in the
    country seemed to think it was just fine.
    
    It's clearly a different scenario from the tank guy, but from the
    video I'd say excessive force was used there, as well.  What is
    standard police procedure for disarming a suspect carrying a knife?
    Shoot to kill?  Somehow I doubt it.
    
    Was he a threat to Fearless Leader?  No way.
    
    I've refrained from bringing this up so far, but what the heck.
    We're starting to see what I'll call the Waco Syndrome.  Once our
    society got used to thinking that Waco was "okay", then something
    like killing the D.C. knife guy or the tank guy becomes much more
    acceptable, both to the police and the public.  It's just part of
    the general decline.
    
    Chris

          <<< Note 431.129 by POBOX::BATTIS "Land shark,pool shark" >>>

>    Jim, the fact that the guy may have been unarmed, wasn't unearthed
>    until, after he was killed I believe. So, if they thought he was armed
>    prior to storming the tank, I believe that would make it justified.

	Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing. But you will
	receive one of our Soapbox Home Games as a consolation prize.

	To justify the use of deadly force you have to KNOW that the
	suspect is armed AND that he is threatening to USE the weapon.
	Saying "I didn't know he was unarmed, so I shot him" will get
	you dismissed from the force and very likely charged by the 
	DA.

Jim

      <<< Note 431.130 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Trouble with a capital 'T'" >>>

    
>    	OK, let me add to that.  He just ran over 30+ cars.  What else
>    	is he capable of, and if you were an officer on the scene what
>    	chance would you take ... if any?
 
	AS was pointed out, the cop that shot hime took a greater
	chance than if he had just dropped a gas grenade through
	the hatch.

Jim
   

    Were the cops certian that the tank was in fact totally incapable of
    moving.  I thought that the driver was revving the engine in an
    attempt to try to free it (I've got imagine that an M60 at semi-full
    throttle moves and shakes a lot).  Also, didn't the cops climb on the
    tank away from the side that had the disabled tread?  They only had a
    couple of seconds to make a decision, and they may have thought that if
    he did get the tank going, he was going to go head on into traffic on
    the other side of the road.   If he didn't respond to verbal threats
    they may have felt that it was necessary to disable him as soon as
    possible.  Just my thoughts.
    
    Dan

    <<< Note 431.141 by ODIXIE::ZOGRAN "Youngest one's walking - OH NO!" >>>

>    Were the cops certian that the tank was in fact totally incapable of
>    moving.  I thought that the driver was revving the engine in an
>    attempt to try to free it (I've got imagine that an M60 at semi-full
>    throttle moves and shakes a lot).

	The video showed quite clearly that the tread were spinning and
	the tank wasn't moving (classic "hi-pointing"). Then the cops 
	climbed up on the cupola.

	If you think about it, what happened is that the cops were
	FRUSTRATED about not being able to stop this guy and when he
	(very likely) gave them some lip, one of them lost it.

Jim

    <<< Note 431.142 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The video showed quite clearly that the tread were spinning and
>	the tank wasn't moving (classic "hi-pointing"). Then the cops 
>	climbed up on the cupola.

    	Actually, I didn't see that so clearly at all.  There was
    	some slippage by the treads, but the tank was still moving
    	a bit.  From on top of the tank, with the engines rumbling
    	like a tank is wont to do, it could very well seem to a
    	passenger standing on the outside that he was not stuck.
    
    	And maybe he was high-pointed, but a jersey barrier is no
    	match for the weight of a tank, and that particular section
    	on which he was stuck could have easily crumbled or tipped
    	over and the tank would have had excellent traction again --
    	only this time with officers hanging on the outside.
    
    	I agree that a cannister of some sort of gas might have been
    	more appropriate.  Did the officers on the tank at the moment
    	of decision have such a device to use?  If not, should they
    	have run back to the precinct to get one?
    
    	As I have opined before, it is the wackos, or those in the
    	act of behaving like wackos, that end up meeting this type
    	of fate.

        <<< Note 431.143 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Actually, I didn't see that so clearly at all. 

	Got to get rid of the colored lenses. ;-)

>    	I agree that a cannister of some sort of gas might have been
>    	more appropriate.  Did the officers on the tank at the moment
>    	of decision have such a device to use?  If not, should they
>    	have run back to the precinct to get one?
 
	I can't speak for THe departments in California cities, but
	I know that in at leasr one small town in Ohio ALL (all three
	of them actually) were equipped with teargas.

>    	As I have opined before, it is the wackos, or those in the
>    	act of behaving like wackos, that end up meeting this type
>    	of fate.

	You truly don't care WHAT part of the Constitution you take
	a crap on do you? Freedom of speech, gone. Equal protection
	under the law, history. Now you want to eliminate due process.
	Next you'll want to quarter troops in private homes.

Jim

    <<< Note 431.144 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>    	As I have opined before, it is the wackos, or those in the
>>    	act of behaving like wackos, that end up meeting this type
>>    	of fate.
>
>	You truly don't care WHAT part of the Constitution you take
>	a crap on do you? Freedom of speech, gone. Equal protection
>	under the law, history. Now you want to eliminate due process.
>	Next you'll want to quarter troops in private homes.

    	I can think of two answers to this.  
    
    	First, I don't recall saying that I thought this was either
    	good or bad.  All I did was state an opinion based on 
    	observations.  All I can conclude about your entry is that 
    	you are knee-jerking to my entry.  Maybe I make you angry.
    
    	My second answer could be:  hey, if it makes you mad, I'm
    	all for it!  :^)

    i thought the tank stalled and the perp was attempting to restart
    it. 
    
    also, the footage i saw clearly showed one of the tracks completely
    off and on the road. whether this happened when he crashed it into
    the jersey barriers or not i cannot say. it was off, though.
    
    Chip 

	Well, after talking with Amos, I figure the cop must have closed his
eyes and shot, otherwise he would have missed. :-)

    In the 1990's (as opposed to, say, the 1930's) every law enforcement
    officer should be equipped with (in addition to a gun) a weapon that
    will incapacitate without killing, and that should normally be the
    weapon of choice.
    
    Chris

    
    <---- like a `phaser'?
    

    Yeah, right... "set on stun".
    
    But actually, non-deadly weapons certainly do exist: various
    kinds of tear gas, tazers (or whatever they're called), rubber
    bullets, and so on, that are capable of rendering a suspect
    somewhat incapacitated without killing them.  Law enforcement
    officers should have these, and use them in preference to a
    gun where possible.
    
    Chris

    
    Chris,
    
    My `phaser' comment was facetious.  While I agree with you in
    principle, in reality most (if not all) of the `incapacitation'
    methods have drawbacks that preclude their use in certain situations,
    which would require officers to carry about half-a-dozen different
    weapons to cover all the bases.  I'm sure Jim P. or others here know
    more about it than myself, but speaking from the Toronto experience,
    our officers have enjoyed limited effectiveness from the pepper spray
    that they have started carrying.  For instance, perps wasted on crack
    or acid or even glue seem to be able to pretty much ignore the pepper
    spray.
    

    
    I read in the news that the "tank guy" had switched into a gear
    that allowed him to spin the tank off the barrier. It causes the
    tracks to turn in opposite directions, and allows the tank to
    essentially turn on a dime. 
    
    I've got better things to do than defend a guy that steals a
    tank and goes off on a wild joy-ride. I read in the news that
    he rammed several parked cars, one of which had 2 passengers
    sitting in it (one child and one adult). The guy did not seem
    to have much concern for the lives of innocent people. I'm
    not gonna second-guess the police for shooting him. He clearly
    was presenting a major threat to public safety and had to be 
    stopped.
    
    Mark

    .152
    
    If a track is broken, spinning in opposite directions will do nothing
    because the broken track will spin off its driving wheel and will not
    be moving.  The wheels in contact with the ground, through the
    intermediary of the tracks, are all bogie wheels, i.e., not driven
    except by the tracks themselves.

        Conventionally, a  tracked  vehicle  such as a "tank" uses some
        form of tillers  for steering and braking.  The FV43* series as
        used by the British  Army,  for  example (the gun platform is a
        105mm rifle) uses two tillers,  one  for  each track.  With the
        tillers  locked  back, the brakes are  on.    Pop  the  release
        buttons on the top of each tiller, select a gear range from the
        pre-select box, hit the loud pedal and drop the tillers forward
        and  we're  off.    Steering  is done by pulling  back  on  the
        relevant  tiller,  which  slows  that  track  and  consequently
        induces a turn.   To stop in a straight line, pull back on both
        tillers equally, press in the buttons and we're now parked.
        
        Now only release one  tiller  and  hit  the gas - the tank will
        turn around a rough centre,  somewhere  outboard  of the locked
        track;  UNLESS you have the  capacity  in  the  transmission to
        perform  what  is  called  a  "Neutral Turn"  -  this  involves
        unlocking  both  tracks  but  with  opposite  gearing direction
        applied to each track - ie.  one track  is  driving forward and
        the  same  rate as the other track is driving backwards.    The
        centre is now located roughly in the centre of the track axes.
        
        When  you  "throw" a track and lose it off the idler, bogie  or
        drive    sprocket(s)  you're  basically  crippled  but    _not_
        _necessarlily_ immoblised.
        
        Andy (who once taught the delicate art  of tank maintenance and
        on-  and off-road driving of armoured fighting vehicles)

    re: .153
    
    Dick,
    
    Was it determined the track was broken?
    
     &ndy...
    
      Wot!!! Another tank man??? :) :)
    
      No tillers in American tanks for quite a few years. As I stated
    previously, it's more of a steering wheel/yolk than levers/tillers.
    
      BTW.... on all American tanks (I don't know about the M1 Abrahms, as
    it came after I left the service), you can't use the auto-rotate
    function (the 180 degree spin in place) unless you're dead stopped. No
    magic gears or anything either. While stopped, and in gear... you
    simply turned the wheel/yolk all the way to the right or left stop and
    hang on for the ride...
    
    
      Andy
    

    I would have thought the best way to avoid being shot by the Police
    would probably have been to not steal the tank in the first place.
    
    Or is that too simple??
    

	It is not too simple.  It is the best way.

ME

    
    
    
    Just a few questions from one across the pond.
    
    Has there been any reports on the mans background? ie was he on
    drugs,a college student on a prank or just someone letting off steam?
     This has no bearing on wether the police were right,but adds to the
    interest factor,something our press would have covered straight away.
    
     And why didn't the guy just lock the tanks hatch and call for his
    lawyer on his mobile phone? :o)
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    	tank hatch was locked and the police used bolt cutters to get
    inside....
    
    
    jim

re:.158

It was reported he had (at least) twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system.

 .160  well, we all knew he was tanked.

    
    	<snicker - snicker>
    
    

re:.161

I'm glad I provided you that opportunity...

;-)

    You're treading on thin ice with the tank puns, tiger.
    
    And don't call me Sherman.

p.s. How'd you like the title of .160? Ban booze...Banboozal...get  it?

    Hadn't heard about the booze, but I saw an interview with a guy
    who was described as a friend/roommate.  In just the last 2/3 years,
    the guy in the tank had gone through a divorce, bankruptcy and the
    utilities to his home had been turned off that week.
    
    

    Sound's like it would make a great Country and Western worse
    song of all time:
    
    Sincy y' waked out on me babeeeee
    I went an' lost ma jawb,
    They've turned off all ma power
    and impounded ma dawg,
    
    (chorus)
    So ahm on the road with Sherman
    Ma trusty little tank
    a bottle full o bourbon
    to make my mind a blank
    
    Life can be a bummer,
    but Darlin' I'll be frank
    Things sure are looking up now
    since I got myself a tank
    
    (chorus)
    Yeah ahm on the road with Sherman
    and we are crushing cars
    a bottle full o' bourbon,
    has sent my mind to Mars
    
    You took ma brand new Cheveeee
    and emptied out the bank
    so now ahm looking for you
    in a 16 ton green tank.
    
    (chorus)
    Oh! on the road with Sherman
    the cops not far behind
    a bottle full o' bourbon,
    has neutralized my mind.
    
    Pulling on the levers,
    stamping on the brake
    The engine is a-roarin,
    An' the ground she starts to shake
    
    (chorus)
    Oh! up the fence in Sherman
    an' we are good'n stuck
    I've run right out of bourbon
    just ma f***g luck.
    
    
    

    .167
    
    Well Colin, my Da always said "no sense being Welsh if you can't
    sing" :-)
    
    

    <---- That was great!  

I thought that *all* C&W songs were contenders for the worst song
of all time?

Chris.

    
    	That was worst song TITLES, I believe.
    

I don't particularly like the songs either.  But others may judge
my musical tastes as suspect anyway (my record collection is entered
in ::UK_MUSIC for the acutely pedantic)

Chris.

    
    	Ahah!!  What'd I say in that other music note?
    
    	Paraphrased: "These worst-of lists are basically a list of songs
    		      that the editor/author doesn't like".
    
    
    	So, did you mean: "C&W songs are all contenders for the worst
    			   songs of all time list"?
    
    	Or, perhaps, did you mean: "C&W songs are all contenders for my
    				    least favorite songs of all time
    				    list"?
    

Oh alright, I mean that *I* personally don't dig C&W, and they would
possibly make my personal worst of all time list, at least if it wasn't
for rap, Cheese Metal and whinge rock, anyway.

Chris.

    
      But, Slabounty, this is inherent to "aesthetic" statements in our
     language.  "The valley is beautiful" in fact says nothing about the
     valley.  It says something about the speaker.
    
      If, say, "Midnight at the Oasis" really antagonizes you, you show it
     by making an "aesthetic" statement, "That s*x".  The degree of
     universality of this sentiment can only be judged by a vote.  If
     you are alone puking and everyone else is cheerily singing along with it,
     it does not mean you are wrong, but it means your tastes differ from
     the group you are with.
    
      bb

 The man in the tank, people, the man in the tank!

> The man in the tank, people, the man in the tank!

fairy nuff.  I'm still surprised that they managed to get the lid
open with mere bolt cutters, I mean, aren't these things supposed
to be *armoured*?!

Chris.

    > open with mere bolt cutters
    
    
    I had a verse about that bit, but the line:
    
    	"Oh, the cops have cut my nuts off"
    
    seemed to be going too far.

Please, don't, it hurts just to think about it.

Chris.

RE Note 431.50                    
SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto"         10 lines  18-MAY-1995 15:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    >sold a lot of tanks to private citizen recently.
>    
>    This is only legal if the armored units have been 'permanently
>    disabled'.  Most are sold with strict licensing restrictions, only to
>    legitimate museums.
    
    Not true. I know of at least one tank in private hands that has a
    working main 37 mm gun. 
    
    
>    5 APCs were seized back from citizens who had legally purchased and
    >restored such units just four or five months ago. 
    
    I know someone who just bought an M8 brought back from Honduras. Six
    wheeled with a turret and a 37 mm gun.
    
    Steve

    I do believe that anything over .50 cal. is classified as a
    destructive weapon and is illegal to own (exception of muzzle
    loaders).
    
    Chip

Are there _constructive_ weapons?

  .181  uh oh.  he said "weapon".  run fuh cuvah.

    A nail gun?

                    <<< Note 431.181 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    I do believe that anything over .50 cal. is classified as a
>    destructive weapon and is illegal to own (exception of muzzle
>    loaders).
 
	I believe that you will find that they are not illegal to 
	own. They ARE restricted via NFA34, but with the proper
	paperwork, and payments of taxes, they are legal.

Jim

    Mis information abounds:
    
    .185 is correct. 
    
    You can own a destructive weapon with the appropriate licenses/paperwork 
    etc.
    
    Interestingly enough, a flamethrower is not classified as a weapon at
    all!
    
    You can own a tank
    You can own an APC
    You can own a fighter plane or bomber.
    You can own an artillery piece
    You can own a Nike Missile
    etc
    
    I think nukes are out though...
    
    You would be surprised at what people own...

    mebbe the article I read included more qualifiers- they definately said
    it was illegal to sell armored vehicles unless disabled- perhaps the
    qualifier I didn't think to included being that its illegal for US
    forces or other governmental entities in the US, to do so, unless
    disabled.
    
    Bringing something back from Honduras would obviously skirt the
    restriction.
    
    DougO

    .186
    
    >You can own a tank
    >You can own an APC
    >You can own a fighter plane or bomber.
    >You can own an artillery piece
    >You can own a Nike Missile
    
    COOL !  Where can I gettem' !
    BOY WOULD AN M60 MAKE MY COMMUTE A BREEZE ! ! ! ! ! ! !
    
    :-)))))))

I know that in this country there's no problem with buying
an ex-Army tank for just a few thousand quid (after the weapons
have been removed or disabled, that is).  A Scorpion would probably
be quite a laugh to own, as it isn't much bigger than, say, a
Ford Escort, although a 65 ton Chieftain with its 800ypg fuel
consumption would be a bit of a headache!  And no-doubt the
highways dept may take a dim view of the tracks ripping up the
road surface...

Chris.

    
    There is no way the cops could have gotten in by cutting "something"
    wiht bolt cutters...
    
     Once the hatch is secured from the inside, you can't get in unless the
    person inside lets you...
    
     The only way they could have opened any of the hatches is if he didn't
    dog one of them..

    	
    	News report on NPR says they used bolt cutters to get into one of
    the hatches. He musta forgot to dog one of them and it was just
    padlocked from the outside or something.
    
    	jim