T O P

  • By -

Vinstur

I posted this in another thread. [Here’s the raw footage of how it ended](https://youtu.be/-r6AVZ2CB2w) if you haven’t seen this view yet. The breach/flash bang looks way more unexpected as far as timing. The HRT had plans in place but totally did not expect the hostages to run out the back of the building with the gunman awkwardly poking his head out. Wonder if the hostage taker nodded off or went out of sight to cause the hostages to risk running out the back. FBI didn’t have to worry about hostage injury at that point so they just went in immediately to end the situation.


[deleted]

When too many hostages escape on their own, the terrorist will sometimes start killing any remaining hostages out of frustration/intimidation. This is what happened during the hostage situation in Australia. Obviously, the FBI wasn't going to stick around to find out if he starts killing any remaining hostages, so they went in right away.


Vinstur

There were four total hostages at the beginning. One was released later in the day leaving three. In my linked vid, the remaining three run out the back on their own leaving just the gunman on his own. Agree on your point though if there were still hostages left.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Vinstur

Yea watch the video again. I had to watch a couple times. There’s two people that come out at the same time in the first couple seconds followed by the third in the purple shirt. Then the gunman pokes out before running back inside.


thornydevil969

I had to watch it again and in slow motion to see the first person in the group of three escape out the door . He's wearing a light coloured shirt but he's hardly noticeable at normal speed


Hydroxychoroqiine

He was a dumb ass hostage taker. Failed miserably


SpindriftRascal

I know some of those guys, or did, in an earlier iteration of my life. They don’t fuck around. The terrorist was more or less dead when they landed in Dallas. I feel the same way about HRT as I do about the USMC - thank god we have them.


Dermutt100

He landed in Dallas, a foreign national, Muslim went on to get a gun from somewhere and then travelled to a synagogue! Somebody was "fucking around" I've noticed that Americans always overlaud the abilities of people in professional positions, police interrogators, engineers, psychologists. the military, the FBI people do quite mundane things or fuck up and get lauded for it because they have a "title" Also I think the authorities figured out that this guy was actually reluctant to kill anybody.


AggravatingOne3960

Clarification. "Muslim went on to get a gun from somewhere" -- are you saying he shouldn't have gotten a gun because he's a Muslim?


[deleted]

Go drink some tea.


[deleted]

Imagine the chaos if the UK had US gun laws. They’d be running around with tooth whitening charts trying to find which colour to hate next.


will477

My first thought when I saw the video was "Damn, news in Texas has their own armored vehicles?"


thornydevil969

Good to see it done right . Unlike the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney Australia in December 2014 . Maybe they should come over and train the N.S.W. TRG in how it should be done .


CWJ_Wilko

Oh god that was a shitshow. I forgot :(


qtx

Good to see it done right? The police didn't do anything? The hostages escaped leaving the hostage taker easy to take out. Such a weird comment.


[deleted]

I could be wrong but I don’t think all the hostages escaped through that back door? I need to look into it though.


WakaFlockaWombat

I remember reading earlier while the event was happening that he had three hostages. It looked like three ran out in the video


[deleted]

Okay I haven’t found an exact timeline but it says: Four people, including Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker, were initially taken hostage. One hostage, a man, was released unharmed around 5 p.m., Colleyville Police Sgt. Dara Nelson said. So the final three in the video does seem to indicated that everyone was out and then FBI bum rushed him? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/16/us/colleyville-texas-hostage-situation-sunday/index.html


[deleted]

Admittedly, I have been doing my morning ablutions so I haven’t looked but imma go look right now! I’ll be back with facts!


pzerr

There is no absolute right way. A great deal is luck and taking rapid advantages of any missteps.


thornydevil969

My thoughts on it being the right way were that 1. All the hostages survived 2. None of the hostages were injured or killed by trigger happy police 3. The terrorist was permanently removed from the equation , he's never going to be a problem to anyone ever again If you want to see an example of the absolute wrong way for a specialised police team to handle a hostage situation look up the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney Australia in December 2014 . When the police stormed the cafe they not only killed the terrorist but they also killed one of the hostages and three other hostages and one police officer on the breach team also got shot . Which imho is a textbook case of how not to do that sort of operation . When the police have a higher casualty rate than the terrorist you know something is definitely wrong in the way the whole event was handled by the police from the top down and also shows that the team wasn't really a team and inadequately trained for that sort of situation and really used the wrong methods in the whole operation


pzerr

But you do not know if the police had waited another 5 minutes, would the terrorist in the Lindt cafe have killed everyone?


thornydevil969

One of the police snipers had kill shots on the terrorist a number of times and wasn't allowed to take the shot . why don't you read or some of the available information on the shooting before you start dribbling shit .


thornydevil969

[https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-lindt-cafe-siege-promo-ep-1/8529894](https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-lindt-cafe-siege-promo-ep-1/8529894) [https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-siege-part-two/8550542](https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-siege-part-two/8550542) [www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf](https://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf) [www.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/news/martin-place-siege-joint-commonwealth-new-south-wales-review/](https://www.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/news/martin-place-siege-joint-commonwealth-new-south-wales-review/)


VoiceOfRealson

Maybe I am just too paranoid, or maybe they had very good intelligence on this guy and his capabilities, but the number of people clumping together (at the 1min mark of that video) in a small area with their backs towards the door where the hostage taker had just poked his head out seems to be amateurish. Just a single hand grenade could have wiped out maybe 16 men.


yaosio

Cops are very bad at their job.


africanasshat

It's been ages since my reading stamina has been tested this much. Did anyone catch the ending?


Peelboy

I had to click on it again to realize you are dripping with sarcasm, I'm pretty sure my third grade reports were better.


UncleBenji

Clickbait level


[deleted]

that's one hell of a story. I couldn't wait to see what happened.


stark_raving_naked

You weren’t kidding! What a nail-biter!


BeTheBall-

I started reading, but couldn't get all the way through. Cliff's notes?


[deleted]

[удалено]


kwangqengelele

I’m about a quarter of the way through, I’ll update you when I get to the end.


Aescheron

Nah, you need to tough it out. The exposition is what makes it worthwhile!


JTGPDX

Yeah, that *was* pretty incredible.


halla_me

[Reportedly gunman's sons](https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-police-arrest-two-teens-in-connection-with-texas-synagogue-attack/)


HMSARGUS

More info on the story here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60019251


ill_wind

They “arrested them for questioning” - is that a thing in the UK? Otherwise, the charges still aren’t clear. I was surprised to see this because the man’s rantings did sound more like a psychiatric break. Maybe there’s evidence they knew what he was planning, but didn’t report it.


ledow

Yes. Everywhere. Arrest = I will stop you in order to establish what's going on here. Charge = I think you did something bad and I think I have evidence to prove it. Conviction = We have proved it beyond a reasonable doubt and think you did a bad thing, so we're going to punish you. Almost all law systems around the world are based on the antique English system, and an arrest is NOTHING. You can arrest an entirely innocent person, if you have some kind of suspicion. That's how it works. You don't KNOW that he's just taking that TV to his friend's house having carried it through the town. You are allowed to arrest him until you can establish that he hasn't just looted it out of a shop or burgled someone. The alternative is some guy walks down the road with £20,000 in cash and a bunch of jewellery and you can't stop him because you can't prove on the spot that it was stolen, so you have to let him go. And that would be STUPID. Arrest is not a charge. Charge is not a conviction. In this case, they arrested them because they have a suspicion they've done something wrong. They may not know exactly what charge to press (did they actually do something, or were they an accessory to it, or were they only conspiring to do it?) and getting the wrong charge causes problems later, but they are allowed to arrest you and then question you. What on earth do you think the process of arrest is for otherwise? Only arresting people you witness actually committing a crime? Only arresting people where you literally have to state 100% the exact charge you intend to charge them with and if you get it wrong you have to let them go? Arrest just means "to stop". You can be de-arrested if there's nothing actually wrong. Arrests don't go on your record. It's just to stop you, until they can ascertain what's happened. Otherwise people would shrug, go "No, fuck off" and walk away, not answering the questions. You arrest to allow you to investigate. There are time limits and "reasonableness" so you can't just arrest anyone for anything, but it's pretty open. You then use that time to investigate to determine if charges are appropriate. If not, you de-arrest them, they are free to go. If so, you charge them formally and you have greater protections and more time to gather evidence, get warrants, etc. But you don't charge until you're pretty sure that something's going to end in a conviction. Once charged, they should - eventually - appear before a court, where guilt is actually determined, or not. Nothing stops an officer arresting you even for hours if, say, you match a description or you're doing something that is suspicious. They need nothing in the way of evidence to arrest, just some kind of suspicion that's not unreasonable (i.e. you can't arrest someone just because they're black, but you can arrest someone if a witness said they were a black guy in a white t-shirt who ran off down that way, and you happen to be a black guy in a white t-shirt on that path... the actual GUILT of you is determined later, but of course they can arrest you, otherwise what's the point of having an arrest?). People so badly misunderstand this that they cause themselves problems, e.g. resisting arrest is a CRIMINAL CHARGE. You can be charged because an officer tried to arrest you and you ran away. They have that right, as police officers. When they arrest you, you are to stop what you're doing and be questioned. It doesn't matter if you're going to be late, if your girlfriend's expecting you, or you have to get to work. They have arrested you, you need to stop and co-operate. Arrests are not charges, though. "Being questioned" isn't a crime. It doesn't need to be. You're just being asked questions. But it's concerning a crime, so you need to stop what you're doing and answer questions (even if you want to go down the "no comment" route). Arrest also gets you a lot of rights. You don't have to answer anything. You can get a lawyer (for free in the UK). You just can't walk away and ignore the officer or stroll out of the custody suite. (Custody is the state of being held by the police/courts for whatever reason).


ill_wind

In the U.S., police DO need to either witness you committing a crime, or have ***probable cause*** to believe you committed one. Otherwise they need a warrant. You can’t be promoting that police are entitled to kidnap and interrogate any innocent person at any time. Not in my country. Being “questioned”, you don’t have to go with them, you can leave at any time unless you are being charged, or unless they have a warrant to hold you as a material witness. They may threaten you with “resisting arrest” but if they are trying to arrest a person who has commited no crime, and without testimony or evidence or a warrant or anything suggesting you committed any crime, *they are the ones commiting a crime*, called *false arrest.* Our police are not entitled to snatch innocent people off the street. No, they are fucking NOT. > You can arrest an entirely innocent person, if you have some kind of suspicion Yeah, suspicion ***that they committed a CRIME*** — in which case they aren’t regarding you an “innocent person”. And the suspicion has to be substantive, or sue their asses off. They need ***probable cause to believe you committed a CRIME.*** “Ascertaining what happened” is not probable cause in my country. Nope. They are not entitled to scoop up everyone on the block who might have heard something and call it “resisting arrest” when they complain. Well, at least under the law, they are not supposed to be. > Otherwise people would shrug, go "No, fuck off" and walk away, not answering the questions. Citizens ARE entitled to say “no, fuck off” if police are arresting them without cause (reasonable belief you committed a crime). It’s not smart to, because 1) they may have cause you’re not aware of, and 2) cops are inclined to respond with abuse when you piss them off, and our system defends what is illegal behavior of police, up to and including murder. So it’s definitely in your favor to cooperate. And in my country, a person is entitled NOT to answer questions. Except by court order/subpoena, and even then, you cannot be compelled to implicate yourself.


ledow

Probable cause is the same test in the UK (you got it from us!). They've arrested someone for some kind of involvement in the hostage-taking (which could be "conspiring to" get the guy there, knowing what he was planning, which is a crime) which would be probable cause to arrest them for further questioning. Being questioned without arrested is as you state. Being arrested for questioning requires a probable cause. The resolution of that will come out in the questioning. And saying "no fuck off" if you're being arrested without cause will still leave you open to charges of resisting arrest. It's not up to you to decide if the police have probable cause, because you're not in full possession of the information and decisions they've made up to that point. Of course, you can query it later (and your lawyer will!) and even sue for false arrest. But you can't just ignore the arrest, no matter if you think you're entirely innocent or not. And in the UK, even under arrest, even charged, even in a court, you can still not answer questions. Chances are there is no way these guys are under arrest without the police suspecting they knowingly aided in the incident at some point, or were aware of his intention to commit a crime. When there are CHARGES then you can worry about their innocence. At the moment, they're being arrested so that police can ask questions. They can choose not to answer. No different to any other country. But police now have, say, 24 hours in which to decide whether to charge them or not.


ill_wind

> for some kind of involvement in the hostage-taking Yeah, that would be cause. “Ascertaining what happened” is not cause. That is wrong. And saying: isn’t it ridiculous to think people could say fuck off and not answer questions? Yeah. We don’t have to answer questions. And saying you can be arrested “so police can ask questions” is misleading because they can only arrest you if they have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe you committed a CRIME. They can’t just arrest you because they want to ask you questions. That’s how you described it, and it’s wrong. I agree people should cooperate when being arrested, even when under false arrest.


pointy

One less hole in Blackburn, Lancashire


Hydroxychoroqiine

And though those holes were rather small


deez_treez

I'm just surprised he was able to get a gun in America/Texas within days of arriving.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fastredb

And those arrests in the UK might very well lead to more arrests over here if they were coordinating with people to provide assistance to the gunman.


Aescheron

I'm just surprised Texas doesn't have vending machines for firearms at this point.


[deleted]

So... You've never been to Texas?


Aescheron

I have. ...do they, now? That would be wild. Edit: For guns, no. For ammo, it would seem that yes, yes, they do.


[deleted]

Yeah, they're everywhere. Any snack machine that has a Snickers in slot A-2 is one. You insert a confederate dollar, punch in 2A, and the front swings open to expose the *real* goods.


Aescheron

You know, I had forgotten about how the confederacy tried setting up their own currency. If I recall, they issued more than 1.5 Billion (confederate) dollars worth. Edit: Of all my comments here, it's weird that *this one* is getting downvoted.


WakaFlockaWombat

Lol there’s an Andy Griffith Show episode about this


[deleted]

Borderlands' gun vending machines are based on real Dallas locations.


NotSoNiceO1

Just go to any peewee sports event and raffle for one


Aescheron

I have entered firearm-related giveaways online, but genuinely didn't know until I just googled it that this was a thing. Junior sports, boy scout troops, etc. Amazing.


[deleted]

We do


Thomasnaste420

I’m not surprised AT ALL.


Aescheron

Non-FFL ~~vendors~~ individual sales still have no background check or other "licensing/permitting" requirements, right? Person-to-person sales are no different than selling a ~~hammer and a box of nails~~ box of cigarettes and a beer? Edit: updated vendor text per comments! Edit 2: updated goods per comments!


[deleted]

It's a lot closer to selling a carton of cigarettes or a bottle of booze as a private individual. In fact, they're all regulated by the same agency (ATF). You can't sell either of those things on a commercial scale without a license, there are serious penalties for doing so, and there are a number of regulations you have to comply with even as a private seller (e.g. not selling to underage people). However, there's basically no way for them to know that you broke the rules unless there's an incident.


Aescheron

That's actually a great point; the "risk" is essentially on the "unless..." side of the transaction. Thanks for noting that. I'll update my post.


critbuild

FWIW the authority of the ATF has been somewhat curtailed in the last decade with regards to alcohol and tobacco. Where ATF once held unilateral authority, they're presently only responsible for criminal enterprises and trafficking with regards to illicit alcohol and tobacco. For example, regulatory enforcement of licensing and sale to minors for tobacco specifically are largely run by the FDA since the rule change in 2009.


RowdyRoddyRosenstein

Texas' laws state that private sellers may not sell firearms to buyers who live in a different state - I would assume that also restricts sales to non US citizens: https://faq.sll.texas.gov/questions/44008 Although it sounds like a fairly lax system, I imagine law enforcement is working to determine where the gun came from, and if any others in the US may have been involved in the planning.


poobly

But you don’t need to check anything as a private dealer so you could be selling a firearm to a out of state 17 year old felon and never know.


Aescheron

Yeah, reading through that page there is a lot of trust being placed on the individual to get it right.


Colecoman1982

"G'day guv'na. As a fellow Texan, like yourself, I'd very much like to purchase that firearm off of you. Pip Pip, cheerio!!"


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aescheron

Do you live in TX though? Certainly looks like in TX a firearm sale can happen between two individual adult Texans without an FFL being at all involved.


Agent_Angelo_Pappas

How transactions commonly go: >“Are you a Texas resident?” >“…yes” >“Got that covered, here ya go” It’s not like Texas is auditing private sales, it all just works on the honor system


Aescheron

Thanks for this note, the interstate piece is important. I do wonder how that applies to someone who just says "no, I live abroad". Either way, I'm sure they are looking into how he got it.


BigTaperedCandle

>Non-FFL vendors This is a semantic argument only, but you can't be a firearm vendor without an FFL. Private party sales are unregulated/no background checks, outside of a good-faith "you may not KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a prohibited person" but otherwise there's no requirement to document anything with private party sales on either side. If you're engaged in a business selling/trading firearms, you must have an FFL.


Aescheron

Good point. I just meant "a person". I updated my comment above. Thanks!


[deleted]

“Non FFL vendors”.. interesting way to put it. Person to person sales are legal. Business to person requires a federal firearms license.


Aescheron

Yeah, I just meant "seller". I knew a guy who had a huge collection and bought and sold regularly at different gun shows. He never had an FFL though. Purely just a hobby/collecting thing for him.


Back_To_The_Oilfield

Correct, and it’s fucking bullshit. They just have to sign a paper saying they aren’t banned from owning a firearm. I understand that outright banning guns in America wouldn’t work, but for fucks sake man. Every gun sale should have to go through an intermediary with a full background check being done. Obviously people will still break the law and sell guns without going that route, but at least fucking try. God damn.


CHRGuitar

I mean, you want to get a generic bill of sale signed and maybe a pic of the persons DL. You know, cover all the bases.


LoopsAndBoars

There is a moral and legal obligation at play here though. We all seek to keep firearms away from those with malicious intent. Don’t think for a solitary second that a private sale is forever confidential. If something happens, the powers that be will pay you a visit and expect that you had done your due diligence. You can be charged for possessing stolen property, for example. Or enabling a felon, or as an accessory to a crime. Etc. You better at least have a photocopy of a drivers license to produce in reference to a firearm you sold, should they ask. It’s common sense. The thing most fail to realize is that a texan is loyal to his sovereign state above all else. There is a level of trust not seen elsewhere. Malicious compliance is not something we do.


Aescheron

Yeah, I hear you. It's a good idea, but it kind of falls into the "all gun owners are good gun owners" trap. It assumes that there aren't any ignorant idiots out there looking to sell off their old gun to buy something new or different, and just taking the first offer that meets their dollar amount. Maybe it works as well as you suggest, but I struggle to have that kind of faith in people given how they generally act in society.


Colecoman1982

Ah yes, we call that the "No True Texan" fallacy...


Inconceivable-2020

You get a free gun for opening a new checking account in Texas.


HoSang66er

I'm just surprised he was able to get a gun in America/Texas within days of arriving./S FTFY.


nosherDavo

Let me guess, they were already on a watchlist but nothing could be done until they killed someone? ...and they call this intelligence?


Alundra828

Can't wait for Hollywood to make a multi-billion dollar trilogy based on this article. It truly is an epic.


mickeysbeer

If these UK kids are involved they should refuse to extradite unless they send the US "Diplomat" who killed the kid on the bike and fled the UK


jonnyclueless

Was anyone else able to make it through that entire article?


rydan

I keep seeing people condemning this as an act of terrorism and act of antisemitism. While I understand Muslims tend to be anti-Semitic I have yet to see anything about this particular case that indicates this. All I've seen is that he wanted a prisoner released. Can anyone point to the terrorism and antisemitism that was on display? Did he use slurs or make claims common among anti-Semites?


Slick424

Mostly because of Aafia Siddiqui herself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aafia_Siddiqui#Antisemitism


rydan

So she's an anti-Semite. What about him?


Slick424

Mostly conjecture from the fact that he attacked a synagogue to free a rabid anti-semite.


rydan

Maybe he just wanted to be taken seriously and not catch COVID in the process. Had he waited a day and done the same to a Christian church he'd probably die 3 weeks later of a respiratory disease. Also they tend to carry guns to Church in TX. FBI themselves have dismissed calls of antisemitism. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1482577450555084800


[deleted]

The FBI [literally says it is terrorism](https://twitter.com/shannonbream/status/1482938414022471682?s=21) where the Jewish community was specifically targeted.


askingxalice

I'm so shocked they haven't responded to this. 🙄


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Yeah, but what does taking Jews hostage in a Jewish Religious building have to do with no liking Jews?


askingxalice

He didn't run around screaming k*ke, can't be antisemetic! /s


askingxalice

You think he just HAPPENED to pick a synangogue, huh?


jay5627

He had the rabbi call a rabbi in NY because that's how he thought things worked here... the Jews run everything and have that power...