SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An attack has occurred this morning when an individual carrying 2 backpacks and possibly weapons approached the Louvre in Paris and was engaged by a soldier who fired 5 shots. The assailant was wounded, as was a soldier during the attack. One report claims that the attacker shouted Islamic slogans during the attack.
1111GMT: A second possible assailant has been arrested. The French Govt have confirmed it is a terrorist attack.
1117GMT: It is confirmed that the first assailant attacked a soldier with a machete before being engaged and wounded.
1215GMT: Latest TV statements. The first assailant attacked a security officer and/or soldier with a machete causing wounds to his arm and face, while shouting "Allahu Akbar". A second soldier then engaged the assailant with rifle fire resulting in the assailant being seriously wounded in the stomach. The first assailant was carrying 2 backpacks but no explosives have been found in them. A search of the area is continuing. A second assailant has been arrested within the last hour a short distance away from the scene of the attack.
The Louvre Museum and the area around it is in lock-down, and the public and local workers are been evacuated from the area. The French Govt are releasing only statements that they can verify and are refusing to speculate any further during media questioning.
takyon: French soldier shoots attacker outside Louvre
Assailant Near Louvre Is Shot by French Soldier
Machete attack on soldier near Louvre was of 'terrorist nature'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @03:30PM
Don't fool yourself with the way Hollywood portrays these things, such as the good guy shooting the gun out of the hand of the bad guy, or the good guy "winging" the bad guy so as not to kill them. Cops are trained that if they have to shoot, they shoot to hit, and the best part to hit is the body core (torso) because it is big, and it doesn't move as well as the rest of the body. You also don't get those dramatic situations where both the good and bad guys have guns pointed point-blank at each other's heads while they scream at each other. They have no idea what the person will do with the gun and as soon as they raise it, they get shot. Sometimes you hear someone say "why did they have to kill them? Why couldn't they just shoot them in the leg or something?" This isn't a video game. In this particular case, the assailant is fortunate to have survived.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Friday February 03 2017, @03:38PM
Just for your information: The Louvre is not in America; American cops were not involved.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Spook brat on Friday February 03 2017, @05:45PM
American cops were not involved.
Amen! lately, it seems the procedure in the Home of the Brave (TM) is:
*unload the entire magazine into the suspect
*handcuff/otherwise restrain the suspect
*wait for backup to arrive before calling the ambulance
This incident at the Louvre seems to have had the best possible outcome. The suspect survived, no bystanders were injured, and the soldiers involved escalated their use of force only as much as was needed. It's almost like they had Rules of Engagement to follow, and proper training on how to execute them...
We could learn a thing or two from these French soldiers.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @05:55PM
My point is that he only survived by happenstance of where the bullet did or did not go, not by design. Put your own political slant on it if you really feel compelled.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Spook brat on Friday February 03 2017, @10:19PM
I'm not sure I understand your objection to my reply, since I totally agree with you that when using a firearm the only proper means to employ it is with lethal intent. I have no reason to believe that the soldier firing his rifle on this assailant did anything else: soldiers are taught to shoot to kill if they're shooting at all. You are perfectly correct that with a different wound location (e.g. heart, major artery) no amount of first aid would have saved the assailant; he would be dead before the ambulance arrived.
Are you objecting to the use of lethal force at all? That it was somehow unwarranted? Going back to the passage Fnord666 quoted from TFA:
A patrol of four soldiers are reported to have tried to subdue the assailant using non-lethal force after he rushed at them. When this failed and after one soldier was injured, five shots were fired. The suspected attacker was taken to hospital. (emphasis added)
The soldiers on the scene put their lives on the line, using non-lethal means until it was clear that they were not effective.
The soldier firing the shots stopped shooting when the threat ended.
The assailant received sufficient immediate first aid, timely enough EMT care, and sufficient hospital care that he is expected to survive.
What other course of action would you have recommended for the soldiers? What other outcome would you have preferred?
The political slant I'd like to put on this situation is a soldier's perspective: one person using lethal force to stop a second person from presenting a threat does not imply that the first person wants the second person to die. All death is unfortunate, even the death of those who would do us harm.
The soldier's sacrifice isn't dying. It's killing, and then living with having killed. [schlockmercenary.com]
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 03 2017, @08:07PM
FWIK...admittedly from decades ago...MPs are also restrained in their use of force compared to many US cops.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @05:51PM
Yes, genius, that's obvious, and nothing I said suggests I'm talking about only US cops. Law enforcers learn the same techniques when faced with potentially lethal attempts on their lives. They have different tools to use for different situations, but once immediate threat to life is determined, they don't say "hmmmm, let's see if I can only give him a flesh wound to teach him a lesson."
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday February 03 2017, @05:34PM
The "sufficient force" part was using less-lethal options until it was clear that was insufficient. Not having been on the scene, I'm not going to second-guess the difficulty of the shot or the capability of the shooter. From the description in Fnord666's post the rifle was used with lethal intent, which is the right way to do it.
In this particular case, the assailant is fortunate to have survived.
Yep. Immediate first-aid and rapid hospitalization make a single gunshot wound (even from a rifle!) survivable.
Incidentally, that matches with the "minimum necessary force" narrative as well; the shooter ceased fire when the attacker stopped.
Honestly, I think that you and Fnord are violently agreeing.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]