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: 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]