You know it doesn't always work that way in terms of the police just being able to open shots to the point where a suspect can have 20 shots to the center mass. A suspect fighting back or resisting arrest does not always mean the suspect has a weapon and poses a threat to a potential victim or the police officers. The police can't just shoot someone just because the person is a nuisance and won't give up so easily.

Another disclaimer: It is probably the case that the situation in the Osama situation was a lot more hostile and dangerous than that. The military did a lot of research but we don't know whether they knew who was going to be present, who had weapons, and how deadly everything would be.

You beat me to it.

Should Clinton have killed Osama years ago?

Oh for god's sake, it was hyperbole. Anyways, a military operation with SEAL Team 6 is a lot different than any police operation that I feel like you are talking about.

Which is often not needed for a well-informed discussion.

You obviously didn't read or understand either of my disclaimers.

And I was responding to your hyperbolic response to Splash.

I'm not an expert in international law or legalities surrounding military operations but you guys have me confused over this due process talk as if Osama was arrested in Chicago or Dallas by the local PD. I'm still hearing mixed messages about the Pakistanis involvement in this operation. Some say they didn't know or authorize, others say that the Pakistanis had given a green light for small scale attacks in their country and this raid fell within those guidelines.

Well, 9/11 hadn't been carried out yet, so it's hard to say. I would say no, IMO. 9/11 is what sealed OBLs fate. I know he had his hands in embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc and while tragic, they're just not on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks.

I've also wondered what a shitstorm we would be now if the mission was not a success, ala Iran 30+ years ago.

The paragraphs leading up to your disclaimers had absolutely nothing to add to this topic, as you were talking of police operations. "20 shots to center mass" may be hyperbolic, but it is safe to say that if in a military operation, if some "offender" (which I still have to laugh at) is fighting back rather than surrendering, the military is trained to shoot to kill. It's that simple.

And "The police can't just shoot someone just because the person is a nuisance and won't give up so easily." Osama was a "nuisance"? Your lack of describing something comparable is laughable. Again, not talking police and not talking about someone who is drunk and disorderly.

Darn. Most people will live to tell about it, though.

Who knows. There would be a big difference between conducting the raid and there was no Bin Laden VS conducting the raid and there was Bin Laden but he escapes and our troops get captured/killed by the terrorists. There would be two completely different fallouts.

But, you read and understood the disclaimers so you know that I know it isn't the same thing.

I know the military is trained to shoot to kill so I didn't interpret Splash to only be talking about military operations. Does the U.S. military just do whatever it does regardless of where it does it? Rhetorical.

This lets me know that you completely misunderstood my posts, including the disclaimers that are an instrumental part of my posts.

For real. I totally thought that link was going to be to the Don't Taze Me Bro video.
/taser tangent

The military would never tase known (or suspected, as far as some are concerned) terrorists.

But, all is not lost:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7Ea4UrTTk

I'm not sure, considering I posted about how "offenders" (Splash didn't define them in her post, so I was assuming she was talking about Osama, as this was the crux of this discussion) would get shot in that situation, and the first reply by you was talking about policemen. Apples to wheelbarrows.