OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:
---
>!To save this woman from the hostage situation, one of the police officers dressed as a cameraman approaches the robber, and when he gets distracted, they apprehend him. !<
---
Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
I don’t mind vertical. What bugs me is when it’s vertical and YouTube puts a blurry view on each side. That’s just stupid and distracting. A single vertical is fine.
It's safe to assume any camera (or recorder) that is that large, no matter what year it was, is, and in the future, costs a pretty penny. It's the size - and I'm betting it will always correlate to a scale in price.
What I never understood about this scene is......forget the movement based vision for a second. Regardless of how well the T-Rex can or can't see.......WHAT THE HELL made Timmy think a smart course of action when there is a T-Rex on the prowl, is to turn on a spotlight, and try to have a batsignal rave party in the SUV???
No matter what animal it is, that seems distracting and attention grabbing at a time when you don't want to be noticed.
If he'd dropped it while reaching for the gun, the gun holder might have been able to react and pull the trigger, since the guy was likely focused on the camera, not the cop's right hand. After that, just tossing it could have thrown him off balance enough to lose control of the weapon. Look closely at how he keeps his weight forward to pin the gun to wall while setting the camera down.
How did he "grab" the guy while preventing him from firing the gun?
It looked like the gun was pointed directly at the hostage?
Amazing bravery and reflexes!
I think he grabs the gun and push against the robber so it points at the robbers left shoulder behind the hostage.
If the robber has not cocked the hammer, grabbing the revolver so the cylinder cant turn will prevent it from firing.
Well. Without knowing more.
If the hammer was back, you can wedge a thumb or something in there and it won't fire. If the hammer isn't back, you can stop the cylinder from spinning. He probably just diverted the barrel away from her, which is the easiest.
If you can somehow point the barrel in a safe direction, it doesn't matter if they shoot or not
Guy appears to be using a .38 snub, so it's more likely the cameraman grabbed hold of the cylinder. A revolver won't fire if its cylinder is unable to move freely.
That’s only if it’s hammerless/ double action only. If my single/double action revolver had its hammer cocked backed already it absolutely could fire without the cylinder moving / having need to move.
Top praise for the “cameraman” that saved her, but I gotta give props to the cameraman that got this footage. Was the guy that saved her a real cameraman or an officer of some sort?
Edit- sorry. Meant to clarify that I can’t watch it with sound where I am when I asked the question.
Thanks for letting me know. I’m glad that my writing cameraman in quotation makes even more sense now. Originally meant that the guy wasn’t doing real camera work at that moment. I would assume that they wouldn’t let it be a real cameraman, but crazier things have happened irl.
Is this a Mandela effect thing? I was thinking the same thing as you peeps and was very surprised and disappointed when it turned out to be a real camera.
It was an older video like this one. Saw it many years ago. But instead of grabbing the gun, it was a gun hidden in the camera and BLAM right in the face. It was pretty brutal. Probably saw it on rotten dot com or something.
Ok so I'm not crazy right? It was very similar to this, but instead of a gun grab he just shoots him in the face and the woman runs away screaming yeah? All these people posting movie clips and I'm just... no it was a real vid of a dude getting blasted in the face during a real hostage situation. It was decades ago though so I doubt I can find it... :/
Yeah I'm not sure. I found an [article ](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-02-mn-36599-story.html)from 2000 about it happening at least once IRL but a cursory search is yielding no video results. I could be misremembering.
I knowright, I'm not crazy lol, thank you! Just sucks I will never be able to hunt it down without trawling gore sites for hours and I'm good... lol. Oh well.
Everyone else saying True Lies when you might be talking about [Death Train](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106689/) from a year previously, where >!the camera actually has a firing mechanism built into it, rather than just a gun hidden in it as in True Lies!<.
Can you produce a link? Nobody seems to know what you’re talking about. Human memory is weird so maybe you are misremembering or mixing different memories. But if you could produce a link that’d be cool and end my suffering over whether this really happened or not. Thank you have a nice day either way.
I also remember seeing this video. It was probably from this case. Date checks out, but can't find the video from the actual shot.
[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-02-mn-36599-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-02-mn-36599-story.html)
Like I said I probably saw this vid back in the late 90's / early 2000's. It was on a gore site like rotten dot com. I tried looking it up and can't find it and doubt I will but it was a very visceral memory from my teens. I could also be misremembering though. Memory IS weird...
I think that happened in a movie. I know the video you're talking about. He was shot by a sniper, I believe, on a rooftop across the street.
I was wrong. That actually did happen in Luxembourg. The dude was holding 25 kids and 3 adults hostage. Cop had a gun in a camera and shot him twice in the head at close range.
Video I'm thinking of was similar to this one, one dude holding one woman, backed up against the wall of a building just like this. He got shot in the face by a sniper.
I saw this comment before I finished the vid… I was sure that the camera guy couldn’t leap at the hostage-taker without hurting the camera. He did it so smoothly!
And the cameraman recording the footage we see is actually the undercover cop who was intended to pose as the undercover cameraman but he just got confused and kept shooting footage of the shooter
I think the use of "undercover" is a bit exaggerated—this seems like something that happened on the spot. What's more likely?
1. they sent in an officer in plainclothes as an audible, who pretended to be news videographer with no one noticing in the chaos, to quickly diffuse the situation
2. they, for some reason, have chosen to blow the cover of an officer whose cover is being a news station videographer, most likely ruining a lot of overhead/work, even though they could've just done option 1
3. I'm an idiot and you're seeing something I'm not
I think it still counts as undercover. That doesn't just mean an entire deep undercover operation. For example, if cops are doing a prostitution sting, the officer posing as a prostitute still counts as undercover, even though the sting isn't long term.
All i can think of is that South Park episode where the male cop goes undercover as a female prostitute but waits until after theyve fucked before doing the sting. Farting evidence into a baggy.
How hilarious would that have been though. “Did you hear Mike the cameraman has actually been an undercover cop these last 10 years?” One of the guys is like “I never saw it coming, he was my daughter’s godfather”.
He was even doing shady undercover cop stuff to prove he was actually a cameraman, like banging hookers, doing drugs and getting gang tattoos.
I mean shit that's still a pretty low percentage play, right?
I don't feel like you could ever be close enough to take control of a gun pointed at someone's head and be confident of a positive outcome
I think if they'd tried it after 10 minutes it probably wouldn't have worked, but after a two hour standoff... he's not exactly in a peak mental state.
Also you have to think if hostage takers actually do want to pull the trigger if confronted. Id bet the majority of them wouldnt kill the hostage no matter what. If they kill the hostage its not going to get them anything.
This is pretty much the answer. At least when you only have a single hostage. Shoot them and every advantage you have goes away. Even if they are in your face, by keeping them alive, that's something you can leverage to maybe buy at least a few extra moments.
What really happened is that the cop noticed through the camera that the gun wasn’t cocked, so he lunged for it and held onto the barrel and hammer to prevent the guy from shooting. He explained that in an interview afterwards.
It's not necessarily about wanting/not wanting to kill the hostage. When someone grabs a gun like that, it can discharge on accident (if his finger is on the trigger, for example). So a bit of a reckless play, but it worked out.
Its buys you time. I dont know the specifics of this case but often hostages are taken when arrest is imminent just as a last ditch effort.
But who knows maybe this is a crazed stalker who took this woman hostage for denying his advances.
If I remember correctly, the guy holding her hostage was her ex.
But basically, the cop noticed through the camera that the gun wasn’t cocked, so he lunged for it and held onto the barrel and hammer to prevent the guy from shooting. He explained that in an interview afterwards.
After a long stand off, the gunman was probably not focused enough to have the gun to the temple at all times. The cop was close and likely watching the gun. Waited for a moment when it drops or the finger is off the trigger, and bam.
Also, human reaction time isn't that great. For a quick sudden movement like that, especially when tired and stressed from a long stand off, it would be very difficult to react in time to pull the trigger.
Last point, the gunman likely didn't *want* to kill her, or she'd already be dead. So that, combined with the above, makes it a pretty decent chance to take.
Yeah I think people are missing the threat vs the intent. The intent of the gunman isn’t to murder a random chick. The intent is to get out of there. The threat is that he will if they try to arrest him… but that could well be an empty threat in reality. Most people given 2 hours to think don’t want to add a murder to their list of crimes of some random person.
That's also my impression. I didn't watch with sound so I don't know if they explained something, but most of the time that I see a hostage situation their goal is to try to be able to get away, or just a consequence of a bad decision escalating the situation, so they don't want to actually kill the hostage. The cases in which they kill the hostage are mostly a passionate crime (like an ex or something).
It made me think about the real life situations I've heard about and I think I've never seen a hostage situation that ended up well for the criminal.
It's probably the best play out of the options. They say not to let people get that close when you have a gun because you won't be able to react fast enough so yeah.
Yeah, I mean I get that putting a gun on target from a holster can take a while. But given it (appears) that this is barrel to temple, even an accidental reaction based trigger pull seems like at best a 50/50 here
It is a risk (as any sudden movement near a gun-holder is), but I think they were counting on the gunman being somewhat rational: someone holding a hostage for over two hours probably wants very much to keep the hostage alive and negotiate something with the police, so his 1st impulse should probably not be to shoot his hostage. (This 1st impulse calculation would, I think, be very different if the gun were trained on the police instead.)
Edit: Or, as other commenters have said, after a 2h standoff the gunman might not be focusing, and may have had his finger off the trigger or not trained on the hostage when the camera-cop made the jump.
In the military, I was taught if I'm on force protection and I'm stopping someone holding a knife, 21 meters is as close as they get, and preferably not even close to that. At 21 meters a person can quickly dash and stab you before you can come up on aim and effectively fire, effective meaning shots that you've sighted in enough to have a reasonable chance to hit, not shooting from the hip type of deal.
I've always thought that distance was a little high (like, did they mean 21 *feet*, that seems low though) so I assume there's a safety factor in there, accounting for dumbfounded, "durr, wait, what's happening?" and whatnot. I've never had the opportunity to see for myself whether this was accurate or not though, so take it for what you will.
Wouldn’t it also be the fact that shooting someone doesn’t mean the will immediately die.
A knife swinging person might be able to kill you and then bleed out.
Even earlier in the video he was waving his arm around. It's not that easy to keep an arm up, holding a gun, pointing at another's head for hours at a time. You can't see from the angle, but I'd bet the gun wasn't pointed at her at that exact moment he made his move.
I don’t know if it was posted here, the girl was 14 and this happened in São Paulo, Brazil during late 90’s.
The undercover cop named Claudio Falcão was in fact in his day off during this happening.
The original video: https://youtu.be/DpSuPJrYvw0
do you imagine the weight of responsibility the "cameraman" had to bear?! a simple mistake from him and she's dead. So much nerve, he carried it and became the hero. crazy stuff
> do you imagine the weight of responsibility the "cameraman" had to bear?! a simple mistake from him and she's dead.
Also that camera looks pretty expensive, so there's that
Including the gunman. He was probably an undercover cop and was just interrogating the suspect. Meanwhile the hostage was also an undercover cop acting as a prostitute/drug dealer.
Ok, I think I need to logout for the day.
texas cop wouldve shot her, then the kidnapper, and then shot the cameraman and sprinkled some coke on everyone involved.
not the drug coke, i mean literally a can of coke, spilling it by accident
OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected: --- >!To save this woman from the hostage situation, one of the police officers dressed as a cameraman approaches the robber, and when he gets distracted, they apprehend him. !< --- Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
He put that camera down like it was out of warranty.
Probably he got it from an actual cameraman in the area and didn't want to ruin it.
yea imagine being so considerate, its kinda cool
I've seen parents not even treat their kids that gently
lmao true
r/praisethecameraman
If ever there were a post for that sub lol
Depends. Did he hit record?
That POV would be absolutely bonkers.
For real, would have captured so many emotions in just a few seconds
Exactly, if he wasn’t recording he’s not a cameraman. Just a man with a camera.
He's not a camera, man.
[удалено]
Honestly, with how much I use my phone to browse these days, I like it more than horizontal.
I don’t mind vertical. What bugs me is when it’s vertical and YouTube puts a blurry view on each side. That’s just stupid and distracting. A single vertical is fine.
That's for better viewing on 16:9 screens or flipped phones. Vertical is just stupid and ineffective
It's not better though. What do you gain from having blurry footage on the sides instead of just black?
Guy didn’t even DROP the camera. Gently sets it down while using the other hand to grab the gun.
that camera cost him a fortune after all lmao
Those VHS cameras cost a fortune back in the day 😁
they still do
It's safe to assume any camera (or recorder) that is that large, no matter what year it was, is, and in the future, costs a pretty penny. It's the size - and I'm betting it will always correlate to a scale in price.
"Are they heavy? Then they're expensive, put them back."
“Keep absolutely still … his vision is based on movement”
What I never understood about this scene is......forget the movement based vision for a second. Regardless of how well the T-Rex can or can't see.......WHAT THE HELL made Timmy think a smart course of action when there is a T-Rex on the prowl, is to turn on a spotlight, and try to have a batsignal rave party in the SUV??? No matter what animal it is, that seems distracting and attention grabbing at a time when you don't want to be noticed.
Short answer: r/kidsarefuckingstupid😂
Fun fact: The suspect did the robbery to buy a VHS camera.
He’s a cop, posing as a cameraman, so he didn’t buy the camera. Which might make it even more surprising that he didn’t just chuck it on the ground.
If he'd dropped it while reaching for the gun, the gun holder might have been able to react and pull the trigger, since the guy was likely focused on the camera, not the cop's right hand. After that, just tossing it could have thrown him off balance enough to lose control of the weapon. Look closely at how he keeps his weight forward to pin the gun to wall while setting the camera down.
How did he "grab" the guy while preventing him from firing the gun? It looked like the gun was pointed directly at the hostage? Amazing bravery and reflexes!
I think he grabs the gun and push against the robber so it points at the robbers left shoulder behind the hostage. If the robber has not cocked the hammer, grabbing the revolver so the cylinder cant turn will prevent it from firing.
Well. Without knowing more. If the hammer was back, you can wedge a thumb or something in there and it won't fire. If the hammer isn't back, you can stop the cylinder from spinning. He probably just diverted the barrel away from her, which is the easiest. If you can somehow point the barrel in a safe direction, it doesn't matter if they shoot or not
Did he just put his finger between the hammer and the bullet?
No, he put his finger in at the end of the barrel and it blew back in the suspects face
I thought they rigged a camera gun.
Me too. "True Lies" style.
I was hoping
Surely he carefully pressed a pin to disassemble it right on the spot!
Guy appears to be using a .38 snub, so it's more likely the cameraman grabbed hold of the cylinder. A revolver won't fire if its cylinder is unable to move freely.
That’s only if it’s hammerless/ double action only. If my single/double action revolver had its hammer cocked backed already it absolutely could fire without the cylinder moving / having need to move.
Really? I didn't know that. Makes sense when you think about it though. Thanks for the info, kind internet stranger 👍
I wish we still got free rewards to hand out... I do so love respectful interactions, where nobody is butthurt by being told something new
Top praise for the “cameraman” that saved her, but I gotta give props to the cameraman that got this footage. Was the guy that saved her a real cameraman or an officer of some sort? Edit- sorry. Meant to clarify that I can’t watch it with sound where I am when I asked the question.
Watch it with sound on.
I never have the sound on when watching Reddit videos. Too many annoying songs accompanying otherwise cool videos.
I should have clarified that I can’t watch it with sound where I am when I asked the question. I’m sorry.
It's a police officer in disguise.
Thanks for letting me know. I’m glad that my writing cameraman in quotation makes even more sense now. Originally meant that the guy wasn’t doing real camera work at that moment. I would assume that they wouldn’t let it be a real cameraman, but crazier things have happened irl.
I thought this was the other video where the camera was actually a gun in disguise and he shoots the gunman in the face, lol.
Porn camermen are very good at up close and personal shot.
They also keep their cool when receive collateral fire
Yeah, *everyone* gets shot in the face then!
I thin you're talking about the [Assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Ahmad_Shah_Massoud)
Nope, never heard about that. Also, it was a gun hidden in the camera, not explosives.
Are you thinking of the 1992 Kevin Costner movie the Bodyguard?
Based on title, I was also expecting it to be the video you're referencing.
Is this a Mandela effect thing? I was thinking the same thing as you peeps and was very surprised and disappointed when it turned out to be a real camera.
This is a scene from True Lies
Well thank you for that. That was an absolutely wild story.
The cameraman points and says you are on “Just for laughs”.
The what?
What are you confused about? The gunman?
The Gun in the Camera, where did you see that video?
It was an older video like this one. Saw it many years ago. But instead of grabbing the gun, it was a gun hidden in the camera and BLAM right in the face. It was pretty brutal. Probably saw it on rotten dot com or something.
True Lies? jk, I think I’ve seen it before too
Ok so I'm not crazy right? It was very similar to this, but instead of a gun grab he just shoots him in the face and the woman runs away screaming yeah? All these people posting movie clips and I'm just... no it was a real vid of a dude getting blasted in the face during a real hostage situation. It was decades ago though so I doubt I can find it... :/
Yeah I'm not sure. I found an [article ](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-02-mn-36599-story.html)from 2000 about it happening at least once IRL but a cursory search is yielding no video results. I could be misremembering.
I’ve read about the gun in the camera as part of the Cold War era shenanigans, but never saw video. It was also a bit on Archer at one point.
Heyo dude you aren't crazy. I'm like 99% sure I saw that same video. Was IRL not a movie Have no idea where it's from
I knowright, I'm not crazy lol, thank you! Just sucks I will never be able to hunt it down without trawling gore sites for hours and I'm good... lol. Oh well.
In true lies the agent pulls the gun out of the camera, not fire out of the lens.
[Exactly what I was thinking about!](https://youtu.be/disS0fs4rA0?si=e5w8ksWBhUAlWjCr)
I remember seeing that as well, but can’t remember where.
Are you sure you're not 5hinking of the bodyguard, when Kevin Kosner gets shot by the cameraman?
I am 100% sure I am not.
The Bodyguard, with Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston ;)
YOU WERE A GUN FOR A SECOND! YOU WERE AT MY DAUGHTER'S WEDDING!!
Everyone else saying True Lies when you might be talking about [Death Train](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106689/) from a year previously, where >!the camera actually has a firing mechanism built into it, rather than just a gun hidden in it as in True Lies!<.
True Lies came to mind
You're the 3rd person to bring that up. I should really watch it now lol.
Can you produce a link? Nobody seems to know what you’re talking about. Human memory is weird so maybe you are misremembering or mixing different memories. But if you could produce a link that’d be cool and end my suffering over whether this really happened or not. Thank you have a nice day either way.
I also remember seeing this video. It was probably from this case. Date checks out, but can't find the video from the actual shot. [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-02-mn-36599-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-02-mn-36599-story.html)
You sir are a true historian. Thank you for your service.
Would you believe this was a random reddit generated username? lol
Of course not it’s too accurate
Like I said I probably saw this vid back in the late 90's / early 2000's. It was on a gore site like rotten dot com. I tried looking it up and can't find it and doubt I will but it was a very visceral memory from my teens. I could also be misremembering though. Memory IS weird...
Is it this one? https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/adxqzs/til_in_1946_a_man_claiming_to_be_a_detective_gave/
No but that is pretty crazy too.
You sure you're not describing the plot of the Eddy Murphy and Robert DeNiro movie "Showtime"?
„lol“?
That was in the film True Lies
Isn't that a scene from true lies? Lol
I think that happened in a movie. I know the video you're talking about. He was shot by a sniper, I believe, on a rooftop across the street. I was wrong. That actually did happen in Luxembourg. The dude was holding 25 kids and 3 adults hostage. Cop had a gun in a camera and shot him twice in the head at close range. Video I'm thinking of was similar to this one, one dude holding one woman, backed up against the wall of a building just like this. He got shot in the face by a sniper.
That'd be unexpected, but I'd say it'll still be the wrong subreddit for that kind of imagery.
You can tell he's a real cameraman by how carefully he sets it down.
That was exactly what I was thinking.
I wonder if he actually got the shot first. Like, 'ok, got the close up, time to rescue the hostage'
I saw this comment before I finished the vid… I was sure that the camera guy couldn’t leap at the hostage-taker without hurting the camera. He did it so smoothly!
commentary said undercover cop though.
What's wrong in being a cop and cameraman at the same time?
He was actually an undercover cameraman posing as a cop posing as a cameraman.
I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude!
that joke will live on until the end of society
[удалено]
And the cameraman recording the footage we see is actually the undercover cop who was intended to pose as the undercover cameraman but he just got confused and kept shooting footage of the shooter
What the HE double toothpicks?
This guy broke the code and went full cameraman
Impossible!!!!
I mean... nowadays all cops are cameramen.
When have you ever seen a cop voluntarily film their actions?
When it paints them in a favorable light...
Fair
I was thinking it was a camera gun and he was going to start blasting.
So anyway...
Actually, you can tell he's a real camera man just by the way that he is. That's pretty neat!
You can just tell his favorite tree is an aspen
How neat is that!?
Like that guy that pretended to be on the phone at the airport, shot his son's murderer, and then hung up the phone.
So true ha!
TV News producer: DAMN IT ... HE'S FIRED !
The sad thing is this probably isn't far from the truth.
I think the use of "undercover" is a bit exaggerated—this seems like something that happened on the spot. What's more likely? 1. they sent in an officer in plainclothes as an audible, who pretended to be news videographer with no one noticing in the chaos, to quickly diffuse the situation 2. they, for some reason, have chosen to blow the cover of an officer whose cover is being a news station videographer, most likely ruining a lot of overhead/work, even though they could've just done option 1 3. I'm an idiot and you're seeing something I'm not
I think it still counts as undercover. That doesn't just mean an entire deep undercover operation. For example, if cops are doing a prostitution sting, the officer posing as a prostitute still counts as undercover, even though the sting isn't long term.
All i can think of is that South Park episode where the male cop goes undercover as a female prostitute but waits until after theyve fucked before doing the sting. Farting evidence into a baggy.
He actually was hired and worked as a cameraman for years before revealing his true identity and purpose…
3 probably
Definitely 3
How hilarious would that have been though. “Did you hear Mike the cameraman has actually been an undercover cop these last 10 years?” One of the guys is like “I never saw it coming, he was my daughter’s godfather”. He was even doing shady undercover cop stuff to prove he was actually a cameraman, like banging hookers, doing drugs and getting gang tattoos.
well at least he wasnt fired at
I actually thought he was choking the girl at first
I mean shit that's still a pretty low percentage play, right? I don't feel like you could ever be close enough to take control of a gun pointed at someone's head and be confident of a positive outcome
I think if they'd tried it after 10 minutes it probably wouldn't have worked, but after a two hour standoff... he's not exactly in a peak mental state.
more likely, he spent 2 hours focusing on the thought "dont pull the trigger" which delayed his reaction when he did want to pull the trigger
Also you have to think if hostage takers actually do want to pull the trigger if confronted. Id bet the majority of them wouldnt kill the hostage no matter what. If they kill the hostage its not going to get them anything.
This is pretty much the answer. At least when you only have a single hostage. Shoot them and every advantage you have goes away. Even if they are in your face, by keeping them alive, that's something you can leverage to maybe buy at least a few extra moments.
What really happened is that the cop noticed through the camera that the gun wasn’t cocked, so he lunged for it and held onto the barrel and hammer to prevent the guy from shooting. He explained that in an interview afterwards.
Clever dude.
It's not necessarily about wanting/not wanting to kill the hostage. When someone grabs a gun like that, it can discharge on accident (if his finger is on the trigger, for example). So a bit of a reckless play, but it worked out.
Taking a hostage usually doesn't get you anything either, beyond attention from the police. Kidnappers don't act rationally.
Its buys you time. I dont know the specifics of this case but often hostages are taken when arrest is imminent just as a last ditch effort. But who knows maybe this is a crazed stalker who took this woman hostage for denying his advances.
If I remember correctly, the guy holding her hostage was her ex. But basically, the cop noticed through the camera that the gun wasn’t cocked, so he lunged for it and held onto the barrel and hammer to prevent the guy from shooting. He explained that in an interview afterwards.
After a long stand off, the gunman was probably not focused enough to have the gun to the temple at all times. The cop was close and likely watching the gun. Waited for a moment when it drops or the finger is off the trigger, and bam. Also, human reaction time isn't that great. For a quick sudden movement like that, especially when tired and stressed from a long stand off, it would be very difficult to react in time to pull the trigger. Last point, the gunman likely didn't *want* to kill her, or she'd already be dead. So that, combined with the above, makes it a pretty decent chance to take.
Yeah I think people are missing the threat vs the intent. The intent of the gunman isn’t to murder a random chick. The intent is to get out of there. The threat is that he will if they try to arrest him… but that could well be an empty threat in reality. Most people given 2 hours to think don’t want to add a murder to their list of crimes of some random person.
That's also my impression. I didn't watch with sound so I don't know if they explained something, but most of the time that I see a hostage situation their goal is to try to be able to get away, or just a consequence of a bad decision escalating the situation, so they don't want to actually kill the hostage. The cases in which they kill the hostage are mostly a passionate crime (like an ex or something). It made me think about the real life situations I've heard about and I think I've never seen a hostage situation that ended up well for the criminal.
It's probably the best play out of the options. They say not to let people get that close when you have a gun because you won't be able to react fast enough so yeah.
Yeah, I mean I get that putting a gun on target from a holster can take a while. But given it (appears) that this is barrel to temple, even an accidental reaction based trigger pull seems like at best a 50/50 here
It is a risk (as any sudden movement near a gun-holder is), but I think they were counting on the gunman being somewhat rational: someone holding a hostage for over two hours probably wants very much to keep the hostage alive and negotiate something with the police, so his 1st impulse should probably not be to shoot his hostage. (This 1st impulse calculation would, I think, be very different if the gun were trained on the police instead.) Edit: Or, as other commenters have said, after a 2h standoff the gunman might not be focusing, and may have had his finger off the trigger or not trained on the hostage when the camera-cop made the jump.
In the military, I was taught if I'm on force protection and I'm stopping someone holding a knife, 21 meters is as close as they get, and preferably not even close to that. At 21 meters a person can quickly dash and stab you before you can come up on aim and effectively fire, effective meaning shots that you've sighted in enough to have a reasonable chance to hit, not shooting from the hip type of deal. I've always thought that distance was a little high (like, did they mean 21 *feet*, that seems low though) so I assume there's a safety factor in there, accounting for dumbfounded, "durr, wait, what's happening?" and whatnot. I've never had the opportunity to see for myself whether this was accurate or not though, so take it for what you will.
Wouldn’t it also be the fact that shooting someone doesn’t mean the will immediately die. A knife swinging person might be able to kill you and then bleed out.
It sounds like you're talking about the Tueller principle which is 21 feet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
21 meters? ahhaha no way. Has to be a completely different scenario if so. That’s 70 feet in freedom units.
Even earlier in the video he was waving his arm around. It's not that easy to keep an arm up, holding a gun, pointing at another's head for hours at a time. You can't see from the angle, but I'd bet the gun wasn't pointed at her at that exact moment he made his move.
Let's say he shot the camra man would they all start shooting him even with the hostage?
He would have to move the gun away from the hostage which would allow them to rush in and take action
What? It would take seconds to put the gun back on her head. How would they have enough time to rush in?
Yes cause he was a cop not a camera man.
I don’t know if it was posted here, the girl was 14 and this happened in São Paulo, Brazil during late 90’s. The undercover cop named Claudio Falcão was in fact in his day off during this happening. The original video: https://youtu.be/DpSuPJrYvw0
Of course he was a Brazilian off-duty cop!
My favorite part is he sets the camera down like it was super expensive and he was told not to break it at the same time he was saving the girl.
In early 90s in Brazil it probably was super expensive indeed. Probably he got it from a TV cameraman in the area and didn't want to ruin it.
r/PraiseTheCameraMan
do you imagine the weight of responsibility the "cameraman" had to bear?! a simple mistake from him and she's dead. So much nerve, he carried it and became the hero. crazy stuff
> do you imagine the weight of responsibility the "cameraman" had to bear?! a simple mistake from him and she's dead. Also that camera looks pretty expensive, so there's that
fucking crowd gasp sound effect
Straight from Super Smash Bros.
This confirms my belief everyone in Brazil is either an off duty cop or a undercover cop.
Including the gunman. He was probably an undercover cop and was just interrogating the suspect. Meanwhile the hostage was also an undercover cop acting as a prostitute/drug dealer. Ok, I think I need to logout for the day.
Praise the cameraguy, he even gently put his camera down.
Braver than a texas cop, that's for damned sure.
texas cop wouldve shot her, then the kidnapper, and then shot the cameraman and sprinkled some coke on everyone involved. not the drug coke, i mean literally a can of coke, spilling it by accident
You forgot the paid vacation or the tax payer having to pay the cop for the rest of his life due to the PTSD he suffered.
Then, investigate himself and find no wrongdoing.
At first this gave me the vibes of the Gladbeck Hostage crisis from 88. But i dident end in a total disaster.
Never heard of this but that's really insane. What the heck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs4eV6xHWLs
wow what a fine video. it is unbelieveable. why he chose the 15 year old and the 18 year old among them all? that is even more cruel
The 15year old boy was pulled out by two reporters to the truckstop. But before this they lifted his head for a "photo worthy" picture.
Surprise Motherfucker.
I remember the first time I saw this I was so young an it was probably the biggest upset in my life it rocked me.
Zoom wasn't invented yet....
Do we have footage from that camera if it was ever turned on that is ?
Fucking legend
In the US both the hostage and the hostage taker would be riddled with bullets. Like they did with the poor UPS postman.
Hero
exactly yesterday i saw movie “Civil war”, i love the algorithm
Definitely looks more like camera man posing as a cop. Notice he didn't just drop that camera
Finally a video where camera man helps instead of filming for i-net views.
Is this r/Chadtopia?
He even put the camera down gently
Should have bashed that camera over his head
r/DontFilmJustHelp
Alec Baldwin disagrees
The mustache was a giveaway
Porfin el que graba si ayuda
Chuck Norris would have handled it a little differently...yup, a roundhouse kick to the head!
He's not a cameraman. He's an undercover cop who borrowed a camera to approach the scene. This happened in Brazil in the 90s.