Shawshank style prison escape

[Dan Druff]

Wonder why the dogs didn't make a difference considering they were on foot?

They used pepper to fool the dogs, I think it was the only smart thing they did after escaping from prison.

If they carjacked someone early on, it could have made a difference.
They just didn't have enough money or resources to last awhile.
The police were waiting and hoping they would carjack or kill someone so they could move in and get them.

It won't be long before this story becomes a bad Nicholas Cage movie.

The pepper was smart, if they really did that.

The carjacking would have been dumb, as it would have given police an exact location for them, as well as a description of the car.

They really had no plan once the woman ditched them, because they had no support network, too many cops looking for them, and Canada would have returned them. And they were way too far from Mexico.

They stretched this out as long as they could. Too many people looking for them, and not enough resources.

I wonder how much money there is in quickly writing up a fail TV movie script for this story, and selling it to a network. You know there will be one. I wonder how many people are doing that right now.

Would have been smart to have already been writing one, and then just fill in the ending when it happens.

[Dan Druff]

After following this story and watching it develop, I can't help but keep wondering these how two characters didn't just carjack someone and drive as far as they could, as fast as they could, away from the prison

they fact they were on foot so close to the prison they escaped from after over a week on the run...well it just boggles my mind.

why the hell were they still on foot ?

front end of the escape plan: brilliant

execution after escaping: piss poor

first thing I would have done would be to find a car, any car...and just drive drive drive.

I don't know the exact proximity, but they were both shot/apprehended not even 200 miles away ?

FAIL imo

If anyone got carjacked in the area, the police would have jumped on it and put out an APB for the vehicle.

Yes, they could have kidnapped someone in the process of the carjacking (or killed them and put them in the trunk/buried the body), but again, once it was discovered that this person and the car were missing (which likely would have been the same day), then they'd be in hot water again.

I guess they could have waited to carjack someone who they thought was a loner, but that's tough to ascertain, and they'd still have to do it without being seen. They'd also have to not be seen while riding in the vehicle, and get past roadblocks.

Too hard.

[vegas1369]

Honestly this is the first time I've heard of a police tactic used to "shoot to stop" instead of "shoot to kill". Didn't even know that was a thing in law enforcement.

Guarantee that will now be an argument used by far left liberals from here on out. We can use shoot to stop tactics on escaped murderers, but not on average citizens. That should be fun to listen to for the next year or so...

Exactly what I thought when I first heard this story.

Fortunately Sweat is white, or the shit would really be hitting the fan.

Did some reading up on this. It's actually the exact same technique, just misunderstood. Law enforcement is always taught to shoot center mass in order to "stop" a deadly threat with deadly force. It's ALWAYS labeled as "shoot to stop" in law enforcements eyes. It just so happens it's basically the same thing as shooting to kill in that there is very little chance a bullet won't hit a vital organ when shooting center mass. Also, it's very rare and not advised to only fire one shot, more like two to the body and one to the head.

Good quote from an article on it...

Because stopping and killing are different things, is it not dangerous to tip-toe around this issue in what seems to be a perpetual state of denial? When we use deadly force, should it be surprising to anyone that one likely outcome is death?

http://www.policeone.com/use-of-forc...ll-or-to-stop/

[jsearles22]

And the end result:

 

[garrett]

Sentencing day for Joyce Mitchell 3.5 to 7 years so how much will she get


Assuming she doesn't have much of a criminal record since she worked in a prison, that may bode well for her although I think the high profile nature of the case means she'll be made an example of so I think this one is getting the max of 7 years.

[jsearles22]

Sentencing day for Joyce Mitchell 3.5 to 7 years so how much will she get


Assuming she doesn't have much of a criminal record since she worked in a prison, that may bode well for her although I think the high profile nature of the case means she'll be made an example of so I think this one is getting the max of 7 years.

You of all people shouldn't be posting mugshots bro

She gets 5

Oh, and shut up Garrett