1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagewrong. they are only able to adopt such a policy - short of a coup - if the law allows. the question is, should they be allowed by law to adopt such a policy? pretty straightforward really...
Well spotted. The question was not "should they adopt one" (yes or no) but "should they be able to adopt one" (answer must obviously be yes).
Originally posted by dfm65Just to point out the meaninglessness. Are you sure the question was worded exactly this way? If so, it still doesn't mean that everyone who answered no was an idiot - they may have assumed (probably correctly) that the question was worded incorrectly, and if they answered yes, it would be interpreted differently than they had meant it.
so everyone who answered no was an idiot then? and if it is meaningless, why did you supply an answer?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagesurely a suicide bomber is dead already - thereofore he doesn't need shooting.
Well spotted. The question was not "should they adopt one" (yes or no) but "should they be able to adopt one" (answer must obviously be yes).
before he detonates his bomb he is just a potential or suspected suicide bomber
I'm pretty sure that no one has ever survived a police rifle shot in this country.
Shooting to stop with a handgun (glock 9mm here) is aiming at the chest region of the torso. Head shooting was never taught. Very very few people don't stop when hit centre chest. If the shot falls below the rib cage then 30% don't even realise they have been hit and many survive. General duties police staff (not swat specialists) are taught (upper) torso shooting because they are more likely to hit the target.
It is accepted by the police and courts that the use of firearms is lethal force.
Originally posted by dfm65LOL.
from a sample of 1011 respondents (see the report for demographic analysis), 73% replied 'yes' in response to the question 'Do you think the police should or should not be able to adopt a shoot to kill policy against suicide bombers?'. Only 19% said no, while 8% didn't know.
What a BS question. I can't believe you are using that stat to back up your argument.
As invigorate correctly pointed out, a suicide bomber is already dead, so what's the point in having a shoot to kill policy against him/her?
An equally meaningless question would be: 'Do you think the police should or should not be able to adopt a shoot to kill policy against the mothers of suicide bombers before the birth of said suicide bombers?'
D
Originally posted by RagnorakIs the Times still a Conservative paper? The fact that people buy such drivle is unfortunate.
LOL.
What a BS question. I can't believe you are using that stat to back up your argument.
As invigorate correctly pointed out, a suicide bomber is already dead, so what's the point in having a shoot to kill policy against him/her?
An equally meaningless question would be: 'Do you think the police should or should not be able to adopt a shoot ...[text shortened]... l policy against the mothers of suicide bombers before the birth of said suicide bombers?'
D
Under most countries existing law police can shoot to someone to remove the threat of a person using lethal force against another person. The shooter must "believe" on reasonable grounds "as he/she sees them" that there is no way to remove the threat other than by shooting the person.
Any shoot policy is a shoot to kill policy because most shot people die and if you shoot someone in the leg or arm it usually doesn't stop them from doing what they set out to.
A kamakaze pilot diring ww2 wanted to go to heaven in the best possible way.. bravely for his cause. They were alive enough to fly so they were alive enough to get shot down.
If a dead but walking suspected suicide bomber walks into Invigs restaurant would you or he want the police to do? shoot him in the leg..ouch or shall we invite him down to the beach for tea.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ragnorakluckily the average person on the street has a lot more common sense, and can understand and answer a simple question. the very fact that someone who has already carried out a suicide attack would be dead removes the necessity for saying 'suspected suicide bomber', rather than 'suicide bomber'.
LOL.
What a BS question. I can't believe you are using that stat to back up your argument.
As invigorate correctly pointed out, a suicide bomber is already dead, so what's the point in having a shoot to kill policy against him/he ...[text shortened]... f suicide bombers before the birth of said suicide bombers?'
D
i'll bet there was someone like you at the wheel of the Titanic just before it hit the iceberg, saying 'Well, technically, WE'RE not about to hit that iceberg. The SHIP is going to hit the iceberg'...
the quality of the replies to the survey results have been utterly pathetic so far.
Not only has the populace supported the police being able to shoot to kill, but all three of Bush, Blair and Australia's John Howard have been re-elected since the Iraq invasion.
Originally posted by Tirau DanApart from the fact that the question was a massively leading question, substitute 'Illegal immigrant', 'joyrider', 'petty criminal' for 'suicide bomber' in the survey and you see why the questionnaire was such a waste of time. As we have seen, the shoot to kill policy against 'suicide bombers', in fact turned out to be a shoot to kill policy against an 'Illegal immigrant', a person whose only crime was overstaying his visit to England.
If a dead but walking suspected suicide bomber walks into Invigs restaurant would you or he want the police to do? shoot him in the leg..ouch or shall we invite him down to the beach for tea.
And so to your question...which could also be written as... if somebody walked into Invigorate's restaurant who was suspected of being a suicide bomber, (but in fact his only crime was having an eight of hash in his pocket, or his visa has expired, or he has ammassed a lot of unpaid parking fines) would I want him shot in the head or shot in the leg? Have I got the general gist of your question?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakNo.. you choose to miss the point.
Apart from the fact that the question was a massively leading question, substitute 'Illegal immigrant', 'joyrider', 'petty criminal' for 'suicide bomber' in the survey and you see why the questionnaire was such a waste of time. As we have seen, the shoot to kill policy against 'suicide bombers', in fact turned out to be a shoot to kill policy aga ...[text shortened]... ant him shot in the head or shot in the leg? Have I got the general gist of your question?
D
a. The survey was as much a waste of time as reading newspapers. So is an arguement on shoot to kill policy.. do you want a shoot in the leg policy or a newspaper ad before a policeman can shoot someone.
b. The police though they were killing a potential bomber.
Now answer my question sensibly.
If you honestly thought a person had explosives with intent to blow up a crowd and you passed on that info to a policeman. Would it matter to you if or how he shot the suspect.
Surely the suspect would have been shot to save the crowd.
Then put yourself on the spot if you got it wrong. Cops don't just run around shooting people if they had bad advice and bad training and acted improperly it will come out.
Originally posted by Tirau DanYou, my friend, are choosing to miss the point.
No.. you choose to miss the point.
a. The survey was as much a waste of time as reading newspapers. So is an arguement on shoot to kill policy.. do you want a shoot in the leg policy or a newspaper ad before a policeman can shoot someone.
b. The police though they were killing a potential bomber.
Now answer my question sensibly.
If you honestly ...[text shortened]... ooting people if they had bad advice and bad training and acted improperly it will come out.
An innocent man lost his life due to legislation being passed to allow police to be law enforcers, judges and executioners. Tell me, please, what is the percentage of actual suicide bombers killed by this new shoot to kill policy, and what is the percentage of innocent people?
Instead of passing new laws to further reduce civil liberties by giving the police greater power (greater power which you have said they are incapable of using, ie: not knowing how many bullets they have fired, etc), why don't the british government look at the source of the problem?
How can terrorists be stopped being created rather than how can they be stopped after they have blown up innocent people?
D
Originally posted by Tirau DanI can speak for New York law, which is typical of most American law. To use lethal force in self-defense of yourself and/or others requires both a subjective element and an objective element. The person using the force must A) Actually believe that the other person is using or about to use deadly physical force or is committing or attempting to commit an enumerated dangerous felony - Subjective; AND 2) The belief he has must be reasonable under all the circumstances - Objective. Of course, it's a rare case where the "subjective" element is in question, so pretty much all self-defense cases come down to whether the person's belief was reasonable under all the circumstances. That first requires knowing all the relevant circumstances; something none of us do in the instant case. While I don't have a problem, in theory, with a policy of "shooting to kill" potential suicide bombers it is obvious that the implementation of such a policy runs serious risks to innocent people and the police should use lethal force as a last resort when it is unavoidable. Whether this case was a justifiable use of deadly force or a panicky reaction from inadequately trained officers remains to be determined in light of all the relevant facts.
Is the Times still a Conservative paper? The fact that people buy such drivle is unfortunate.
Under most countries existing law police can shoot to someone to remove the threat of a person using lethal force against another person. The shooter must "believe" on reasonable grounds "as he/she sees them" that there is no way to remove the threat other ...[text shortened]... the police to do? shoot him in the leg..ouch or shall we invite him down to the beach for tea.
Originally posted by RagnorakRag, I know you feel strongly, I do understand your perspective but disagree entirely.
You, my friend, are choosing to miss the point.
An innocent man lost his life due to legislation being passed to allow police to be law enforcers, judges and executioners. Tell me, please, what is the percentage of actual suicide bombers killed by this new shoot to kill policy, and what is the percentage of innocent people?
Instead of passing new l ...[text shortened]... g created rather than how can they be stopped after they have blown up innocent people?
D
You didn't understand my post on reaction from behind the gun at all so take that out of the equation.. police armed squads are very professional and capable people.
I haven't heard the result of the inquiry yet but I don't see any policy forcing a policeman to shoot an innocent man. No policeman would shoot unless he thought he was doing the right thing to save lives.
If the policy lessens the standard of belief the officer has to have it still won't effect his or her decision to pull the trigger.
Ratio to date 50 odd innocents dead to the bombers: one innocent shot by police (or don't those innocent people count in your equation.)
Do you know of any way to change the mindset of extremists? Could you talk to football hooligans? I'm no historian but what you are saying is very similar to Chamberlain in 1939.
What would the need to be done to appease extreme suni muslims? ..... wipe out shiites and kerds and ethnic persians for them?
We have an election here in Sept and the current govt is behind in the polls.. If our Tories get in our ties will get stronger with Bush and Blair for sure.
Perish the thought... I'm off to bed it's 3am here. Ciao