1 edit
For arguments sake...
They should not have shot the man, obviously they should have bound him, stood behind him with hoods on, put a camera in front of him, and severed his head with a knife for the world to see. No...wait! They should have let him blow himself and many other passengers up to prove that he was a threat before shooting him. Here's an idea...let's just arbitrarily believe that the man was subdued and not cambative when he was killed. Let's just arbitrarily blame the Police for excessive force, and ignore the fact that the Officers involved are human beings also, and will undoubdtedly need some form of counselling to reconcile the fact that their duty REQUIRED them to take a human life. Let's continue to think that Police Officers are no different than the common thugs that they take oaths to protect society from. Those of us who wear badges will continue to protect you anyway.
regards,
Brian
*the superlative posting was an errant keystroke, not done for effect.
Originally posted by BLReidthis will lead to bulletproof bombers 😉
For arguments sake...
They should not have shot the man, obviously they should have bound him, stood behind him with hoods on, put a camera in front of him, and severed his head with a knife for the world to see. No...wait! They should have let him blow himself and many other passengers up to prove that he was a threat before shooting him. Here's an idea. ...[text shortened]...
regards,
Brian
*the superlative posting was an errant keystroke, not done for effect.
1 edit
Originally posted by BLReidWe don't know exactly what happened, but it's not an arbitrary belief that the man was subdued and not combative, there were witnesses who described it that way (yes, they may have been wrong). And in this case it was not their duty to kill the man. I don't ignore the fact that the officers involved are human beings. They may simply have panicked or misjudged the situation. That doesn't mean it's okay or there's just nothing we can do about it, it rather means that they might not have had the necessary schooling.
Here's an idea...let's just arbitrarily believe that the man was subdued and not cambative when he was killed. Let's just arbitrarily blame the Police for excessive force, and ignore the fact that the Officers involved are human beings al ...[text shortened]... le the fact that their duty REQUIRED them to take a human life.
Originally posted by WeadleyHow exactly is the returning the right of British subjects to own handguns going to help against suicide bombers?
PS.
Gun crime rates go up in every time ordinary citizens rights to own them are taken away.
Yes too many gun crimes in U.S.A. but statistics are showing that in areas where people are allowed concealed carry, crimes with guns are down.
Why would the wanna be jogger trail stalkers go to an area where they know women might be packing a little 22 pistol?
Answer: they dont.
When the British police use guns it is normally an armed response unit who only fire a few shots, and they don't normally use handguns as they are inaccurate over a range of more than 30 yards. In this case it was a plain clothes officer who used a 9mm (I imagine) automatic. He fired at point blank range, on someone already down. This is what concerns me. The only excuse for this is if the officer had good reason to believe that if he didn't open fire the person could have blown himself up - taking them and some members of the public with him. The question then arises as to whether the individual had anything in his hands - hearsay has it that the bombs are detonated by mobile phones (or devices disguised as mobiles) - if so the officer really had no choice in that instant, if not then he should not have opened fire, as it would have been possible to make an ordinary arrest and, assuming that this was a terrorist, got some useful information off him such as who put him up to it and who else is running around with bombs.
Further I'm concerned that the police allowed a situation to develope where they had no choice but to open fire. If they were following him they shouldn't have allowed him to get into the underground in the first place, and should have put him in a position where the only person he could kill was himself.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtthats better. a lot deeper thoughts. living up to the name now.....
How exactly is the returning the right of British subjects to own handguns going to help against suicide bombers?
When the British police use guns it is normally an armed response unit who only fire a few shots, and they don't normally use handguns as they are inaccurate over a range of more than 30 yards. In this case it was a plain clothes offic ...[text shortened]... st place, and should have put him in a position where the only person he could kill was himself.
Originally posted by dfm65Yes, it's always easier to say what people should have done than to do the right thing when you are actually there. Does that mean it's wrong to talk about it and have an opinion if we were not there? I don't think so. It would be wrong to blame those involved without knowing a whole lot more, but it is important to discuss how to handle similar situations in the future. That means you have to be critical and try to find out what went wrong (or whether something went wrong or not).
armchair police work is easy, isn't it?
Originally posted by dale21That wasn't substantially different to what I posted earlier. I've had another look at the BBC website in the meantime, if you look at the reports the guy is said to have grabbed one of the poles and a passenger when getting onto the train, this doesn't leave much scope for something to be in his hands unless he had more than the average number. This was a plain clothed officer - presumably from Scotland Yard, so he won't have had the level of training that the armed response units get, which you would hope includes keeping your head and not needlessly killing suspects. Shouting a warning is not in itself enough, he has to present an immediate threat to life. The underground has CCTV all over it, so it would be interesting to see some of that footage.
thats better. a lot deeper thoughts. living up to the name now.....
Originally posted by Nordlysi agree with you, but certain people seem determined to reach conclusions based on their own prejudices and what is surely insufficient information.
Yes, it's always easier to say what people should have done than to do the right thing when you are actually there. Does that mean it's wrong to talk about it and have an opinion if we were not there? I don't think so. It would be wrong to blame those involved without knowing a whole lot more, but it is important to discuss how to handle similar situation ...[text shortened]... ve to be critical and try to find out what went wrong (or whether something went wrong or not).
2 edits
Originally posted by dfm65Well, if you are going to start a thread it's not really reasonable to expect people to only voice opinions you agree with. Saying that they are based on insufficient information and prejudice is an attempt to undermine my argument by insult rather then producing a consistent counter-argument.
i agree with you, but certain people seem determined to reach conclusions based on their own prejudices and what is surely insufficient information.
About ten years ago some people were released from life sentences imposed after the provisional IRA set some bombs in some pubs, they became known as the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6. The people the police arrested were later shown to be innocent and basically fitted up by the police. One assumption that you are making is that the authorities act in a professional manner, or for that matter have the slightest idea of what they are doing (I'm restricting my comments to the security forces and politicians). It is a matter of concern that the police are increasingly willing to use lethal force. A man called Harry Stanley was shot dead by the police in Hackney a few years ago, he had a suspicious object in a carrier bag. It later turned out to be a table leg.
Oh and by the way, "eyewitness accounts from members of the public which are notoriously unreliable" are used as evidence in courts to send people to life (or in some countries) death sentences. What else am I meant to go on?