Man shot dead by police in London...

Originally posted by dale21
unfortunately it does change things if you have a badge. You are given permission to kill. serve to protect . so they will get us to give them increased power as means of "protecting" us, which will in turn lead to us sacrificing part of our freedom. That is a big price to pay. But what can you do when war is brought to your country?

This case was nothing to do with 'war'. It was a drunk Scotsman with a table leg.

Originally posted by Redmike
This case was nothing to do with 'war'. It was a drunk Scotsman with a table leg.

you never seen braveheart?

Originally posted by dale21
unfortunately it does change things if you have a badge. You are given permission to kill. serve to protect . so they will get us to give them increased power as means of "protecting" us, which will in turn lead to us sacrificing part of our freedom. That is a big price to pay. But what can you do when war is brought to your country?

This is rather the point isn't it. The government invaded Iraq, and lied to do so. Now the war has been brought to this country. So what conclusion do you draw?

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is rather the point isn't it. The government invaded Iraq, and lied to do so. Now the war has been brought to this country. So what conclusion do you draw?

They want war, lets give them war!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by dale21
They want war, lets give them war!!!!!!!!!

Apparently the Islamic Fundamentalist extremists agree with you. How's that plan working out?

Originally posted by ivangrice
I don't know what its like to me in that sort of situation, because that's not my job.

Looks like we're getting somewhere.

We pay these people to be able to handle these kind of situations. They're supposed to be highly trained. ...[text shortened]... What if it were an accident? What if...

Sloppy, very sloppy.

I don't know about English law, but basically in the US police have no special permission to kill you. The rules for the police to use lethal force are the same as anybody else; in self-defence or to protect others against deadly force or if required in an attempt to arrest or prevent a person from committing certain highly dangerous felonies. I think it is premature to judge what happened in this shooting; the eyewitness reports are somewhat contradictory and the person shot hasn't even been ID'ed. I'll wait for further facts before I venture an opinion; initial reports are often riddled with inaccuracies.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't know about English law, but basically in the US police have no special permission to kill you. The rules for the police to use lethal force are the same as anybody else; in self-defence or to protect others against dead ...[text shortened]... e an opinion; initial reports are often riddled with inaccuracies.

In the UK they have to demonstrate a clear and immediate danger to themselves or members of the public. So pretty much the same. They can't do it soley to prevent a crime. They should also shout a warning but it's not required [this is an edit - I checked on the rules]. There is no such thing as a licence to kill, although sometimes you'd think there was.

The person not being identified strikes me as a bit odd since they are saying that the killing was part of the ongoing anti-terror investigation, so if he was a known suspect then why do they not know who he is?

Originally posted by DeepThought
In the UK they have to demonstrate a clear and immediate danger to themselves or members of the public. So pretty much the same. They can't do it soley to prevent a crime. They are also required to shout a warning. There is no such thing as a licence to kill, although sometimes you'd think there was.

The person not being identified strikes me as ...[text shortened]... ing anti-terror investigation, so if he was a known suspect then why do they not know who he is?

i think your forgetting a certain Bond, James Bond.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is rather the point isn't it. The government invaded Iraq, and lied to do so. Now the war has been brought to this country. So what conclusion do you draw?

i see you continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that terrorist acts were perpetrated and planned against Western targets before the Iraq war.

and even if there is a link, it's like arguing that opposition to Hitler brought the Blitz to London. Sure, but sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in. it's as if people in 1939 said 'well we don't have a right to fight Hitler, given our colonial past'. Patently bs.

Originally posted by dfm65
i see you continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that terrorist acts were perpetrated and planned against Western targets before the Iraq war.

and even if there is a link, it's like arguing that opposition to Hitler brought the Blitz to London. Sure, but sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in. it's as if people in 1939 said 'well we don't have a right to fight Hitler, given our colonial past'. Patently bs.

great point, well point. Have a non-sub rec.

we gotta make a firm stand, united.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't know about English law, but basically in the US police have no special permission to kill you. The rules for the police to use lethal force are the same as anybody else; in self-defence or to protect others against deadly force or if required in an attempt to arrest or prevent a person from committing certain highly dangerous felonies. I ...[text shortened]... further facts before I venture an opinion; initial reports are often riddled with inaccuracies.

I totally agree with you. So my rec.
I'm working in simulators for training (in shooting) law enforcement personal (alla FATS).
It is considered a terminal error if the cop or security person shoots the (supposed) agresor before he makes a single movement that can put your life in danger. It isn't important if the suspected person has a gun in his hand. You should wait for a really aggressive movement from him to shoot him.

Originally posted by dfm65
i see you continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that terrorist acts were perpetrated and planned against Western targets before the Iraq war.

and even if there is a link, it's like arguing that opposition to Hitler brought the Blitz t ...[text shortened]... e a right to fight Hitler, given our colonial past'. Patently bs.

Well the west has been messing around with the Middle East for donkey's years. I seem to remember the first Gulf War was well before the attacks on the world trade centre. Which were to do with the huge US military presence in Saudi Arabia, who are there to prop up the highly corrupt, unpopular and decidedly undemocratic government there. To argue that the attacks in London have nothing to do with what the British State gets up to overseas is untennable. If so, tell me what they are about, you're not telling me they do it soley out of anti-western sentiment.

So we are fighting for what we believe in in Iraq. The argument that lead 'us' to war was that Saddam Hussain had biological and chemical weapons that had not been decommisioned. Not one gramme of biological or chemical agent has been found. So this was a lie. What British and American soldiers are being killed for in Iraq is a lie. What Blair and Bush want from the war is control over oil supplies - their predecessors were perfectly happy to put Saddam Hussain in power and arm him when he was fighting their enemies in Iran - which is when he committed the bulk of his atrocities. People in the Middle east know it. So do people here. They see air strikes on Baghdad and Fallujah and know that ordinary muslims are being killed. 100,000 civilians have died there so far. Clearly this does not excuse the murder of ordinary people over here, but people will be driven towards this type of act while our rulers kill people abroad. So if you want to stop terrorism stop the war in Iraq and support for the terrorist bosses will fade away, and they will be handed over by people repulsed by their actions; but only if we get rid of the people here who lie to us here to take us to war.

I don't think that there is a comparison with the second world war, since then Hitler had clearly invaded Poland, Churchill didn't make that up to justify declaring war.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well the west has been messing around with the Middle East for donkey's years. I seem to remember the first Gulf War was well before the attacks on the world trade centre. Those attacks were to do with the huge US military presence i ...[text shortened]... d Poland, Churchill didn't make that up to justify declaring war.

[Edit] Drat - I was trying to correct a typo.
[Edit 2] Now I've accidentally made a post something relevant may as well go in.

Look at this, from a "professional" police force:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708319.stm

[Edit 3] while I'm at it...

The case for war...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1511720,00.html

Originally posted by DeepThought
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703853.stm
The state is capable of carnage on a much wider scale - they've killed around 100,000 civilians in Iraq, already up to half the number Saddam Hussain killed...

Thanks for the information about those arresting being released. But the 100,000 figure is way low - some sources say that there were at least that many killed in the battle for Fallujah alone, and many believe the total actual figure for the Iraq war is much closer to 500,000 if not greater. god bless America. 😠

Originally posted by Freddie2004
apparently he was running through the tube station, being chased by undercover police men, he vaulted the barrier and after a chase down the escalator he was shot as he was getting onto the tube. clearly the police did the right thing; this man was refusing to stop and ignoring police who were carrying firearms. Although why they shot at his chest i don ...[text shortened]... han the head but if he was carrying explosives then that could have been very dangerous.

Fred

I think they are trying to send a message