Russia’s FSB Allowed to Shoot Women, Children & Disabled People

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: Spider879

You know, I read nothing in your quoted source stating that non-violent protests could be deemed terrorist.

Ok here is what I am getting at do you remember the anti-Gay propaganda ban, it morphed from not have any obviously gay stuff in media and such to protesting against homophobia, that's how it works.
I do not believe for one second if a child is strapped to a bomb heading towards a crowd that no one would take him /her out.

Then that, is an entirely different issue altogether.

a reply to: Spider879

I wonder what do Pro Putin supporters of ATS have to say about this?

a reply to: Spider879

Not good, this will likely come back to bite them very hard indeed, when you make your own citizen's the target and impose state control the slippery slope to dictatorship has passed a very dangerous milestone and the right's of the citizen's for there state to protect and not oppress them are lost along with a growing number of other right's not long after (though let's be fair it happen's in the US and the rest of the western world anyway though is not usually an official policy).

This is a very sad day for the Russian people's democratic voice and social and humane justice in there country, shame on they whom proposed and even more on they whom supported and passed this into there law, if there had been a serious need to act like this they could have under emergency powers anyway so it is not for terrorists but in my mind could only be for use as a detterent against democratic peacetime protests.

Remind's me (though far more severe) of David Cameron making it legal for police to shoot people dead if they break a window or may be about too if protests turn into angry riot's here in the UK so let's be fair the Russkies are not alone in this erroneous type of action.

a reply to: nullafides

I really didn't have religion on the mind to be honest...

As I said I read it as "can be seen as collateral damage in a terror attack" rather than can be "taken out in the event of an attack by themselves".


I'm still confused as to what the Bill stands for because I'd have suspected it's already legal to use force against women, children & disabled people if they're terrorists.

The only thing I can think of is if they get into harms way they can be taken out whether they play a part or not.

a reply to: Spider879

Yeah, how quickly we forget. Remember "No More Hesitation?"



reason.com...

In response to criticism from civil liberties advocates and law enforcement groups alike, Law Enforcement Targets Inc.--a supplier of targets to the local, state, and federal law enforcement groups--has discontinued a line of targets that feature grandparents, a mother, a child, and a pregnant woman; all of them holding guns.

"We apologize for the offensive nature of our 'No More Hesitation' products," reads a letter that LET Inc. posted Feb. 21 on its company Facebook page.

This product line was originally requested and designed by the law enforcement community to train police officers for unusually complex situations where split-second decisions could lead to unnecessary loss of life.

Let's practice killing pregnant women, children, and Grandma.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jonjonj

It's half past 2 in the morning, Jon.

Give me some lee-way here.

I'm drinking some cider for you bub!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Honestly, I didn't read it that way.....

But, hey...different eyes see things different ways.....that's all

a reply to: infolurker

Wow!

a reply to: LABTECH767

Remind's me (though far more severe) of David Cameron making it legal for police to shoot people dead if they break a window or may be about too if protests turn into angry riot's here in the UK so let's be fair the Russkies are not alone in this erroneous type of action.

David signed this into law, what the heck is going on here?? super surveillance draconian laws all in the name of what exactly.

a reply to: infolurker

Yeah, how quickly we forget. Remember "No More Hesitation?"

Notice they all have guns pointed at you?

They aren't unarmed civilians in those targets are they...that makes a difference.

You learn to shoot those pointing weapons at you not unarmed civilians.

originally posted by: infolurker
Let's practice killing pregnant women, children, and Grandma.

Oh look, conveniently you left out all those targets had guns they were pointing..

Or ... all those Civilians, smiling or not, holding Guns is 'the Police' who created these targets as a way for all Police Agencies to Assume all Civillians are Guilty before proven Innocent, thus imaging a child or an old woman is the enemy already and therefore Game to shoot them, because, they might just have a Gun!

a reply to: awareness10

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

originally posted by: awareness10
Or ... all those Civilians, smiling or not, holding Guns is 'the Police' who created these targets as a way for all Police Agencies to Assume all Civillians are Guilty before proven Innocent, thus imaging a child or an old woman is the enemy already and therefore Game to shoot them, because, they might just have a Gun!

Because no woman , kid or old person has ever killed someone or comitted a violent crime so no bother training for that?

a reply to: Spider879


if hiding behind a hostage is no longer safe , and the terrorist knows that it would not stop anyone opening fire on him

then maybe it would deter any hostage takers in the future .

a reply to: Spider879

I guess you missed that ML King was assassinated on American soil in way back in 1968. Or that in Seattle in 1999 protesters outside the WTO were attacked by the black shirt thugs of the US constabulary without special legislation being passed!

Speaking about power grab (or power retention more accurately) some theorize that JFK was assassinated because he dared pass a law that that gave money printing back to the Govt of the People of the USA.

Putins no choir boy, but at least he's had some role models from the West as to how to deal with the public.

It looks like only one site has this story, Slon.ru, so I went looking for it and found the article here (in Russian). That page has a link to the Russian parliament page about the new legislations, this one (in Russian).

So, it would be interesting if anyone that knows how to read Russian (I know only a few words) could give us a quick translation of the real law.

Any volunteers?

Well, ISIS is training children to be killers, and the San Bernadino shooter was a female immigrant. So, killing women and children should definitely be a consideration. And as everyone in the west knows, it's unthinkable to turn away women and children "refugees".

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.newsweek.com...

www.cnn.com...

So, should the West just stand by like idiots or should they follow Russias lead? Russia is quickly proving to be the leader in the war on Radical Islam. Maybe that's why they're passing these laws.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: awareness10
Or ... all those Civilians, smiling or not, holding Guns is 'the Police' who created these targets as a way for all Police Agencies to Assume all Civillians are Guilty before proven Innocent, thus imaging a child or an old woman is the enemy already and therefore Game to shoot them, because, they might just have a Gun!

Because no woman , kid or old person has ever killed someone or comitted a violent crime so no bother training for that?

Are you trying to tell us that the Police are so incompetent that for the last few decades they're just figuring out how to train their forces Properly? I really can't see the positive track record so far with all the left right activists crying about their shotty work. Have you forgotten that they're working for Americans not the other way around?