Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

Originally posted by devilwasp
PS, I dont trust our newspapers, why?
They have lied before.
[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

ps: As have the Police........!

Tricky times we live hey!

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
ps: As have the Police........!

But what do you define as a lie?
The information they where given or the information you KNOW to be true?

Tricky times we live hey!

No paraniod times we live in...

Originally posted by devilwasp
But what do you define as a lie?

In the past. The police have lied/tried to cover things up about things in the past, espeically about incidences involving 'ethnic' minorities. Like you stated the media has also lied in the past, which makes getting the truth of the matter tricky.

We are clearly going to argue in circles so I'll leave it at that.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
In the past. The police have lied about things in the past, espeically about incidences involving 'ethnic' minorities. Like you stated the paper have also lied in the past, which makes getting the truth of the matter tricky.

Is this the past?
Wow nice temporal anomoly there..

We are clearly going to argue in circles so I'll leave it at that.

The universe works in cirlces...well not really cirlces, just as round as possible.

Originally posted by devilwasp
PS, I dont trust our newspapers, why?
They have lied before.

Would before mean the past by any chance?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Is this the past?
Wow nice temporal anomoly there..

A dog chases its tail in circles too

Originally posted by devilwasp

They made a mistake, because of this people will tarnish and ruin the police image.
Everyone,
If you(anyone not oduim) want to do so, go ahead.

Just dont talk to me.

'Tarnish' the police image? I'm sorry but the police image is not some ideal or some fragile crystal glass you put on a cupboard somewhere and gaze at from afar.

They screwed up - they covered up, superiors lied, denied and used the media to their advantage. Not every witness lied, but what voices did you read about in the paper? Was there factual evidence behind those reports? How long were the coat comments allowed to whizz around posing as truth? Could the police not have at least quelled that bit of gossip? Or do you think they were waiting for it to all go neatly away? Maybe they like you believed that it is OK to sarcrifice the life of an innocent victim - not to save 1000s of lives but out of sheer stupidity and ignorance.

His death didn't save any lives. He died a stupid death in vain and that is a tragedy NOT an accident. If anything, the action of the police has brought scrutiny to this whole ugly matter, so don't blame us for tarnishing their reputations. Their actions have done that quite well.

If *YOU* want to continue to defend them and hide behind the 'it's your life or mine' speech fine! I'll just be sitting here with the others proclaiming as loudly as I can that it is WRONG to kill an innocent human being by unloading your gun into his head.

Dress it up how you want it - It was wrong. The cover-up was wrong. The senior officials were wrong. The media was wrong. And we are wrong if we believe that any of these things make it right

Just found an article written by a guy John Thorpe MBE.

I don't know where he got this information from, but apparently Jean Charles de Menezes was in the UK illegally. His visa had run out.
The Brazilian Police have been allowed to investigate the British Police Force too.

The story is, to me, off the cuff and very close to the bone. But it does make some valid, if not hard remarks. Read it all here.

story here........

The shoot to kill policy for police departments over here in the United States are very lenient. This is because the police DO NOT have a right to shoot at somebody running if they refuse to cooperate. Second, most departments have banned shoot to kill except in the most extreme circumstances. Third, IT IS AND WILL ALWAYS be up to the said police officer to deem whether or not if someone is a threat to their life.

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Would before mean the past by any chance?

Well yes and no, they have lied in the present, past and future.

A dog chases its tail in circles too

Yup, unless your dogs too lazy to do so, like mine was...

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well yes and no, they have lied in the present, past and future.

I like the future part.

Originally posted by nikelbee
'Tarnish' the police image? I'm sorry but the police image is not some ideal or some fragile crystal glass you put on a cupboard somewhere and gaze at from afar.

The police image is good, in my eyes and my friends eyes atleast.

They screwed up - they covered up, superiors lied, denied and used the media to their advantage. Not every witness lied, but what voices did you read about in the paper? Was there factual evidence behind those reports? How long were the coat comments allowed to whizz around posing as truth? Could the police not have at least quelled that bit of gossip? Or do you think they were waiting for it to all go neatly away? Maybe they like you believed that it is OK to sarcrifice the life of an innocent victim - not to save 1000s of lives but out of sheer stupidity and ignorance.

What?
Please use coherant sentances.
How did they cover "it" up?
What ever "it" is..
Also this bit about stupidy and ignorance, are you trying to call the police ignorant and stupid?

His death didn't save any lives. He died a stupid death in vain and that is a tragedy NOT an accident. If anything, the action of the police has brought scrutiny to this whole ugly matter, so don't blame us for tarnishing their reputations. Their actions have done that quite well.

His death didnt save lives , but if it had been a suicide bomber it would have, could these police know if he had a bomb before they grabbed him?

I will blame you for tarnishing it, the police made a mistake and guess what??
THEY CANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.
Why??
Because they are not allowed to get involved in politics.
So, you want to beat a person when he or she is down go ahead, just dont expect my support or admiration.

If *YOU* want to continue to defend them and hide behind the 'it's your life or mine' speech fine! I'll just be sitting here with the others proclaiming as loudly as I can that it is WRONG to kill an innocent human being by unloading your gun into his head.

I will defend them, I am not hideing behind anything.
You scream as loud as you can, I dont need anyone to tell me what is wrong or right.

Dress it up how you want it - It was wrong. The cover-up was wrong. The senior officials were wrong. The media was wrong. And we are wrong if we believe that any of these things make it right

I am not dressing it up, YOU on the other hand could be accused of that.
The police acted, whether they acted right or wrong they had to act.
Would you have acted?
I would have.
Tell me exsactly what makes you think that the police think killing someone is right?
Tell me! THEY DONT!
Every life they end or hurt HURTS THEM.

I ask you, what would you do now with the police force?
Remove the guns?

Originally posted by devilwasp
What?
Please use coherant sentances.
How did they cover "it" up?
What ever "it" is..

'They' covered it up - meaning the police. Don't you read the papers? It has been all over the television and papers for a week. Even the various units within the Met are arguing. I won't explain what 'it' is if you don't know. Why bother posting on this thread if you pretend you have no idea what I'm talking about? And please don't highlight my incoherant sentences when yours are lacking in quite a few areas.

Also this bit about stupidy and ignorance, are you trying to call the police ignorant and stupid?

Are you saying that I can't? Or that I shouldn't? It seemed pretty clear what I was trying to say, I usually don't mince words. 'Their' actions were stupid and ignorant yes. Please look up the word ignorant, it isn't the word you think it is, it means w/out knowledge.

His death didnt save lives , but if it had been a suicide bomber it would have, could these police know if he had a bomb before they grabbed him?

Yes exactly. If he HAD been a bomber it WOULD have made a difference. Notice the word would in that sentence. It makes one heck of a difference.

I will blame you for tarnishing it, the police made a mistake and guess what??

Let me get this straight... THEY (the police in case you don't know who I mean by now) shoot an innocent man, but *I* am to blame for tarnishing their image? Hmmm someone's logic needs a retune.

So, you want to beat a person when he or she is down go ahead, just dont expect my support or admiration.

Again, 'they' shot an innocent man; one of them held him down, while another fired shots into his head. He was unarmed, unconnected to terrorist activty and seemingly unaware of what was happening to him. I think it is ironic that you would use the phrase 'beat a person when he is down' when it is exacly what we are arguing.

Furthermore, I neither want nor care for your admiration or support. I am just stating my views which differ vastly from yours.

I will defend them, I am not hideing behind anything.
You scream as loud as you can, I dont need anyone to tell me what is wrong or right.

It is your perogative to defend them just as it is mine to argue the contrary. If you don't want to listen, don't. I will still say what I think is right. I would hope for your sake you would do the same.

I am not dressing it up, YOU on the other hand could be accused of that.
The police acted, whether they acted right or wrong they had to act.
Would you have acted?
I would have.
Tell me exsactly what makes you think that the police think killing someone is right?
Tell me! THEY DONT!
Every life they end or hurt HURTS THEM.

I am not dressing it up. How could I when 'they' did such a good job themselves? My intention is to undress those lies and cover-ups and find out what resembles truth.

I ask you, what would you do now with the police force?

I would ask that justice be done.

Remove the guns?

I ask you what you want done? Ignore the situation and hope it goes away? Try to forget that the police killed an innocent man in the middle of the day on the tube in front of witnessess? Ignore that their superiors lied and covered up the facts of the case? Ask that people turn away from what is an embarassing situation so the police can save face?

If they had acted honourably from the start I think people would be talking a different story. I am aware that some of the lower ranking officers will suffer because of the decision of senior officials. That is regretable, but that is also politics. Like it or not 'they' have signed on for a job in which politics comes with the terrority. No light task, I'll grant, but it shouldn't be when you have the power to save or kill lives.



[edit on 22-8-2005 by nikelbee]

Originally posted by nikelbee
'They' covered it up - meaning the police. Don't you read the papers?

I dont read the papers, they are mostly full of BS.

It has been all over the television and papers for a week. Even the various units within the Met are arguing. I won't explain what 'it' is if you don't know. Why bother posting on this thread if you pretend you have no idea what I'm talking about? And please don't highlight my incoherant sentences when yours are lacking in quite a few areas.

Oh really?
Your ranting on at me for defending the people that defend the UK, wth??
The met always argue, its called inhouse politics.

Are you saying that I can't? Or that I shouldn't? It seemed pretty clear what I was trying to say, I usually don't mince words. 'Their' actions were stupid and ignorant yes. Please look up the word ignorant, it isn't the word you think it is, it means w/out knowledge.

Yeah its with out knowledge, your calling people who are actually smarter than the average punter stupid...
Its your opinion mate, even if it is a closed minded word.

Yes exactly. If he HAD been a bomber it WOULD have made a difference. Notice the word would in that sentence. It makes one heck of a difference.

Yeah so police (The armed unit) did what they had to on the data they had.
Tell me, since when did acting on the data you recieve become a crime?

Let me get this straight... THEY (the police in case you don't know who I mean by now) shoot an innocent man, but *I* am to blame for tarnishing their image? Hmmm someone's logic needs a retune.

No the police shot a man who the officer must have thought was a danger, its YOUR fault that YOU and people LIKE you decide to jump in and attack them with little or no reason.

Again, 'they' shot an innocent man; one of them held him down, while another fired shots into his head. He was unarmed, unconnected to terrorist activty and seemingly unaware of what was happening to him. I think it is ironic that you would use the phrase 'beat a person when he is down' when it is exacly what we are arguing.

They shot a man , the officer must have thought he was a danger other wise he would not have fired.
Your acting on witness's statements, not the official inquiry.
THAT wont be complete for months.

Furthermore, I neither want nor care for your admiration or support. I am just stating my views which differ vastly from yours.

If you are simply stateing your views then why openly and directly aim your opinions and insult the police IN MY FACE?

It is your perogative to defend them just as it is mine to argue the contrary. If you don't want to listen, don't. I will still say what I think is right. I would hope for your sake you would do the same.

I wont listen to what IMO is BS and frankly ignorant statments.
What I say is right IMO.

I am not dressing it up. How could I when 'they' did such a good job themselves? My intention is to undress those lies and cover-ups and find out what resembles truth.

What lies?
You mean the mistakes in statements?
Also who's truth?
Mine or yours?
Truth is a perception and a POV.

I would ask that justice be done.

How would you do this?
Arrest the officers?

I ask you what you want done? Ignore the situation and hope it goes away? Try to forget that the police killed an innocent man in the middle of the day on the tube in front of witnessess? Ignore that their superiors lied and covered up the facts of the case? Ask that people turn away from what is an embarassing situation so the police can save face?

I would want the men incharge to explain thier actions.
I would want the man who pulled the trigger to tell me why and if he thought it was a justified shooting.
I would want to know WHAT happened, and not just hearsay.

If they had acted honourably from the start I think people would be talking a different story. I am aware that some of the lower ranking officers will suffer because of the decision of senior officials. That is regretable, but that is also politics. Like it or not 'they' have signed on for a job in which politics comes with the terrority. No light task, I'll grant, but it shouldn't be when you have the power to save or kill lives.
[edit on 22-8-2005 by nikelbee]

Acted honourably?
Since when is there honour in combat , even one sided combat.
You would talking a diffrent story if it was a suicide bomber.
They signed up to do a job, everytime they pull the trigger they're lives are practically ruined.
Doesnt matter if the round hits the target or you have a misfire, the fact is you pulled the trigger.
I dont think you quite understand what will happen to these men and women.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

So, what do you think to the news item i found?
Makes for some good reading eh?

Analise what the guy wrote. Is he correct with what he is saying? Lets have some serious feed back on this. Its the only comment i can find that comes from one person who has some recognition within the media world.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Your ranting on at me for defending the people that defend the UK, wth??
The met always argue, its called inhouse politics.

you don't always have to defend something. sometimes certain things make a certain scenerio undefendable, hence de menezes.

Yeah so police (The armed unit) did what they had to on the data they had.
Tell me, since when did acting on the data you recieve become a crime?

data? what data would this be? the people telling them to bring in de menezes alive?...because that's what word came from the top.

No the police shot a man who the officer must have thought was a danger, its YOUR fault that YOU and people LIKE you decide to jump in and attack them with little or no reason.

no reason? think again devilwasp, there's every reason right now. i was defending de menezes' rights before, even with the twisted eye witness/media frenzy stories.

also how in the world could de menezes be a danger, he was walking around in crowded places for almost 30 minutes, that automatically means he cannot have been a danger and you cannot use the arguement that police thought he was a danger or a threat, as it clearly shows he was not.

They shot a man , the officer must have thought he was a danger other wise he would not have fired.
Your acting on witness's statements, not the official inquiry.
THAT wont be complete for months.

they are leaked documents from the enquiry, and not the flawed eye witness statements. i'm sure if these leaked documents were wrong someone would have come forward from the enquiry board and said so.

again you speak of officers thinking de menezes was a danger... how? he was clearly not. and also does this give an officer enough right to shoot someone dead just because 'he' thinks he is a danger? that's closer to a police state than we'll ever be.

What lies?
You mean the mistakes in statements?
Also who's truth?
Mine or yours?

the lies of the statements first made, and the lie ian blair said at the conference after the shooting. 'de menezes, direcly linked to the terrorism'...oops 'sorry now he's not'. 'de menezes challenged police and didnot obey orders'... oops 'sorry he didn't, he wasn't acting suspiciously, didn't jump the ticket barriers, but we shot him anyway'.

How would you do this?
Arrest the officers?

what in your book would constitute to an officer being arrested? shooting 3 or 4 innocent people, shooting a baby, maybe shooting a kid who wouldn't get off his bicycle...what in your mind would that be? because obviously shooting one innocent man isn't enough to be arrested. sure it was a mistake, yet in that line of work a mistake usually means a life.

They signed up to do a job, everytime they pull the trigger they're lives are practically ruined.
Doesnt matter if the round hits the target or you have a misfire, the fact is you pulled the trigger.
I dont think you quite understand what will happen to these men and women.

i don't think you quite understand how retarded your arguement sounds. also if a police officer doesn't want to take on the responsibilies of shooting a person, then he shouldn't choose to carry a handgun. no one can 'make' that officer carry a gun, he 'chooses' to.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
you don't always have to defend something. sometimes certain things make a certain scenerio undefendable, hence de menezes.

I dont believe in that logic.
De menezes is not an undefendable subject.

data? what data would this be? the people telling them to bring in de menezes alive?...because that's what word came from the top.

Data; information.
They acted on the information given to them.
You want to fault them on that fine, I'd like to see you do a better job in thier shoes.

no reason? think again devilwasp, there's every reason right now. i was defending de menezes' rights before, even with the twisted eye witness/media frenzy stories.

There is no reason why you should try and wreck their image.
You where defending his rights, I understand that arguement but some othere members here where not.

also how in the world could de menezes be a danger, he was walking around in crowded places for almost 30 minutes, that automatically means he cannot have been a danger and you cannot use the arguement that police thought he was a danger or a threat, as it clearly shows he was not.

What?
Walking around for 30 minutes not hurting anyone doesnt make you a danger?
Yeah sure ok, the suicide bombers in london werent threats ethier since they where walking around for quite a while before they detonated.

they are leaked documents from the enquiry, and not the flawed eye witness statements. i'm sure if these leaked documents were wrong someone would have come forward from the enquiry board and said so.

Leaked documents?
How many times have we been lied to by the papers by "leaked" this and "leaked" that.
Until I see an official report anything else is just hearsay.

again you speak of officers thinking de menezes was a danger... how? he was clearly not. and also does this give an officer enough right to shoot someone dead just because 'he' thinks he is a danger? that's closer to a police state than we'll ever be.

What?
How can you make that assumption that he was "clearly not" a threat?

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large

www.bsdgb.co.uk...:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence

The authority for self defence, of course, doesn't stop with defending oneself from attack. It is perfectly permissible to use reasonable force to assist another person who is under threat of attack. For example, in Rose6 the accused was acquitted of murdering his father, whom he shot dead, whilst the father was launching a murderous attack on the accused's mother

the lies of the statements first made, and the lie ian blair said at the conference after the shooting. 'de menezes, direcly linked to the terrorism'...oops 'sorry now he's not'. 'de menezes challenged police and didnot obey orders'... oops 'sorry he didn't, he wasn't acting suspiciously, didn't jump the ticket barriers, but we shot him anyway'.

Was Ian Blair there?
No, he is receiving information from below.

what in your book would constitute to an officer being arrested? shooting 3 or 4 innocent people, shooting a baby, maybe shooting a kid who wouldn't get off his bicycle...what in your mind would that be? because obviously shooting one innocent man isn't enough to be arrested. sure it was a mistake, yet in that line of work a mistake usually means a life.

I would constitute an officer being arrested if he acted illegally and unlawfully.
Yet again you draw attention to "innocent" , he wasnt innocent of being illegally in the country now was he?
If he had left when he was supposed to he wouldnt be dead.

i don't think you quite understand how retarded your arguement sounds.

What part of it sounds stupid?
The part where an officer has his life ruined the minute he pulls the trigger?

also if a police officer doesn't want to take on the responsibilies of shooting a person, then he shouldn't choose to carry a handgun. no one can 'make' that officer carry a gun, he 'chooses' to.

1) There are no "hand guns" , guns are on boats.
2) Officers dont get forced, they get offered it and its still a terrible burden.
3)Where are you going with this?

What I've Learned

Having given careful thought to the matter, I have finally formed an opinion on this.

In answer to the topic question, I believe a Shoot To Kill (STK) policy is correct.

However, I believe it is only correct when combined with a Make Damn Sure You Shoot The Right Person (MDSYSTRP) policy, which appears to have lapsed in various increasingly disturbing ways in this case.

Also necessary in conjunction with those policies would be a new Don't Lie To The Press When You Shoot Someone (DLTTPWYSS) policy.

Hopefully, the London-area MDSYSTRP and DLTTPWYSS programs will see some improvement in coordination with the STK policy in the coming months.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Just found an article written by a guy John Thorpe MBE.

I don't know where he got this information from, but apparently Jean Charles de Menezes was in the UK illegally. His visa had run out.
The Brazilian Police have been allowed to investigate the British Police Force too.

then i guess this guy has access to information that even the home secretary doesnt have as he stated that Menezes WAS legally in the country after the allegation against him was made. of course, he could always have lied about that i guess....

Originally posted by devilwasp
De menezes is not an undefendable subject.

by not defending the police's action, doesn't mean that you're then against the police, it's merely stating that a lot went wrong that day and that it was due to police error entirely. then again, you probably won't like this logic either.

Data; information.
They acted on the information given to them.
You want to fault them on that fine, I'd like to see you do a better job in thier shoes.

i never said i wanted to do their job, never said i could do a better job than them. so you always do what people tell you to do? that just makes you a pawn and nothing more. those officers were clearly inept of rational thought as they were just following blind orders, given by so-called intelligence.

There is no reason why you should try and wreck their image.
You where defending his rights, I understand that arguement but some othere members here where not.

i'm trying to wreck the police image? i'm trying to show you that the police acted wronly that day because you don't seem to think so.

Walking around for 30 minutes not hurting anyone doesnt make you a danger?
Yeah sure ok, the suicide bombers in london werent threats ethier since they where walking around for quite a while before they detonated.

so every person in london is a danger according to that ideology of yours. watch out londoners your human rights don't matter anymore. also you can't even begin to compare de menezes to suicide bombers. for one police weren't following the suicide bombers, however they were following de menezes, and should have clearly seen he was no threat.

Leaked documents?
How many times have we been lied to by the papers by "leaked" this and "leaked" that.
Until I see an official report anything else is just hearsay.

it wasn't the papers. it was itv. the papers were quite happy to publish eye witness statements as truth. ian blair was quite happy to go along with most of what the eye witness statements said. i never was. i'm more happy going along with leaked documents that no one has yet disputed this information is false.

What?
How can you make that assumption that he was "clearly not" a threat?

denim jacket. not suspicious. picking up free newspaper. using electronic pass to get passed ticket barrier. sitting on train. apprehended by surveillence officers, and subdued at this point. where's the threat? even after all the circumstances of suicide bombers and being edgy doesn't mean we should 'suspect' everyone. it's that classic example of if you don't let us search you, or suspect you, or even shoot you then you're with the terrorists.

Was Ian Blair there?
No, he is receiving information from below.

so that means it's alright for ian blair to say 'anything' so long as it comes from other people?

I would constitute an officer being arrested if he acted illegally and unlawfully.
Yet again you draw attention to "innocent" , he wasnt innocent of being illegally in the country now was he?
If he had left when he was supposed to he wouldnt be dead.

that's like saying if he had called in sick to work that day he also wouldn't be dead. or perhaps if the officers hadn't have acted so irrationaly then he would still be alive. if ifs and buts were candy and nuts then christmas would be everyday.

What part of it sounds stupid?
The part where an officer has his life ruined the minute he pulls the trigger?

he chose that job. he chose to carry that gun. he 'chose' to pull the trigger. this means he accepts all the responsibilities along with it.

1) There are no "hand guns" , guns are on boats.

stop being a smart-arse for once. also...

definition of gun: ''a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun)''. so stfu about guns being on boats.

2) Officers dont get forced, they get offered it and its still a terrible burden.

they still have the choice to carry a gun. if they don't want to they can leave the force or find some job within the force that doesn't mean they have to carry a gun.

i see another long-winded arguement coming on again... pointless.

[edit on 23-8-2005 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
by not defending the police's action, doesn't mean that you're then against the police, it's merely stating that a lot went wrong that day and that it was due to police error entirely. then again, you probably won't like this logic either.

I dont believe anything is undefendable.
Yeah but I still am going to defend them.

i never said i wanted to do their job, never said i could do a better job than them.

I wont make the usual comment here.

so you always do what people tell you to do? that just makes you a pawn and nothing more. those officers were clearly inept of rational thought as they were just following blind orders, given by so-called intelligence.

The officers didnt just get the " shoot him" order, they where most likely ordered to stop him but the officer at the trigger made a RATIONAL thought that the man was a danger.
I follow legal orders BTW, in the police and military and cadets you have to follow orders.

i'm trying to wreck the police image? i'm trying to show you that the police acted wronly that day because you don't seem to think so.

Acted wrong in whose opinion yours or mine?
Right and wrong are interpretations.

so every person in london is a danger according to that ideology of yours.

Nope, acording to your logic though every one who walks around in crowded areas for a certain ammount of time is "safe".

watch out londoners your human rights don't matter anymore.

Not really, if they didnt matter the police wouldnt be there defending them.

also you can't even begin to compare de menezes to suicide bombers. for one police weren't following the suicide bombers, however they were following de menezes, and should have clearly seen he was no threat.

I can and have.

Can you tell the diffrence between an illegal forigner and a suicide bomber before he acts?

it wasn't the papers. it was itv. the papers were quite happy to publish eye witness statements as truth. ian blair was quite happy to go along with most of what the eye witness statements said. i never was. i'm more happy going along with leaked documents that no one has yet disputed this information is false.

ITV, or who ever have done the same.
"Papers" was just one source.
Eye witnesses where there, "leaked documents" can be faked.

denim jacket. not suspicious. picking up free newspaper. using electronic pass to get passed ticket barrier. sitting on train. apprehended by surveillence officers, and subdued at this point. where's the threat? even after all the circumstances of suicide bombers and being edgy doesn't mean we should 'suspect' everyone. it's that classic example of if you don't let us search you, or suspect you, or even shoot you then you're with the terrorists.

What?
Your picking facts and ommiting others.
The police had watched his flat and followed him, the "subdued" bit is simply your opinion, the officer said he had the mans arms down his sides, anything could have been in his hands or pockets, WELL WITHIN REACH.

so that means it's alright for ian blair to say 'anything' so long as it comes from other people?

He says the information he recieves.
It has to come from other people otherwise your saying Mr Ian Blair was at the shooting and pulled the trigger and followed the target and done the entire operation by himself....are you saying that?

that's like saying if he had called in sick to work that day he also wouldn't be dead. or perhaps if the officers hadn't have acted so irrationaly then he would still be alive. if ifs and buts were candy and nuts then christmas would be everyday.

So? The fact remains if he did he would have been alive, it was a mistake.

he chose that job. he chose to carry that gun. he 'chose' to pull the trigger. this means he accepts all the responsibilities along with it.

Yeah thats the point, and yet you want more done to them?

stop being a smart-arse for once. also...

definition of gun: ''a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun)''. so stfu about guns being on boats.

I am not being a smart arse, you want to get seros, lets be serios then.
Anything over 30mm is a "gun" , this whole "hand gun" thing is a civilain makeing.
Military and police call them rifles, which is the proper term for every pistol, rifle, fully automatic rifle and air rifle.

Due to the barrel being RIFLED, hence the name, rifle.

they still have the choice to carry a gun. if they don't want to they can leave the force or find some job within the force that doesn't mean they have to carry a gun.

Thats true, they dont need to carry a rifle.

i see another long-winded arguement coming on again... pointless.
[edit on 23-8-2005 by shaunybaby]

I didnt know that defending inocent men and women was pointless?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]