njc110381 Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 In my opinion of someone is threatening or about to carry out an act than take another life (throw a petrol bomb near a domestic residence is a perfect example) then why not shoot them? When you put someone elses life at risk you can only expect them to fight back with equal force and rightly so. Anyone who is prepared to stand up and say "what if you're wrong" needs to take a step back and ask themself this - what good reason can one have to be holding a lit petrol bomb at a time of unrest? I'm sorry but if you believe that they may have a good excuse then you have more faith in the nature of these young lads than I do. It's time for you to wake up and smell the smoke - it's clear to see for most of us. Nobody can say that the police have never made a mistake but on the whole I'm sure they've saved a great many more lives than they have taken without good reason. What use is a police force that cannot use force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Look, no Gold commander will ever authorise the carriage of firearms in a riot unless there is intel to suggest rioters possess or have access to them. For use against petrol bombers get real, they didn't have the balls to deploy something that sprays water let alone bullets. my point exactly... don't get me wrong... I think the recommendations are great and any scrote willing to torch a building without considering the lives he is putting at risk deserves to be put down... permanently.... but can you imagine the media ****-storm that would ensue... I may be wrong but I can just see 'John the firestarter' becoming 'fluffy little Johnny who was a lovely lad and wouldn't hurt a fly' once he had a bullet in his head! The Police would instantly become the bad guys! We all know the truth of it but that's not how the media will have the public seeing it! Edited December 20, 2011 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin128 Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 Baton rounds and water cannon ... why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 I'm sure baton rounds were ruled lethal, there is a bit of law (cant remember the term)that says if the person you hit/punch/shoot dies because of a pre exisitng condition or abnormal reaction it's the same as if you meant to kill them. The point is unless the Police OUTNUMBER the rioters there is little chance of them being able to do anything other than take pictures/video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 my point exactly... don't get me wrong... I think the recommendations are great and any scrote willing to torch a building without considering the lives he is putting at risk deserves to be put down... permanently.... but can you imagine the media ****-storm that would ensue... I may be wrong but I can just see 'John the firestarter' becoming 'fluffy little Johnny who was a lovely lad and wouldn't hurt a fly' once he had a bullet in his head! The Police would instantly become the bad guys! We all know the truth of it but that's not how the media will have the public seeing it! like they guy with the extinguisher off the roof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 like they guy with the extinguisher off the roof? I remember the reports, can't remember if the media then turned him into a 'fluffy bunny' but you can bet your **** they would have if he'd got a bullet between the eyes! he would have then been portrayed as the only victim! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) So another legitimate post commenting on a government report turns into a "let's slag off the cops" I know many firearms officer including ones that have shot people, what's more an officer involved in the final seconds of Moats worthless life. I would trust my life in anyone of these people's hands and I would trust them to make very difficult decisions at the right time. Mistakes get made, but very rarely when you know how many times weapons are discharged or drawn. After seeing how they deal with an unarmed man on a train and over reaction to other incidents in England i wouldn't trust any of them. I am sure a lot of shooters on this forum will have seen them overacting to someone ringing about them legally shooting in the fields ect. Their reaction to 2 dangerous dogs. What you can't see in the photo is the helicopter the dog trainer and last but not least the (lion trainer). Edited December 21, 2011 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted December 20, 2011 Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 Permitting police officers to shoot citizens would mark the end of policing by consent and be a thoroughly bad developement. As it is, a combination of bureaucracy, surveillance technology, politicization and the litigation culture has created an unhealthy separation between the police and the people they are sworn to serve. Expanding that division further by granting police officers summary powers of execution to quell public unrest cannot be a good idea. The fact that this issue has arisen at all is a mark of how confused the police are about what they are supposed to be. Personally I'd much prefer exemption from prosecution or dishonour for private citizens who are found to have killed in genuine defence of their own lives and property, and hanging for wanton murder. In other words don't militarize the police, let us shoot scumbags ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE AD Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 :lol: :lol: I is wiv ya blood / homie / ****** / Dwayne / Leroy init safe like brrap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Permitting police officers to shoot citizens would mark the end of policing by consent and be a thoroughly bad developement. As it is, a combination of bureaucracy, surveillance technology, politicization and the litigation culture has created an unhealthy separation between the police and the people they are sworn to serve. Expanding that division further by granting police officers summary powers of execution to quell public unrest cannot be a good idea. The fact that this issue has arisen at all is a mark of how confused the police are about what they are supposed to be. Personally I'd much prefer exemption from prosecution or dishonour for private citizens who are found to have killed in genuine defence of their own lives and property, and hanging for wanton murder. In other words don't militarize the police, let us shoot scumbags ourselves. The Police are already permitted to shoot citizens! An armed officer can engage and shoot a citizen to protect his or another's life. All this does is make the rules a little more specific clearer instead of nobody doing anything because the waters are so muddy. You would surely agree that an armed officer be allowed to use lethal force if an armed assailant was about to shoot someone? What is the difference between that and someone about to throw a petrol bomb into a building and in the process kill a family ABSOLUTELY NONE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 What is the difference between that and someone about to throw a petrol bomb into a building and in the process kill a family ABSOLUTELY NONE! The difference is that shooting the rioter (baton round even) would mean there would be a lot fewer rioters on the streets. All this 'research' about the riots being in response to the police is complete balearics. A large % of those lifted during the riots had previous records. They were rioting because they could get stuff free, and they knew they'd get away with it. Nial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini52 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Permitting police officers to shoot citizens would mark the end of policing by consent and be a thoroughly bad developement. As it is, a combination of bureaucracy, surveillance technology, politicization and the litigation culture has created an unhealthy separation between the police and the people they are sworn to serve. Expanding that division further by granting police officers summary powers of execution to quell public unrest cannot be a good idea. The fact that this issue has arisen at all is a mark of how confused the police are about what they are supposed to be. Personally I'd much prefer exemption from prosecution or dishonour for private citizens who are found to have killed in genuine defence of their own lives and property, and hanging for wanton murder. In other words don't militarize the police, let us shoot scumbags ourselves. I totally agree with all your comments well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 they should have shot a few rioters. in the future would they have "police, camera, rioting action" on itv4. rioters being shot presented by noel edmonds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marine1980 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 It was my understanding that currently the police only have the same powers that we have in the fact that we could take a life if we had good reason to beleive they are about to take ours or another's life! I'm Only saying this as the job I do, we have powers to engage with lethal force if we full beleive we or one of the people we are protecting our in danger and it would be life threatening?? Royal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 It was my understanding that currently the police only have the same powers that we have in the fact that we could take a life if we had good reason to beleive they are about to take ours or another's life! I'm Only saying this as the job I do, we have powers to engage with lethal force if we full beleive we or one of the people we are protecting our in danger and it would be life threatening?? Royal Yep, that is my understanding too... My take on this is that it makes it clear to the Police that someone about to firebomb a potential residential property, directly or indirectly, is 'life threatening' which of course, it is.... in exactly the same way as if they were about to shoot, stab, strangle etc.... someone. This is not recommending Plod have carte blanche to shoot anyone involved in a riot... it is VERY specific and I feel changes nothing, just makes things a little clearer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.