Shoot to kill.

[ordnance]

14 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Go on then ordnance, here's one for you. 

The UK has just had 52 people killed in bombings across London, your sent to stop an individual you and your colleagues believe is a bomber likely with a suicide vest on and he's just got on a train full of people. You've got an order that unless there's a very good reason not to, that you must shoot him on sight to prevent him carrying out his plan and you have caught up with him on the train, where the surveillance officer who's been following him identifies him as the bomber, you order him to stand still but he comes at you. 

What do you do? 

I don't know what I would do in that situation, but I would expect to be held accountable for my actions.

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, ordnance said:

I don't know what I would do in that situation, but I would expect to be held accountable for my actions.

That's convenient for you, you know that they were wrong but offer no alternative. Don't forget it goes both ways, you can be held accountable for inaction to. 

[ordnance]

20 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

As mentioned you have the advantage of hindsight.

The officers didn’t.

He wasn’t innocent he was an illegal overstayer working illegally, that doesn’t condone him being killed but ignoring 2 officers who have identified themselves as armed police and pointing guns at him and advancing on them does!

And also mentioned too many police have been killed, 1 is too many.

What about Duggan killing the 2 unarmed policewomen?

I have come to the conclusion that you are one of the weird people on this forum.

You come across as very anti police🤔

My reply was to comment about how dangerous an armed officers job was, my point it's much more dangerous to be an unarmed officer. Expecting police to be held accountable for their actions does not make someone anti police, it's common sense to me. As for the two female officers that were shot dead, my view is that all police officers should be armed so they would at least have a chance to protect themselves in a situation like that.

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

That's convenient for you, you know that they were wrong but offer no alternative. Don't forget it goes both ways, you can be held accountable for inaction to. 

They were obviously wrong they shot an innocent man 🤔

Edited 5 hours ago by ordnance

[12gauge82]

50 minutes ago, ordnance said:

My reply was to comment about how dangerous an armed officers job was, my point it's much more dangerous to be an unarmed officer. Expecting police to be held accountable for their actions does not make someone anti police, it's common sense to me. As for the two female officers that were shot dead, my view is that all police officers should be armed so they would at least have a chance to protect themselves in a situation like that.

They were obviously wrong they shot an innocent man 🤔

The force as a collective was wrong yes, the officer pulling the trigger, in that moment without having the hindsight you and I have the luxury of, from what I've seen, I don't see what else they could have done and even with hindsight, you still haven't stated what you'd have done differently? 

[B686]

Let’s face it at the end of the day if he had done as he was told he would most probably still be alive. Same as the other innocent people killed. If you have armed police shouting at you and pointing guns at you , you do as they say unless you have a death wish or are just plain bloody stupid.