If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Of course. But too much 'emapathy' can cloud a sensible opinion.
Neither do I.
Has anybody here suggested that it's for the 'common good that an innocent man can be killed'? No.
It is however for the 'common good' that the police have the power and authority to shoot dead suicide bombers.
Don't get me wrong I think this was a monumental cock up by the poilce, but I don't think that the actual poilceman who shot the guy did anything else other than his job. He was given information to believe that his and many other lives were in danger, it should be those who supplied that wrong information who should be held accountable.
What exactly is the question you are asking?
The moral dilemma is that those people blown up are also likely to be innocent. And how many of those innocents lives are you prepared to loose?
Risking two lives is fine comparing to risking one innocent seems fine. But what about 50?
But they don't! They have the power to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers! This is dealing out punishment before a crime has been committed and mistakes are going to happen! How can this possibly for the common good?
And I think this is exactly the problem. People are so afraid at the prospect of another bomb, of being caught up in it or someone they know being caught up in it that they can let this terrible thing slide. If empathy is clouding sensible opinion then it is doing it in favour of allowing a shoot to kill policy!
As I've already said I think that the amount of responsibility he takes has to depend on the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. I don't neccessarily disagree with you but until what actually happens comes to light I can't really make up my mind.
If the bloke had been a suicide bomber.
I don't disagree with the policy to kill suspected bombers as long as there is enough credible reason to believe that they are a real risk to the public.
I am worried that the intelligence in this case was so obviously flimsy yet the police still decided to give the copper the go ahead to shoot.
Skive, what is this if not emotive?
He wasn't a bomber, it's not relevant to the case at all.
If he's shot dead before committing a crime then how would you ever know? What if he decides that what he was going to do is wrong? I just can't see how it can be right to shoot dead someone who hasn't actually committed a crime yet!
Granted these guys have got to be stopped but shooting dead someone because you *think* (because lets face it they're never going to be completley 100% about it) that the target is a suicide bomber is just wrong!
He was quoting me i.e. when could it be for the common good to shoot... I think this comment was in support of the shoot to kill policy rather than applying to this specific case?
You think the gaver took pleasure in putting 7 bullets in somebody?
The SAS are trained to 'overkill' there targets. I'm sure the training for these coppers isn't much different.
I really fail to see how the number of bullets makes any difference.
Thank you.
put yourself in the position of a cop, you're standing over a suspected terrorist, just try to imitate shooting 8 bullets towards someone's head, it's very extreme...3 maybe, 8, 7 headshots is too much really
it makes the difference between a proffessional job and a frenzied kill
But that is proffessional. One or two shots even to the head is not a guaranteed kill.
And I still don't understand what difference it makes. The copper aimed to kill the bloke and that's exactly what he did.
Free holiday for policeman who shot Brazilian
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
Let's hope its not to Brazil...
Given our scumbag print media, I can't really blame then for doing this. The fuckers would only camp on their doorstep making the family's life hell... we need to remember that it wasn't his wife and kids who pulled the trigger...
i think thats a bit of irony by some bored LU worker
"Dear Sheep, kindly form orderly queues and move only in a leisurely manner so that we might have an easier time controlling you. Don't exercise any liberties, we will tell you what you may or may not do and you will simply comply or be shot.
This notice is a demonstration of our increased self-assumed power. Thank you for your continued acquiescence and complacency."
hmmm... sounds alot like the societal standards of a certain Reich we were raised to believe would never again occur. How history doth repeat itself.
john snow was interviewing a former so19 officer on ch4 news the other nite, and he said the pistols they were using were self-loading, not automatic, that means he would have had to pull the trigger 8 times.......but like you say, it's by the by......
More paranoid delusions?
I think you'll find that it was a bit of black comedy by someone bored.
Who said Americans don't understand our sense of humour? :thumb:
If I thought he was about to blow himself up then I wouldn't have stopped at 5 shots either.
If he's dead he's dead. It was a tragic mistake but partly his own fault.
Oh, I understand British humour quite well thanks!
Good, blame the victim. :rolleyes:
Remember your words when the axe unjustly falls on you or someone you care for deeply.
Funny how so many people claim to be able to spot the signs of history repeating itself, most often to do with the Nazis.
The Loony Left claim we are turning into the Fourth Reich, while the far right claim that every random dictator they want to attack will be the next Hitler.
Both a load of old cobblers really.