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.
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
I libelled you?
Heres the 2 posts I made on this thread:
Go see if you can find a lawyer to take it on.
:thumb:
Now, please withdraw your comment.
no
You'll have to tell me what you think I said you said, because I didn't say you said anything
Read your own fucking post again dipshit. You seem to claim that I want to string up little kids. Now, either you are incredibly stupid, or you are just being awkward. I know which I think.
Now, do you accept that I have never suggested, or insinuated, that I want to string up little kids? Do you accept that noone else has?
If you really want to check then a search of the words "string up little kids" will help...
I accept that that isn't the exact form in which the sentiments were expressed.
However, I absolutely stand by the accusation that there is a lynch mob mentality on this board, and I now say that you are a part of that mentality.
I only implied that before.
Yet you question the outcome in the case which prompted this thread.
A Pot/Kettle moment, wouldn't you say?
ROTFLMFAO
*yawn*
Not sure I cracked a gag there, but hey, little things etc...
So I am wrong? You support the outcome, you believe the Policemen innocent of the "murder" allegation, you believe that there is no case to answer?
If I could be arsed to reread all the reactionary bollocks, I could show that the sentiment has been expressed several times over a number of threads.
However, I really can't be arsed.
A man who went out for a little drink, carrying a repaired coffee table leg is stone dead.
I most certainly do not accept that there is no case to answer.
You have to be a reactionary arsehole to buy the story.
:chin:
So when I question an outcome, I'm part of a lynch mob. When you do, it's "justice"?
Ever heard of double standards?
If you "could be arsed" you might also find that my position is not as fixed as you have represented.
Whatever you're smoking is bad for you
:yippe:
What would satisfy you in this case then? What do you consider would be "justice"?
Well, I don't think that Harry Stanley's life can be replaced. I don't think that the 2 coppers should be coppers any more, let alone be be allowed to carry guns ever again.
If the courts applied the same levels of 'understanding' to little kids who screw up, as they do to coppers who kill people with table legs, then we might even start to see some justice in the system.
Double standards indeed
You have read the transcripts of both inquiries?
Erm... I think that your point in the other thread (involving the girl) was that they had done just that.
BTW The courts, in this case, also have. It's the CPS who haven't.
Sometimes NQA I wonder whether you believe no policeman has ever done anything wrong in the history of mankind. It certainly appears that way.
Obviously policemen have done wrong, its just I can only think of it in 2 of these cases (plus a few other shootings not mentioned)
However in most of these cases someone sitting with a nice hot mug of cofee, comfy at home is judging people making split second decisions. I'm with the men making the split second decisions. If the police officer had plenty of time to think over the decision, conduct a risk assessment, perhaps ask the villain to confirm whether it was a real or imitation weapon then they might do things differently. However in real life, its not that simple and they have often seconds (or less) to decide on a life or death decision.
Its easy to knock them and scream for their heads if they make a honest mistake - its less easy to do the job.
In many cases no such decision had to be taken. An unarmed man does not merit shooting dead under any circumstances just because they are running in your general direction- let alone running away.
People would perhaps give policemen the benefit of the doubt more often if at least one of them had been convicted in the obvious cases when negligence had occurred. But given that there are better chances of Ian Paisley being the next Pope than of a policeman being convicted of unlawful killing in this country, can you really blame for suspecting the rulings 'conclude' they acted properly?