PSNI 1 Thieven Git 0

Originally Posted by sv4me

Waits for the liberals to see this...

I'm a long way from touchy feely tree hugging liberal, but I totally disagree with our police carrying firearms as a matter of course.

I queued up to pay for my fuel at Stansted services the other day, and the sight of a copper with a holstered sidearm and a sub machine gun across his chest really didn't fill me with confidence. I felt this country was heading down the tubes if we had to resort to arming our Police.

I like that we don't have to shoot people to protect property.

[Bluepete]

I think it's best if "The .org" reseves it's professional judgement on the Officer until we have the information on which to base that judgment.

The news report contains two conflicting scenarios. Only when we KNOW which one applies can we decide whether the shoot was justified or not.

I think the Officer was very brave. It takes balls to intervene when off duty; no radio, no uniform, no body armour, no back-up. I just hope his decision to shoot is found to be appropriate.

Lets wait and see, shall we?

Pete

Originally Posted by Bluepete

I think it's best if "The .org" reseves it's professional judgement on the Officer until we have the information on which to base that judgment.

The news report contains two conflicting scenarios. Only when we KNOW which one applies can we decide whether the shoot was justified or not.

I think the Officer was very brave. It takes balls to intervene when off duty; no radio, no uniform, no body armour, no back-up. I just hope his decision to shoot is found to be appropriate.

Lets wait and see, shall we?

Pete

Lol, ' professional judgement'

I agree Pete and said the same earlier in the thread, it took a lot of courage, a lot couldn't or wouldn't want to make that same decision, so respect to him.

Have to agree that scenario 2 is not on. If he was escaping the danger has passed. If the copper is then shooting him because he's just held a knife to someone's throat, then the copper is essentially deciding off his own back to dish out capital punishment. If he shoots him to prevent another crime being committed, he is re-enacting his own version of Minority Report.

Originally Posted by Bluepete

I think it's best if "The .org" reseves it's professional judgement on the Officer

The news report contains two conflicting scenarios.

Are the majority judging the officer, or judging the two scenarios?

If even if some are judging the officer, their opinion is not going to be read, or hold any weight if it was, with the team investigating. I don't seem the harm in discussing it IMO.

[Nobbylad]

Originally Posted by Ed

I think we need more info. Was it scenario one or two. It's fair to say that if you don't go out committing armed robbery then your chances of being shot by a police officer are very much lower, but you can't say that it would never happen, because it has happened.

Phil, if he was leaving the premises, how can he be a risk to any particular person? How can there be immedite danger if he was opening the door with his back to the officer? Of course, we don't know and we need more info, but someone leaving surely is no danger to those inside. If this was the position, then the correct course woudl be to call for backup immediately, not to open fire.

No-one knows, but he could have left the premises and then chosen to take any innocent member of the public on the forecourt hostage, at knife point, to get away using their vehicle etc. There are lots of ifs and buts, however the stone cold truth and fact that we DO know, is that the man armed himself with a knife, with the intent of robbing someone, using the knife to intimidate his victim and/or protect himself from reprisal.

You pays your money, you takes your chances.

[mikerj]

Originally Posted by Lozzo

I like that we don't have to shoot people to protect property.

Ignoring the dodgy American grammar, I'm sure you would feel a little different if you were one of the unfortunate individuals to have a violent criminal break into your house to steal your car keys and threaten you and your family with a gun or knife. How do you propose your property and family can be protected against this kind of crime which is increasing in frequency?

It's not increasing in frequency, don't believe the hype. Gun and knife crime in burglaries is no more prevalent now than it was 30 years ago. The media are just more efficient at reporting it nowadays and, as we all know, sensationalism sells papers.

So someone breaks in and threatens me with a gun or knife to get my car keys? Fair play, let them have the bloody keys. I'm not about to lose my life so some scrote doesn't nick my motor - the car is insured and I can buy another one... you only get one life.

Killing someone for making an attempt to steal, no matter if they are armed or not, is excessive force unless they have already harmed or killed in your presence. We don't play god with other's lives, but we can do what we can to prevent further harm or death.

The last thing I'd want to see is the general public of the UK being allowed to own firearms as a way of protecting themselves against attacks in their own homes. More guns in legal circulation can only mean more guns ending up in illegal circulation and a 'come onto my land and I'll kill you' situation, as is common in many US cities. It grieves me enough that we have some amed police officers out there carrying guns in public view.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you have more guns in untrained hands you can only end up with more deaths of innocent people.

Originally Posted by mikerj

Ignoring the dodgy American grammar, I'm sure you would feel a little different if you were one of the unfortunate individuals to have a violent criminal break into your house to steal your car keys and threaten you and your family with a gun or knife. How do you propose your property and family can be protected against this kind of crime which is increasing in frequency?

I don't see anything wrong with the grammar. I don't think that 'like' needs 'it' after it. Anyway, so what????

As for the main point, how many people do you know to whom this has happened, and what use would an armed police officer be, as the one place they certainly wouldn't be is at the scene of the crime.

Lozzo is right, neither the public in general and police officers in particular have to go around tooled up - and that is how it should be.

[Sid Squid]

This thread is possibly the best argument against arming the police I have ever read.

PS. Very very little sympathy for the robber.

PPS. Not even slightly a woolly liberal. Oh no, not a bit.