calnetalk.com

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 2606 Status:

The police are getting it in the neck that the brazilian on the london underground should never have been shot even though they suspected him of being a terrorist.
should they shoot on site
In a way they are damed if they do and damed if they dont.

rosco · Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject:

No, not on sight either! Big Smile

All this emotive language about being at 'war with terror' - it's not a war for goodness sakes and the police are not soldiers. You can't just shoot (to kill) someone because you think they might possibly be a terrorist.

I am just so against the whole rhetoric the way panic levels of the public are driven up to absurd levels such that we really think it is ok to gun someone down like and consider the fact that they are not a terrorist an "acceptable risk".

WeAreSTFC · Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject:

there was no sign that he was a suicide bomber... but we're not told about armed intelligence.

I'm 50/50 on the Menezes thing.

Anyone who really does look like a suicide bomber and is about to blow themselves up, it's either kill them or get killed.

They're too dangerous to live.
_________________
LIKE A NIGHT OUT IN SWINDON
LIKE A GREASY CHIP BUTTY
SWINDON TOWN FC COME FILL ME AGAIN

MY FORUM: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Forum_England/index.php?act=idx

soon to get a domain

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 2606 Status:

They should be shot on site .its to bigger risk.if the police have high suspicions on someone being a terrorist then shot them.
if they guy was one and he bombed the trains that day and people knew that the police suspected him imagen the backlash to that one.
there damed if hey do shoot and damed if they dont.

Bear · Bentlian Oldboy Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 822 Status:

I suppose it depends on what you mean by shoot on site for example if a terrorist is stood there threatening to blow up a train, plane or whatever then yes they probably should be but if they are just boarding a tube train as in the case of Mr Menedez and the authorities only have a suspicion they he may be going to commit a suicide bombing it becomes very difficult to make that decision and there will be occasions when they get it wrong so the question should not be should we have a shoot on site policy in these cses but more a question of are we prepared to take the consequences when they get it wrong.

rosco · Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject:

Yes, there needs to be a pretty strong idea that the person you are thinking of shoot is a terrorist - I know that you cannot be 100% certain but it's got to be a heck of a lot better than 50/50: as Bear says, someone boarding a tube train that has come from a house under observation is not enough justification in itself, as we have seen.

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 2606 Status:

Bear · Bentlian Oldboy Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 822 Status:

Local Lass I beleive you are right in that he ran which he would do because I also beleive I'm right when I say this that he was in the country illegally. Now I know it might be tempting to say we should have a shoot to kill policy for all illegal immigrants but I dont think they are in the same category as suicide bombers. The point I was trying to make is that if we have a shoot to kill policy in these cases we must be prepared to take the flack when we get it wrong and not just sack the top policeman and I myself have an open mind as to wether we should have one or not.

Local lass · Calnetalk Oracle Joined: 05 Jun 2007 Posts: 2606 Status:

what if they were right though bear they would be classed as heros.
could they have risked it?As london was on high alert they had every right.its better to be safe than sorry.
if they were right and he got on a train and caused death and destruction imagen the out cry then.
they acted on the imformation they had the time and acted accordenly.

rosco · Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: