Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by likesfish, Dec 31, 2017.
wasn't there a case in Germany recently where they shot someone in the leg to 'put him down'?
Far from arm chair. And this 'benefit of the doubt' is part of the problem when it boils down to RoE. Someone either has a firearm or not.
Aren't many of these people shot because determining that is very dangerous? I've yet to see anyone suggest a foolproof way to handle these situations apart from saying the current way is wrong.
Until you understand military RoE, the current police way is very wrong. As pesh mentioned above, Harry Stanley, a classic case of how everything is wrong.
Belgium I think. Small calibre pistol or smg type thing brought along specificity for the tactic by a massive SF type team.
ETA: 2016 following the Brussels Airport attacks. I’d guess the round had less propellant than normal as well. But so far the Belgium Fedral Police haven’t gone into details in a press release...
Everything is wrong? Police in the UK shot dead 55 people since 1993. Which is about the same as the Americans manage in most three weeks periods. That number includes the London and Westminster Bridge attackers. Although not the Lee Rigby cunts who were shot but arrested alive by the trigger happy cops.
Our communities would be much better if only coke dealers had guns...
Well your opinion is just flat out factually wrong unless you have nformation that everyone else hasn’t seen. Whenever a cop shoots someone some twats immediately scream “murder” which is agenda driven hyperbole and more often than not, total bollocks. Murder is a legal term and it’s simlly not satisfied on the face value of this.
This was less police rolling up to a domestic or similar ( where guns may be present) and being told their was an armed shooter who'd already killed and was planning on killing more.British man charged for prank phone call which caused a US gamer to be shot by police
Think it was the first fatal one but claim its an active shooting situation the police have to take it seriously
Probably because they’re not (regarding trigger happy in th UK)
I was only highlighting the Harry Stanley case to show how it was totally wrong, regarding RoE here in the UK.
because they aren't routinely armed. There have of course been many notorious situations where the firearms officers fucked up and the error is compounded by the subsequent (state and 4th estate abetted) arse covering- see menezes et al.
Remember the time our lot tazred a blind man because they thought his white stick was a samurai sword? He'd be dead if they'd had real guns
Well, the "twats" in this one are the victims family. This video also carries an interview with the alleged SWATer.
I didn’t know the offender was British in this case. A result of the cultural differences and not understanding an American response is going to be a tad different than you’d get with West Midlands plod...
Blokes a twat and deserves whatever he gets from the courts. (Well not if the Americans try to get a death penalty).
They did have real guns in the white stick job. And he isn’t.
lucky he didn't have a cardiac.
The last people on earth who we should look to for objectivity.
Did they? Thought they were just plod with tasers, not a firearms unit.
Lucky. Also lucky he didn’t fracture his skill when he hit the ground. But not very lucky as the vast majority of people don’t when they get TASERed. Still a horrible thing to happen to him though.
If you were in Kansas or Texas or wherever and somebody called the police to your house, saying that you were armed, had killed already and were planning to kill again, would you have a high degree of confidence that you wouldn't get shot?
Don’t know who used the TASER, but there were ARVs there.
And maybe the last people we should call "twats" too.
I meant the twats on here. The victim’s friends and family are among the few people that can be forgiven their hysteria and hyperbole.
Military use Full Metal Jackets (if they follow the Hague convention) to keep the bullet in one piece and increase the likihood of not killing the recipient outright.
This places a burden on the opposing force. (Looking after the injured)
And give the soldier a sporting chance.
Police have no such restriction. They use dum dums, hollow points and whatever it takes to put the suspect down with maximum effectiveness (death) so that they won’t get up and be a further risk.
Fair enough Spy. I'm out anyway, this isn't really my idea of a fun thing to do on NYE. Happy new year to you, and all, anyway.
Depends on how I reacted but I wouldn’t be comfortable with it. The question’s wrong though. If you wanted to murder someone would you think that calling armed police to his house when he was unarmed was an efficient way to do it? He’ll just say that he wanted to frighten the bloke and if nobody can prove otherwise that’s the end of the murder charge.
That’s not because the military are lovely chaps though ( although of course they are!)
If you are fighting a war it’s often (but not always) better to wound someone than kill them as there’s a high liklyhood his mates will spend some time looking after an injured friend, whatever their training and orders might say.
Also on a battlefield you probably don’t mind if your FMJ bullet loses 20% of its energy inside somebody and then carries on for another mile or so, in fact if it did hit anyone else that might be considered a bonus.
In a new build Barrat Estate in Leicester or Bristol or similar you probably want the small but very heavy piece of red hot metal to stop inside the person you were shooting at and not go wandering off at high speed to pay it’s compliments in the neighbouring orphanage or cats home.
Why are we spending NYE talking about a specific incident of a moment of mindless stupidity costing one person their life, the grief and lost years for his his friends and family. At least one person who went to work and ended up having to live with the emotional and practical consequences of taking another persons life. And even a boy, because even though he was 21 the caller’s behaviour shows a lack of adult understanding who is going to be locked up for a large amount of his young adulthood.
And worse why large numbers of sane people have to spend long periods of time thinking of all the ways that they might have to kill another person.
a case for constructive manslaughter could be argued for the swatter
It's not the most efficient way to kill somebody but I think they'll have a good case for "homicide by cop" - if somebody maliciously and falsely tells armed police officers that somebody has a gun, then it's going to be their fault when that person gets shot.
Separate names with a comma.