Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?, page 14

Originally posted by shaunybaby
do you think saddam hussain's case is defendable? obviously as 'anything' is defendable in your eyes.

I never said anything about victory, I can only say you can defend it.

well as atleast one officer physically handled de menezes he would have known that there was no device, hence no threat.

How?
X-ray vision?

so even though his officer perhaps was ordered not to shoot, you still think it's o.k that he did shoot because 'he' thought there was a danger...that still doesn't make it right.

Yeah it does.

you keep on and on about dangers and threats, when the was none at all despite all this suicide bombing fiasco.

Says who? YOU?
ME?
The officer behind the trigger?

acted wrong in my opinion. so? what's the difference if it's my opinion or not. if you can't see that the police acted wrongly then you're dumber than i first thought. obviously you're going to carry on sticking by the police, whather story and facts come out. so it's like talking to a brick wall basically.

Wrong and right are interpretations.
Also I would ask you not to insult me personally.
I will stick by the police because I know they are human beings.
Pot calling kettle black?

well, is walking around in crowded areas for a certain amount of time thought of as dangerous or something? it's not safe or dangerous. if anything within a crowded area you are more safe. i'd much prefer that than a dark alley or road on my own.

What?
We were talking about how a person can be dangerous no matter the situation, but now you tangent on towards how I feel walking through a crowded area....

how is shooting innocent people defending us? whether or not they 'thought' he was a threat, they shot an innocent man. his only mistake was coming out of his flat that day.

His mistake was staying here longer than he should of.
Shooting a suspected terroist is diffrent from shooting an inocent man in opinion only.

can you tell the difference between a rational arguement and an irrational one? yours is the 2nd of the two.

Is asking if someone can tell the diffrence between suicide bombers and civilains before they act irrational?

most of the eye witness statements say they heard four popping sounds, or 5 shots, or 7 shots etc... however, after his post-mortem it was found that he had 7 shots to the head, 1 to the shoulder, and now is thought that 3 missed, hence 11 shots, this outright shows most of the eyewitnesses lied about the number of shots, and hence their other statements about the events cannot be trusted. if these leaked documents were faked then someone from the enquiry board would have publically spoken out, yet they have just decided 'not to comment'.

Lied? Or made mistakes?
I take it you dont know anything about finding out what happened...everyone see's something diffrent.

They cant rule out anything, even those "leaked docutments".

so anyone with their hands in their pockets is allowed to be shot? yeah that makes sense. like i've said before the police cannot shoot someone just because they 'think' he might have a concealed weapon.

Yes they can.

where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor

The officer probably thought the man was going for a bomb.

He says the information he recieves.

then he should not have commented so early until he had more information. he came out early and said the shooting was directly linked and the person shot was directly linked to the bombings, then had to retract that statement. then he came out and said de menezes had challenged police and not obeyed orders, and again has had to retract that as he spoke too soon.

stfu. stop acting like a smart arse for once... can you try that?

Nice to see your acting your age...

like i said before, what then constitutes to an officer being tried, as a normal citizen, for murder? obviously one innocent victim dead is o.k. so is the limit 2 innocent people shot, or 3, or 4?

Its not black and white, dont try and make it out to be like that.
Theres more to this than "he shot an inocent man".

i guess the dictionary decided to leave out that then. still makes you a smart arse, trying to be clever though. if i say gun, or handgun, or firearm you know what i mean, and so does everyone else, pointing out guns are on ships is just another part of your lame argument.

Yeah "lame" arguemnt.
The dictionary is quite rightly a POS, come on its partly racist for crying out loud.

Rifle:
A firearm with a rifled bore

Gun:
A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire

defending de menezes isn't pointless. arguing with you is. atleast you accept he was innocent then... about f-ing time.

Inocent of being a suicide bomber, Guily of being illegally in this country.
If you think its pointless, you can just ignore me...