The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
3 tube station closed because of "incidents"
Anybody know what's going on, or is it just precaution?
Anybody know what's going on, or is it just precaution?
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> Were you there though?
No, evidently not.
None of us can really appreciate the drama and
> pace of the situation until you are actually in the position of one of
> the policemen.
I can understand that the police were tense and it was a very edgy situation. HOWEVER, these are specially trained officers with firearms training who are supposed to be able to deal with these situations. If they're so edgy that they unload five rounds into a guy when it's obvious two would do (and thus give an increased risk of detonating any explosives that the guy might've had), then that leads me to believe innocent people could be put at risk by this shoot to kill policybecause the armed police ARE so edgy.
At the end of the day, they did their job and killed
> the man; why are we debating the ethics of using five shots instead
> of three to end the life of someone who would have delighted in
> sacrificing himself to end the lives of innocent civilians not to
> mention pregnant women or children?
And do we actually know whether or not this guy had a bomb? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been revealed he had any explosives, all they say is he was a suspect. How (or if) he was connected to the bombings we don't know. In this instance it doesn't really matter that the police fired five shots not two or three... The guy wound up dead either way. What it does is set a worrying precedent. Not only a shoot to kill policy, but a shoot to kill policy given to officers who seem incredibly edgy, which could potentially put innocent lives at risk.
> Were you there though?
No, evidently not.
None of us can really appreciate the drama and
> pace of the situation until you are actually in the position of one of
> the policemen.
I can understand that the police were tense and it was a very edgy situation. HOWEVER, these are specially trained officers with firearms training who are supposed to be able to deal with these situations. If they're so edgy that they unload five rounds into a guy when it's obvious two would do (and thus give an increased risk of detonating any explosives that the guy might've had), then that leads me to believe innocent people could be put at risk by this shoot to kill policybecause the armed police ARE so edgy.
At the end of the day, they did their job and killed
> the man; why are we debating the ethics of using five shots instead
> of three to end the life of someone who would have delighted in
> sacrificing himself to end the lives of innocent civilians not to
> mention pregnant women or children?
And do we actually know whether or not this guy had a bomb? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been revealed he had any explosives, all they say is he was a suspect. How (or if) he was connected to the bombings we don't know. In this instance it doesn't really matter that the police fired five shots not two or three... The guy wound up dead either way. What it does is set a worrying precedent. Not only a shoot to kill policy, but a shoot to kill policy given to officers who seem incredibly edgy, which could potentially put innocent lives at risk.
Sibs wrote:
> Five shots? Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but from, what a meter or
> two away, a single or two at most shots to the head are going to kill
> anyone? Five? Overkill.
But you have to appreciate that the officers involved didn't have the luxury of sitting down a computer, planning the incident, they may have only had a split second to stop the man from detonating the bomb and were probably making 100% sure there was no chance that the public could be in danger because of this man and for that alone, I can't see how I can have an objection to their actions.
> Five shots? Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but from, what a meter or
> two away, a single or two at most shots to the head are going to kill
> anyone? Five? Overkill.
But you have to appreciate that the officers involved didn't have the luxury of sitting down a computer, planning the incident, they may have only had a split second to stop the man from detonating the bomb and were probably making 100% sure there was no chance that the public could be in danger because of this man and for that alone, I can't see how I can have an objection to their actions.
Sibs wrote:
> Five? No need really.
Were you there though? None of us can really appreciate the drama and pace of the situation until you are actually in the position of one of the policemen. At the end of the day, they did their job and killed the man; why are we debating the ethics of using five shots instead of three to end the life of someone who would have delighted in sacrificing himself to end the lives of innocent civilians not to mention pregnant women or children?
> Five? No need really.
Were you there though? None of us can really appreciate the drama and pace of the situation until you are actually in the position of one of the policemen. At the end of the day, they did their job and killed the man; why are we debating the ethics of using five shots instead of three to end the life of someone who would have delighted in sacrificing himself to end the lives of innocent civilians not to mention pregnant women or children?
Hedfix wrote:
> Standard procedure.
>
> One for each Jackson.
I thought it was 2 for Tito
> Standard procedure.
>
> One for each Jackson.
I thought it was 2 for Tito
In this instance I can see why the guy was shot, but five shots does seem excessive. If the guy did have explosives and one of the bullets hit them, surely they'd go off anyway? Yeah, they'd probably be going for head shots if they were aiming to kill (which in this instance they obviously were), but still, if someone jolted the shooter he could have shot the floored guy in the torso and set the explosives off anyway.
If they're going to shoot to kill as policy (which is pretty worrying in itself) then they should at least do it with as few shots as possible to minimise the risk of catching the explosives. A single head shot is going to be enough unless it only grazes the preson, two head shots at most. Five? No need really.
If they're going to shoot to kill as policy (which is pretty worrying in itself) then they should at least do it with as few shots as possible to minimise the risk of catching the explosives. A single head shot is going to be enough unless it only grazes the preson, two head shots at most. Five? No need really.
Eh?
Surely you mean Muslims, you dirty crusader, you.
SHEEPY wrote:
> The were on his back, he was on the ground.
>
> And they fired FIVE shots into his head.
And that's how it should be when dealing with terrorists.
> The were on his back, he was on the ground.
>
> And they fired FIVE shots into his head.
And that's how it should be when dealing with terrorists.
I think whatever anybody is going to say, its gonna happen. Whatching the news last night and they had that scrolling texts bar. "I'm worried that they will blow up buildings next..." came up soo many times. For the prosepctive bombers "I wonder what people are fearing most..." and then they read that... well put 2 and 2 together and we've just given them an idea that is gonna cause utter chaos.
Page: