The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
[URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13394581,00.html[/URL]
So, the bloke that was shot at Stockwell on Thrusday (Friday?) was not a bomber.
And now his family is suing the police.
So, a couple of questions here:
1. Is the shoot to kill policy correct, in your view?
2. Should his family sue?
I think that if he was innocent, why did he run off? I know if I was confronted by a number of men with guns, then I'd stop pretty damn quick - even if I couldn't understand what they were saying.
As for the shoot to kill policy, I think that it is the right thing to do. If you shoot to injure, a suicide bomber could still detonate their device, so you don't actually stop anything.
Looking at it completly objectively, 1 dead innocent is far better than 10 dead innocents.
Obviously no dead would be best, but can the police take the chance?
So, the bloke that was shot at Stockwell on Thrusday (Friday?) was not a bomber.
And now his family is suing the police.
So, a couple of questions here:
1. Is the shoot to kill policy correct, in your view?
2. Should his family sue?
I think that if he was innocent, why did he run off? I know if I was confronted by a number of men with guns, then I'd stop pretty damn quick - even if I couldn't understand what they were saying.
As for the shoot to kill policy, I think that it is the right thing to do. If you shoot to injure, a suicide bomber could still detonate their device, so you don't actually stop anything.
Looking at it completly objectively, 1 dead innocent is far better than 10 dead innocents.
Obviously no dead would be best, but can the police take the chance?
Page:
The guy ran all the way onto a train, one station away from an attempted tessorist suicide bomb the day before.
You get shot.
If I ran, I'd expect to be shot, maybe he wanted to die.
Anyway, he wa sallowed in the country, he'd been working here as an electrician for 3 years and spoke good English, according to his employer.
You get shot.
If I ran, I'd expect to be shot, maybe he wanted to die.
Anyway, he wa sallowed in the country, he'd been working here as an electrician for 3 years and spoke good English, according to his employer.
It was a right royal f-up in my opinion.
"But he ran! But he ran!"
Of course he did. If you're not supposed to be in the country and a policeman shouts at you, you run. That's what happens.
You try to get away, not go to jail. And you expect them to give chase.
And, oh, they've caught you. Oh well, time to lie on the ground and accept that you've been bad and have to go to jail or be deported.
But, what's this?
You get shot in the head. Five times.
Good work, yeah.
"But he ran! But he ran!"
Of course he did. If you're not supposed to be in the country and a policeman shouts at you, you run. That's what happens.
You try to get away, not go to jail. And you expect them to give chase.
And, oh, they've caught you. Oh well, time to lie on the ground and accept that you've been bad and have to go to jail or be deported.
But, what's this?
You get shot in the head. Five times.
Good work, yeah.
Sorry gamesfreak, haven't been around for a few days and didn't know this had already been covered.
I'm gonna say yes to both.
I agree that shooting a suicide bomber to prevent him/her killing people is justifiable. On the other hand, one can't go round shooting anyone brown without giving warnings.
I agree that shooting a suicide bomber to prevent him/her killing people is justifiable. On the other hand, one can't go round shooting anyone brown without giving warnings.
This topic has sort of been debated in the other thread, but I suppose there is no harm in talking about it again, now that the 'truth' has been unveiled.
In my view, I look at it like this.
If the terror attacks of the last few weeks had never happened, and the police shot him for his actions, then I'd be totally against it.
With the attacks however, it kind of puts the deal into a different perspective. A man running, with a padded jacket, through a tube station an a hot day, evading Police action is bound to raise their "terrorist" suspicions threefold.
Obviously, at the time, the Police were unable to really take precautions and acted quickly by killing him. Unless you was actually on that train, I highly doubt our judgment can be justified against what the Media is telling us. What happened on that day is between the Police, a few witnesses and a dead man.
If the guy was just running away for some petty crime, like stealing a few bags of pork cracklings and stuffing them into his coat, then you've got to admit, considering the recent events, he was being pretty stupid.
Concerning the family sueing - We live in a law-resolved society, it was bound to happen, terrorist or not.
In my view, I look at it like this.
If the terror attacks of the last few weeks had never happened, and the police shot him for his actions, then I'd be totally against it.
With the attacks however, it kind of puts the deal into a different perspective. A man running, with a padded jacket, through a tube station an a hot day, evading Police action is bound to raise their "terrorist" suspicions threefold.
Obviously, at the time, the Police were unable to really take precautions and acted quickly by killing him. Unless you was actually on that train, I highly doubt our judgment can be justified against what the Media is telling us. What happened on that day is between the Police, a few witnesses and a dead man.
If the guy was just running away for some petty crime, like stealing a few bags of pork cracklings and stuffing them into his coat, then you've got to admit, considering the recent events, he was being pretty stupid.
Concerning the family sueing - We live in a law-resolved society, it was bound to happen, terrorist or not.
The shoot to kill policy is right as far as suicide bombers are concerned - as you say, they can still detonate if they're simply injured.
The family shouldn't really sue the police, but to be fair you can't expect them to simply sit back and accept what's happened. It's easy for me to say "they shouldn't sue" but I'd probably do the same if I was in their shoes.
I think that,
if you run into a tube station being chased by police,
jump a ticket barrier,
fail to follow armed police instructions to get out of the station and stop where you are,
wear a puffy jacket in the middle of summer,
run onto the nearest train while everyone else is trying to get out because the police said so,
you deserve to be shot in the head as a suspected suicide bomber.
Two terrorist attacks oon trains within two weeks, you don't ignore people with guns telling you what to do unless you want to blow the train up, be blown up by the bomber or get shot by the police. Serves him right.
if you run into a tube station being chased by police,
jump a ticket barrier,
fail to follow armed police instructions to get out of the station and stop where you are,
wear a puffy jacket in the middle of summer,
run onto the nearest train while everyone else is trying to get out because the police said so,
you deserve to be shot in the head as a suspected suicide bomber.
Two terrorist attacks oon trains within two weeks, you don't ignore people with guns telling you what to do unless you want to blow the train up, be blown up by the bomber or get shot by the police. Serves him right.
[URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13394581,00.html[/URL]
So, the bloke that was shot at Stockwell on Thrusday (Friday?) was not a bomber.
And now his family is suing the police.
So, a couple of questions here:
1. Is the shoot to kill policy correct, in your view?
2. Should his family sue?
I think that if he was innocent, why did he run off? I know if I was confronted by a number of men with guns, then I'd stop pretty damn quick - even if I couldn't understand what they were saying.
As for the shoot to kill policy, I think that it is the right thing to do. If you shoot to injure, a suicide bomber could still detonate their device, so you don't actually stop anything.
Looking at it completly objectively, 1 dead innocent is far better than 10 dead innocents.
Obviously no dead would be best, but can the police take the chance?
So, the bloke that was shot at Stockwell on Thrusday (Friday?) was not a bomber.
And now his family is suing the police.
So, a couple of questions here:
1. Is the shoot to kill policy correct, in your view?
2. Should his family sue?
I think that if he was innocent, why did he run off? I know if I was confronted by a number of men with guns, then I'd stop pretty damn quick - even if I couldn't understand what they were saying.
As for the shoot to kill policy, I think that it is the right thing to do. If you shoot to injure, a suicide bomber could still detonate their device, so you don't actually stop anything.
Looking at it completly objectively, 1 dead innocent is far better than 10 dead innocents.
Obviously no dead would be best, but can the police take the chance?
Page: