But this country is not in a state of war, so what does, or does not happen, on a battlefield is irrelevant.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Woolwich incident 22 May
- Thread starter jon0844
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I would certainly agree with the death penalty in a case like this, there is clearly no doubt whatsoever about their guilt and the alternative would be keeping them in prison until they die at great public expense.
I respect the opinion of anybody who opposes the death penalty, in fact I'd only agree to it in extreme cases like this, but would those who oppose it be happy to foot the bill for keeping these two in prison for decades to come?
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
Not ever ?
Temple Meads
Established Member
Quite simply every aspect of this story is sickening, and the racism that is being openly bandied around on social media disgusts me. If this is the Britain we live in, I'm not sure it's worth being patriotic any more.
May the poor guy rest in peace.
May the poor guy rest in peace.
Geezertronic
Established Member
But racism works both ways. One could say this attack was a racially motivated attack in the name of religion. The same could be said about any terrorist attack (7/7 or 9/11 for example). I don't see a specific distinction between racism and terrorism in the name of religion in this case - it's something that is not specific to Islam either.
ReverendFozz
Member
What could the Security Services and Counter-Terrorism Teams done about it, to what extent were they know to the authorities, because I am sure if MI5 or Police had specific intelligence they would have acted on it and took the offenders into custody. I am known to Police in 2 North East Forces, but they don't keep tabs on me 24/7.
Now, as for people who seemingly did nothing to help, I would not have stepped, doing that is stupid, you may get a commendation, but it would your next of kin recieving it more than likely.
For punishments, I have quite extreme opinions, as seemed to happen in the early days of the Troubles anybody suspected of terrorism should be interned and brought before Diplock Courts with the death penalty being applied if the evidence and case against them is absolutely overwhelming and stacked against them...
That attack was not only an attack on the armed forces, it was an attack on the country, that to me is a crime against the state and should be dealt with very harshly, if harsh means death, then so be it, there should be no mercy in cases like this, you take someone's most basic human rights, the right to Life, then you don't deserve any rights in return...
Now, as for people who seemingly did nothing to help, I would not have stepped, doing that is stupid, you may get a commendation, but it would your next of kin recieving it more than likely.
For punishments, I have quite extreme opinions, as seemed to happen in the early days of the Troubles anybody suspected of terrorism should be interned and brought before Diplock Courts with the death penalty being applied if the evidence and case against them is absolutely overwhelming and stacked against them...
That attack was not only an attack on the armed forces, it was an attack on the country, that to me is a crime against the state and should be dealt with very harshly, if harsh means death, then so be it, there should be no mercy in cases like this, you take someone's most basic human rights, the right to Life, then you don't deserve any rights in return...
I think this is truley remarkable. How she shown little or no fear, and stood up to them and quite calmly spoke to them about the situation and asked them to hand over their weapons.
Butts
Veteran Member
I wonder what the reaction would have been if The Police had "shot to kill" - this would certainly have been the outcome in a lot of countries. 
I wonder what the reaction would have been if The Police had "shot to kill" - this would certainly have been the outcome in a lot of countries.
I think it should have been in this case!
As for his "in my Country" line, where was he born?
And would you want to live in those countries? I wouldn't.I wonder what the reaction would have been if The Police had "shot to kill" - this would certainly have been the outcome in a lot of countries.
On really? You would want to live in a country where the police gun down people in the street for no reason? I wouldn't. Not to mention the fact that dead suspects don't make for a very good interrogation.
ReverendFozz
Member
It would not bother me living in a country where police use guns, if I have nothing to hide, or give police any reason to shoot me, I won't get shot
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
I wonder what the reaction would have been if The Police had "shot to kill" - this would certainly have been the outcome in a lot of countries.
In this country Police officers are trained to remove the threat rather than to kill although that is often the outcome.
There is no rule about shooting to wound as it's not only very difficult but also inefficient and impracticable.
A firearms officer faced with a gunman who is not a suspected suicide bomber would normally fire dead centre at the centre mass.
If one shot seems to have done the job then one shot only would be discharged.
If more are needed then the officer makes that decision as they alone are responsible for their actions.
As regards suicide bombers the rules have been changed because a bomb is normally on the chest a head or leg shot is advised to minimise the detonation of the explosives.
Uh you missed the news lately?
These 2 hacked an unarmed man to death, just about severing his head from the body, hardly "nothing" or are you quite happy for this to be the normal!:roll:
90sWereBetter
Member
WTF does "having nothing to hide" have to do with anything? Do you want to live in a police state where the police gun down who ever they choose? I thought not. It is not the police's job to dispense "justice", that is the courts' job.
Why am I even explaining this to you? What happened in this one case has nothing what so ever to do with anything. Do you want to live in a civilised country where due process is followed, or do you want to live where the police get to MURDER anyone they like?
FFS I am so glad that is not people like you running the country.........
You may have missed it but 'having nothing to hide' does not prevent innocent people being shot by accident by the police forces in the United States...
Butts
Veteran Member
I agree to a point, but it is strange Police Officers on mainland Britain are generally unarmed when most other Countries forces are routinely armed.
Australian and New Zealand Police are armed - I wonder if their crime rates are higher than in Britain.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Correlation does not prove causation.
New Zealand police aren't armed actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Police#Weapons
I think it's something to proud of that in this country, in general, the police are able to do their job without having to carry firearms all the time. And it's not like they don't have any weapons at all. And there is the argument that if the police were routienly armed then the criminals would start tooling themselves up also, and we'd have an arms race on our hands. In any case armed police are available if needed.
And the view from the police themselves is that that don't want to be routinely armed.
I don't want to go off-topic, but as you brought it up, I am curious to know if you can tell me, what did Jean Charles de Menezes have to hide?
Butts
Veteran Member
I don't want to go off-topic, but as you brought it up, I am curious to know if you can tell me, what did Jean Charles de Menezes have to hide?
That was a monumental cock up , which is fortunately quite rare in the UK.
Because we (as in everyone else) are talking about this specific incident WTF are you on about!
This incident has everything to do with it because that is what this thread is about, these 2 had just butchered an unarmed man and then went to attack the Police (these facts are not in doubt), and some of us wouldnt have minded if the Police had fired with intent.
If nothing else it would have saved a lot of money as well as oxygen (got to think of the environment)
You would be used for target practice if I was!
Indeed. But it disproves the claim that "I got nothing to hide so I won't get shot" if the police are armed. The fact it's so rare is possibly because the police are not routinely armed.
ReverendFozz
Member
So because a policeman has a gun, that means they go.round shooting who they want, I don't think so...There would still be regulations for firearm use I would imagine, do we see Police in other countries indiscriminately shooting folk, no, The PSNI aren't loosing off there glocks on the streets of Northern Ireland either
If somebody is a threat to life, then the Police should shoot to kill
Butts
Veteran Member
True, but the Officers deployed albeit with false intelligence on that sort of mission are always armed.
No they shouldn't, the two in this case were shot but not killed
You do realise that one cannot frame individual laws for each individual crime don't you? Obviously not. TBH it's is obviously a waste of time trying to get you to see things logically or sensibly.Because we (as in everyone else) are talking about this specific incident WTF are you on about!
This incident has everything to do with it because that is what this thread is about, these 2 had just butchered an unarmed man and then went to attack the Police (these facts are not in doubt), and some of us wouldnt have minded if the Police had fired with intent.
If nothing else it would have saved a lot of money as well as oxygen (got to think of the environment)
You would be used for target practice if I was!
Where did I say they would go round shooting who they want? That is what other people have suggested they do.
I like the way some people jump into threads posting replies to comments in discussions when it's quite clear they haven't read the whole thing and have no idea who has said what, or what the post they are replying to was in response to.
Butts
Veteran Member
It depends on the risk the armed person is presenting to The Police/ and or Members of The Public.
If in fear of imminent loss of life they can shoot to kill.
What is even more sickening was the headline story on Look East tonight, an apparent revenge attack on a Muslim community centre, using gas, but fortunately they only succeeded in filling an empty room. The people who carry out this sort of thing are presumably the same sorts of idiots who used to join the UVF to 'defend' their community, and the fact that this sort of thing is happening is a clear victory for terrorism in general. The most hateful thing about terrorism is its ability to turn society in on itself while still hiding within the society it hates.
I just hope people see sense.
I just hope people see sense.
- Status