No it was a real threat, saying it wasn't a real threat with hindsight is how people get blown up. The police had no way of knowing if it was a threat before the fact and have to react to it as a threat until they know otherwise... if they're not doing this they might as well all go home.Originally Posted by Barbarossa
...except that it wasn't a real threat
mostly harmless
By your logic the police should treat everyone as a threat until proved otherwise. This is not a way to run a society, unless you'd like to live in a totalitarian society.
Personally, I wouldn't.
Make your mind up, do you want them to shoot suspicious people on sight or don't you?mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.
No that's not true either.
By my logic the police should treat anyone who is in a position whereby they pose a threat as a threat until proven otherwise. That is how you run a society, at least it is if you don't want dead bodies littering the streets.
I want them to shoot people who pose a credible threat, not a bloke who they've followed and had ample opportunity to challenge before he ever became a threat of any kind, or a bloke with a wooden table leg in his hand.
What's so difficult about that ?
╚════╩═╬════╝
Please define the word "threat".
mostly harmless
Anyone who is in a public space is posing a threat, or do you think it is only airports where we are vulnerable to attack?
I think the families of 55 people who were killed in the tubes or on that bus in London in 2005 would beg to differ.
╚════╩═╬════╝
Don't you think that Greenpeace, was aware of the fact that if they did one of their protests in an airport, in post 911 hype, that it would be highly dangerous for them.
They probably made sure, that they did not look like "credible threateristas".
Manicgeek, it is at this moment that it is ok to say "damn hippies".
Well if you want to live in a totalitarian state you could define "posing a threat" that way, I don't so I'll stick with people who have deliberately put themselves into a position where they could do harm as my definition.
So you agree then that people who are identifiable as a threat should be shot ? Because if that's not what you're saying why are you suggesting that the families of past victims would disagree with me ? Or do you think that the families of past victims wouldn't want future attacks stopped ?
Actually I didn't have a problem with what they are protesting about, they may have a valid point, however any group that uses idiot stunts like this will never get my support for anything that it argues for. All stupid stunts like this do is make me want them to lose their argument and for whatever it is they're trying to stop to happen.
╚════╩═╬════╝
Hence, anyone who acts out of the ordinary should be shot.
Move to norway, nothing humane happens here.
You may have something there
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks