Re: Why weren't they shot ?
You said they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress not me. The media were not there so it's nothing more than a report of an event not a statement of the police ignoring the breach. Also Where did I say the protestors didn't reach the aircraft?
I never said they only patrol a few designated areas, I said they patrol designated areas, just so you know this means that the officers are designated a patrol area so that the entire airport has a partrol. There would be more officers per square foot in public areas and less on areas not not open to the public and less on the vast amount of open ground airside.
I'm unable to figure out (apart from your love of strawman argument) what it is that you feel should be done. Unless it's put one armed officer with an itchy trigger finger every ten square feet, or you want to do away with armed response officers altogether and let everyone take their chances.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
You said they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress not me. The media were not there so it's nothing more than a report of an event not a statement of the police ignoring the breach. Also Where did I say the protestors didn't reach the aircraft?
I never said they only patrol a few designated areas, I said they patrol designated areas, just so you know this means that the officers are designated a patrol area so that the entire airport has a partrol. There would be more officers per square foot in public areas and less on areas not not open to the public and less on the vast amount of open ground airside.
I'm unable to figure out (apart from your love of strawman argument) what it is that you feel should be done. Unless it's put one armed officer with an itchy trigger finger every ten square feet, or you want to do away with armed response officers altogether and let everyone take their chances.
No you implied it, when you stated that the professionals had chosen the correct action, in not intervening and stopping these four individuals.
Where did I say you said the protesters didn't reach the aircraft ?
Ah! So you're now admitting that there were officers designated to patrol that area and that they failed to prevent a security breach, that's a different story to the one you were saying earlier when you were saying that it isn't possible to cover the entire area because of resources. So which is it ? Were there officers designated to cover that area ? If so they failed in their assignment didn't they ? If not then they can't protect the public because they're not able to cover the ground are they ? You need to make your mind up, you can't use contradictory arguments and expect them both to hold up!
Ooo there's that phrase again "strawman argument" I've seen that crap posted at me before, it was crap then and it's crap now.
What chances do you think everyone would be taking then ? The chance that an armed officer wouldn't be able to intervene... like they didn't today ? The chance that a 'professional' would make a decision (using your earlier statement about them making the right decisions, and assuming they knew, just as it seems you did) to not intervene ? The chance that the police would even know anything about it until it was too late ?
What position is it that you are struggling with ? My position is simple why do we have armed officers wandering around airports when they are unable to protect the public or enforce security ? As they have proved so well today!
Now were you at some point going to answer the question that I have been asking from the beginning, and that I have actually posted directly to you, or do you intend to keep avoiding it ?
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
I fly fairly frequently on a work basis and while there are armed police in the terminals I have never seen one on the tarmac when I have been boarding a plane. Leaving the crocodile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard - usually there are about two ground staff directing people (often young women). The general view being that by the time one gets on to the tarmac you don't have anything more dangerous than a toothbrush (and then only one with medium bristles not the scratchy firm ones).
So they stuck a banner on a plane. By the time the police arrived at the scene from the terminal the banner would be up and the hippies having a love in. It is not hard to see that they would have decided a shooting might be unnecessary. No big deal. Now if they had got on the tarmac with dummy Stinger missile launchers that would have been a security breach to talk about.
Actually having bullets flying around parked planes would not be a desperately good idea.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
I fly fairly frequently on a work basis and while there are armed police in the terminals I have never seen one on the tarmac when I have been boarding a plane. Leaving the crocidile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard - usually there are about two ground staff directing people (often young women). The general view being that by the time one gets on to the tarmac you don't have anything more dangerous than a toothbrush (and then only one with medium bristles not the scratchy firm ones).
So they stuck a banner on a plane. By the time the police arrived at the scene from the terminal the banner would be up and the hippies having a love in. It is not hard to see that they would have decided a shooting might be unnecessary. No big deal. Now if they had got on the tarmac with dummy Stinger missile launchers that would have been a security breach to talk about.
Actually having bullets fling around parked planes would not be a desperately good idea.
That's precisely my point, thanks Les :)
They should all be sacked because they are obviously not up to the job, and we should do away with armed police officers in airports.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
I say you love the strawman because you projecting arguments onto others that they are not making. I have answered the question. "Why were they not shot" Because they didn't have to be shot. I have also explained that to give anything close to 100% infailibilty there would need to be an armed offecier every 10 square feet. But I will add that there should be four officers stood together facing the four main compass directions without turning their gaze away for one moment. Or better still one armed guard walking behind each person with his gun trained on their head "just in case". Of course that is riduculous
You said they ignored the breach, So I have to assume you were there to see these officers being told of or noticing the breach and just shrugging it off. Perhaps the situtation had ended by the time they were made aware and the ordinary security had dealt with it. Either way no shooting was needed.
Why do we have police at all? they don't prevent crime. Why do we have doctors? people still die from treatable illnesses, which brings me to what I can't figure out about your point.
I said I can't figure out what you feel should be done. You want to remove armed police because they weren't on the scene as it happened so didn't shoot the protesters before they got to the aircraft. How would that solve the problem?
The armed police are there to patrol and deal with anything the see and respond to incidents they are called to. In the UK BAA supplies security to check for bombs etc. and to escort the public around their premisses not the police.
@ Biggles. You may not have seen them, but they are about.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
Leaving the crocodile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard
An excellent idea. If they got crocodiles to patrol the tarmac between the terminal building and the planes then this sort of thing wouldn't be a problem :smilie4:
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manicgeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
Did you even read the article? :unsure:
"It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked."
"BAA said operations at the airport were not affected and described the protest as "unlawful and irresponsible"."
Why would officials shoot 4 civilians who were taping a sign to an empty plane? :unsure:
'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?
Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.
Not to be racist and bring race into this though.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SenorBubbz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manicgeek
'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?
Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.
Not to be racist and bring race into this though.
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
I sort of like the idea of always having a gun pushing into the back of your head.
It would ensure that i make more precise decisions in life.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chalice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SenorBubbz
Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.
Not to be racist and bring race into this though.
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Probly a good thing that none of them were hypocrites then.
