Why weren't they shot ?

[100%]

are you expecting a baby by any chance?
(your avatar)

[manicgeek]

are you expecting a baby by any chance?
(your avatar)

A baby! Not in my condition I'm male.

[Barbarossa]

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.

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 ?

No you see what I've done there is pointed out how flawed and narrow your definition of a "position where they could do harm" is, and what you've done there is interpreted that as being what my opinion is.

Also, you haven't addressed the logical conclusion of your way of thinking. Namely that we would be living in a totalitarian state in much more of a perpetual state of fear that we may inadvertantly blunder into the wrong place and be shot for it by the authorities, than we currently are about being the victims of a terrorist attack.

For the record, I'm not against shooting suspected terrorists if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that to do so would prevent a terrorist act which would result in the loss of innocent lives. However we must not lose the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It's much too important.

[manicgeek]

No you see what I've done there is pointed out how flawed and narrow your definition of a "position where they could do harm" is, and what you've done there is interpreted that as being what my opinion is.

Also, you haven't addressed the logical conclusion of your way of thinking. Namely that we would be living in a totalitarian state in much more of a perpetual state of fear that we may inadvertantly blunder into the wrong place and be shot for it by the authorities, than we currently are about being the victims of a terrorist attack.

For the record, I'm not against shooting suspected terrorists if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that to do so would prevent a terrorist act which would result in the loss of innocent lives. However we must not lose the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It's much too important.

No you haven't. I can only assume you are confused about what you have said. You said that anyone in a public place poses a threat and that by my logic he should be treated as such until proven otherwise. So you are saying that the bloke sat in his shirt sleeves in Hyde park eating his sandwiches in the middle of summer should be treated as a threat.

I dispute that and say that if someone deliberately puts themselves in a position of being able to do harm then they should be treated as such until they are proven otherwise, as is the case with motorcyclists who wear helmets into banks.

And to imply that it is possible to 'inadvertently' wander airside in an airport is very misleading, and also fails to account for greenpeaces own claims to have breached security.

These people deliberately set about obtaining access to somewhere they shouldn't have, and our wonderful airport security apparatus completely failed in their primary missions, to ensure that security was maintained and to prevent any attack on the general public.

So what is the point of having them ? They are unable to prevent major security breaches of the kind that could cost hundreds of lives. They are unable to shoot people who deliberately put themselves in positions where shooting them would be a valid response to their presence.

[devilsadvocate]

The sign of a good law enforcement officer, especially armed, above knowing when to shoot, is knowing when not to. Dealy force is not the default action and never should be, it's the last resort.
The fact that this was resolved without anyone being shot shows the professionalism of the officers involved.

[manicgeek]

The sign of a good law enforcement officer, especially armed, above knowing when to shoot, is knowing when not to. Dealy force is not the default action and never should be, it's the last resort.
The fact that this was resolved without anyone being shot shows the professionalism of the officers involved.

No it doesn't. If they'd have been in a position to shoot then these people would never have managed to make it to the plane to hang their banner, because they would have been arrested or shot before making it to the plane!

What it probably shows is that they are so unaware of what is going on the the area that they have been tasked to control that it was all over bar the photos by the time they arrived.

So if they're not capable of protecting the public, why are they there at all ?

[devilsadvocate]

You seem to be under the impression that armed police should be standing guard at every gate and have a shooting solution at any time any area. They patrol general areas and have standby rapid response. Unlike you I wasn't there to asses the situation as it happened. I am glad however that you were not one of the armed police stationed at the airport at the time the incident occurred. The professionals assessed the situation, correctly determined it to not be a danger to the public and the proper outcome was achieved.

[manicgeek]

You seem to be under the impression that armed police should be standing guard at every gate and have a shooting solution at any time any area. They patrol general areas and have standby rapid response. Unlike you I wasn't there to asses the situation as it happened. I am glad however that you were not one of the armed police stationed at the airport at the time the incident occurred. The professionals assessed the situation, correctly determined it to not be a danger to the public and the proper outcome was achieved.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Yeah right they did... OMG are you seriously expecting us to believe that they had a clue that someone had breached security and they just stood back and never deployed some policemen to intercept them ? Good god you'll be asking us to believe in fairies next

The truth as is plain for all to see is that they knew nothing about it until someone told them about the greenpeace protesters who had just unfurled a banner on an aircraft that was parked on the tarmac.

So I assume you'll support those professionals you spoke of being sacked, as they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress, by four people (who could have been god knows whom, with god knows what intent) that they knew about. They made no attempts to intercept these four unidentified people or to prevent them reaching anything that could make an almighty bang ? And if they did that as you claim with knowledge before the protesters reached their target they have been grossly negligent, wouldn't you say ?

[devilsadvocate]

Where did I say they knew of the breach until the protesters were on the aircraft? I said they assessed the situation and dealt with it correctly.
I stated that they patrol general areas with rapid reponse and not have a man every gate to provide firecover for every inch. Do you know how many personel it would require?
No I would not support them being sacked, they did their job. I take it you were there and you saw these police watching the protesters approaching the aircraft and totally ignore them.

[manicgeek]

Where did I say they knew of the breach until the protesters were on the aircraft? I said they assessed the situation and dealt with it correctly.
I stated that they patrol general areas with rapid reponse and not have a man every gate to provide firecover for every inch. Do you know how many personel it would require?
No I would not support them being sacked, they did their job. I take it you were there and you saw these police watching the protesters approaching the aircraft and totally ignore them.

Why do you think it's necessary to actually see the protesters reach the aircraft ? Do you not trust the news media ?

So if the news media and greenpeace themselves aren't lying then it's safe to assume that the protesters reached the aircraft, yes ? and by doing so they showed that the police didn't have a clue that they were doing it until after the fact, yes ? So I'll ask again...

What is the point of having armed police officers in airports ? They obviously can't protect the public, you have admitted as much yourself when you said they only have a few designated patrols areas, meaning that they don't patrol large areas of the airport, and their reaction force would take some time to deploy in an area the size of Heathrow, in which time large numbers of people would be dead. They obviously can't maintain security of the airport, you have again admitted as much yourself when you said that they cannot deploy enough officers to cover the entire airport. So what purpose do they serve ?