Re: Brits new "shoot to kill" policy

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" <jhanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>
>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>
>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)

Not at all. I believe in liberty.

>
>> Having said
>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>
>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>
>
>Doubtful. I am sure they did.

What you are sure of means nothing.

>
>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>> the tube?
>>
>
>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.

That's just fucking stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
population center he was going to blow up?

>
>
>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>
>>
>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove otherwise.
>Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>
No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
he was going to put it to use.


.

Quantcast