Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- From: AlanG <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:10:50 GMT
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:40:24 -0000, "Uno Hoo!"
<kev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"joe" <joeparkinchinese@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:3sjsniFoocveU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Uno Hoo! wrote:
>>
>>> I don't believe that any police officer believes that killing is in
>>> their 'normal routine'. Society may not directly ask police to kill -
>>> but they do ask for lethally armed criminals to be incapacitated in
>>> order to prevent harm to the innocent. The only way to do that, in
>>> most circumstances, is to kill. If an armed police officers believes
>>> that he or others is at imminent risk of lethal violence then he has
>>> seconds to react. There will always be mistakes made in such
>>> circumstances. If you can find a country in the world where such
>>> mistakes by armed police officers do not happen I will be astonished.
>>> In most countries where officers are routinely armed, the number of
>>> such mistakes are dramatically higher than they are in the UK.
>>
>> "The only way to do that, in most circumstances, is to kill."
>> That bit frightens me. In most circumstances the idea is to disarm them
>> safely, not shoot the hell out of them.
>> There will always be mistakes, I have no problem with that, as I can
>> see the police will be put on the spot a lot. What I cannot get away
>> with, is the automatic denial that anyone is to blame, with no
>> independant investigation, with everyone running around with excuse
>> book at the ready, with top brass trying desperately to do anything to
>> contain the mistakes, by coverups.
>
>Firstly - the only way to ensure that someone armed with a lethal weapon
>ceases to be lethal is to kill him.
Someone with a lethal weapon is not necessarilly a threat to anyone
and until they do become a direct threat killing them is illegal.
>Shooting him in the leg is not going to
>deprive him of the means to fire his weapon. Whenever there is a police
>shooting there is an investigation. Up until recently there has not been a
>totally independent body to carry out those investigations, there is now. I
>do not accept that there are cover ups. Investigators look at the
>circumstances, question the officers involved, and prepare their findings.
>There are also coroners court hearings
And when coroners courts return a verdict of unlawful killing?
> and files submitted to the CPS. It is
>not the police who say that no action is being taken - it is always other
>bodies.
In the case of Harry Stanley it appears to be a coroner, the home
office, the police and the CPS who have decided to fight tooth and
nail to stop this case going before a judge and jury.
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- From: Uno Hoo!
- Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- From: Uno Hoo!
- Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- Prev by Date: Re: Traffic cops 26/10/2005
- Next by Date: Re: Remedy for counterfeit goods
- Previous by thread: Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- Next by thread: Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
