Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- From: "Michael Cargill" <mikementalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:16:32 -0000
"joe" <joeparkinchinese@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3skg4tFop4qqU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Michael Cargill wrote:
>
> > "joe" <joeparkinchinese@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:3sk8n6FohceqU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > When talking about 'shoot to kill', what has negotiation got to do
> > with it? Wether you are shooting to maim or kill things must have
> > already progressed to a point beyond negotiation.
>
> We were not talking about shoot to kill, we were talking about the only
> way to stop someone armed from being a lethal threat was to shoot them.
> Try to read the posts in order.
You said "In most circumstances the idea is to disarm them
safely, not shoot the hell out of them."
Most people would take that to mean to shoot the person in the
leg/arm/whatever, and not mean to negotiate.
.
- 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
- From: Michael Cargill
- Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge
- Prev by Date: Re: Remedy for counterfeit goods
- Next by Date: Re: Employer has the right of *auditing* (=scanning content) of employees hard disks?
- 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
|
|
