Terrorists should be shot dead on sight

dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ttack.html

Two men hacked up a brit soldier then waited 20 mins for police to arrive then charged the police. The police should have just shot them dead on the spot, rather then wounded them. Then we have the trial and all that stuff.

Just shoot obvious terrorists dead on the spot and be done with them.

Whoever the terrorists are. IF they are actively committing acts of terror. Shoot them dead on the spot.

[quote=“tommy525”]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329089/Woolwich-attack-Two-men-hack-soldier-wearing-Help-Heroes-T-shirt-death-machetes-suspected-terror-attack.html

Two men hacked up a brit soldier then waited 20 mins for police to arrive then charged the police. The police should have just shot them dead on the spot, rather then wounded them. Then we have the trial and all that stuff.

Just shoot obvious terrorists dead on the spot and be done with them.

Whoever the terrorists are. IF they are actively committing acts of terror. Shoot them dead on the spot.[/quote]

Hmm. As they did Jean Charles de Menezez? The last thing British police ought to be given is a licence to kill brown people ‘behaving suspiciously’. And how will we find out who the nutsacks are, if we execute them in the street?

Nut sacks hacked to death a soldier and waiting around to attack the police. GOod nuff in my book to shoot them to death on the spot.

Who cares they be brown,black, white or purple.

[quote=“tommy525”]Nut sacks hacked to death a soldier and waiting around to attack the police. GOod nuff in my book to shoot them to death on the spot.

Who cares they be brown,black, white or purple.[/quote]

Did you google Jean Charles Menezes?

Police are not allowed to execute people in the street.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_J … de_Menezes

that was a mistake.

obviously each case on its merits, but if the bad guys are charging you with a gun, or knife or some such, there is no need to be extra cautious about not killing the perps. Thats all im sayin, im not sayin police should go in and blast whoever is around the area.

[quote=“tommy525”]Two men hacked up a brit soldier then waited 20 mins for police to arrive then charged the police. The police should have just shot them dead on the spot, rather then wounded them. Then we have the trial and all that stuff.

Just shoot obvious terrorists dead on the spot and be done with them.[/quote]

You’re right, tommy. I mean, who needs due process? Police should be judge, jury, and executioner, all in one! Of course, the bad guys don’t usually hold video recorded interviews with passers-by while brandishing bloody murder weapons, so your brilliant “when it’s obvious” standard may not be so easy to apply in most cases. But still, once we do away with trials and judges and “all that stuff”, I’m sure police forces will attract that certain type of person who won’t be overly concerned with the philosophical details of guilt and innocence. Thank you for gifting the forum with this pearl of wisdom, tommy. We are truly blessed.

:sunglasses: all i meant to say was that if some perp was charging police with a gun or a knife or something, its ok to go ahead and shoot em dead.

Not that the fuzz should go around blasting everyone and anyone around yeah?

Yes blow em away !

As Clint Eastwood says " go ahead , make my day "

Law enforcement can and should have the right to use lethal force when it’s necessary to protect their own lives or the lives of others. We see this happen a lot:

edition.cnn.com/2013/05/22/justi … index.html

(Thanks, Google News, for offering up a perfectly relevant example)

But there are caveats. Remember how the LAPD peppered gunfire on not one, but two pick-up trucks being driven by innocent people because they mistook them for a rogue police officer? (Read about one of them here: articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08 … g-20130209 )

I have a lot of respect for police and other law enforcement officers. That being said, I’m told they have to write up a headache-inducing amount of paperwork for every single shot fired – and that’s a great thing. I firmly believe it would have been better if the elder Boston bombing suspect hadn’t been killed and could be put on trial. The justice system isn’t about revenge, it’s about understanding why certain people break laws and preventing future people from doing so.

[quote=“tommy525”]

Who cares they be brown,black, white or purple.[/quote]

Well, the British police. Certain ethnic groups are 30x more likely than those of English ethnicity in London to be stopped and searched under stop and search policies introduced to ‘combat terrorism’. The police just have to have ‘suspicions’ that you are doing something against the public interest. With institutional racism endemic in the Metropolitan force, an increased level of police violence is just not going to fly. Two years ago, there were riots after this shooting: bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19123752. Brits would not tolerate it.

Counter-terrorism police are already authorised to carry firearms in the street, a fact that is often resented. Menenez was a visitor to London who didn’t understand what the police were shouting at him and he was gunned down by paranoid, trigger-happy police. No one wants to live in a place where police shoot people in the street. It looks like the police behaved appropriately, in this case. Why ask for someone to be murdered in the street? We just can’t behave like that.

And why should some murderer get to be martyred? Someone who is happy to die for a bunch of backward beliefs (that are actually pretty funny, until he gets out a meat cleaver) should get his wish?

Btw, guys, google the story, don’t click on the Mail link of tommmy’s: those people are truly evil fuckers. Don’t give them the traffic.

:thumbsup:

They should have dragged him behind the ambulance to hospital. Save the taxpayers some $$$$.

However, if someone comes at a cop with a bloody machete, the cop is more than justified in smoking his ass.

Each case needs to be looked at for it’s own merits, as this one clearly differs in a huge way from the others mentioned.

Tommy’s out Tommyed himself on this one.

:astonished:

Another reason why this could go oh-so-wrong:

stream.wsj.com/story/latest-head … -2-237891/

Big riots in Sweden (yes, of all places) after police shot an elderly man apparently wielding a knife.

As in all human matters, technology comes to the rescue. When this babies and similar tech gets perfected, you won’t have that problem anymore. Approaching 100% efficiency in non-lethal, disabling weapons is the way to go, imo, especially considering that bullets are not the magical bolts of divine power we see in movie, either. A shot-up perp might keep shooting/stabbing/beating long after you put a bullet in him.

Yes of course the Menezes case mentioned was a tremendous fuck up. It was very very very wrong and a real tragedy.

And by the way, sometimes, once in a while, the Daily Mail has a pretty good and straightforward write up that is actually more detailed then many other news sources.

They play it straight at times.

yes even an idiot can be smart sometimes (yesyesyes to those that quietly mouth “tommy”… i hear you, but im not gonna listen to you )

[quote=“tommy525”]Yes of course the Menezes case mentioned was a tremendous fuck up. It was very very very wrong and a real tragedy.

And by the way, sometimes, once in a while, the Daily Mail has a pretty good and straightforward write up that is actually more detailed then many other news sources.

They play it straight at times.

yes even an idiot can be smart sometimes (yesyesyes to those that quietly mouth “tommy”… I hear you, but im not gonna listen to you )[/quote]

“I’ve always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper”
~ Oscar Wilde on The Daily Mail.

No, they are hateful and wicked and manipulate people who aren’t very bright into being racist, homophobic, misogynistic people. Their coverage of children is sleazy and weird. Google the Jan Moir and Stephen Gately debacle. They are extremely unethical in collecting info, in the style of News International.

They’re an absolute national disgrace and an emblem of what is wrong with a significant segment of the British people. If you’re looking for a vaguely middlebrow, easy to read summary of news, we have The Guardian, the Independent and the BBC.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY

Worse then the Apple Daily ?

Well i have not been visiting the Daily Mail with any regularity of late, so perhaps I should not either.

As far as newspapers (printed) goes. My fav has been:

The London Financial Times (so bloody expensive in Taipei)

The South China Morning Post

And thats about it.

Apple Daily is sort of a Dr. Jekyl of newspapers. Sometimes it gives you smut that really has no place on the front page of a newspaper, and sometimes it gives ground-breaking exposes on corrupt officials. I believe it was Next Magazine (壹週刊) that broke the stories on both Lin Yi-shih (林益世) and Lai Su-ju (賴素如). But most of the time it’s half-naked girls and computer-generated reenactments the latest grizzly murder.

[quote=“tommy525”]Worse then the Apple Daily ?
[/quote]

Yup. Bad people. Take your clicks elsewhere, tommy. Don’t give em the traffic.