Hrm, just trying to think of the quote I heard after the Stephen Wallace incident. From a cop I believe : "If they're worth shooting, they're worth shooting twice".
Finn: No one has to complain. It's standard procedure to refer to the PCA when the cops are involved with a shooting.
I was just making an observation rather than a judgement and did say the full story will reveal.
I have done weapons training (not guns) and serve my community but not in the Police..............just think that a man with a hammer v guns is a bit much................
Years ago I was playing pool in a pub with some friends. It was not our local so a local didn't like us playing so decided to attack me without any prior contact......he ended up in hospital...I did Aikido and was cornered and gave up after I realised what I could do.......but what if I had got a gun and shot him..............I would get prosecuted..............not much difference surely.
You are allowed to use any force you deem necessary to defend yourself, though there is seldom a case where this will happen whilst you are holding a loaded weapon. Police can carry loaded weapons legally in more situations than you that is one difference. I think i you are attacked unprovoked with many witnesses and you drop the guy permanently you would not get convicted by your peers.
The car was worth more than his life, there is only one side to the story now.
They were saying the guy may have had more weapons now, sprinkling crap to feed the public till the 'facts' are released.
So a gun v a hammer wealding guy (subject to confirmation) is deemed necessary.
In the UK the Police are taught Aikido moves which do not involve use of force even against a guy with a hammer or a knife.............there are other ways to deal with situations......and what happened to the tazer??
hehe, maybe it will turn out to have been his own car.. that would be rich.. shot for smashing up your own car
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
I agree the Police get a hard public opinion ride.
But when did being a pratt mean you deserved to get shot. I just don't think being shot is a reasonable consequence if the story so far is true.
I mean when they catch a serial killer, do they shoot them there and then because they may be in danger? But a pratt gets shot...who was the more dangerous............
What would you rather they do? Get to the scene, see the guy has a hammer so all run off to get hammers themselves so they can have a 'fair' fight in which the offender has just as much chance of 'winning' and killing them?
What aload of absolute crap, Police in the U.K don't respond to offenders with bats and knives unarmed, they go in armed exactly the same way we do. Many forces have armed response vehicles which are designated for just such a role so I have no idea where you get your information from.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks