That doesn't explain where all the squeegee-men went. They were all a hell of a lot older than 20.
...though I guess they probably all went to Jersey.
That doesn't explain where all the squeegee-men went. They were all a hell of a lot older than 20.
...though I guess they probably all went to Jersey.
You need to understand how a Police Force operates. The Officers are despatched to incidents through a control room, the Officers don't choose where or what they want to do. They are either available to be despatched or busy at another incident or busy with a prisoner.
So the Officer is told where to go, he'll be told that there is a disturbance. That's it. Now he arrives and he has to deal with it.
If anyone is at fault it will be the Control Room - exactly the same as what happened when the Brazilian student was killed in London.
Safran- you should give up on red dotting me. You don't have enough rep to affect mine in anyway so they turn up as grey, though I do find your plaintive whining amusing.
So, can you answer my question? If someone attacks me with a chair, do you think I have the right to shoot him in the head? If you think your answer is yes, you need help.
And if your answer is no (I don't have right to shoot him in the head), do you think that a policeman has this right? If you think that he has this right but a private citizen (me) does not, than you need help too.
ONLY a very clear danger to his life. Drawing a chair and threatening someone with it isn't a clear danger to anybody's life. I have been threatened with chairs, sticks, bottles, knives, etc. (all of which can be used to kill), but I have never ever thought about blowing these people's heads off. The officer could just have retreated and called for backup instead of murdering the guy.
Bullshit. The head is smaller than the legs or the abdomen. The policeman obviously was aiming at the head of the guy, not at the abdomen, which is the most obvious (because big) target. I would be less angry with the policeman if he had shot the guy in the belly.
Yes, the abdomen, not the head!
This is what military men do. The police isn't supposed to be trigger-happy and kill, but in making people incapacitated to move, so they can be arrested and prosecuted. One shot in an arm would have been sufficient. Or a shot in the air surely! Judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so! They are supposed to protect public peace, not to kill those who momentarily disrupt it!
So everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot and a troll, right?
I am just saying what I think, but of course, since I think something differently from you, I am an idiot, right? You must have many friends!
And it isn't me who red/gray dotted you. I guess I am not the only one who thinks that your kindergarten logic is.. well,
Last edited by Safran; 20-03-2009 at 12:01 PM.
So if someone attacks you with any weapon you will stand there and take it? The job of the police is to uphold law and protect people. What if he retreated - and that man then went on to attack an innocent person or child? But of course YOU would defend his right to do that, I would imagine even if a child was killed.
OK, which is it? Drawing a chair and threatening someone with it isn't a clear danger to life (sentence 1) and then (sentence 2) I have been threatened, blah, blah, chair, blah, blah which can all be used to kill. Contradictions in 2 sentences. I am impressed. A+
Try it when your moving and the subject is moving and come back when you have the real answer. This was not 24 or CSI Miami. As mentioned police are trained to aim for the body - THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN HIT IT WHEN ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
Who else on this thread has only red dots and is only able to give out grey!
Why can't we have a slapatwat day in HK?
Last edited by jaykay; 20-03-2009 at 12:20 PM.
There is a difference between "clear danger to one's life" and "can be used to kill". A pen can be used to kill, while holding a pen is clearly not a danger to anybody's life. Is this so difficult to grasp?
I ask you again, and I would appreciate an answer:
If someone threatens me with a chair, do you think I have the right to shoot him in the head?
He was attacked with the chair, not merely threatened, and he told the guy to stop several times. The guy continued going at him with the chair, and his less-lethal force options were exhausted (apparently he wasn't much good at scrapping hand-to-hand or didn't wanna risk getting injured). It's hard to say what any of us would do in that situation. If you've ever been in a fight or watched a real one, you know it's often impossible to say which direction it's going to go in.
Yes, the cops are trained to shoot only to stop a threat to their lives or someone else's, but when that adrenaline/epinephrine hits your system, you do what you can. The cops shot someone in the leg last year and it was considered a clean shoot. This guy might have stopped his attack if he took a hot .38 slug in the leg, but who knows. I don't think the cop was aiming for the guy's head since he missed with his first shot. The second one hit the guy's head, but it might just have been luck.
He might not have been using his sights at all. I've had that experience when wargaming in an apartment building when I was 12 or 13. Someone snuck up on me and I dumped my entire pistol magazine his way. Only two of twelve BBs hit him, and both hit his legs.
Last edited by jayinhongkong; 20-03-2009 at 12:53 PM.