Armed police to be given more protection over shoot to kill

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:48 pm

Armed officers could be given greater legal protection to shoot terrorists, it has been reported.
Prime Minister David Cameron has ordered a review of the police over fears officers who "shoot to kill" could potentially face prosecution if they pull the trigger, senior government sources told The Sunday Times.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12060318/Armed-police-to-be-given-more-protection-over-shoot-to-kill.html

by Original Quill Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:04 pm

Yes, at a time when cell phone cameras tell us more precisely what happens, let's all give the police more protections against the truth:

What you saw? Well...that didn't happen! Look over there, not over here!

I feel so much more secure.

by eddie Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:Yes, at a time when cell phone cameras tell us more precisely what happens, let's all give the police more protections against the truth:

What you saw? Well...that didn't happen! Look over there, not over here!

I feel so much more secure.

Sorry I feel a bit fuzzy today...what do you mean quill?

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:Yes, at a time when cell phone cameras tell us more precisely what happens, let's all give the police more protections against the truth:

What you saw? Well...that didn't happen! Look over there, not over here!

I feel so much more secure.

No lets ensure the Police are protected by the law when confronting armed terrorists, by taking down these armed terroists in the act of attempting to murder or committing murder to as many civillians as possible.
The last thing you want when the Police face this situation is any hesitation, when the protection of civllian life far exceeds that or an armed terrorist. Who by activelly indiscrminately and deliverately targeting civillians, by the use of weapons, have themselves rendered themselves to be lawfully taken down, thus helping prevent further loss of life to civillians.
So Quill, where the French Police were able to shoot to kill some of the terrorists on the night of the attck in Paris.
Do you think this action helped prevent further loss of civillian life, or increased the loss of civillian life?

by Original Quill Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:40 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Yes, at a time when cell phone cameras tell us more precisely what happens, let's all give the police more protections against the truth:

I feel so much more secure.

No lets ensure the Police are protected by the law when confronting armed terrorists, by taking down these armed terroists in the act of attempting to murder or committing murder to as many civillians as possible.
The last thing you want when the Police face this situation is any hesitation, when the protection of civllian life far exceeds that or an armed terrorist. Who by activelly indiscrminately and deliverately targeting civillians, by the use of weapons, have themselves rendered themselves to be lawfully taken down, thus helping prevent further loss of life to civillians.
So Quill, where the French Police were able to shoot to kill some of the terrorists on the night of the attck in Paris.
Do you think this action helped prevent further loss of civillian life, or increased the loss of civillian life?

Actually, I like hesitation. A little pause to determine if you are right...and if you are not acting out of emotion rather than reason. I think we have reached a time where we need to recognize that policing is a skill that demands psychological as well as physical soundness.

We've certainly reached a point where technology can reveal the truth. And I'm not liking what we see...and I'm not as forgiving as some. I mean, if a surgeon were operating on my heart and I heard him say, I'm gonna nail that little fucker, I am..., I would not feel the need to be so forgiving. Why are we so forgiving of police?

WTF...pay them more, and then be demanding of higher standards. Shave a little off the defense budget...we can easily easily afford it. It's worth it.

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:11 pm

So let me get this staright, where men armed with kalashnikovs, a banned weapon, indiscrminately firing killing and wounding many people, has you make the abusrd claim, that needs hessitation?
Sorry that is clueless tto then reason hessitating. Then more civillians will becone casulties, as their intent is to take out as many as possible until they are taken out or stopped, even more so when some of these terrorists, have also come armed with suicide bombs attached to their chest. Thus to hesiutate is fundementally ethically and morally wrong,as you are placing a view, that does not need any confirmation, as the terorists are in the very act of killing and wounding as many people as possible.

Again what you fail to grasp is again the mindset of such extremists. They have no care for life, activelly look and seek death for themselves, thinking to them it is worth praise. Again what in any shape or form in the Paris event, would have needed any hessitation by the Police not to take out the terrorists?

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:12 pm

quill forgets that we are talking about british police, not the paid murderers they have over there

by nicko Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:15 pm

If a man points a gun at you, it could even be a toy gun,you have a split second to think,"will he shoot me" What do you do,wait a while to see if he does, or aim at the biggest part of the man and shoot him before he shoots you? It's a no brainer, you shoot before he has a chance to shoot you. If he was holding a replica hard luck , you can't take that chance. It's kill or be killed and i have done it with no regrets.

by Major Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:21 pm

He who hesitates is LOST.

If a gun armed person is at large they should be taken out immediately to preserve the innocent, simple.
If someone is armed they are OBVIOUSLY intent on doing harm, it is not any good trying to talk to them, KILL the bas***** PDQ.
That must be the first consideration of a armed police officer.

We should not have our police or armed forces in a state of HESITATION.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:39 pm

Didge wrote:So let me get this staright, where men armed with kalashnikovs, a banned weapon, indiscrminately firing killing and wounding many people, has you make the abusrd claim, that needs hessitation?

I shouldn't think it wouldn't take too long in that situation. Where it is more ambiguous, is when it is a Muslim just walking down the street and the police are guessing. Or worse, like the case of Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott

Keep in mind that Cameron isn't proposing these protections for the easy situations, where the bad guy is obvious. The protections wouldn't be necessary in that case. He's proposing for the hard ones.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:45 pm

Lord Foul wrote:quill forgets that we are talking about british police, not the paid murderers they have over there

Yes, I seem to recall a Brazilian, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, who was blessed by the ever-righteous British police. Y'all should be so lucky.

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:50 pm

the examples of hesitation given above by some are bullshit.

You would expect an office to shoot under "armed threat". I believe that's still legal.

What about when a suspect is unarmed?

That is what they want immunity from.

And, are you so naive to think this new legislation will only be used in terrorism offenses?

What about that black guy they shot before the London riots? A criminal perhaps but certainly wasn't shot for being a terrorist.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:50 pm

nicko wrote:If a man points a gun at you, it could even be a toy gun,you have a split second to think,"will he shoot me" What do you do,wait a while to see if he does, or aim at the biggest part of the man and shoot him before he shoots you? It's a no brainer, you shoot before he has a chance to shoot you. If he was holding a replica hard luck , you can't take that chance. It's kill or be killed and i have done it with no regrets.

No one is saying the job is for children. I have served as a law-enforcement officer, and I have taught in the Police Academy. I know more than you what situations a police officer is likely to face, and what options are available to him. None of them are as simplistic as you perceive them.

The answer is not to invent laws to camouflage cover-ups. Two wrongs don't make a right. The answer is to demand standards of people we place in so vital a position, and then pay for them.

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:quill forgets that we are talking about british police, not the paid murderers they have over there

Yes, I seem to recall a Brazilian, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, who was blessed by the ever-righteous British police. Y'all should be so lucky.

Bingo!

You beat me to it.

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:51 pm

yeah, thats one in how many???

as opposed to your what, 2-3 PER WEEK??

I wouldnt play the comparison game if I were you quill Rolling Eyes

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:51 pm

Lord Foul wrote:yeah, thats one in how many???

as opposed to your what, 2-3 PER WEEK??

I wouldnt play the comparison game if I were you quill

One example was enough for his family.

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:52 pm

Well based on Quills answers he clearly has not read the article and in the active event of a criminal terrorist act

It comes after an officer was arrested and interviewed under caution as part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry into the death of Jermaine Baker.
The 28-year-old, from Tottenham, north London, died from a single gunshot wound during an operation against an alleged attempt to spring two convicts from a prison van near Wood Green.
The sources claim Mr Cameron is also wanting to see an end to lengthy investigations by the IPCC.
A senior source told the paper: "Terrorist incidents both at home and abroad have shown very clearly the life and death decisions police officers have to make in split second circumstances.
"We must make sure that when police take the ultimate decision to protect the safety of the public they do so with the full support of the law and the state - there can be no room for hesitation when lives are at risk."

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:53 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:So let me get this staright, where men armed with kalashnikovs, a banned weapon, indiscrminately firing killing and wounding many people, has you make the abusrd claim, that needs hessitation?
Sorry that is clueless tto then reason hessitating. Then more civillians will becone casulties, as their intent is to take out as many as possible until they are taken out or stopped, even more so when some of these terrorists, have also come armed with suicide bombs attached to their chest. Thus to hesiutate is fundementally ethically and morally wrong,as you are placing a view, that does not need any confirmation, as the terorists are in the very act of killing and wounding as many people as possible.

Again what you fail to grasp is again the mindset of such extremists. They have no care for life, activelly look and seek death for themselves, thinking to them it is worth praise. Again what in any shape or form in the Paris event, would have needed any hessitation by the Police not to take out the terrorists?

I suppose you support armed US border patrol at Heathrow with diplomatic immunity too?

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:54 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:yeah, thats one in how many???

as opposed to your what, 2-3 PER WEEK??

I wouldnt play the comparison game if I were you quill

One example was enough for his family.

lucky for you that the majority of folks here dont apply the same logic to "Muslims" then init Fuzzy Question

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:01 pm

So the reasoning QQuill gives is that you should hessiate incase you might wrongly kill someone, and yet by hessitating to act, where you are 90 percent sure, they are a terrorist on rout to commit a terrorist act/ Where this is indeed the terrorist, they then are able to cause mayhem and maximum loss of life,.

So lets do the maths?

One a couple of mistaken killings compared to fatalities in the hundreds through hessiatation?

Hessitation in scuh a reality is going to ensure far worse consequences, where the suspected individual is the terrorist.

by Original Quill Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:01 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Well based on Quills answers he clearly has not read the article and in the active event of a criminal terrorist act

It comes after an officer was arrested and interviewed under caution as part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry into the death of Jermaine Baker.
The 28-year-old, from Tottenham, north London, died from a single gunshot wound during an operation against an alleged attempt to spring two convicts from a prison van near Wood Green.
The sources claim Mr Cameron is also wanting to see an end to lengthy investigations by the IPCC.
A senior source told the paper: "Terrorist incidents both at home and abroad have shown very clearly the life and death decisions police officers have to make in split second circumstances.
"We must make sure that when police take the ultimate decision to protect the safety of the public they do so with the full support of the law and the state - there can be no room for hesitation when lives are at risk."

If you are naive enough to believe that that is what he is trying to defend, you deserve your victimhood. No, he's not talking about the obvious case. He's not trying "to see an end to lengthy investigations by the IPCC," he wants to end investigations period. I've been there. He's suggesting to make them so embroiled in red tape, that they come to nothing.

It's a cover-up for the cover-ups.

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:02 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:So let me get this staright, where men armed with kalashnikovs, a banned weapon, indiscrminately firing killing and wounding many people, has you make the abusrd claim, that needs hessitation?
Sorry that is clueless tto then reason hessitating. Then more civillians will becone casulties, as their intent is to take out as many as possible until they are taken out or stopped, even more so when some of these terrorists, have also come armed with suicide bombs attached to their chest. Thus to hesiutate is fundementally ethically and morally wrong,as you are placing a view, that does not need any confirmation, as the terorists are in the very act of killing and wounding as many people as possible.

Again what you fail to grasp is again the mindset of such extremists. They have no care for life, activelly look and seek death for themselves, thinking to them it is worth praise. Again what in any shape or form in the Paris event, would have needed any hessitation by the Police not to take out the terrorists?

I suppose you support armed US border patrol at Heathrow with diplomatic immunity too?

Poor irrelevant deflective reponse

by Original Quill Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:04 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:So the reasoning QQuill gives is that you should hessiate incase you might wrongly kill someone, and yet by hessitating to act, where you are 90 percent sure, they are a terrorist on rout to commit a terrorist act/ Where this is indeed the terrorist, they then are able to cause mayhem and maximum loss of life,.

So lets do the maths?

One a couple of mistaken killings compared to fatalities in the hundreds through hessiatation?

Hessitation in scuh a reality is going to ensure far worse consequences, where the suspected individual is the terrorist.

You are still trying to hide behind your red herrings. Again, Cameron is not proposing these laws for the obvious case. There would be no investigation in the obvious case. He is building a pre-defense for the wrong-doing police officer.

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:05 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I suppose you support armed US border patrol at Heathrow with diplomatic immunity too?
Poor irrelevant deflective reponse

Armed terrorist police in the uk with immunity against prosecution is a deflection?

HA HA!

Answer the question, you coward.

The only reason you can't answer the question is becuase it will blow your argument apart. Make my day by avoiding the question again. cheers

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:06 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Yes, at a time when cell phone cameras tell us more precisely what happens, let's all give the police more protections against the truth:

I feel so much more secure.

Sorry I feel a bit fuzzy today...what do you mean quill?

Considering you felt me without consent, I'm glad you at least apologised.

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:07 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Well based on Quills answers he clearly has not read the article and in the active event of a criminal terrorist act

It comes after an officer was arrested and interviewed under caution as part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry into the death of Jermaine Baker.
The 28-year-old, from Tottenham, north London, died from a single gunshot wound during an operation against an alleged attempt to spring two convicts from a prison van near Wood Green.
The sources claim Mr Cameron is also wanting to see an end to lengthy investigations by the IPCC.
A senior source told the paper: "Terrorist incidents both at home and abroad have shown very clearly the life and death decisions police officers have to make in split second circumstances.
"We must make sure that when police take the ultimate decision to protect the safety of the public they do so with the full support of the law and the state - there can be no room for hesitation when lives are at risk."

If you are naive enough to believe that that is what he is trying to defend, you deserve your victimhood. No, he's not talking about the obvious case. He's not trying "to see an end to lengthy investigations by the IPCC," he wants to end investigations period. I've been there. He's suggesting to make them so embroiled in red tape, that they come to nothing.

It's a cover-up for the cover-ups.

No a lefty places those at greater risk of lesser importane by wanting officers who have no time at all to even think to hessiate in such a terrorist situation, is like I say going to ensure far worse consequences based on it is a terrorist.

What also is the worse situtaion to live with based on the decisions and consequences.

Not hessitating and based on sound intelligence being in many cases right, the possibility of mistake leading to the wrong suspect being killed.

Hessiatating and then the officer then has to deal with the fact he should of gone off the known intelligence as his hessiation has not prevented the terrorist attack happeniong and now has countless people, he is responsible for not protecting

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:08 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

One example was enough for his family.

lucky for you that the majority of folks here dont apply the same logic to "Muslims" then init Fuzzy

Muslims are in danger of terrorism like any other person in the UK. So your logic is bullshit

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:10 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Poor irrelevant deflective reponse

Armed terrorist police in the uk with immunity against prosecution is a deflection?

HA HA!

Answer the question, you coward.

The only reason you can't answer the question is becuase it will blow your argument apart. Make my day by avoiding the question again.

Again all irrlevant, where the only thing relevangt is whether you believe terrorists in the act of comitting carnage should be taken out?

Show me what relevance it has to the law protecting the British Police, in regards o US border Police and what laws they are governed by?

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:14 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

lucky for you that the majority of folks here dont apply the same logic to "Muslims" then init Fuzzy

Muslims are in danger of terrorism like any other person in the UK. So your logic is bullshit

clearly too deep for you fuzzy Evil or Very Mad

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:22 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Armed terrorist police in the uk with immunity against prosecution is a deflection?

HA HA!

Answer the question, you coward.

The only reason you can't answer the question is becuase it will blow your argument apart. Make my day by avoiding the question again.

Again all irrlevant, where the only thing relevangt is whether you believe terrorists in the act of comitting carnage should be taken out?

Show me what relevance it has to the law protecting the British Police, in regards o US border Police and what laws they are governed by?

Lol! Haven't you heard?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367396/US-guards-guns-patrol-British-airports-time-controversial-new-plans-discussed-London-Washington.html

Do you agree with this also?

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:28 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Again all irrlevant, where the only thing relevangt is whether you believe terrorists in the act of comitting carnage should be taken out?

Show me what relevance it has to the law protecting the British Police, in regards o US border Police and what laws they are governed by?

Lol! Haven't you heard?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367396/US-guards-guns-patrol-British-airports-time-controversial-new-plans-discussed-London-Washington.html

Do you agree with this also?

I am frankly indifferent to US armed Police working in conjuction with armed British Police.
Again it has no relevance

As again what relevance does any of that have based on changing the law to protect the British Police where they have had to take out someone armed commkit criminal/rerrorist atc?

You need to reason why you believe it is relevant. I know for a fact it has utterly no relevance to the article and on the possibility of the law changing

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:47 pm

well, anyhow, they will only be stationed on the US terminals anyway...so the answer is simple....dont travel to te US if it bothers you (I mean...why WOULD you....anyway)

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:51 pm

Lord Foul wrote:well, anyhow, they will only be stationed on the US terminals anyway...so the answer is simple....dont travel to te US if it bothers you (I mean...why WOULD you....anyway)

When you think about it, we should support such a partnnership.
Basically free of charge more trained specific to airports Border Police, wheich then helps with more patrols, areas covered, etc, reducing the risk.
More people armed and trained means greater security and again at no extra cost

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:58 pm

not sure about the diplomatic immunity though, we can do without turning an air port into a war zone (the yanks turn ANY situation into a war zone)

and...I seriously hope the immunity ONLY applies while they are actually on duty...

and that they are NOT allowed their guns and immunity whilst off duty, travelling to and from duty etc....

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:10 pm

Lord Foul wrote:not sure about the diplomatic immunity though, we can do without turning an air port into a war zone (the yanks turn ANY situation into a war zone)

and...I seriously hope the immunity ONLY applies while they are actually on duty...

and that they are NOT allowed their guns and immunity whilst off duty, travelling to and from duty etc....

But lets look at this with closer inspection.
How many incidences at US airports, where the US border patrol are trigger happy?
Like I say we already have armed Police. So the only view to beingf against this is off a sterotyped view of US Police officers being gun happy. I know of claims made in regards to some abuses by the US Border Police, which happen at crossings areas on the nation borders, and of one shot dead, for rock throwing and some other deaths in custody, of which that Officer has been inicted for second degree murder ss of Sept this year. on Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez. .What could only be relevant here would be their track record within airports and the use of guns to the point at hand. So what needs to be known if anyone has been taken out at US airports by the Border Police, for wrongly being deemed a terrorist, about to commit an act of terrorism.

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:not sure about the diplomatic immunity though, we can do without turning an air port into a war zone (the yanks turn ANY situation into a war zone)

and...I seriously hope the immunity ONLY applies while they are actually on duty...

and that they are NOT allowed their guns and immunity whilst off duty, travelling to and from duty etc....

by Major Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:24 pm

Error

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:not sure about the diplomatic immunity though, we can do without turning an air port into a war zone (the yanks turn ANY situation into a war zone)

and...I seriously hope the immunity ONLY applies while they are actually on duty...

and that they are NOT allowed their guns and immunity whilst off duty, travelling to and from duty etc....

Do you see any reason why that would not be the case?
What is the policy on US forces already based and working here?

Anyway Victor, early start tomorrow, so have a wonderful evening and catch you tomorrow

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:29 pm

US forces based and working here do NOT have diplomatic immunity...they are subject to british law...AFAIK

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:38 pm

Lord Foul wrote:US forces based and working here do NOT have diplomatic immunity...they are subject to british law...AFAIK

Never claimed they did have diplomatic immunity, being that my point on US forces is what already happens, based off your fear on an allowance to keep their weapons. When the US foprces are off duty and go into town, thus either being able or not able to to continue to carry their guns?
So you mistook the relevance to the question.
Border Police off duty are also deemed and subject to British law, hence its odd that you went off the wrong point to my question

by Victorismyhero Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:48 pm

no didge ...the point is that talk here is that these border force WILL have diplomatic immunity... Armed police to be given more protection over shoot to kill 2190311264

Armed police to be given more protection over shoot to kill 2190311264

by Guest Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:52 pm

Lord Foul wrote:no didge ...the point is that talk here is that these border force WILL have diplomatic immunity...

Point taken,
You are right, they would not even whilst on duty have diplomatic immunity.

lol, which is why I am tired and need some rest.

Night

Laughing

by Major Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:06 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRA5FBtbHHM

by Original Quill Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:48 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Armed terrorist police in the uk with immunity against prosecution is a deflection?

HA HA!

Answer the question, you coward.

The only reason you can't answer the question is becuase it will blow your argument apart. Make my day by avoiding the question again.

Again all irrlevant, where the only thing relevangt is whether you believe terrorists in the act of comitting carnage should be taken out?

So basically, you are saying that your Cameron is promising that these police protection laws would only apply where "terrorists in the act of comitting carnage" are the target?. Never on an innocent person, like the Menezes situation.

In that case, why would the police need any protection? If the laws he proposes are used only in situations that are already righteous, Britain has no need of them.

But...if Cameron guarantees the law would only be used in those situations, so be it. He should go ahead and pass such a fatuous law if that's his habit. Alternatively, if he crafts the law in a way that doesn't guarantee that, you've been sucker punched.

by Guest Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:50 am

Original Quill wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Again all irrlevant, where the only thing relevangt is whether you believe terrorists in the act of comitting carnage should be taken out?

So basically, you are saying that your Cameron is promising that these police protection laws would only apply where "terrorists in the act of comitting carnage" are the target?. Never on an innocent person, like the Menezes situation.

In that case, why would the police need any protection? If the laws he proposes are used only in situations that are already righteous, Britain has no need of them.

But...if Cameron guarantees the law would only be used in those situations, so be it. He should go ahead and pass such a fatuous law if that's his habit. Alternatively, if he crafts the law in a way that doesn't guarantee that, you've been sucker punched.

And we come for circle again, to where I have said not just terrorism but armed criminal situations, where others lives are under immenent threat.
Hence why again you missed the important part on the article itself, which shows the Police are clearly not protected.

It comes after an officer was arrested and interviewed under caution as part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry into the death of Jermaine Baker.
The 28-year-old, from Tottenham, north London, died from a single gunshot wound during an operation against an alleged attempt to spring two convicts from a prison van near Wood Green.
The sources claim Mr Cameron is also wanting to see an end to lengthy investigations by the IPCC.
A senior source told the paper: "Terrorist incidents both at home and abroad have shown very clearly the life and death decisions police officers have to make in split second circumstances.
"We must make sure that when police take the ultimate decision to protect the safety of the public they do so with the full support of the law and the state - there can be no room for hesitation when lives are at risk."

by Major Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:33 am

If someone has a gun why should anyone give them an opportunity to shoot someone????

Shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

by Original Quill Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:54 pm

Telegraph wrote:The sources claim Mr Cameron is also wanting to see an end to lengthy investigations by the IPCC.

This is the part that I question. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is an investigation unit. An investigation unit is aimed at determining the truth. Why is Cameron against finding out the truth? The only situation I can imagine is when you don't want it to come to light.

A common tactic in these situations is for the agency to prolong the investigation by dragging their heels on matters of discovery and protocol, until a statute of limitations runs out, or it just takes too long. Then they move for dismissal. The result is that it goes away, effectively negating anything positive coming from the process.

The agency is responsible for the delay, yet the delay is the common basis upon which they complain about the whole process. Thus, it is obvious that its only a political show. It's the classic red herring: make things take too long, then complain about how long it takes. Now, here is Cameron waving the same flag. It's reflex politics.

An unchecked police force is a police state. The next time Nanny or baby Alice is killed by a police bullet, you'll hear the screams.

by nicko Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:48 pm

You never mentioned the poor bugger who pulled the trigger hung out to dry with all the worry over what will happen to him. Sonny, get back to the real world instead of the fanciful one you inhabit.

by Original Quill Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:43 pm

nicko wrote:You never mentioned the poor bugger who pulled the trigger hung out to dry with all the worry over what will happen to him. Sonny, get back to the real world instead of the fanciful one you inhabit.

Look...I don't care what you do with your lil hideaway nest. I'm just telling you what happens out of experience.

Got enough to do lookin' after the most powerful nation on earth.

by nicko Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:59 am

What "experience" have you had,running for cover when a firework explodes I guess.

by Sponsored content