Thoughts for those that lost their lives in Paris

kinger101

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

corbyn on tv 'i wouldn't allow shoot to kill'

No, you'd probably let the terrorists use up all of their rounds on British citizens and then invite them to tea to talk it through.

Good job a weak man like jeremy corbyn will never be in power, ever.

Just shows what an idiot he is in general. A marksman is trained to aim for the chest as it's the largest part of the body, or the head if there is a suicide belt. The whole point is to rapidly incapacitate. No point attempting to shoot a limb. A higher chance of missing, and it doesn't neutralize the target even if it does hit. I really dislike the term "shoot to kill" as the officer who needs to take the decision to fire must do so on the basis of protecting themselves and the public. It's not the officer's fault that the two best sites for incapacitating the target are usually fatal.

Sapphire

Yolina wrote: »

Also, not seen this make it to the British media but this woman was simply amazing, she's a retired lawyer - it's not just what she says but how she says it.

I found this incredibly moving. Out of the mouths of babes…

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/fathers-talk-son-about-paris-terror-attack-goes-viral-n464981

zarf2007

Tromking wrote: »

Of course not.
I'm forgiving of the Police because I remember the febrile atmosphere of the country at the time and it's important we put it in that context.
This country was under attack and the people entrusted to protect us and take the fight to the terrorists were a bunch of volunteer civilian police officers who if they were hung out to dry could along with hundreds of other fellow volunteers hand in their firearms with no questions asked.
These brave public servants deserved a 'cover up' to protect them, just as the family of De Menezes deserved an apology from the Met Commissioner and the not inconsiderable financial compensation, although I seem to remember they are still after their pound of flesh via the European legal route.
Surprisingly I don't remember the Brazilian state making too much of fuss about this, although perhaps when 2000 people are shot every year by the Police in Brazil it's not that surprising.

It doesnt matter what the 'context' was at the time, a mistake was made and they should have owned up to it. If anything the public would have had more sympathy for the officer who pulled the trigger had they not been lied to.

No circumstances warrant a cover up, and it leads to future incidents like the shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham to have a question mark over them as to whether such a cover up has happened again.

Noone is doubting the pressure the police were/are under in a situation like that but it seems to me like they can get away with anything and lie through their teeth and noone bats an eyelid.

setmefree2

Good things to come out of Paris Terror Attacks imho



1)Obama & Putin huddled at G20 meeting.

2)Muslim messages going viral after the Paris attacks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34858514

Tromking

zarf2007 wrote: »

It doesnt matter what the 'context' was at the time, a mistake was made and they should have owned up to it. If anything the public would have had more sympathy for the officer who pulled the trigger had they not been lied to.

Nobody gave a stuff about poor Mr De Meneses, and probably still don't, so no need to garner any sympathy for these brave policemen.
I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of our volunteer firearms officers handing in their firearms in large numbers.
The catastrophic mistake was admitted from the off, how could they do any other. Again, from my sketchy memory, the bone of contention was the Met over embellishing the actions of the suspect prior to him being shot and the communications between the officers on the ground and officers in charge being a bit crap. A country under attack and a police service struggling to cope is everything in this case.

missyrichards

vivatifosi wrote: »

I also find it more problematic that there is little distinction between the thirty. I find the de Menezes case v sad, same with the chap who was carrying a table leg. However I don't have the same sympathy for the person who was holding hostages, or the ones who opened fire on the police.

I totally agree!

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

He wasn't asked about shoot to kill in any general sense - he was specifically asked about a Paris type of situation. "Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets."

The answer was straight forward - "Yes I would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on the Britain's streets."

Simples.

Trouble is, he is so inarticulate that we are all left guessing what it was he was actually trying to say.

Well perhaps he wanted to talk about the problems about a shoot to kill policy generally and in any event I was making the point that 'shoot to kill' is not as rare as people say!

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Well perhaps he wanted to talk about the problems about a shoot to kill policy generally and in any event I was making the point that 'shoot to kill' is not as rare as people say!

So after a major terrorist attack and the obvious possibility that there could be an similar attack here, he wanted to say he wasn't quite sure if, in such circumstances, the police should be allowed to kill.

Maybe he was confused why anyone would ask him such a difficult and unexpected question without a few weeks notice.

Many are surprised how few police shooting there are, however sad the majority of the cases are and however incompetently the senior police deal with the aftermath.

Moby

Tromking wrote: »

Nobody gave a stuff about poor Mr De Meneses, and probably still don't, so no need to garner any sympathy for these brave policemen.
I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of our volunteer firearms officers handing in their firearms in large numbers.
The catastrophic mistake was admitted from the off, how could they do any other. Again, from my sketchy memory, the bone of contention was the Met over embellishing the actions of the suspect prior to him being shot and the communications between the officers on the ground and officers in charge being a bit crap. A country under attack and a police service struggling to cope is everything in this case.

How much more do you think our security forces will struggle to cope when the huge reductions in the police budget are announced in the spending review.....or do you think Osborne will change his mind now due to recent events? Fact is our security services are being cut to the bone by this govmt....so their posturing over defending British people against terrorists etc is avery recent thing.....I wonder why:rotfl:

Sapphire

In other news, I see the blithering idiots in Brussels are now talking about keeping the Schengen agreement for some countries but not others. Germany should surely keep her open borders (aka boarders), so that Frau 'Grandmother' Merkel can take all those strong male migrants from around the Middle East, Africa and Asia, just waiting to work, into Germany as promised (provided she keeps them securely there).

They are just 'talking', though, which probably means there will be no decision, while many more unknown individuals will be allowed into the heart of Europe, given passports by Germany, then be allowed to roam at will creating mayhem. Ugh.