News1 min ago
Should Police shoot scumbags ?
The Rayleigh shooting. 2 piles of scum were interrupted raiding a delivery to a cashpoint in their attempt to get something for nothing at the expense of everybody else, when a 24yo member of the public intervened and was shot in the chest. I sincerely hope that even if the police find a situation where they can safely disarm and arrest them that they instead otherwise manouevre into and engineer a situation where they can put a bullet into their foul scummy heads.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by whiffey. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is a sort of person I would happily permit and encourage the police to shoot, get rid of, and place final judgement in the hands of God. These are people who think it's alrite innit to harm others as they go about their heroic thieving from the rest of us (note how they always run away when the going gets tough).
These are crapheads, these are the bottom end of civilisation, and yes, I would have them all shot, let's start in Basildon.
These are crapheads, these are the bottom end of civilisation, and yes, I would have them all shot, let's start in Basildon.
The police get on quite happily without guns.
I think there should be a great deal more concern over the fact that an innocent member of the public was shot. Whether s/he should have 'got in the way' or not is irrelevant. If we're going to apply that logic, the police shouldn't have been able to shoot (and kill, I presume?) an innocent person.
The UK is constitutionally governed* on the basis of 'Rule of Law'. This, as set out by Dicey, dictates that nobody can be brought to suffer unless found to be in breach of the law. That means a fair trial. Was the innocent member of the public in breach of the law? Well, s/he doesn't seem to have been. Did s/he have a fair trial? No.
*and before any snotty little pedants pop up and say we have no constitution - we do - it just isn't codified in one source
I think there should be a great deal more concern over the fact that an innocent member of the public was shot. Whether s/he should have 'got in the way' or not is irrelevant. If we're going to apply that logic, the police shouldn't have been able to shoot (and kill, I presume?) an innocent person.
The UK is constitutionally governed* on the basis of 'Rule of Law'. This, as set out by Dicey, dictates that nobody can be brought to suffer unless found to be in breach of the law. That means a fair trial. Was the innocent member of the public in breach of the law? Well, s/he doesn't seem to have been. Did s/he have a fair trial? No.
*and before any snotty little pedants pop up and say we have no constitution - we do - it just isn't codified in one source
kromo, I really can't understand what you are saying.
The situation is that a couple of scumbags thought it would be a really good idea to take from the rest of society something they wanted, without asking, and armed with guns. A young member of the public intervened and got shot. My question was and is, should the police be permitted - nay encouraged - to rid the planet of these scumbags with a few well-placed bullets, and bu$$er the hands-up we surrender malarkey.
The situation is that a couple of scumbags thought it would be a really good idea to take from the rest of society something they wanted, without asking, and armed with guns. A young member of the public intervened and got shot. My question was and is, should the police be permitted - nay encouraged - to rid the planet of these scumbags with a few well-placed bullets, and bu$$er the hands-up we surrender malarkey.
Frankly? No. They shouldn't. I've explained the constitutional principle of rule of law. If you want further detail, read Dicey.
Encouraging officers to shoot criminals on sight is a gross oversimplification and fails to consider the complexities of individual situations.
I'm all for punishing those who are in breach of the law, but actively encouraging officers to shoot on sight is ludicrous. Look, for example, to the innocent Jamaican chap who was shot to death by police at the time of the 7/7 bombings. Look to your above example - encouraging police to shoot 'scumbags' on sight is a grey area which results in an unacceptably high rate of civilian deaths.
I'd much rather have a system whereby officers arrest criminals for a fair trial than relying on them to execute easily-botched and shaky policies which invariably result in the loss of innocent lives (plus don't really result in any higher rate of convictions). I don't care if the member of the public should have been intervening or not - as I've allready said, if we're going to throw 'shouldn't haves' about the place, an innocent person would not have been shot had the police not been using guns. And the criminals would still (presumably, it's a little hard not knowing the details) have been taken in.
Encouraging officers to shoot criminals on sight is a gross oversimplification and fails to consider the complexities of individual situations.
I'm all for punishing those who are in breach of the law, but actively encouraging officers to shoot on sight is ludicrous. Look, for example, to the innocent Jamaican chap who was shot to death by police at the time of the 7/7 bombings. Look to your above example - encouraging police to shoot 'scumbags' on sight is a grey area which results in an unacceptably high rate of civilian deaths.
I'd much rather have a system whereby officers arrest criminals for a fair trial than relying on them to execute easily-botched and shaky policies which invariably result in the loss of innocent lives (plus don't really result in any higher rate of convictions). I don't care if the member of the public should have been intervening or not - as I've allready said, if we're going to throw 'shouldn't haves' about the place, an innocent person would not have been shot had the police not been using guns. And the criminals would still (presumably, it's a little hard not knowing the details) have been taken in.
A really really long jail sentence, with time added on for bad behaviour, instead of knocked off for good behaviour would be the answer. Sensible sentencing, like 20 years for carrying a gun. Life meaning life for murder. Five years for carrying a knife. 12 months for being too hairy and wearing a tea towel on your head.
The fact that these evil scumbags went about their sordid business with firearms, means that they are rebels of society. As already said, stealing from others merely to support their own existence. Having scarves wrapped round their faces is typical of these so-called "hard" individuals. Perhaps a noosed rope wrapped around their necks would be more appropriate.
The civilised approach is anything but the 'soft option'. It takes a hell of a lot more strength to administer justice through correct legal procedures and not give in to highly emotive views.
I'm just as disgusted by crimes such as this as you are, but I have a great deal more respect for a legal system which ensures:
a) You've got the right man
b) They are punished accordingly, once found guilty
It's far easier to just give in to the revulsion felt towards crime (which we all feel), than to go by the book.
I'm just as disgusted by crimes such as this as you are, but I have a great deal more respect for a legal system which ensures:
a) You've got the right man
b) They are punished accordingly, once found guilty
It's far easier to just give in to the revulsion felt towards crime (which we all feel), than to go by the book.
tougher sentences is the answer, lock the ba*tards up for a long time, no sky tv, no gym,no home comforts, make them work hard inside for their keep. we are too soft by far. birch them, humiliate these so called hard men and see them squeal like babies. bring back hanging and stick all school leavers in army for 2 years and knock some sense into them. if they want to carry and use guns send them to iraq, we'll then see what sort of men they really are.
saintpeter48
Isn't your answer a little contradictory? You state longer sentences are the answer, bringing back capital punishment and then forcibly?, enrolling them into the Armed Services. Which is it to be? It would be difficult to see how someone could serve in Iraq if they had already been killed by the State.
People who committed the offence that the original poster refers to are hardly the type of material that most serving officers would want. It was probably due to a combination of fear, hysteria and probably drugs in their system that resulted in them making the decision to shot the poor victim.
Isn't your answer a little contradictory? You state longer sentences are the answer, bringing back capital punishment and then forcibly?, enrolling them into the Armed Services. Which is it to be? It would be difficult to see how someone could serve in Iraq if they had already been killed by the State.
People who committed the offence that the original poster refers to are hardly the type of material that most serving officers would want. It was probably due to a combination of fear, hysteria and probably drugs in their system that resulted in them making the decision to shot the poor victim.
ruby, i missed some things in my rant and you failed to piece it together. lock people up who carry knives, guns etc, for a very long time, without sky tv, gym, etc, if they dont conform to the prison regime then birch them, simple really, if someone chooses to kill someone with a knife, gun etc then hang them, these scum of society are no use to anyone. the bit about putting them in the forces from school age applies to all, since teachers, police, parents and people in authority have had the powers to punish unruly children and teenagers taken away this country has gone down the swanee. the bit about sending them to iraq was a flippant remark, i think you know what i meant by it. thankyou.
saintpeter48 - you missed some things out in your rant and I failed to piece it together, yes well I am not omniscient.
Do you ever wonder why we no longer have the draconian laws that we used to. If capital punishment and the barbaric treatment of prisoners were so successful how come we still haven�t got them, because we did in the past? I think you will find that such measures far from working created a culture where violence was more accepted and we thank goodness have moved away from such times. Or possibly it�s due to a conspiracy and the loony left do gooders have taken control despite the majority of the British public sharing the same views as you.
By way see jno's post for why your solution sucks
Do you ever wonder why we no longer have the draconian laws that we used to. If capital punishment and the barbaric treatment of prisoners were so successful how come we still haven�t got them, because we did in the past? I think you will find that such measures far from working created a culture where violence was more accepted and we thank goodness have moved away from such times. Or possibly it�s due to a conspiracy and the loony left do gooders have taken control despite the majority of the British public sharing the same views as you.
By way see jno's post for why your solution sucks
ruby, i feel that you are sadly misguided, one of the very small minority of do gooders who seem to rule the masses. put our individual views to the people in a vote and i will have a landslide victory, the general public know how to sort it out, the so called educated few haven't got a clue.if people choose to behave like animals then treat them as such, knock some sense into them, they must understand that if they want to live in society then they must obey the laws put in place for everyone. i rest my case m'lud.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News5 mins ago
Crosswords24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.