Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChrisA No they don't. It's just a substantially less sh1tty thing (providing it doesn't happen too often) than if one of our servants fails to shoot dead a guilty man, before he kills a much bigger bunch of innocent men dead.
I'm totally sick of all this bleeding heart stuff.
People want to live in this country in the current climate?
They need to learn the culture real quick...
These days, a policeman says stop - you DON'T run away into a tube train. |
Is one automatically a bleeding-heart liberal if one takes a moment to think about the fact that an innocent man was shot dead, and (likely) a policeman's career was ruined?
One can only surmise, but perhaps if the man had known that he was being chased by three armed plain-clothes detectives and was under suspicion of carrying a bomb he would have stopped. Let's just say that if I were working in Brazil and had overstayed my visa - and was then chased by three beefy guys in suits, I'd probably make run for it too. The possibility that I might be rugby-tackled and then shot in the head would never occur to me.
I support the decision that it may be necessary to shoot-to-kill in certain circumstances - and I acknowledge that the decision the police took in this case might well have been the best they could have done under the circumstances. But it is still a tragedy and no one should be shy to admit it.