Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anatomy of Crime : Deadly Force

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anatomy of Crime : Deadly Force

    This is really late notice considering the show is coming on at 8:00 and it is 7:50 now. I just checked Court Tv's programming schedule for this evening and Anatomy of Crime : Deadly Force is coming on at 8:00. All about lethal force and whether or not it was justified. Just an FYI..........

  • #2
    Ya I watched it last night. I got a little bothered because it said "we shoot to kill!" I didnt know we should shoot to kill. I thought we shoot to stop the threat!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by irishnut
      Ya I watched it last night. I got a little bothered because it said "we shoot to kill!" I didnt know we should shoot to kill. I thought we shoot to stop the threat!
      You have to allow for a little journalistic licence. Shoot to kill has more of a ring to it than shoot to stop the threat, don't you agree?

      It gets all the anti-government, anti-police conspiracy theorists on the edge of their seats, I'll wager.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by metcopuk
        You have to allow for a little journalistic licence. Shoot to kill has more of a ring to it than shoot to stop the threat, don't you agree?

        It gets all the anti-government, anti-police conspiracy theorists on the edge of their seats, I'll wager.
        This is very true!

        Comment


        • #5
          I have posted on numerous threads against the right of citizens to bear arms, and I stand by that. However, if I were in the position of an armed officer facing a deadly threat of force I would shoot to f***ing atomise, never mind kill or 'stop the threat'.

          Question: "Officer, why did you shoot the suspect 32 times?"

          Reply: "Your Honour, I ran out of ammunition."
          Last edited by metcopuk; 04-22-2006, 06:54 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by metcopuk
            I have posted on numerous threads against the right of citizens to bear arms, and I stand by that. However, if I were in the position of an armed officer facing a deadly threat of force I would shoot to f***ing atomise, never mind kill or 'stop the threat'.

            Question: "Officer, why did you shoot the suspect 32 times?"

            Reply: "Your Honour, I ran out of ammunition."

            But why should that same right of self-defense not apply to someone such as myself (a former LEO and now a private citizen with a carry permit) who seeks to 'neutralize a threat' to my life or that of my family?

            Nice to know that you'd rather attend my funeral than that of the dirtbag who was out to kill me.


            The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

            The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

            ------------------------------------------------

            "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by VA Dutch

              But why should that same right of self-defense not apply to someone such as myself (a former LEO and now a private citizen with a carry permit) who seeks to 'neutralize a threat' to my life or that of my family?

              Nice to know that you'd rather attend my funeral than that of the dirtbag who was out to kill me.

              Come on, Dutchy, don't be so precious. You know that guns and people are not a good match. That probably includes you, mate.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Samuel
                Thanks for the heads up, I hope they will replay it.
                You're welcome and this is the second time that they have shown it in the last couple of months, so I'm sure that they will be showing it again soon!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by metcopuk
                  I have posted on numerous threads against the right of citizens to bear arms, and I stand by that. However, if I were in the position of an armed officer facing a deadly threat of force I would shoot to f***ing atomise, never mind kill or 'stop the threat'.

                  Question: "Officer, why did you shoot the suspect 32 times?"

                  Reply: "Your Honour, I ran out of ammunition."
                  It is different where he is from. A cop there is an agent of the QUEEN. Everyone else is a subject.

                  "if I were in the position of an armed officer facing a deadly threat of force I would shoot to f***ing atomise, never mind kill or 'stop the threat" ....... why in the f*ck would it matter if you were a cop OR a father in his own house defending your OWN CHILDREN??????????????

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    They learned to fear citizens with firearms in the late 1700's and haven't gotten over it yet.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You cannot compare policing in the UK to that of America. I have seen both sides. I wish the U.S. would be safe enough where LEO's would not have to carry firearms, but that time has long gone. Although things have started to get a little worse in the UK and the times may eventually come to arm their street cops, they still have one of the lowest homicide rates. Why? Because handguns are hard as hell to own/carry in the UK.

                      I am happy to have one on my side, but if I could choose, I would rather have a nation without them.
                      I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SgtScott31
                        You cannot compare policing in the UK to that of America. I have seen both sides. I wish the U.S. would be safe enough where LEO's would not have to carry firearms, but that time has long gone. Although things have started to get a little worse in the UK and the times may eventually come to arm their street cops, they still have one of the lowest homicide rates. Why? Because handguns are hard as hell to own/carry in the UK.

                        I am happy to have one on my side, but if I could choose, I would rather have a nation without them.
                        Well said, sir.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by oldtrooper
                          They learned to fear citizens with firearms in the late 1700's and haven't gotten over it yet.
                          Once again, for those of you who have never read a history book. The French won the American War of Independence. As much as it might pain you, you Yankies owe the frogs a debt of gratitude.

                          The British were wiping the floor with you all the way to the last moment. Even at end it was a very close run thing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 21blue28
                            It is different where he is from. A cop there is an agent of the QUEEN. Everyone else is a subject.

                            "if I were in the position of an armed officer facing a deadly threat of force I would shoot to f***ing atomise, never mind kill or 'stop the threat" ....... why in the f*ck would it matter if you were a cop OR a father in his own house defending your OWN CHILDREN??????????????

                            To understand the dynamics of British politics, our constitution and the role of the monarch, one must have a thorough grounding in history.

                            Our political system has evolved over fifteen hundred years. In that time we - yes, the British, 21blue28 - created habeus corpus which, unlike the right to own a gun, is a vital cornerstone of our freedom, and which you Americans are doing away with in Guantanamo.

                            In 1215, Magna Carta was written, which set a course for the idea of a constitutional monarchy, an unwritten contract between a monarch and the people.

                            The idea of being innocent until proven guilty. The idea of being tried by your equals, of having recourse to representation. We had a representative House of Commons when every other country in Europe was pretty much an autocracy.

                            It's a community's shared belief in certain democratic ideas that keeps its individuals free, not the individual's belief in defending himself against the community. That person will never be free. He's a slave to his fears.

                            Tacitus, the Roman chronicler, remarked that the conquered Britons considered civilization to be the wearing of fine clothes, eating rich food and living in villas.

                            He suggested that civilization was nothing more than the right of the individual to pursue his personality while not compromising or endangering the shared beliefs of the community. Seems simple enough, but one could spend a life time understanding it, let alone abiding by it.

                            Essentially, there ought to be a little more of the 'all for one, one for all' mentality in all of us.
                            Last edited by metcopuk; 04-23-2006, 03:25 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You're right, we had help while gaining our independance. Our Declaration of Independance was indeed a call for help against England, as it were. However, I do not think it is historically accurate or fair to my forefathers for you to say that another nation won our freedom.

                              I also know that the lovely claims you've made of England's past civil rights and freedoms do not even remotely resemble what we have today, and it was not until around 1800 that they evolved into something like a cranky old uncle.

                              "It's a community's shared belief in certain democratic ideas that keeps its individuals free, not the individual's belief in defending himself against the community. That person will never be free. He's a slave to his fears." metcopuk

                              I respond with this: These are two wholly different issues. The government is not the individual, nor is the individual the government. You sound very idealistic in this statement, almost as though it is unnatural for people to have fears. A right to own a gun is just a small grain of sand in the desert of life. Most who have them either appreciate them for what they are, or have them as an insurance policy, if you will, against the home invasion... and this extends to those who carry concealed.

                              People are shot, stabbed, beaten with claw hammers, choked, raped, beaten with fist- until dead every day. To be aware that there are individuals who walk the street with you who would kill you in a heartbeat if they saw profit in it (or are simply lunatics) is not living in fear, it is being aware and guarded. Much like watching your diet in hopes it will prevent heart disease.

                              But back to the sanctity of England and the loser-ship of America. I illustrate, from a textbook, that England's tyrrany was in fact the reason we sought independance in the first place.

                              "... the Magnat Charta, we find that it created no panacea, but it did ensure to the people certain liberties, which they had been denied previously, and made way for the establishment of due process of law. But the people of England continued to be subjected to many oppressive practices, and many were persecuted because of their religious beliefs. To escape these practices, a number of people left for North America to establish colonies. The king considered these colonies to be his possessions; the colonists were still under the rule of the king, and all too often that rule lay heavily upon them. They were taxed excessively and were generally oppressed. When they objected, they were often taken to England for trial. As time passed, the colonists increased their opposition. This became a source of irritation to the king, who sent his armies to enforce his rule. Suspected objectors were frequently subjected to searches and seizures without cause and imprisoned without justificaiton."

                              And from the Declaration of Independance, greivances include:

                              ... has refused to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good... has obstructed the administration of justice... has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures... has deprived many of the benefits of trial by jury... has transported us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses...

                              Procedures in the Justice System 7th edition, Stuckey, Roberson, Wallace. 2004

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 7011 users online. 396 members and 6615 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X