And you managed not to shoot any of them dead, either. Wasn’t so hard, was it?
Memo to people who want uber-draconian new laws: see, we don’t need them. We’re perfectly fucking OK as we are… now go and read Stormfront or something.
And you managed not to shoot any of them dead, either. Wasn’t so hard, was it?
Memo to people who want uber-draconian new laws: see, we don’t need them. We’re perfectly fucking OK as we are… now go and read Stormfront or something.
Why don’t you ever support our police?
Oh, sorry, just did. My bad.
"Wasn’t so hard, was it?"
Nope – not so hard at all when you manage to evacuate the building they are in and isolate them in their flat. Then you are just risking your fellow policmen’s lives & can take all the time you need.
Much harder when they are running into a tube train full of passengers & action needs to be taken NOW to prevent a carriage full of dead commuters.
Or, of course, rather than letting a suspected suicide bomber leave his house, ride a bus, and go into a tube station, he could have been challenged a little earlier. Let’s face it, if the argument is that he had to be shot else he would be able to detonate his suicide belt, he should have been shot stright off, not challenged and been given precisely that opportunity. That would be utterly terrifying rule of engagement – but it is precisely the one that the police should adopt if they are to defend the shooting in the way that they have done.