Are we at war? EDL reckon we are.

[MKFox]

if plod had shot them dead then that would have stopped any potential line of enquiry, also, would have made so called martyrs out of the nutters. I'm glad they're still alive, hope they come face to face with a few squaddies at some point

 

[Lako42]

if plod had shot them dead then that would have stopped any potential line of enquiry

Yes but it's totally impossible that anyone could be trained to shoot someone without meaning to kill them, so that can't be the reason.

 

[Macky]

Yes but it's totally impossible that anyone could be trained to shoot someone without meaning to kill them, so that can't be the reason.

Can you answer my earlier question? Whereabouts on the human body do you think it's possible to shoot somebody and incapacitate them, but not risk fatal injury?

 

[M17TT C]

There is always the risk but if you cannot comprehend that certain parts of the body would be more risky than others, I have obviously given you far too much credit for way too long.

You get 3rd place so far for that.

 

[MKFox]

yeah, the feds didn't kill either!! call themselves experts?? macky, you won't win this one mate :icon_wink

 

[Macky]

if you cannot comprehend that certain parts of the body would be more risky than others, I have obviously given you far too much credit for way too long.

If you think that I have ever suggested such a thing, then that would explain why I haven't given you very much credit at all

 

[Macky]

yeah, the feds didn't kill either!! call themselves experts?? macky, you won't win this one mate :icon_wink

There's nothing to 'win'. I just think the phrase 'shoot-to-kill' is nothing more than a nonsense media meme repeated by people that have probably watched too much telly.
If you shoot a gun at somebody with the intent to incapacitate them and remove a threat, you will very likely kill them. That is all.

 

[M17TT C]

As as been proven by the tragic event that happened yesterday.......

And I actually read The Daily Mail too :icon_roll

 

[Lako42]

If you shoot a gun at somebody with the intent to incapacitate them and remove a threat, you will very likely kill them. That is all.

Looks like a slight change there Macky, don't worry, we wont keep on about it.

 

[Lako42]

As as been proven by the tragic event that happened yesterday.......

And I actually read The Daily Mail too :icon_roll

Listen here you sarcastic fecker, just accept that some people are the experts on absolutely everything, what Mackster doesn't know about being a highly trained marksman isn't worth knowing.

 

[MKFox]

There's nothing to 'win'.

yes there is, that you think police marksmen can't 'wing' someone and not kill them. you could say that you were misinformed/wrong and we'll leave it there if you're man enough :icon_razz

 

[Macky]

Looks like a slight change there Macky, don't worry, we wont keep on about it.

There's absolutely no change whatsoever, what on Earth are you blabbering about?

 

[Macky]

Listen here you sarcastic fecker, just accept that some people are the experts on absolutely everything, what Mackster doesn't know about being a highly trained marksman isn't worth knowing.

You are the only person that has claimed to have knowledge of what a highly trained marksman can achieve

 

[Macky]

yes there is, that you think police marksmen can't 'wing' someone and not kill them. you could say that you were misinformed/wrong and we'll leave it there if you're man enough :icon_razz

I'll do no such thing, as if like, unless somebody can show me evidence that there is such a thing as a 'shoot-to-kill' policy that exists. My contention is that it doesn't, but I'm happy for you to prove me wrong.

 

[Blue Maniac]

If I got shot in the finger I'd probably survive.

 

[Macky]

If I got shot in the finger I'd probably survive.

But would that stop you from continuing your notorious, murderous rampages?

 

[Blue Maniac]

But would that stop you from continuing your notorious, murderous rampages?

It's hard to say. I'd have to weigh up the pros and cons and give it serious thought.

 

[M17TT C]

But would that stop you from continuing your notorious, murderous rampages?

Probably if it was his trigger finger.

 

[give_us_a_wave]

Has anyone decided if we're at war yet? I've had a busy day & missed the news.I'm not confident relying on the EDL for this information as most of them probably can't spell war.

 

[bocadillo]

Is there such a thing as a "shoot-to-kill" policy? If you shoot at somebody, you're likely to kill them

After the killing of Jean Charles Menezes in 2005 Sir Ian Blair said that "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" would continue. Three years later when he was defending the killing of solicitor Mark Saunders, he said that "the idea of being able to shoot to wound is fictional".

if plod had shot them dead then that would have stopped any potential line of enquiry, also, would have made so called martyrs out of the nutters.

Yes - but neither of those things seems to have been taken into account time after time in the past - that is my point. What makes this case different?

I'm glad they're still alive, hope they come face to face with a few squaddies at some point

I don't really think that is likely to happen. Do you?