Thursday, August 02, 2007

Stop Liberal Pandering to Criminals: Police Should Be Armed


I have just watched tonight's episode of The Bill. Even though it is pure fiction, the storyline of the gunpoint abduction of a police officer made me think how vital it is that frontline police are armed.

How often is it on TV we see police arrive at a crime scene only to find that they cannot deal appropriately with a situation because they don't have the firepower? For example, if police are called to a robbery in progress at a post office, instead of PC Plod having to talk the offender into surrendering, if he had a weapon he could draw it on them. There would be no more waiting for an armed response team to arrive and, providing a lethal shot was administered, this would have the advantage of saving taxpayers' money by doing rid of lenghthy court proceedings where the offender would most likely be let off by a liberal judge. Dangerous scum would be removed from the streets instantly.

Arming all police would be a postive first step. It would promote a long-gone sense of respect for the law that has disappeared due to liberal pandering to evil criminals.

Now I know liberal types will be up in arms at such a suggestion but we should not listen to anything they have to say on law and order policy because they always get it wrong. Let's remember that their Liberal Democrat Party wants to let murderers and child molesters off the hook, not send female shop lifters to jail and want to give prisoners the vote. From all this it is clear that liberals are on the side of the criminals, not the victims, and are hopelessly out of touch.

I can only hope that with violent crime rife, the police and government eventually take our advice.

11 comments:

Lionheart said...

Hear, Hear, Mr Rumsfeld. The criminal justice system should take the side of the victim. And with all the violent crime happening on British streets the Police should have the firepower to protect the public from violent criminal scum.

Ben said...

Sweet Jesus!! What planet are you on?? Whatever happened to being presumed to be innocent before being prooved guilty before a jury of your peers? You know that system of justice that we have had in this country for hundreds of years where the prosecution argues its case before a judge and jury, and where guilt is prooved beyond reasonable doubt?? If we listened to you clowns, there would be judicial executions where trigger happy policemen take down whoever they fancy!! There have been countless occasions of the police shooting innocent people, including Jean Charles de Menezes, who was NOT acting suspicioualy or wearing a bulky jacket as initially described by the police. There have been other cases, Harry Stanley was shot dead by police in 1999 while carrying a table leg!!, in Forest Gate, East London, Mohammed Abdul Kahar was shot by the police in a bungled terrorist raid in 2006. So the Metropolitan Police are hardly infallibe when it comes to firearms are they? And imagine when it comes to provincial police forces with less smaller budgets to pay for training, and less experienced officers, more innocent people are going to be killed by police "accidents". And do you think this increase in firepower is going to be one sided??? You are naive if you do. If there are going to be routinely armed police then you can be sure that criminals will become routinely armed too, with yet more innocent people being literally caught in the crossfire.

Incidently the raid in Forest Gate cost the taxpayer £2.2 million paying for police overtime, hotel bills for the family, and repairs to the damage caused to the houses by the police, so handing out guns like confetti to our well trained police forces with the aim of cutting down on the bureaucraic justice system is hardly as cost effective as you claim.

Rumsfeld said...

The Forest Gate Muslims were clearly guilty as hell.

The rest of the above rant is all liberal scaremongering. In all the developed countries where police carry guns, we don't see the street shootouts you claim. The loss of any innocent life must be condemned, yet all you do is worry about the guilty criminal.

About 3 incidents in nearly 10 years where suspicious people have been shot is hardly the epidemic as is claimed.

Ben said...

Who exactly made you judge, jury and executioner?? I should be careful of what you say unless you are asking to be sued for libel. At Forest Gate, no chemical materials were found, and the two men released without charge. Furthermore the Metropolitan Police apologised for the "hurt" caused. An IPCC inquiry into the shooting concluded it to be an "accident" With such careless and trigger happy police, who needs armed criminals?

As for only three incidents referred to in my previous post, that was a sample. In fact since 1990 42 people have been shot dead by police in England and Wales. That is a huge number!!, and it doesnt include people non fatally shot.

Rumsfeld said...

You'd obviously rather not act on intelligence given regarding terrorism. You are obviously very naive. Intelligence can never be 100% accurate, but must be acted upon to prevent terrorist attacks.

I hope when our country is next attacked, the likes of yourself and that ridiculous Chakrabati woman appear before the nation to publicly apologise for calling for terror threats to be ignored.

Also, 42 people shot by police. I haven't checked the reliability of this figure but will accept it for argument's sake. I ask you, in these cases did the police shoot at truly law-abiding citizens, without any reason whatsoever? I doubt it.

Anyone truly innocent who has been shot we would be sorry for. But accept it that many were involved in dodgy dealings and their loss won't be mourned by decent folks whose lives they have blighted.

You should get on the side of the true victims.

Ben said...

Obviously the police must act on intellgence concerning terrorosm, and nowhere in my above posts did I argue for terror threats to be ignored! However there is no excise for officers to wush in, guns blazing, shooting first and asking questions later! Innocent people will be, and have been, injured or killed. The police are here at our invitation; they patrol the steets, they have powers of arrest and detention because we the people, allow them to do so. Will our communities volunteer this if we allow poorly trained, trigger happy police loose on the streets. For the police system to work effectively we must have trust between the police and the people. Some sections of the community, whether justified or not, already have little trust of the police, with dire results. You think handing out guns is going to improve the situation? On the contrary it will meake it worse. The police need to build a trusting relationship with these fractured communities, to benefit society as a whole.

The figure of 42 deaths is from a reliable source, you can find them at www.inquest.org.uk. Obviously some of these shootings were probably justified; there will be ocasions when police have no alternative but to discharge a firearm. I fully accept that, but they should not aim to kill unless absolutely necessary.

A disturbingly high number of police shootings are in dubious circumstancs including the three I referred to above have very dubious circumstances. In the Harry Stanley case, a forensic examination found that he had been shot in the rear side of the head, and a bullet hole had gone through the the back of Mr Stanley's jacket, all of which suggested that his back was turned on the officer when he was shot. This forensic evidence contradicted the verbal evidence of the officers involved. This is unacceptable. Why did they feel the need to shoot someone facing away from them?? A man holding a table leg!! There must be a procedure to go through first, and these officer were clearly negligent. The police have a job to do, but the public have a right to go about their everyday business without the fear of an extra judicial execution! As we have seen with the Jean Charles de Menezes case, it was a series of cock ups and misinformation that continued even after his death at the hands of the police. The officer on duty compared de Menezes with CCTV pictures from the attempted bombinbg the next day and felt that a second opinion was needed, but was unable to transmit images becasue he was "relieving himself" Later police claimed incorrectly that he was wearing bulky clothing and that he had vaulted the ticket barriers running from the police. The officers involved here were highly trained, specialised anti terrorism and surveilance personel. If they can make mistakes with such horrendous consequences and muddy the waters, how many innocent people will be killed by ordinary PC Plods??

I feel that routinely arming the police implies that they have the right to shoot as and when they see fit. The police are agents of the justice system, not the justice system itself. Its fundamental premise is that better a guilty person go free rather than an innocent punished. Death is the ultimate sanction; there is no going back. Giving an officer a gun outside an extraordinary situation is circumventing that system and inviting that officer to become judge and jury, to the detriment of the public.

As an aside, I find it very amusing, not to mention idiotic, that you use a fictional TV show as a point of reference for your argument on policing.

Rumsfeld said...

The said table leg may well have been mistaken for a gun.

Unlike you suggest, I was made to think by watching The Bill, I have never used it as a point of reference.

This contrasts to you liberals who use fictional sources such as Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling For Columbine, An Inconvenient Truth and The West Wing to back up your arguments.

Ben said...

The table leg may well have been mistaken for a gun. But surely there are procedures to be followed, rather than shooting a guy from behind? The officers involved made a statement that they shot him as he was turning towards him. The forensic evidence shows they lied! An innocnet person was killed! You really think this kind of incident wont increase if police are routinely armed?

You havent answered any of my arguments, just accused me of being a liberal and attacking some great films.

Rumsfeld said...

I think if police were routinely armed crime would decrease and violent scum could be dealt with much more appropriately.

In fact I would go a step further, I believe that all responsible people, especially in rural areas, should be able to arm themselves if they so wish and be able to legally exercise force if they come under attack.

I'm glad you have nailed your colours to the mask and state your admiration for propaganda film making. Goebbels would be proud.

Ben said...

I take it by "dealt with much more appropriately", you mean bypassing the courts and executing them on the spot instead?? Im not so sure about myself, but Goebbels would certainly be proud of you. We live in a developed country with hundreds of years of democratic and judical tradition. Or are you saying that some people are more deserving of justice tha others. Goebbels would be proud of you yet again. But would crime go down? No. And why not? Because the severity of the punishment is not a factor in lowering crime rates, it is the probabilty of gettin caught that has the greatest effect. Giving an officer a gun will not decrease crime rates. A case in point is the USA, a sterotypical argument Im afraid, but why balk at it when the facts speak for themselves. The USA has routinely armed police, the public have their cherished right to bear arms and it has the highest crime rate in the developed world. Sounds like armed police are making a huge difference there!

Im interested to know where you live, I presume its in Lincolnshire, though given your description "responsible people should be able to arm themselves.... if they come under attack", you give the impression that you live in Kabul. What is your house like?? Have you got a colour coded terror alert fridge magnet? An observation post on your roof? Checkpoints on the end of your street? Sounds like you need them. Coming under attack is not a situation that happens regularly in Britain as far as I am aware. Iraq and Afghanistan now, thats a different matter.

Im also interested to know your definition of a "responsible person" Presumably, like justice, you think that some people are more "responsible" than others. And why in rural areas?? What particular dangers do you face out in the sticks?? Oh I understand, its a lack of witnesses so that gun nuts can shoot each other with impunity.

As for propaganda, you are insulting my intelligence in believing everything that those films promote. Im well aware that there are two sides to every argument. Michael Moore certainly isnt unbiased, but then neither are any of the neo cons, whom he is able to show as unprincipaled fools at any given opportunity.

Rumsfeld said...

Yes of course Michael Moore is able to make people look like fools when they are not - he is a skilled propaganda merchant. His techniques include taking individual clips of film or speech, often said many years apart, and mashing them together to make something that his victim has never said or done, or taking it entirely out of context.

If you actually took time to look at the original pieces of film and not take it at face value you will see what I mean and realise the utter untruths of his 'work'.

Also, your argument about America is entirely stereotypical because it is largely untrue. It is true that urban centres do suffer from gun crime, but delve a little deeper instead of blindly following liberal hype and alarmism, you will find that the actual truth is somewhat different. Many of the rural areas that have concealed carry laws actually suffer from near zero levels of violent crime. Studies have shown that concealed carry laws are also of particular benefit to women, where occurences of rape in such areas are nearly non-existent and way below average.

I suggest that rural areas in particular should be able to carry weapons based on facts such as the above, not shrill hippie musings. Rural areas also have a tradition of responsible gun ownership, something that predominantly city-based hippie liberal types cannot understand.