Quote:
| Originally Posted by aclivity So should they have been suspended? Or supported for making a difficult choice in a difficult situation? Can you honestly say that in the same position, with the information you had at your disposal, and looking someone who looked as though they were armed, you would have resisted the urge to protect yourself, your colleague and however many other people were around? Would the same verdict have been reached if it HAD been a shotgun in the bag? I doubt it, somehow. |
This, for me at least, is on the same level as the soldier who was/is being prosecuted for 'murder' of a man trying to smuggle anti-aircraft ammunition in Iraq. We ask these officers and men to do a job that most of us would not want to do, we put them in situations most of us would not want to find ourselves in and then the powers that be and their liberal flunkies decide it is in someone's best interests if these 'criminals' are brought to justice.
Let these guys do their job is what I say. Do not send soldiers trained to kill on peacekeeping missions, do not prosecute police officers who voulantarily carry firearms for making a genuine mistake when asked to make an instantaneous decision on theirs and others safety.
From memory, when the guy carrying the hair dryer was shot 30-something times (6-shot standard issue police pistols - someone must have reloaded!) by New York police officers, Mayor Giuliani made a statement along the lines of "you can either have zero tolerance, in which case some mistakes are inevitable, or we can carry on as we are with soaring crime rates".
I wish some of our politicians had 1/10 the backbone that man has.
</rant>
Regards
Mark