Corbyn not happy with Shoot to Kill

[Anna B]

Every time may tries to be smart it backfires on her afterwards.

 

That's because people are beginning to wise up to how corrupt the Tory part is.

The Tories think they're entitled to run the world. and will stop at nothing to achieve it

[Pinkman]

That's because people are beginning to wise up to how corrupt the Tory part is.

The Tories think they're entitled to run the world. and will stop at nothing to achieve it

 

Are you confusing a mainstream political party with SPECTRE?

[sgtkate]

Shoot to kill as the default is wrong. If there are other options available, even if they involve an element of risk then they should be taken. If the risk to the public and police is too high then by all means take the shot. The logic for this is quite simple, a dead man can't talk, no guarantee a live one will either, but you'd be surprised. The information we could get from these murders might well save lives, so bugger their rights, shoot to kill is the wrong policy purely from a logical and life saving sense.

 

And the interview in which Corbyn says he doesn't support shoot to kill was ruled to have been manipulated by Laura Kuenssberg and was investigated for a breach of public standards back in Jan.

 

What is it with people and their desire to kill others as the go to response? First we have people who think Corbyn saying he'd consider the circumstances before ever firing a nuke is somehow cowardly, and now we have people who are shouting about how we shoot people even if there are other options available? What the hell has happened to my country?

Edited June 5, 2017 by sgtkate

[truman]

Shoot to kill as the default is wrong. If there are other options available, even if they involve an element of risk then they should be taken. If the risk to the public and police is too high then by all means take the shot. The logic for this is quite simple, a dead man can't talk, no guarantee a live one will either, but you'd be surprised. The information we could get from these murders might well save lives, so bugger their rights, shoot to kill is the wrong policy purely from a logical and life saving sense.

 

Genuine question Kate..do you really think these Jihadists (If that's what they're proved to be) would actually talk if arrested?

[sgtkate]

Genuine question Kate..do you really think these Jihadists (If that's what they're proved to be) would actually talk if arrested?

 

Yes. The intelligence services have already said they got information from Lee Rigby's killers that helped give intel against other targets. A dead man DEFINITELY can't talk.

 

Truman, I take you at face value so I accept your questions are genuine debate and not a wind up attempt

[Obelix]

Genuine question Kate..do you really think these Jihadists (If that's what they're proved to be) would actually talk if arrested?

 

Its surprising apparantly just how much info the services are getting from those who have returned from Syria etc. Something about disillusionment with how they thought ISIS would be and the reality....

[sgtkate]

Yes. The intelligence services have already said they got information from Lee Rigby's killers that helped give intel against other targets. A dead man DEFINITELY can't talk.

 

Truman, I take you at face value so I accept your questions are genuine debate and not a wind up attempt

 

To add to my own post, I think the police get it right 99% of the time if not more so. I think the individuals on the ground should be given the full authority and backing to make the decision they think is the best one, it's that simple. If we fund, support and train our police officers adequately then the chances are that they will kill the people who pose too high a risk at that times, whilst keeping the others alive so we can try to gain intel and have the importance of a trial. Ultimately, let the people who's job it is get on with it. Report after report shows most police officers do not want to carry a gun or believe it will improve safety. Perhaps we should listen to them as they are most likely to be the ones who actually know.

[truman]

 

Truman, I take you at face value so I accept your questions are genuine debate and not a wind up attempt

 

Thanks for that..it's just sometimes you have to be clear about why you're asking questions on here 'cos it's easy to be taken the wrong way

[alchresearch]

However an Independent enquiry confirms Jeremy Corbyn has been misrepresented in 75% of press reports.

 

That was last year, and is The Independent newspaper completely independent or does it too have bias?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/

[altus]

Thanks for that..it's just sometimes you have to be clear about why you're asking questions on here 'cos it's easy to be taken the wrong way

At add to what sgtkate said, keep in mind that the people who carry out these sorts of attacks tend to be gullible/easily manipulated. The very qualities that make them susceptible to being brainwashed into carrying out an attack are ones that the intelligence services will find useful in getting information out of them. It's probably another reason why those persuading them to attack people are so keen on them dying during the attack.