1
   

Britain Hunts Terrorists with Unarmed Police

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 12:13 pm
There's no democracy in a war. You cannot apply rules to terrorists.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 12:25 pm
Since you are in a war in the USA and don't have democracy according to your response ... you live in a dict...

Forget it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 12:53 pm
I simply see no reason to give the respect of democracy to terrorists. You can bury your head all you want, they'll stick the plastique in your...

Forget it...
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 01:37 pm
Uk is paying 1 million Euros to the family of the "terrorist" killed by armed police...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 01:42 pm
That's pretty cheap actually. I think the U.S. values an innocent life at $2M.

Still, the guy ran from police, and onto a train, a known terror target. Not too bright.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 02:03 pm
cjhsa wrote:
That's pretty cheap actually. I think the U.S. values an innocent life at $2M.


Do you know, how much was paid (in LA) for the 19-month-old Suzie Pena (killed in July) and 13-year-old Devin Brown (killed in February)?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 02:46 pm
Wow, your own news must be really boring.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 03:12 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Wow, your own news must be really boring.


No, but I just try get informed.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 03:51 pm
I thought the story of Suzie Pena was very sad - sad that she had to live with a psychopath father who would intentionally put her in harms way.

What's also really sad is that you focus on news that involves accidental death by firearms. May I ask if you know any statistics on death by driving? Drinking? Doing drugs or putting other intoxicating poisons in people's bodies? Or even going to the doctor? It's far more dangerous than guns have ever proven to be. You take stupid people, let them do stupid things, then throw a gun in the mix, and suddenly it's the gun's fault. Right.

Back to my original point. Unarmed police are nothing more than traffic pylons.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 04:18 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Um, Walter, they want to kill you. You either kill them first or meet your maker. Get it?


Cj,

I guess I have to agree with you on this one, seeing as the murder rate in the US is so much lower than murder rates in Great Britain and other countries with restrictive gun laws.

If you care about your safety, you should move to Florida or Texas.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 04:37 pm
ebrown, do you think it wise to try to arrest someone who's making bombs armed only with a stick?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 04:42 pm
cjhsa wrote:
ebrown, do you think it wise to try to arrest someone who's making bombs armed only with a stick?


Of course not, we should shoot them on sight before they even start.

Why would someone who is making bombs only have a stick?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 05:43 pm
Serious need for clarification here.

Unarmed police - police historically have armed only in response to an armed population. Orignally New York City police officers were armed only with a stick. They were given firearms to put them on an equal footing with armed offenders. The US is an armed nation, ergo police wear firearms. New Zealand is not an armed nation, ergo police don't wear firearms.

UK (England/Wales/Scotland) Police and terrorists - those police who are specifically tasked with hunting terror suspects are armed - to the teeth. Police who are tasked with guarding critical infrastructure sites are also armed. Police who are on normal duties, who are working amongst an unarmed populus are not armed as a matter of course.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 05:54 pm
goodfielder wrote:
Serious need for clarification here.

Unarmed police - police historically have armed only in response to an armed population. Orignally New York City police officers were armed only with a stick. They were given firearms to put them on an equal footing with armed offenders. The US is an armed nation, ergo police wear firearms. New Zealand is not an armed nation, ergo police don't wear firearms.

UK (England/Wales/Scotland) Police and terrorists - those police who are specifically tasked with hunting terror suspects are armed - to the teeth. Police who are tasked with guarding critical infrastructure sites are also armed. Police who are on normal duties, who are working amongst an unarmed populus are not armed as a matter of course.


Lol - good luck, GF.

When it comes to guns, cjhsa never lets reality get in the way of a good hissy fit.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 08:07 pm
No worries dlowan - I try to keep things in context or is that reality? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 08:19 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
ebrown, do you think it wise to try to arrest someone who's making bombs armed only with a stick?


Of course not, we should shoot them on sight before they even start.

Why would someone who is making bombs only have a stick?



Great one, Boss, i truly laughed aloud . . .
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 08:22 pm
me e brown takes all of my best lines, I hate E.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 05:42 pm
I'd be willing to bet that none of you would ever consider carrying a gun for your own protection. Am I right?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 05:55 pm
You are in California, right?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 06:19 pm
Are you referring to my retarded senators?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 10:44:36