On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
wrote:


There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.

I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
there is.
Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
fight back? Not a fear that you are allowed to consider when using
"reasonable force" to deter an intruder in your house - or your
isolated farm in a well known case.
Don't often stray too far from railways in my posts, so I apologise in
advance!

Guy Gorton

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:41:57 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
: wrote this:-
:
: It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
: what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.
:
: Interested to know what your solution is then?
:
: Do what Mr Liar said, continue as before.

So stay in Iraq and the WTO?

Ian

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:13:56 UTC, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
: nor security[2].

I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a
PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account
cleaned out?

Ian


--

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:42:03 UTC, Ross
wrote:

: Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

Isn't that because /we/ define terrorists as extremists? The
terrorists themselves may think that what they are doing is quite
reasonable. It would be so much easier if they went around in capes
and black masks carrying spherical bombs with long fizzing fuses...

Ian
--

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 06:36:32 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: However, without Iraq there would be one less grievance that can be
: used to inflame people. The way to deal with terrorism is to drain
: the poison, not to try and look macho with so-called security
: measures and the like.

Absolutely. I'm trying to think of a single case, anywhere, where a
significant terrorist problem has been resolved by force alone, and I
can't.

Ian


--

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:41:13 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms apply
: in other cultures.

I had need to pass the name "Umesh Patel" over the phone yesterday.
The bloke at the other end asked if I could spell the christian name
...

Ian

In message
Guy Gorton wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
wrote:


There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.

I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
the police.

The use of firearms is because the police believe there is imminent danger to
life, if you merely wound an armed man he can still shoot, a suicide bomber
can still set off his bomb, the only way to guarantee safety in these
situations is to kill. Dead men don't shoot back.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:35:41 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: The people currently doing the killing in Iraq are nuslims killing other
: muslims, a bit like the situation in Northern Ireland.

Or like the resistance shooting collaborators?

Ian


--

In message cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-d38TNJnTOPOg@localhost
"Ian Johnston" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:41:13 UTC, Graeme Wall
wrote:

: Incidentally he is not Mr Hussein, you shouldn't assume Western norms
apply in other cultures.

I had need to pass the name "Umesh Patel" over the phone yesterday. The
bloke at the other end asked if I could spell the christian name ..


My point exactly. Even the term 'forename' can be misleading in some
cultures, such as the Chinese.


--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html