Wednesday - December 21, 2011

debate over shooting orders in riots and arson.

It’s idiots like this and the ideology they can turn into policy that make me despair.
Actually, kinda pissed me off at the same time.  What a total and complete idiot and isn’t it typical of folks like that, to equate the subject of shooting rioters and arsonists, and extending it to ppl double parking and dropping gum on the streets.  Freekin schmuck. Putz!

This is in reference to the news which isn’t new according to the newspapers, in regard to the police having a shoot to kill okay where life is in jeopardy.

Let’s give the police machine guns. They would feel so much more secure if they could mow down a perp .... or one who looks as if he might be. It would also fulfill a boyhood ambition to get a job where you can shoot people, just like one did on computer games but for real. Also, once we let half crazed young men and menopausal older men (I refer of course to the police) play with real guns we won’t need to bring back capital punishment. Which will save lots of money wasted on court trials. Shooting miscreants dead will certainly be a powerful deterrent against all sorts of caught-in-the-act crimes, including speeding, double parking, dropping chewing gum on the pavement, wearing a hood and so on. It will make the USA with their three-strikes-and-you’re-out policy seem like a bunch of cissies.
- rob alka, London UK, 21/12/2011 10:02

I ask you. Is that stupid er what?

The Daily Mail ran this editorial today.  And the idiot head of a police association agrees.  Shooting ppl just isn’t the English way he said on radio last night.
BTW, The Mail is generally a conservative paper. Well, most of their better columnists are.

Shooting rioters is not the answer

By DAILY MAIL COMMENT

There is no greater supporter of law and order than the Mail. But is it really necessary for senior officers to say that in future riots, police may shoot arsonists who attack commercial properties linked to people’s homes?
Of course, strictly speaking they are merely restating the existing law. All British citizens (including the police) can claim a defence for killing, when it is the only way to save an innocent life.
But this is a deeply disingenuous argument. For by issuing the threat in its official review of riot-control tactics, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary is indulging in provocative – and we would say counter-productive – bravado, unworthy of the British police force’s tradition of restraint.
Goodness knows, the Mail holds no brief for rioters, who deserve the heaviest punishments the law can throw at them.
But in truth, it is almost impossible to imagine circumstances in which shooting an arsonist would be the sole means of saving a life.
On the contrary, in the vast majority of cases – as we’ve seen so often in the U.S. – when the police open fire with real or plastic bullets they only inflame unrest, leading to further loss of life.

DM EDITORIAL

If you want to, you can finish reading the rest at the link. They’re wrong,wrong,wrong PERIOD!  They only ppl who might be inflamed, aside from the hand wringing bed wetters on the left, are the criminals themselves.  What does it matter if a few hundred of them were shot dead by police during a riot? Who’d miss the bastards?

Of course, not all comments agree with the DM or the libtards. For example.

It seems CP of KENT 11.43 and other criminal-friendly posters would prefer to see the world tolerate arsonists etc. and would prefer, instead, to see the world as a “better place” without anti-arsonists and other anti-criminal complainants, like Eric Brown , 7.43? Is it any surprise that criminality is a rapidly growing “business” when they know that certain people would rather punish the complainants than punish the criminals?
- John Smith , Birmingham, England, 21/12/2011 12:12

So not all are idiots. But unfortunately the country is run by them and the left and so the only conclusion one can draw is one of hopelessness that things will improve.

The liberal gun hating left seem to forget and dismiss should they remember, photos like this. That’s because it isn’t in their back yard. That’s cos it isn’t any of them jumping out a window in fear for their life.  Miserable SOBs!

Posted by peiper     on 12/21/2011 at 08:11 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • UK •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner