SNova
Player Valuation: £15m
I don't want to pay for child molesters, rapists and murderers to sit in a jail. I certainly do not want them to return to society.
Do you oppose shoot to kill orders (police)?
Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
I don't want to pay for child molesters, rapists and murderers to sit in a jail. I certainly do not want them to return to society.
Do you oppose shoot to kill orders (police)?
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
I think they get around it by saying that you shall not kill, but its alright for God - via his faithful (ie: ourselves) - to do so.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Anyone with a brain should oppose shoot to kill orders (which is much different than an individual copper thinking that she or he has to shoot someone to stop a threat).
SNova
Player Valuation: £15m
Why?
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
There are loads of reasons. For a start, such an order is absurd - the only way you can shoot to kill someone with certainty is when they are unarmed, in a prone position, and from close range into the head; everything else (short of a firing squad) is just an order to shoot at someone. Calling for it is invariably the demand of politicians seeking to sound tough.
Secondly, it removes the person who is usually in the best position to determine what is and what is not a threat (ie: the shooter) from the position of determining whether or not to shoot, and replaces them with someone who is making a decision from what is often quite a distance (in distance and often time) away. This leads to mistakes, far less justifiable mistakes, being made than when an individual has to account for her or his actions - as we all saw in 2005.
Finally, and most obviously, it is often something that is widely abused.
Would likely depend on turnout - here in the US there is a distinct gender bias (women oppose it far more than men) and not only are there more women than men, their turnout rates (at least in presidential elections) are much higher. Don't believe that is true in the UK.
As for the reasoning against it here are a few more - many of the methods are inhumane, gross racial/financial and mental disparity in application, cost of the process itself, doesn't deter crime....
If it's in self defense, then yea. But I do think there needs to be a transparent investigation in to every fatality.
On the cost thing, you realize that there is an appeals process that can take years. Or would you strip out the appeals process? And say it does cost more to house an inmate, are you prepared to accidentally kill innocent people in order to save a few bucks?
I thought Mass didn't have it, turns out the feds can do what they want.
For me personally that's more than somewhat persuadable. What about things like the quality of someone's legal representation during the trial? A wealthy individual gets good representation whilst a poor individual gets second rate representation? Leads to those from poor communities being more likely to face the ultimate price for the same crime, which when the aim is 'justice' is despicable. It's also an ineffective deterrent in the first place. It's barbaric and outdated, and says a lot about the societies that still use it as a form of punishment.
joey_macmo
Player Valuation: £35m
Lulz
oops... I think we just found our "47%" moment. Savvy Yankee entrepreneurs are cranking out t-shirts at I type.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
oops... I think we just found our "47%" moment. Savvy Yankee entrepreneurs are cranking out t-shirts at I type.
What an absolutely stupid thing to say. Her, not you mate.
Never, ever, attack the supporters of a mainstream candidate.
No matter how ridiculous the actual candidate is.
- Status