Family & Relationships3 mins ago
Credit Where It's Due......
28 Answers
https:/
...I don't often agree with the GOAS but she's bang on here. The abacus objects, you can't get a better endorsement than that!
...I don't often agree with the GOAS but she's bang on here. The abacus objects, you can't get a better endorsement than that!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The dispute between Abbott and Raynor on this seems like a classic example of speaking at cross-purposes. I think Abbott would accept that, if it's clear or at least highly probable that a given person is about to commit a terrorist attack that will cost many lives, then the police should intervene with deadly force in order to prevent this. If that's the only way to stop an imminent threat, then it's necessary. On the other hand, if there are alternatives to deadly force that would just as well stop the threat -- for example, because they can arrest the suspect before they reach their target -- then those should clearly be preferred.
It's pretty obvious that Raynor meant the first case, ie police shouldn't be prevented from using deadly force when necessary, but held to strict standards on what counts as necessary; and it seems equally obvious that Abbott's criticism is based on a misreading of Raynor's point.
It's pretty obvious that Raynor meant the first case, ie police shouldn't be prevented from using deadly force when necessary, but held to strict standards on what counts as necessary; and it seems equally obvious that Abbott's criticism is based on a misreading of Raynor's point.
Not sure she is right and I can’t really agree with her but…
Her constituency is a few miles from Manchester Arena where a terrorist just walked into a group of young people and blew them to smithereens. He was unchallenged despite behaving suspiciously.
There was the IRA cell on Gibraltar who were planning an attack, and all were killed before they could fulfil their plan.
Sometimes, ambiguously legal preventative action can avert a terrorist attack were many innocents die.
Her constituency is a few miles from Manchester Arena where a terrorist just walked into a group of young people and blew them to smithereens. He was unchallenged despite behaving suspiciously.
There was the IRA cell on Gibraltar who were planning an attack, and all were killed before they could fulfil their plan.
Sometimes, ambiguously legal preventative action can avert a terrorist attack were many innocents die.
It seems that in the last moments of their attack, Lee Rigby's killers wanted to become martyrs. It's notable for example that, having murdered Rigby, they asked bystanders to call the police, waited around 15 minutes, and finally charged armed with a gun and a cleaver only once armed police had arrived.
It's clear based on that that their intention was to die at the scene. Why give terrorists what they want? Instead once has ended up locked up for the rest of his life, and the other for at least 45 years (of which he's served eight so far).
It's clear based on that that their intention was to die at the scene. Why give terrorists what they want? Instead once has ended up locked up for the rest of his life, and the other for at least 45 years (of which he's served eight so far).
