Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia
(Post 4448972)
They didn't shoot him dead in cold blood. They shot a man who was carrying an illegal firearm, so clearly the intent was there for him to use it. He could have been pointing it at them, we don't know what happened yet. Even if it was in his sock, he was still in possession. It doesn't matter if he was carrying it in a basket on his head. Like I said, we don't know the full story yet, but people are still siding with the criminal - the man was was equipped with an illegal firearm. What's more, he probably had not much of an idea how to use it safely because you can't go and learn that stuff at a gun club now because handguns were made illegal. They were made illegal because of criminals with unlicenced guns, shooting members of the public.
No, not the start I'd hoped for either. I was beginning to settle for a draw... I might have known those boys would break my heart again. What's to be done?
|
No but if that gun was not available to use surely you don't think that shooting him twice through the head is an appropriate response? I don't think of myself as siding with the criminal, I'd rather think that I'm siding with the victim, because that's exactly what he is in my mind. One witness even said he was on the ground when he was shot! You keep emphasising that carrying a gun is illegal and of course it is but that isn't the point, the point is whether the police's response to this offence was proportionate and justified, and from the newly available evidence it seems to me like it most definitely was not
I had pretty much just accepted it was a draw as well with 10 minutes to go or so, I certainly didn't think we'd lose though, we did have a few chances if we could have just capitalised on them. I'm trying not to get too down though, things can only get better at least |
