The Right to kill

The whole notion is based on personal bias. What you seem to really be saying, as i alluded to with a doctor killing his patients, is it is ok for some eople to kil or for a prpose you agree with.

That is not a realistic approach to take and i can prove it:

First the link i posted was actually relevant. The reason it is relevant is because someone was responsible for the death of another human being and was getting paid. At some point personal integrity would...well i do not want to harp on this particular case before it is concluded.

Secondly, examine this scenario:

Someone is accosted in their home by an armed assailant. The police are called and as they arrive the perpetrator has a gun fixed on the homeowner. The police kill the perpetrator. How many people in the postion of the homeowner would object to the use of deadly force? Answer: None, ZERO.
 
spidergoat said:
Why not? It can be personally rewarding to be in a position of power, to feel you are doing something important that most people wouldn't want to do. Being a warrior is part of human (male) nature, those without it didn't survive as much to breed, it's an evolved trait.
Click to expand...

So human males have an inbuilt desire to go around killing people? So whats with the PTSD?
 
It's the disconnect with how they are expected to behave at home and the battlefield. How many Masi warriors or South American natives get PTSD? Their violence is an accepted part of their culture.
 
SAM i think you will find that most people who join the army do it for the same reason people join the police force.

The police force members know they MAY have to kill someone but that its a last resort to defend the comunity. The same goes for most ADF members, Hell the majority of ADF member wont even fire a gun out side of training in reality because they will be employed as cooks, radio operators, trademen, admin workers, ect.
 
Paramilitary operations are all support systems. The main role of the army [not the cops] is to use weapons against a perceived enemy.
 
im sorry but i dont understand your post

The majority of work the ADF has been doing recently is almost all security work. The biggest deployments are in Timor and the solomons where the ADF is basically surporting members of the AFP to alow them to do the work of bringing law and order back to these countries.

In fact in the case of the solomons i think the majority of the deployment is actually in goverment surport (ie public servents from the various federal and state departments helping the country to relearn how to govern)

The majority of the navies work is cost guard type work, ie rescuing boats in trouble, aresting illegal fishmen ect
 
Yeah, our cops in India don't carry arms. Sometimes, cops on patrol carry a stick.

0212_C55.jpg
 
none of your cops are armed?

WOW, i knew it wasnt standed practice for the police in england to carry firearms but i also knew there were police there who DO go armed who can be called in if nessary.

to be honest however there is no way in HELL i would want to be a cop on patrol without a gun concidering both the murders of the 2 officers in victoria and the shooting of that constable in WA. The risks are just to great
 
They send arms for them in emergencies like riots, but even then tear gas and shields will outnumber guns. I've never seen a cop with a gun outside the police station in Mumbai, except during the riots of '92. Most people will listen to the cops. They can be intimidating even without guns.
 
see our rules are the exact OPOSITE, guns in riots are to easerly taken so the riot squad doesnt carry firearms, only shields and battons.

Its the regular duties and when aresting high risk suspects that the police need to have firearms.

That case i was telling you about in WA, a guy murdered his wife (i think) in SA and then drove over to WA. He then drove off from a petrol station in WA without paying so the police were going to arest him for theft. The young constable did a check on the owner of the car and only got the fact that he had driven off without paying (rather than the fact he was wanted for murder) and so aproched the car to arest the "thief". The guy imidatly shot him out of the blue.

The case in victoria 2 young police officers pulled over a car for a random licence check. The guy imidiatly opened fire on both of them for no reason killing them both.

Police work is a dangerious job and so as a sociaty we need to insure that that the police have all the tools they need at there disposal. Its amazing how many times the ambo's and the fire service have needed the police to come and dig them out of a situation that is compleatly not there own fault. That doesnt even account for the polices OWN workload. Like atending domestic disterbances only to find the offender is armed and threating there partner, drug dealers who dont just put up there hands when caught ect
 
DiamondHearts said:
Yes, that is the entire point of resistance, right, to kill fellow countrymen?

There is a vast difference between sectarian and tribal criminals and justified resistance fighters who target only foreign or puppet gorvernment troops.

For example, to the British, George Washington was just as bad as those Colonists who killed any British man they saw. To them all the resistance were terrorists, don't make the same mistake as the British did by comparing America's justified resistance to some Colonists' terrorist attacks against British civilians.
Click to expand...

Americans did not go around randomly killing Tories just because they were Tories. I suggest a good course of study in American History. British troops however fired on American civilians. American rebels did not hide behind the skirts of their women folk nor behind their children as terrorists do today. These were men of honor...not terrorists.
 
joe i suggest YOU relearn history. The american troops were no more "honerable" than the british. Both fort dirty but history is written by the victors so you always have to dig depper to get true acounts
 
Asguard said:
see our rules are the exact OPOSITE, guns in riots are to easerly taken so the riot squad doesnt carry firearms, only shields and battons.

Its the regular duties and when aresting high risk suspects that the police need to have firearms.

That case i was telling you about in WA, a guy murdered his wife (i think) in SA and then drove over to WA. He then drove off from a petrol station in WA without paying so the police were going to arest him for theft. The young constable did a check on the owner of the car and only got the fact that he had driven off without paying (rather than the fact he was wanted for murder) and so aproched the car to arest the "thief". The guy imidatly shot him out of the blue.

The case in victoria 2 young police officers pulled over a car for a random licence check. The guy imidiatly opened fire on both of them for no reason killing them both.

Police work is a dangerious job and so as a sociaty we need to insure that that the police have all the tools they need at there disposal. Its amazing how many times the ambo's and the fire service have needed the police to come and dig them out of a situation that is compleatly not there own fault. That doesnt even account for the polices OWN workload. Like atending domestic disterbances only to find the offender is armed and threating there partner, drug dealers who dont just put up there hands when caught ect
Click to expand...

Its very rare to find an armed citizen in India. Even most criminals prefer knives. I personally do not know even a single person in my circle who owns a gun. I think it is the culture. We associate nonviolence with satyagraha and independence, violence with partition and destruction.
 
im not nessarly talking about guns either. A guy atacked police a while ago with a samarie sword and the capicum spray just wouldnt stop him. I think in the end they were left with no choice but to shoot him before he killed one of there own
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top