Quote:No, he's not saying that is he. Shame on you.What he said was;
Quote:the police should've done things American styleWhich is open to interpretation
Quote:Where an individual, regardless of colour/race/sexual orientation/handedness, has half hacked off the head of another person in the public domain, and is continuing to hack off the remainder of the connection with a very sharp implement, the responsible authority has the approval to terminate said assailant to prevent further loss/injury to other citizens.Which is your interpretation. And in any case you are wrong. The police have the right to use reasonable and appropriate force to protect themselves and the public. They do not have a license to kill.
What I said is;
Quote:Further in the Lee Rigby case the police defended themselves, used appropriate force and made arrests. They did not act as judge, jury and executioners as Darrsi would have them.And indeed the police acted appropriately, and with absolute professionalism in the most extreme of circumstances. Not to mention the suspects actually wanted the police to kill them.
Quote:the police should've done things American styleBut anyway, as such a statement is open to interpretation, and in an attempt to get this thread back on track, how about this for American style. American style that was studied by the VRU (Violence Reduction Unit) in Scotland.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/0...story.html
I think in both in Boston and in Scotland the view taken is “Violence is preventable, not inevitable” If you move beyond knee jerk responses real progress is possible and demonstrably achievable.