Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Infoseeker]

...raise your nasty little handsies!

[Butterfly]

Since your news source is the guardian, it will likely be dismissed as a lefty conspiracy.

Or even more likely, this thread won't hear another squeak.

[dulouz]

My little handsie is up and waving a big "HELLO WORLD". We just parroted what we read in the press just as you are doing now. So whats the next step in this process of spiral to civil war? Do the police go limp wristed on suspects and than after the next attack, which will be blamed on the police, do chastise them for not doing enough? Boy, are you gonna whine when marshall law is declared.

[Pyongshin Sangja]

It's martial law, pal. Before you start defending your jack boot fantasies maybe you should learn to spell.

[Infoseeker]

[waggo]

Yeah thats right....they just decided to shoot him coz he looked like a
he had a sun tan!

What are these people and the OP trying to prove? The guy aroused enough suspicions for them to pull a gun on him.These people are not amateurs.They were and are under an incredible amount of stress and if there is anywhere in London where I dont mind a suicide bomber to pop his clogs its in the lobby of the Gaurdian newspaper

.....the guy legged it....he's an idiot.....I saw several witnesses give accounts directly to the news directly after the event.Were these witnesses secret service stooges? No!...they said what they saw.

Shoot to kill policy? Yes. Good.

[sonofthedarkstranger]

So the only options (duluoz) are

1. Genocide against the vaguely Islamic-looking people of the world, or

2. The police should try not to offend known terrorists by arresting them or even politely questioning them, because that's racist unless they are white

?

[Sleepy in Seoul]

Shoot-to-kill policy? It should always be a shoot-to-kill policy. When I was doing my training at the Police Academy (very different from the movies, I can assure you), I was taught that a Police Officer should never draw his weapon unless he intends to use it. And if that Police Officer has to use it, shoot to kill. If the threat is bad enough to warrant using it, put the threat down permanently.

However, it would appear that the police in London did not identify their target properly, and killed an innocent man. I don't want to second-guess what really happened, as I know what it is like to be judged after the event with only partial information, but if the London police don't start doing a better job of identifying their targets properly, then they will only be playing into the hands of the terrorists by creating even more uncertainty and fear.

[joe_doufu]

So if none of those initially reported conditions were true, why was he shot? Is the OP asking this question, or trying to fill in the blanks himself? It doesn't seem like this tells us anything at all about the situation.

[Butterfly]

[Infoseeker]

[Infoseeker]

[waggo]

He was an innocent man caught up in a war.
But YOU and the Guardian are giving his tragic death much more attention than the 53+ innocent people...thats 53+ innocent people who were blown up by MUSLIM nutters.

The police were just trying to do their job and good on them.They arent murderers. Nobody on here said they didnt make a bad mistake.Nobody on here said the guy deserved it!

Anyway get back to your grieving for his family....(!)...Im sure you really feel their pain.Liberal *beep*.

[Butterfly]

Nobody here called the 53 London victims, idiots.

[The Bobster]