Cops caught on camera 'executing' criminal (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

Let's put it another way, do you think the police would be happy or unhappy with having to wear bodycams that are constantly recording while they are on duty? They would only be unhappy if a) they are doing something wrong or b) not doing their job properly. Either way, they are employed as keepers of the peace and given more responsibilities to uphold the law.
 
D3x! said:
so because the cop shot and killed someone who tried to kill them he would likewise shoot a child for shoplifting a sucker?
Click to expand...

Yeah it's quite bizarre. They seem to think it's more likely than that criminal returning to a life of violent criminality once he got out of prison had he been arrested. Hence crime will supposedly increase


Fudzy said:
Either way, they are employed as keepers of the peace and given more responsibilities to uphold the law.
Click to expand...

There's a contradiction in terms. The law is swayed heavily in favour of violent criminals as in this case where the perp would be out in months to continue his criminal endeavors. Clearly the cops can't keep the peace by upholding the current laws.
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
Yeah more dead violent criminals means more crime! Others can differentiate between killing a violent criminal that shot at you compared to killing an innocent citizen for his shoes.

Lets see how your maths adds up. One more violent criminal with the cop minus on dead violent criminal. :erm:

With your alternative though you can add all the innocent people that would no doubt be victims of that perp's crimes in the future had he gone to prison only to be released soon after.
Click to expand...

If you give cops the right to execute someone when they think it is right, then you better make sure we have the best-trained, most incorruptable officers on the planet. Otherwise there is nothing stopping a cop from killing whoever they feel like.

Oh you have a nice cellphone? No witnesses? Great! Bang, shot in the head. "He was about to attack me with a knife, your Honour, and I deamed it necessary to execute him"

yeah, no problems at all with allowing cops to execute people.
 
Alan said:
There's a contradiction in terms. The law is swayed heavily in favour of violent criminals as in this case where the perp would be out in months to continue his criminal endeavors. Clearly the cops can't keep the peace by upholding the current laws.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have by becoming lawless which in a lot of ways is worse than a criminal being lawless.
 
Pox said:
If you give cops the right to execute someone when they think it is right, then you better make sure we have the best-trained, most incorruptable officers on the planet. Otherwise there is nothing stopping a cop from killing whoever they feel like.

Oh you have a nice cellphone? No witnesses? Great! Bang, shot in the head. "He was about to attack me with a knife, your Honour, and I deamed it necessary to execute him"

yeah, no problems at all with allowing cops to execute people.
Click to expand...

so you would have no issue if they were forced to wear body cams and given the right to use deadly force on anyone who fires at them?
 
D3x! said:
so you would have no issue if they were forced to wear body cams and given the right to use deadly force on anyone who fires at them?
Click to expand...

They have the right to protect themselves currently, in this scenario it went beyond that.
 
D3x! said:
o even then you still defend criminals rights.
Click to expand...

Poor troll attempt but I'll bite, in saying that you are implying that you are not only happy in bending over and taking it from criminals, you're also taking it from the police too.
 
Alan said:
There's a contradiction in terms. The law is swayed heavily in favour of violent criminals as in this case where the perp would be out in months to continue his criminal endeavors. Clearly the cops can't keep the peace by upholding the current laws.
Click to expand...


That is a failure in the criminal justice laws, not the laws around policing and arresting.
Change the criminal justice laws then, not the policing laws.
 
Alan said:
Yeah more dead violent criminals means more crime! Others can differentiate between killing a violent criminal that shot at you compared to killing an innocent citizen for his shoes.

Lets see how your maths adds up. One more violent criminal with the cop minus on dead violent criminal. :erm:

With your alternative though you can add all the innocent people that would no doubt be victims of that perp's crimes in the future had he gone to prison only to be released soon after.
Click to expand...

And others can comprehend that allowing police to kill people who aren't actually threat to them is a dangerous avenue to go down.

With your solution we can add all the people the 'cops' kill because there's no consequences for their actions. And we all know how rare dirty cops are, right?
 
D3x! said:
so you would have no issue if they were forced to wear body cams and given the right to use deadly force on anyone who fires at them?
Click to expand...

They already have the right to use force in certain circumstances.
What they can't do is execute someone like they did in this case.

Dammit, I responded to the troll again.
 
Alan said:
...

There's a contradiction in terms. The law is swayed heavily in favour of violent criminals as in this case where the perp would be out in months to continue his criminal endeavors. Clearly the cops can't keep the peace by upholding the current laws.
Click to expand...

Actually, the law is swayed heavily in favour of human rights; anything criminal that happens is an allegation until its veracity have been tested in a court of law. That alleged criminal has the presumption of innocence on his side.

So, for all intents and purposes, the police killed an innocent man . . . if we're going to play semantics now.
 
Pox said:
That is a failure in the criminal justice laws, not the laws around policing and arresting.
Change the criminal justice laws then, not the policing laws.
Click to expand...

Which I'm sure those that condone this 'execution' would agree but until such time they'd prefer violent criminals dead than roaming the streets

OrbitalDawn said:
And others can comprehend that allowing police to kill people who aren't actually threat to them is a dangerous avenue to go down.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do appreciate it's a dangerous road but they've conclude desperate times calls for desperate measures. I know though living in insulated leafy suburbs one does tend not to appreciate what must be like living in areas where crime levels resemble war zones. Most people have simply had enough

With your solution we can add all the people the 'cops' kill because there's no consequences for their actions. And we all know how rare dirty cops are, right?
Click to expand...

Not my solution I don't condone what the cop did. I'm just pointing out why people do.

You're still making that giant leap from executing violent criminals leading to randomly murdering old grannies as they walk down the road. Even if one were to accept such a rather ludicrous notion I doubt cops would rack up the kills like that violent criminal you'd rather have roaming the streets than dead.
 
Pox said:
They already have the right to use force in certain circumstances.
What they can't do is execute someone like they did in this case.

Dammit, I responded to the troll again.
Click to expand...

not sure why anyone is arguing with you anyway, you are a law breaking criminal yourself.
 
D3x! said:
not sure why anyone is arguing with you anyway, you are a law breaking criminal yourself.
Click to expand...

Troll technique #34 - always play the person and not the ball.

Ya, onto ignore list you go.
 
VernD said:
Actually, the law is swayed heavily in favour of human rights; anything criminal that happens is an allegation until its veracity have been tested in a court of law. That alleged criminal has the presumption of innocence on his side.

So, for all intents and purposes, the police killed an innocent man . . . if we're going to play semantics now.
Click to expand...

No. Innocent law abiding citizens receive little regard for their human rights in this country. Hence why dozens of them are being murdered everyday.

Are you seriously going to deny convicted criminals, as this individual not doubt would have been, unjustly benefit from the laws in this country regarding for example length of sentencing and that it does impinge on the cops ability to "keep the peace"
 
Alan said:
No. Innocent law abiding citizens receive little regard for their human rights in this country. Hence why dozens of them are being murdered everyday.
Click to expand...

Whilst innocent law-abiding citizens' human rights are being disregarded by their fellow citizens, the enforcers of the law is held to a higher standard, and that is what this is all about.


Are you seriously going to deny convicted criminals, as this individual not doubt would have been, unjustly benefit from the laws in this country regarding for example length of sentencing and that it does impinge on the cops ability to "keep the peace"
Click to expand...

I can't make sense out of this sentence.
Anybody else? Or is it just me?
Care to clarify?
 
VernD said:
Whilst innocent law-abiding citizens' human rights are being disregarded by their fellow citizens, the enforcers of the law is held to a higher standard, and that is what this is all about.




I can't make sense out of this sentence.
Anybody else? Or is it just me?
Care to clarify?
Click to expand...

not sure why you cannot comprehend it pretty basic really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X