People seriously expect the police to wait until someone draws a gun before they shoot?
-
-
Replying to @bazzacollins
@bazzacollins Er… yes. Is this one of the things we took for granted so long we forgot it?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adambanksdotcom
@adambanksdotcom You're effectively asking them to wait until they're shot at. Entirely unreasonable.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bazzacollins
@bazzacollins I’m saying if there was no gun you have a problem and you damn well *ought* to have a problem. Even US cops accept that.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adambanksdotcom
@adambanksdotcom There was a gun. He threw it out of the taxi just before they shot him. Pretty reasonable grounds to suspect he was armed.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bazzacollins
@bazzacollins Question that needs answering is what was he meant to do? How could outcome have been improved?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adambanksdotcom
@adambanksdotcom Outcome could have been improved if he didn't carry a gun. Jury clearly not buying the eyewitness account.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bazzacollins
@bazzacollins You’re saying is once police knew he had a gun they went expecting to have to kill him whatever happened. That’s execution.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @adambanksdotcom
@adambanksdotcom He was armed. There was no failure of intelligence. He posed a threat to their lives during that pursuit.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bazzacollins
@bazzacollins That has to mean there’s a problem with their rules of engagement. Can’t shrug just because he was a bad guy (imho).2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@adambanksdotcom The Woolwich case proved that armed police don't always shoot to kill. They are making snap judgements.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.