Moat Manhunt

[Worthy4England]

I'll answer them all in the one post.

No, I don't believe from what I've heard that the police shot him.

You're absolutely correct that they couldn't tell it was loaded. I'd let them take the assumption it was.

No, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have tracked him down. He was clearly a threat. Having found him, they should have just shot him.

[thebish]

I'll answer them all in the one post.

No, I don't believe from what I've heard that the police shot him.

You're absolutely correct that they couldn't tell it was loaded. I'd let them take the assumption it was.

No, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have tracked him down. He was clearly a threat. Having found him, they should have just shot him.

I may be wrong - and you may know better - but if your gripe is about money wasted - then my guess is that 5hrs negotiating is a cheaper option than the investigative consequences that always follow a police officer actually discharging his/her weapon and killing someone. I suspect the cost differential is in favour of the negotiation if nobody's life is in danger and against the police killing someone.

unless you count prison time - but that merely leads to an "all dcriminals should be killed to save money" argument - which i don't think was the one you were raising.

you seemed bothered by the 5 or 6 hrs spend negotiating.

(you should let CAPS know that you don't think the po-po killed Moat - he's been flying your flag...)

[Prufrock]

Taxpayer money? Wankest of all arguments. About £8.50 probably. Certainly way less than on repairing roads, giving money to people who sue when they haven't repaired roads and weren't looking where they were going. Less than they won't be getting in taxes now they aren't taxing rich people. Less than we'll be spending on about four seats in the Olympic Stadium etc etc etc.

There is a justice system for a reason. If somebody starts firing shots at others, the police can shoot them, if they don't, they can't. I reckon we've got it pretty right there. The main aim the police had last friday was protect the public. Moat didn't seem to be a menace to the public or the police. Their main aim then is to capture him so he can go on trial. They failed in that aim. From what we can gather so far, that wasn't their fault.

No, not the wankest of all arguments. Your £8.50 is about the same level of toss that you've just criticised the Sun for coming up with in one of their reports. This incident has the square root of bugger all to do with repairing roads.

There is a justice system for a reason. It requires some changes. The incumbency shouldn't be on the police to make a judgement on whether an individual carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. They should be given the power through statute that says anyone carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. Their main aim should be to bring the swiftest conclusion in a non-hostage situation.

As it stands now, we have the cost of tracking him down for 6-7 days, plus we'll get the cost of the inquest and the inquiry. Ridiculous waste of taxpayers money if ever there was one.

Stuff costs money! People are always whinging that the council is spending moeny on stuff they don't want them to. We live in a society, it works for the greater good. THe cost of this manhunt is far far less than the Olympics, and a fair and functioning justice system is far more important than a glorified sports day. If money is a problem then scrap that instead. If it isn't, the money is irrelevant.

Who should the incumbency be on to judge if someone is a menace? Or should the police just start shooting folk they think look suspicious, which according to the police is anyone brown. There'll be a lot of worried Brazilians. Moat had a shotgun trained on his own head. If he started waving it about it becomes a different situation.

[Tombwfc]

So you're happy with the expense of tracking him, but not negotiating with him? Does it really make that much difference?

Of course, if you shoot first and ask questions later, you're liable to end up sticking a bullet in the wrong guy.

That said, I'm not that bothered what the police do, as long as they are upfront and honest about it. If they did everything right and everything they say they did in this instance (which it seems they did), it'll be a very quick inquiry.

[Worthy4England]

Taxpayer money? Wankest of all arguments. About £8.50 probably. Certainly way less than on repairing roads, giving money to people who sue when they haven't repaired roads and weren't looking where they were going. Less than they won't be getting in taxes now they aren't taxing rich people. Less than we'll be spending on about four seats in the Olympic Stadium etc etc etc.

There is a justice system for a reason. If somebody starts firing shots at others, the police can shoot them, if they don't, they can't. I reckon we've got it pretty right there. The main aim the police had last friday was protect the public. Moat didn't seem to be a menace to the public or the police. Their main aim then is to capture him so he can go on trial. They failed in that aim. From what we can gather so far, that wasn't their fault.

No, not the wankest of all arguments. Your £8.50 is about the same level of toss that you've just criticised the Sun for coming up with in one of their reports. This incident has the square root of bugger all to do with repairing roads.

There is a justice system for a reason. It requires some changes. The incumbency shouldn't be on the police to make a judgement on whether an individual carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. They should be given the power through statute that says anyone carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. Their main aim should be to bring the swiftest conclusion in a non-hostage situation.

As it stands now, we have the cost of tracking him down for 6-7 days, plus we'll get the cost of the inquest and the inquiry. Ridiculous waste of taxpayers money if ever there was one.

Stuff costs money! People are always whinging that the council is spending moeny on stuff they don't want them to. We live in a society, it works for the greater good. THe cost of this manhunt is far far less than the Olympics, and a fair and functioning justice system is far more important than a glorified sports day. If money is a problem then scrap that instead. If it isn't, the money is irrelevant.

Who should the incumbency be on to judge if someone is a menace? Or should the police just start shooting folk they think look suspicious, which according to the police is anyone brown. There'll be a lot of worried Brazilians. Moat had a shotgun trained on his own head. If he started waving it about it becomes a different situation.

The incumbency shouldn't be to judge. The incumbency should be on the individual to put down their weapon - if they don't, then their should be an automatic judgement that they intend to use it. He had a gun, had already killed one and tried to kill two other people. The benefit of the doubt should go with the police. Why should other's pander to the whims of criminals all the time? They're doing wrong, in this instance got cornered - it should have taken two warnings, then "off with his head".

On the money side, I agree there's plenty of places (again unrelated to this case) that we could cut money. The Olympics may well be a good place to start. That shouldn't prevent us from saving money in the case too. It's just smoke and mirrors arguments to cloud the situation. We spent 6 hours worth of taxpayers hard earned, after which he popped himself anyhow. Whilst the mass of police were doing this thing, there's plenty of other things they probably could have been doing instead.

What is wrong with giving an armed person two warnings and no more?

[Prufrock]

Taxpayer money? Wankest of all arguments. About £8.50 probably. Certainly way less than on repairing roads, giving money to people who sue when they haven't repaired roads and weren't looking where they were going. Less than they won't be getting in taxes now they aren't taxing rich people. Less than we'll be spending on about four seats in the Olympic Stadium etc etc etc.

There is a justice system for a reason. If somebody starts firing shots at others, the police can shoot them, if they don't, they can't. I reckon we've got it pretty right there. The main aim the police had last friday was protect the public. Moat didn't seem to be a menace to the public or the police. Their main aim then is to capture him so he can go on trial. They failed in that aim. From what we can gather so far, that wasn't their fault.

No, not the wankest of all arguments. Your £8.50 is about the same level of toss that you've just criticised the Sun for coming up with in one of their reports. This incident has the square root of bugger all to do with repairing roads.

There is a justice system for a reason. It requires some changes. The incumbency shouldn't be on the police to make a judgement on whether an individual carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. They should be given the power through statute that says anyone carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. Their main aim should be to bring the swiftest conclusion in a non-hostage situation.

As it stands now, we have the cost of tracking him down for 6-7 days, plus we'll get the cost of the inquest and the inquiry. Ridiculous waste of taxpayers money if ever there was one.

Stuff costs money! People are always whinging that the council is spending moeny on stuff they don't want them to. We live in a society, it works for the greater good. THe cost of this manhunt is far far less than the Olympics, and a fair and functioning justice system is far more important than a glorified sports day. If money is a problem then scrap that instead. If it isn't, the money is irrelevant.

Who should the incumbency be on to judge if someone is a menace? Or should the police just start shooting folk they think look suspicious, which according to the police is anyone brown. There'll be a lot of worried Brazilians. Moat had a shotgun trained on his own head. If he started waving it about it becomes a different situation.

The incumbency shouldn't be to judge. The incumbency should be on the individual to put down their weapon - if they don't, then their should be an automatic judgement that they intend to use it. He had a gun, had already killed one and tried to kill two other people. The benefit of the doubt should go with the police. Why should other's pander to the whims of criminals all the time? They're doing wrong, in this instance got cornered - it should have taken two warnings, then "off with his head".

On the money side, I agree there's plenty of places (again unrelated to this case) that we could cut money. The Olympics may well be a good place to start. That shouldn't prevent us from saving money in the case too. It's just smoke and mirrors arguments to cloud the situation. We spent 6 hours worth of taxpayers hard earned, after which he popped himself anyhow. Whilst the mass of police were doing this thing, there's plenty of other things they probably could have been doing instead.

What is wrong with giving an armed person two warnings and no more?

Before giving the police the freedom to start executing people without trial? feck loads.

We've been down this argument before on the rights of people to 'defend their homes', and I somehow doubt either is going to suddenly become convinced they were wrong. What I will say is that in my opinion, a lot of people really do not appreciate what they have in terms of our legal system, and the protection it gives to the individual.

[Worthy4England]

Taxpayer money? Wankest of all arguments. About £8.50 probably. Certainly way less than on repairing roads, giving money to people who sue when they haven't repaired roads and weren't looking where they were going. Less than they won't be getting in taxes now they aren't taxing rich people. Less than we'll be spending on about four seats in the Olympic Stadium etc etc etc.

There is a justice system for a reason. If somebody starts firing shots at others, the police can shoot them, if they don't, they can't. I reckon we've got it pretty right there. The main aim the police had last friday was protect the public. Moat didn't seem to be a menace to the public or the police. Their main aim then is to capture him so he can go on trial. They failed in that aim. From what we can gather so far, that wasn't their fault.

No, not the wankest of all arguments. Your £8.50 is about the same level of toss that you've just criticised the Sun for coming up with in one of their reports. This incident has the square root of bugger all to do with repairing roads.

There is a justice system for a reason. It requires some changes. The incumbency shouldn't be on the police to make a judgement on whether an individual carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. They should be given the power through statute that says anyone carrying a loaded firearm is a menace. Their main aim should be to bring the swiftest conclusion in a non-hostage situation.

As it stands now, we have the cost of tracking him down for 6-7 days, plus we'll get the cost of the inquest and the inquiry. Ridiculous waste of taxpayers money if ever there was one.

Stuff costs money! People are always whinging that the council is spending moeny on stuff they don't want them to. We live in a society, it works for the greater good. THe cost of this manhunt is far far less than the Olympics, and a fair and functioning justice system is far more important than a glorified sports day. If money is a problem then scrap that instead. If it isn't, the money is irrelevant.

Who should the incumbency be on to judge if someone is a menace? Or should the police just start shooting folk they think look suspicious, which according to the police is anyone brown. There'll be a lot of worried Brazilians. Moat had a shotgun trained on his own head. If he started waving it about it becomes a different situation.

The incumbency shouldn't be to judge. The incumbency should be on the individual to put down their weapon - if they don't, then their should be an automatic judgement that they intend to use it. He had a gun, had already killed one and tried to kill two other people. The benefit of the doubt should go with the police. Why should other's pander to the whims of criminals all the time? They're doing wrong, in this instance got cornered - it should have taken two warnings, then "off with his head".

On the money side, I agree there's plenty of places (again unrelated to this case) that we could cut money. The Olympics may well be a good place to start. That shouldn't prevent us from saving money in the case too. It's just smoke and mirrors arguments to cloud the situation. We spent 6 hours worth of taxpayers hard earned, after which he popped himself anyhow. Whilst the mass of police were doing this thing, there's plenty of other things they probably could have been doing instead.

What is wrong with giving an armed person two warnings and no more?

Before giving the police the freedom to start executing people without trial? feck loads.

We've been down this argument before on the rights of people to 'defend their homes', and I somehow doubt either is going to suddenly become convinced they were wrong. What I will say is that in my opinion, a lot of people really do not appreciate what they have in terms of our legal system, and the protection it gives to the criminal.

I've corrected the problem you had with the last sentence.

Your argument on every occasion moves the incumbency to make a judgement away from the perpertrator of a criminal activity. My view is simply that this should not be the case. The incumbency to change what's happening should be on the perpetrator.

I'd take the risk on the police having some freedom not to be required to negotiate with people holding firearms. That isn't to say they couldn't, and in hostage situations, I think it's different again.

[Prufrock]

I've corrected the problem you had with the last sentence.

Your argument on every occasion moves the incumbency to make a judgement away from the perpertrator of a criminal activity. My view is simply that this should not be the case. The incumbency to change what's happening should be on the perpetrator.

I'd take the risk on the police having some freedom not to be required to negotiate with people holding firearms. That isn't to say they couldn't, and in hostage situations, I think it's different again.

And then someone dies who shouldn't and you've put a price on human life. What if the police had shot Raoul Moat as you say, and it turns out he had been mentally ill? What if Derek Bentley had been found with a gun? Or that Moat hadn't in fact been the one who shot the other people? Or if the shotgun he had on Friday wasn't real?

Even without all those reasons, you are making the police literally judge jury and executioner. That makes me very, very uneasy. The police can shoot someone if they are posing a risk to the public, or to themselves. Raoul Moat was only endangering himself. You are willing to give away one of the fundamental ideas behind our legal system and our society to save 6hours cash at the end of a week long chase.

[Worthy4England]

I'll answer them all in the one post.

No, I don't believe from what I've heard that the police shot him.

You're absolutely correct that they couldn't tell it was loaded. I'd let them take the assumption it was.

No, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have tracked him down. He was clearly a threat. Having found him, they should have just shot him.

I may be wrong - and you may know better - but if your gripe is about money wasted - then my guess is that 5hrs negotiating is a cheaper option than the investigative consequences that always follow a police officer actually discharging his/her weapon and killing someone. I suspect the cost differential is in favour of the negotiation if nobody's life is in danger and against the police killing someone.

unless you count prison time - but that merely leads to an "all dcriminals should be killed to save money" argument - which i don't think was the one you were raising.

you seemed bothered by the 5 or 6 hrs spend negotiating.

(you should let CAPS know that you don't think the po-po killed Moat - he's been flying your flag...)

Not quite.

5 hours negotiation is only the cheaper option if the person doesn't then top themselves, and then as you say if they're successful, we then have to foot the bill to keep the tosser incarcerated. We could just chop the hands off thieves? Not necessary to kill them all.

I just can't get my head round why we should waste time and effort "negotiating" in a situation such as this? You've been asked nicely to put the gun down twice and you've already killed one and tried to kill two other people with a gun. What's there to talk about?

I'm not sure (after reading CAPS post a couple of times), whether he was actually saying he thought the police killed him?

[TANGODANCER]

I've got it now, this thread is a trial run for the next Monty Python Show.

[Prufrock]

I'll answer them all in the one post.

No, I don't believe from what I've heard that the police shot him.

You're absolutely correct that they couldn't tell it was loaded. I'd let them take the assumption it was.

No, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have tracked him down. He was clearly a threat. Having found him, they should have just shot him.

I may be wrong - and you may know better - but if your gripe is about money wasted - then my guess is that 5hrs negotiating is a cheaper option than the investigative consequences that always follow a police officer actually discharging his/her weapon and killing someone. I suspect the cost differential is in favour of the negotiation if nobody's life is in danger and against the police killing someone.

unless you count prison time - but that merely leads to an "all dcriminals should be killed to save money" argument - which i don't think was the one you were raising.

you seemed bothered by the 5 or 6 hrs spend negotiating.

(you should let CAPS know that you don't think the po-po killed Moat - he's been flying your flag...)

Not quite.

5 hours negotiation is only the cheaper option if the person doesn't then top themselves, and then as you say if they're successful, we then have to foot the bill to keep the tosser incarcerated. We could just chop the hands off thieves? Not necessary to kill them all.

I just can't get my head round why we should waste time and effort "negotiating" in a situation such as this? You've been asked nicely to put the gun down twice and you've already killed one and tried to kill two other people with a gun. What's there to talk about?

I'm not sure (after reading CAPS post a couple of times), whether he was actually saying he thought the police killed him?

Oh just.....whether or not he is guilty in a court of law.

[Worthy4England]

I've corrected the problem you had with the last sentence.

Your argument on every occasion moves the incumbency to make a judgement away from the perpertrator of a criminal activity. My view is simply that this should not be the case. The incumbency to change what's happening should be on the perpetrator.

I'd take the risk on the police having some freedom not to be required to negotiate with people holding firearms. That isn't to say they couldn't, and in hostage situations, I think it's different again.

And then someone dies who shouldn't and you've put a price on human life. What if the police had shot Raoul Moat as you say, and it turns out he had been mentally ill? What if Derek Bentley had been found with a gun? Or that Moat hadn't in fact been the one who shot the other people? Or if the shotgun he had on Friday wasn't real?

Even without all those reasons, you are making the police literally judge jury and executioner. That makes me very, very uneasy. The police can shoot someone if they are posing a risk to the public, or to themselves. Raoul Moat was only endangering himself. You are willing to give away one of the fundamental ideas behind our legal system and our society to save 6hours cash at the end of a week long chase.

No - wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have not put a price on a human life. The person holding the firearm has put their own price on their own life. Surely a civil liberty they should be entitled to.

Let's deal with the what-if's. Had Moat been mentally ill, that would have been picked up during his recent incarceration wouldn't it - or was it one of these temporary mental illnesses that lawyers use to try and mount a defence to mitigate the length of sentence? Derek Bently is a great case to cite, someone is capable of breaking into a house to steal, but wouldn't know it's not right to carry a gun??? Moat may well have not been the one who shot the other people, but that doesn't alter the fact that he was the one with the shotgun on the bank of the river, so it's fairly incidental as to whether he did or didn't shoot the other people - as it happens, I believe based on what I've heard that he did shoot the other people. Had it been a fake gun, then all the more reason to put it down. Again, it should be the person holding the thing that needs to make that judgement, not have the incumency on someone else.

Let's always shift the blame or the reason to act or not act, onto someone other than the criminal. How is that fair?

I don't feel that I'm giving away any of my fundamental rights, as I can't conceive of a situation where after 2 warnings, I wouldn't put the gun I was carrying down.

[Worthy4England]

I'll answer them all in the one post.

No, I don't believe from what I've heard that the police shot him.

You're absolutely correct that they couldn't tell it was loaded. I'd let them take the assumption it was.

No, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have tracked him down. He was clearly a threat. Having found him, they should have just shot him.

I may be wrong - and you may know better - but if your gripe is about money wasted - then my guess is that 5hrs negotiating is a cheaper option than the investigative consequences that always follow a police officer actually discharging his/her weapon and killing someone. I suspect the cost differential is in favour of the negotiation if nobody's life is in danger and against the police killing someone.

unless you count prison time - but that merely leads to an "all dcriminals should be killed to save money" argument - which i don't think was the one you were raising.

you seemed bothered by the 5 or 6 hrs spend negotiating.

(you should let CAPS know that you don't think the po-po killed Moat - he's been flying your flag...)

Not quite.

5 hours negotiation is only the cheaper option if the person doesn't then top themselves, and then as you say if they're successful, we then have to foot the bill to keep the tosser incarcerated. We could just chop the hands off thieves? Not necessary to kill them all.

I just can't get my head round why we should waste time and effort "negotiating" in a situation such as this? You've been asked nicely to put the gun down twice and you've already killed one and tried to kill two other people with a gun. What's there to talk about?

I'm not sure (after reading CAPS post a couple of times), whether he was actually saying he thought the police killed him?

Oh just.....whether or not he is guilty in a court of law.

So you couldn't see that he was holding a gun from the news reports?

[TANGODANCER]

After all this I'm most definitely interested to hear how those decrying the police action would have handled the situation. I mean, if you're complaining it was wrong, then what should have happened? Unless you have definitive views on it, then it's all so much protesting for the sake of it...is it not? If you know something is wrong, then you must have a view in what way it was wrong and what would have been the right way, given the circumstances. My own view is that not knowing the facts how can we reach any correct conclusion?

[bobo the clown]

1. Hoboh - randomly and out of the blue requests that some "human rights luvie" defend Moat - despite the fact that there is no sniff of anyone anywhere attempting any such thing.

Very fair .... there hasnt yet been anyone.

The oparative word being "yet". Without shadow of doubt, assuming he's caught alive ... which is far from certain ... there will be people who do. That, I'm afraid, is the way of the world.

I'll add a mental bookmark here and we'll see..... I have to say I am doubtful - unless you include the statutary defence team in a trial as "defenders". (though, like you, my hunch is he won't be taken alive - and so we may never get to know.)

Well, I've bided my time but now bring your attention to the above, from page 2 of this thread.

As predicted he wasn't taken alive, but the fundamental principle of the whole issue with the 'deep thinkers' missing the point applies.

Lot's of searching for someone to blame other than the knob himself.
Lot's of searching for an error or over-reaction from the authorities.
Lots of over complicating matters.

When, in fact ;
The guy was a scrote.
He shot himself.
Good.
He won't be missed.
He did at least save us the cost of a trial, the bleeding hearts that follow that and the cost of incarceration and later reHabilitation.

[Prufrock]

I've corrected the problem you had with the last sentence.

Your argument on every occasion moves the incumbency to make a judgement away from the perpertrator of a criminal activity. My view is simply that this should not be the case. The incumbency to change what's happening should be on the perpetrator.

I'd take the risk on the police having some freedom not to be required to negotiate with people holding firearms. That isn't to say they couldn't, and in hostage situations, I think it's different again.

And then someone dies who shouldn't and you've put a price on human life. What if the police had shot Raoul Moat as you say, and it turns out he had been mentally ill? What if Derek Bentley had been found with a gun? Or that Moat hadn't in fact been the one who shot the other people? Or if the shotgun he had on Friday wasn't real?

Even without all those reasons, you are making the police literally judge jury and executioner. That makes me very, very uneasy. The police can shoot someone if they are posing a risk to the public, or to themselves. Raoul Moat was only endangering himself. You are willing to give away one of the fundamental ideas behind our legal system and our society to save 6hours cash at the end of a week long chase.

No - wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have not put a price on a human life. The person holding the firearm has put their own price on their own life. Surely a civil liberty they should be entitled to.

Let's deal with the what-if's. Had Moat been mentally ill, that would have been picked up during his recent incarceration wouldn't it - or was it one of these temporary mental illnesses that lawyers use to try and mount a defence to mitigate the length of sentence? Derek Bently is a great case to cite, someone is capable of breaking into a house to steal, but wouldn't know it's not right to carry a gun??? Moat may well have not been the one who shot the other people, but that doesn't alter the fact that he was the one with the shotgun on the bank of the river, so it's fairly incidental as to whether he did or didn't shoot the other people - as it happens, I believe based on what I've heard that he did shoot the other people. Had it been a fake gun, then all the more reason to put it down. Again, it should be the person holding the thing that needs to make that judgement, not have the incumency on someone else.

Let's always shift the blame or the reason to act or not act, onto someone other than the criminal. How is that fair?

I don't feel that I'm giving away any of my fundamental rights, as I can't conceive of a situation where after 2 warnings, I wouldn't put the gun I was carrying down.

So you've shot a man without trial for being in possesion of a gun. You've executed a man, sanctioned by the state through its official representatives, the police, for holding a shotgun to his own head. You argument for this seems to be to save money. It's not because he is threatening somebody else, because he wasn't, or the police would have shot him, in this case I believe, regretfully, but rightly so. It's not even because he commited a murder because he may not have done, but because the only demonstrable, undeniable fact was, that he was in a possesion of a gun. A gun pointed at his head.

As I said above, this feels a somewhat pointless debate. We've been here before. You think I am soft liberal who values the rights of a criminal over the rights of a victim, and who lives in an idealistic world. I think you massively underestimate the protection those fundamental tenets of law give you in everyday life, and find your willingness to disregard them to save a quick buck worrying and somewhat shortsighted.

[Worthy4England]

So you've shot a man without trial for being in possesion of a gun. You've executed a man, sanctioned by the state through its official representatives, the police, for holding a shotgun to his own head. You argument for this seems to be to save money. It's not because he is threatening somebody else, because he wasn't, or the police would have shot him, in this case I believe, regretfully, but rightly so. It's not even because he commited a murder because he may not have done, but because the only demonstrable, undeniable fact was, that he was in a possesion of a gun. A gun pointed at his head.

As I said above, this feels a somewhat pointless debate. We've been here before. You think I am soft liberal who values the rights of a criminal over the rights of a victim, and who lives in an idealistic world. I think you massively underestimate the protection those fundamental tenets of law give you in everyday life, and find your willingness to disregard them to save a quick buck worrying and somewhat shortsighted.

No, I would only have him shot if our laws said after two warnings it was ok to do so, which I believe it should. You are supplying lots of what if's. So what if he'd managed to shoot one of the police? Would it all have then been worth it? Should our police force be put into a position where a person could shoot them, when they don't absolutely and necessarily have to be in that position?

I don't believe that the two areas of law that we obviously disagree upon give me any protection whatsoever in everyday life, although like you I could concieve of some really unlikely scenarios that could occur where they might offer me some protection, as I'm never likely to carry in public a firearm nor be in someone elses home, breaking and entering at 0400 in the morning...

[Prufrock]

So you've shot a man without trial for being in possesion of a gun. You've executed a man, sanctioned by the state through its official representatives, the police, for holding a shotgun to his own head. You argument for this seems to be to save money. It's not because he is threatening somebody else, because he wasn't, or the police would have shot him, in this case I believe, regretfully, but rightly so. It's not even because he commited a murder because he may not have done, but because the only demonstrable, undeniable fact was, that he was in a possesion of a gun. A gun pointed at his head.

As I said above, this feels a somewhat pointless debate. We've been here before. You think I am soft liberal who values the rights of a criminal over the rights of a victim, and who lives in an idealistic world. I think you massively underestimate the protection those fundamental tenets of law give you in everyday life, and find your willingness to disregard them to save a quick buck worrying and somewhat shortsighted.

No, I would only have him shot if our laws said after two warnings it was ok to do so, which I believe it should. You are supplying lots of what if's. So what if he'd managed to shoot one of the police? Would it all have then been worth it? Should our police force be put into a position where a person could shoot them, when they don't absolutely and necessarily have to be in that position?

I don't believe that the two areas of law that we obviously disagree upon give me any protection whatsoever in everyday life, although like you I could concieve of some really unlikely scenarios that could occur where they might offer me some protection, as I'm never likely to carry in public a firearm nor be in someone elses home, breaking and entering at 0400 in the morning...

If he'd even gone to shoot one of the police he'd have been blasted into about 400 pieces before he even got near the trigger. That would be unfortunate, but utterly necessary. Raoul Moat on Friday wasn't trying to shoot anybody but himself. Had he been I would be agreeing with you.

The idea of taking the judgement of guilt away from the courts and to the police might not seem to affect you, but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me to imagine people arguing you shouldn't have the right of appeal on on the spot driving fines, or any other number of offences you may commit that seem black and white but may not be. The fact remains the Raoul Moat was not a threat to anybody other than himself, and the possibility remained he was innocent, or mentally ill or any other reason by which he might defend himself in court, and the idea that the police should be given powers to execute citizens is reprehensible to me, in all situations. In certain situations, to you it seems, it is not. We disagree, and I suspect neither will be swayed.

[TANGODANCER]

I think you massively underestimate the protection those fundamental tenets of law give you in everyday life, and find your willingness to disregard them to save a quick buck worrying and somewhat shortsighted.

Do you really believe Worthy's argument is based on cash-saving Pru? As to laws, what's the point of having them if they can be broken at will? The police had been hunting a guy for days; a guy on the run for killing one man and shooting two other people. This was fact, a killer on the loose. Little chance of mistaken identity in a place that size unless a fellow wandering about with a shotgun is a common occurence there. How many laws had Moat broken by then, the carrying of a firearm being the least of them. Was he thinking about tenets of law and how they protect the public? In these situations it's easy to point a finger and quote what should happen. Unfortunately, no one appeared to have told Raoul Moat.

[Worthy4England]

Yes, but whilst we were still on the subject, I was dying to see if, whilst continuing to suggest that he might not have committed the murder (highly unlikely), you would poo-poo the idea that he could have shot the police (in my opinion equally unlikely). You can no more prove that he couldn't have shot the police than we can currently prove that he didn't kill anyone earlier in the week. You seem to be happy to use an unlikely argument to support your case and discount something similar that I used to support mine. My contention is that if they don't need to run that risk, then they shouldn't have to.

I would generally prefer that judgement of guilt remained with Courts, although that too is nowhere near perfect. Good barristers can sway opinions...Having been through said establishment once or twice, I know this to be true. Not once can I say that the sides of the argument represented what occurred with more than a nod in the direction of "accuracy" and "facts" - generally from both sides.

Am I very trusting of the police? Hell no. During one of my appearances before the small man in the large chair, they lied unmercifully (they were actually right on the charge they'd bought against me), but the "case" that they built was so contrived, it could have featured on Jackanory.

On other occasions, I've seen people get off when I know for a fact that they did it.

I just have a fundamental belief that there's too much carrot and not enough stick at the minute, in favour of the criminals. I would be willing to trade in some rights (such as the possibility I might be shot for carrying a gun or that someone might drag me into their house at 0400 in the morning just to murder me) to redress the balance some.