Should the Met police be armed? (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

It's simple, if theres 100% proof it was them then just drown them.

How often is there 100% proof? How often is it based on beyond reasonable doubt?

Just asking the question and not making a statement.

 

---

[Gazolba]

According to a survey in 2017, 1 in 3 people in the States own guns.

Can you imagine that over here? Doesn't bear thinking about.

People would be shooting each other for pushing in at the bar or queue jumping at Sainsbury's.

What survey was that?
I suspect they divided the number of people by the number of guns to get that figure.
Some people 'collect' guns and have dozens.
Most people have none.

 

[Gazolba]

How often is there 100% proof? How often is it based on beyond reasonable doubt?

Just asking the question and not making a statement.

Most wrongful convictions I've heard about were either pre-DNA testing or based on unreliable eye-witness testimony.
DNA testing is almost 100% foolproof.
They do need to give much less weight to eyewitness testimony, it is very unreliable.

 

[pastythegreat]

How often is there 100% proof? How often is it based on beyond reasonable doubt?

Just asking the question and not making a statement.

Lee Rigby murder, we know exactly who did it.
Westminster terror attack, Jo Coxs killer, finsbury park fella, London bridge attack.
All these cases are all recent events and we can say, for sure, 100% we know who committed these murders.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[tommydazzle]

Good question.

That is the main reason, for sure, but I do think humanity has to be bigger and better than that. It's a question been debated through the ages.

Just think in the 21st century we shouldn't still be killing each other as punishment.

I AM all for hard labour though. Prison should be tough and prisoners should be made to work.

It's a difficult one, as I say I've changed my mind a few times on this but don't see it as a punishment but simply an elimination from society of absolute scum.

A little thought experiment for you:

If your family were under imminent threat from great violence - death, rape in your home and you had the means to stop it by killing the intruder, would you do it?

If you came home to find you family murdered and the killer still present and mutilating the bodies, would you kill if you had the means?

The difference between the two is only one of time and I'm sure you can see the point I'm making.

The argument against this, of course, is that we shouldn't let raw emotion and revenge rule our justice system but I say there are cases where it should. I think my idealistic view of human nature has taken too much of a battering as I've got older.

 

[Nick]

Lee Rigby murder, we know exactly who did it.
Westminster terror attack, Jo Coxs killer, finsbury park fella, London bridge attack.
All these cases are all recent events and we can say, for sure, 100% we know who committed these murders.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Exactly, caught in the act where there's no question just get rid of them.

 

[clint van damme]

Exactly, caught in the act where there's no question just get rid of them.

not possible in reality.
You're basically suggesting a two tier criteria for defining guilt, beyond reasonable doubt and 100 percent guilty.
Unworkable.

 

[tommydazzle]

Never understood 'beyond reasonable doubt' - if this is a verdict why do jurors take so long to reach it?

 

[clint van damme]

Never understood 'beyond reasonable doubt' - if this is a verdict why do jurors take so long to reach it?

because you have two sides of the story put to you by two highly qualified professionals whose job it is to convince you that there version of events and the evidence they provided to support it is correct.

You've also got 12 people in the jury room which could include people of an awkward disposition who would argue anything!

I did jury service years ago, I argued for ages to get a lad not guilty, to this day I think he may not of been but the police failed to provide an important bit of evidence which could have shed a lot more light on the case and I couldn't find it in me to find him guilty.
It started off about 6 guilty, 6 not guilty but the not guilty side managed to persuade the others.

 

[Nick]

It's a difficult one, as I say I've changed my mind a few times on this but don't see it as a punishment but simply an elimination from society of absolute scum.

A little thought experiment for you:

If your family were under imminent threat from great violence - death, rape in your home and you had the means to stop it by killing the intruder, would you do it?

If you came home to find you family murdered and the killer still present and mutilating the bodies, would you kill if you had the means?

The difference between the two is only one of time and I'm sure you can see the point I'm making.

The argument against this, of course, is that we shouldn't let raw emotion and revenge rule our justice system but I say there are cases where it should. I think my idealistic view of human nature has taken too much of a battering as I've got older.

I'd have no issue with it if somebody hurt or was going to hurt my family.

 

[tommydazzle]

because you have two sides of the story put to you by two highly qualified professionals whose job it is to convince you that there version of events and the evidence they provided to support it is correct.

You've also got 12 people in the jury room which could include people of an awkward disposition who would argue anything!

I did jury service years ago, I argued for ages to get a lad not guilty, to this day I think he may not of been but the police failed to provide an important bit of evidence which could have shed a lot more light on the case and I couldn't find it in me to find him guilty.
It started off about 6 guilty, 6 not guilty but the not guilty side managed to persuade the others.

That's exactly my point! The fact that you argued for ages must always mean reasonable doubt. I'm always going to think of you as the Henry Fonda of this thread from now on.

 

[clint van damme]

That's exactly my point! The fact that you argued for ages must always mean reasonable doubt. I'm always going to think of you as the Henry Fonda of this thread from now on.

I see the point you're making about reasonable doubt, never looked at it like that before.

 

[Nick]

I see the point you're making about reasonable doubt, never looked at it like that before.

Should have pointed them to a thread on here "do you want to end up like these twats? Sort it out".

 

[Otis]

Lee Rigby murder, we know exactly who did it.
Westminster terror attack, Jo Coxs killer, finsbury park fella, London bridge attack.
All these cases are all recent events and we can say, for sure, 100% we know who committed these murders.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

So you just can't have the death penalty for terrorists then.

You saying we can only have it for those that are clearly caught on camera or admit it?

It wasn't you, it was Rob, but he says death penalty for terrorists. All terrorists?

There was a case recently with a mother and daughter plotting terrorism. They were caught and have recently been put in jail.

Thing is, when you read the back story, the mum became radicalised and she tried to convert her two daughters but they resisted. The one that ended up in jail was only 12 at the time.

Anyway, over the years this poor girl WAS radicalised by her persistent mother.

Should both receive the death penalty there?

It's not just black and white unfortunately. So much grey area.

 

[Otis]

What survey was that?
I suspect they divided the number of people by the number of guns to get that figure.
Some people 'collect' guns and have dozens.
Most people have none.

There were two. One said 40 percent and the other a third, but this was just people who said there were guns in the household.

 

[pastythegreat]

So you just can't have the death penalty for terrorists then.

You saying we can only have it for those that are clearly caught on camera or admit it?

It wasn't you, it was Rob, but he says death penalty for terrorists. All terrorists?

There was a case recently with a mother and daughter plotting terrorism. They were caught and have recently been put in jail.

Thing is, when you read the back story, the mum became radicalised and she tried to convert her two daughters but they resisted. The one that ended up in jail was only 12 at the time.

Anyway, over the years this poor girl WAS radicalised by her persistent mother.

Should both receive the death penalty there?

It's not just black and white unfortunately. So much grey area.

Well no, they were PLOTTING terrorism. They never killed anyone. Had they of got to their end game and actually carried out the act and killed people, then yes, the death penalty (as long as it was certain it was them).
I'm not just putting it down to terrorism.
Anything bad enough for the death penalty (terrorists, murderers etc), if it's conclusive evidence it was them then there should be no other outcome.
When they killed the person/people they did, did they give them the choice of 15 years behind bars or death? No, they didn't, so why should they be offered the choice? The moment you murder anyone, all right should instantly be removed.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

And how many cases are as clear cut as the ones you have mentioned? Caught in the act and happy to be caught in the act? Or irrefutable evidence?

There is talk of DNA, but DNA can be planted (Steven Avery case in the US has pointed to just that).

There is so little that is totally without any doubt whatsoever.

So much grey area and it will still be debated for centuries to come no doubt.

I don't think anyone should be charged however for killing someone who has broken into their home and threatened them though.

I think when you set foot on someone else's property without permission and break and enter, then your rights pretty much go out of the window at that point.

That Tony Martin case was a very interesting scenario for sure. I see Channel 4 did a dramatic recreation of the police interviews the other week.

Seems like he did indeed deliberately shoot them in the back, but the intruders had broken in and it had happened to him on many occasions and he felt under threat.

I do think in some situations criminals have far too many rights.