 
|
GoreyAlan Fáilte
|
Why bother trying to arrest such scum. The courts will only be lenient , they'd probably only have got 8-10 years for attempted armed robbery and would only have done half of that then been eligible for parole. This way no messing about, no stupid judges and no cost to the tax payer. Shoot the lot of them I say. |
|
Beer Advocate
|
Completely justified. |
|
D B
|
there is no such thing as excessive force on bank robbers. |
|
As Real As It Gets
|
Looked clean to me. |
|
j.pee69
|
The police used reasonable force. One of the robbers had a gun at the security officer. A beer for the police officers involved barman please. |
|
Mab
|
No. Saves us the cost of a trial, and 100k each a year to keep them in prison. Well over 1.5 million. Worth shooting them. Hats off to the flying squad. |
|
BlackSheep
 |
No....you can't tackle armed robbers with harsh words anymore... too many police have been gunned down in recent times. |
|
bugaboo
|
Not if they were armed with sawn off shotguns.. |
|
harry
 |
the criminals went with guns and must have been prepared to use them they deserved what they got good on the police |
|
Rommel
|
yess i do!!! and about bl**dy time too. |
|
phlada64
 |
I dont know. Do you think they used excessive force on the carjacker who shot four officers, one of whom died ? When you put a badge on and go after a crook, you tell me how you would handle it. |
|
emiss
|
for once absolutely NO |
|
Smoochy Poochy
|
they were armed so no the force was correct. |
|
LEONARD W
|
Nope. |
|
beerforjay77
|
Very justified. Someone needs to let them know the police arent messing around. |
|
njn001
|
Where the robbers armed? or appear to be armed? If yes, then the robbers must have to expect to be met with with armed officers and the possibly pay the ultimate price. Shoot or be shot what would you do? |
|
Animemadness
 |
How come the police can shoot two bank robers and no one cares but when they shoot someone who they suspect to be a terrorist who is going to blow up hundreds of people everyone throws their arms in the air. In my view both cases were justified. |
|
confucious says
 |
yes off course they were on the face of it. as heard on the news they were allegedly holding a gun to a hostages head |
|
jillybird
|
Not at all, its time our police got tough on the scum walking our streets. |
|
Frank
|
No
even if the police were waiting, they had to act and prevent the robbery.
A previous answer said they could have just shot and injured them, well anyone who gets shot, even in arm, leg etc could die from the trauma. You need to understand, if the police wound someone they could still shoot back, killing the security guards or the police officers attending,
this was not excessive force, The robbers went with the intent to use or scare using guns and they met their match this time... maybe if we had capital punishment for murderers etc brought back then it may prevent this type of crime and the police would not have to deal in this way. |
|
LawGunGuy
|
Nope and this wasn't excessive either:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8yoUaH6wGLs
Any clarification of why the police treat bank robbers harshly can be seen below. |
|
Mr Sceptic
|
I can't say. Unlike the rest of you, I wasn't there and I don't really know what happened.
But in general, if these men were armed and a danger to those around, it was entirely proper to shoot them, dead if necessary, if proper warnings were given.
But the motivation must always be protection of the police officers and the public, not vigilanteism.
It is also entirely proper, that since two men are dead, a full investigation is carried out, hopefully leading to the complete exoneration of the officers involved, if the incident was as described on the news.
Mathilda: Trials are such a nuisance in our legal system, aren't they? I don't know why we bother wth them, they're all guilty anyway. (NB this is irony) |
|
Copgirl
 |
They were ARMED. What do you think the officers should have done? Let themselves and other innocent be shot? No, totally justified. To all of you that answered yes, what if you were in that bank today? |
|
CLIVE H
 |
No. The Flying Squad acted correctly. The bank robbers [ruthless criminals] were armed. At least one fully loaded hand gun was found at the scene, possibly dropped by one of the villains.
The police have a duty to enforce the law and maintain good order. Their job is to protect life, limb and property. They did exactly that.
For once, the fuzz did an excellent job. Ten out of ten. |
|
Ian UK
|
I've been accused of using excessive force myself by members of the public who have caught the aftermath of an arrest/incident. With this is mind, I wouldn't really like to comment on the level of force used without knowing the full facts of the incident. Not that I'm suggesting that's what you are doing of course.
At the end of the day, its down to the relevant officers to justify their actions. |
|
steven e
|
they did well. |
|
Keith
|
I think the question should be would YOU have wanted them to use less force if you were a bank employee or customer who was there during the robbery? I wouldn't have. |
|
vdv_desantnik
|
justified |
|
Chief
|
It's always better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6. |
|
kindred5eeker
|
Between two armed parties, I think it was reasonable force.
My take on it is that if you play with guns, and you get shot, don't be a baby about it.
And that would go for the armed police too ! |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
