Two armed robbers killed by police?

frankturk50

Before the police shoot anyone in the UK there has to be a very good reason and and obviously these idiots fore filled the required criteria and got what they deserved .I hope it sends out a clear message to others.For the benefit of the fool who says life is worth more than the money,that is not a consideration the police shoot to protect their lives and those of others not just to stop someone stealing.

j.pee69

well done the police two less scum in our prisons or on our streets!!

Dilligaf

I believe their are still 4 on the run. People who use guns in their pursuit of crime have to accept the consequences.
I bet their will be the usual outcry about the police being overzealous. I believe that if you take a gun to do a crime you should expect to die.

â˜†soaking in the blood of angelsâ˜†

here here. i think this is how we should treat all robberies. screw negotiation, just get a sniper and take them out. simple as that....

Ryan R

good. they knew that when the committed a crime, there was a certain amount of risk. And i'm sure they had to point the gun at the police or other civilians in order for them to take lethal measures. well done officers!

Away With The Fairies

Hear hear!!

baby jesus

i second that motion

Elaine N

If they had not been breaking the law then they would still be alive so its their fault...well done to the police for doing their job...

emiller1998

I couldn't agree more. Its 2 less losers to waste our tax money for trials and jail.

carolus

so it seems good that all robbers be killed and millions of tax moneys saved.That too is a lesson for to- be robbers if only it works!

psymon

If armed criminals are caught in the act and there is an imminent danger of them opening fire at the law enforcement officers present, putting said officers and any member of the innocent bystanding public at risk and there is no safe way to shoot to disarm the robbers, then killing them is self defence and is perfectly excusable, in my opinion.

The mere fact that these criminals were armed suggests they wouldn't have hesitated to use their weapons, and they wouldn't have cared whether they were shooting to injure or kill, so in my mind they were always assuming the risk that they might also get shot at. If they died, it was a risk they must have been aware of.

My verdict (and I insist only MY verdict): The police acted in the only way they could to protect themselves, the public and the property which was being stolen. The only parties guilty of any kind of crime or misconduct are the armed robbers.

Tony T

agree, it might stop crime if the police do it all the time.

chutney

You go in armed then you take the consequences. Stupid people. I agree fully with your statement. I don't feel sorry for them at all.

teddy

Exactly what i was thinking when i saw the news earlier today. Good riddance.

polly-pocket

they had it coming! criminals in general piss me off!! they were brazen enough to rob a security van and if they were to get away with it, then they would do it again. it's not so much as saving tax dollars as much keeping criminals from causing future harm to innocent people.

one shot

Pity they didn't get the two b@stards who robbed my 82 year old mother in law last week!!

Duffer

So long as the police followed the rules that have been laid down for them before firing, I have no problem.

GÃ¼nther Bischoff

Big boys rules.

squared away

sounds good to me

Copgirl

Hasta La Vista, baby!

Rommel

my reaction!!!.....YESSS!!!!!we got one back. keep it up and perhaps our streets will be safe for our children to play out again.

the mofo

i agree with the asker.
Regardless of humans rights etc these people had firearms, wree committing a crime for which had rhey been caught, would have gone to prison for a decen amount of time. if someboody had stood in their way, they would have shot or seriously injured them.

we have been saved a long and arduous court case. atthe tax payers expense.

And you know the police didnt just shoot them for a laugh, they had justification to do it, peoples lives were in danger.

Those who Live by the sword, Die by the sword

Jax Cop

Armed robbery suspects - that's what we call a freebie.

Also, to the person above me who said I would have to tell him to disarm, that is not true. If announcing my presence would increase the probability of the suspect firing at me or someone else, then I don't have to say $hit.

"Officer did you say anything to the suspect before you shot him?" -- "No, I was Quiet!"

.

Stephen A

I agree , They paid the price of there crime , it might just stop others thinking that they can break the law and get away with it.

Golf Alpha Nine-seven

I disagree with the sentiment in your question. Procedurally the Officers at the scene would have had to shout warnings for the offenders to disarm themselves, if they failed to do this and there was an imminent risk of loss of life, then the Officers would have to shoot to disarm. Unfortunately, for the offenders, the biggest target on a person is his/her torso which means there is a great chance that you will die if you are shot there.

I believe in the law of the land and the law dictates that persons accused of a crime should be put before the courts and tried fairly before a jury of their peers. If you advocate against this and want to see the summary execution of persons accused of crime then you deserve to live in a dictatorship with no personal freedoms. The taking of a life for the sake of saving thousands of pounds of money should never be advocated. Besides the resulting investigation by the IPCC, which is standard procedure to ensure the Police did not act improperly, will not come cheap to the tax-payer, either! However, that being said the criminals in this act knew what they were getting into and paid a heavy price for their actions. Hopefully, it will serve as a warning to others not to follow their example.

Mr Sceptic

I can't say whether these shootings were justified. 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.

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)

Roggles

play with guns take the hits no sympathy

chrispkreme333

ok...so what is your question..we ll agree with you!?

xenobyte72

I don't condone killing for any reason, but I'd be a liar if I said I never felt inclined to kill someone! I don't know if the robbers were armed or not, but I don't think any amount of money can justify taking someone's life.

I don't believe anyone, criminal or otherwise, is so full of evil and spite that they never do any good.

MACK

you sound rediculous,
like a life is worth one thousand dollars
saving tax payers money is Bureaucracy

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: