Can we have this woman for home secretary

#1
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
 
#4
Fcuking good effort!

She has the backing from her boss and has said she will back her police officers. she even reminded them of their RoE.

Unfortunately, she wouldn't last 2 min in our gubment; either someone would stab her in the back or the pinko lefties would call for her dismissal and cessation of nutty rations. these same lefties who come no closer to crime than reading it in the observer or guadian. :x
 
#5
joey_deacons_lad said:
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
Ridiculous. What if the 'bastards' they kill just happen to not be the criminals? :roll: Stricter enforcement and harsher sentencing is one thing, but her 'solution' is no solution at all.
 
#6
I can see the queues of ilegal Brazilian electricians trying to get out of SA forming at Jo'burg International Airport as we speak... :roll:
 
#7
KevinB said:
joey_deacons_lad said:
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
Ridiculous. What if the 'bastards' they kill just happen to not be the criminals? :roll: Stricter enforcement and harsher sentencing is one thing, but her 'solution' is no solution at all.
This comming from a self confessed terrorist; you sir are a CNUT!!!

Edited to add i'm refering to 'big kev' not JDL.
 
#8
furry_dude said:
KevinB said:
joey_deacons_lad said:
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
Ridiculous. What if the 'bastards' they kill just happen to not be the criminals? :roll: Stricter enforcement and harsher sentencing is one thing, but her 'solution' is no solution at all.
This comming from a self confessed terrorist; you sir are a CNUT!!!
Stick to the topic. Do you really think a shoot to kill policy is a good one? Police are there to enforce the law, but not be the judge and jury and determine guilt/impose a sentence.
 
#9
KevinB said:
furry_dude said:
KevinB said:
joey_deacons_lad said:
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
Ridiculous. What if the 'bastards' they kill just happen to not be the criminals? :roll: Stricter enforcement and harsher sentencing is one thing, but her 'solution' is no solution at all.
This comming from a self confessed terrorist; you sir are a CNUT!!!
Stick to the topic. Do you really think a shoot to kill policy is a good one? Police are there to enforce the law, but not be the judge and jury and determine guilt/impose a sentence.
But THE topic where you are concerned is that you're a walting provo-loving piece of human filth, who needs tying up with don 10 and introducing to my two friends, Mr Blow-Torch and Mr Pain!
 
#10
As far as i can tell, this is not a shoot to kill policy (you're not getting me into that!)

She stated that their RoE is if you see criminals acting, no warning shots. if the police office decides that he/she have to draw their wepon and fire, then minimum force; one round at the centre of mass. if they're on crystal meth etc and continue to pose a threat then continue to fire until the threat stops. Unfortunatly a high (or low) velocity object entering the plurel cavity often causes death; but then so does a machete in the head or brutal rape etc, etc.

My own views.
 
#12
Stop replying to the cnut, no matter how outragous his comments, just ignore him and he will eventually go away.
 
#13
furry_dude said:
As far as i can tell, this is not a shoot to kill policy (you're not getting me into that!)

She stated that their RoE is if you see criminals acting, no warning shots. if the police office decides that he/she have to draw their wepon and fire, then minimum force; one round at the centre of mass. if they're on crystal meth etc and continue to pose a threat then continue to fire until the threat stops. Unfortunatly a high (or low) velocity object entering the plurel cavity often causes death; but then so does a machete in the head or brutal rape etc, etc.

My own views.
Define 'acting'. In the middle of a rape, a beating etc.? Would be difficult to shoot them dead in these situations without possible harm to the victim as well. Or is this stealing, vandalism etc. Hardly are those crimes worth being shot dead for. So pragmatically and philosophically, this is bad policy.
 
#14
My last reply to you before i follow ord sgt's sage advice and ignore your posts.

If you think she was refering to (relatively) 'minor' crimes then you are more dense than i thought.

I'm sure that these were not the crimes to which she refered, more the violent crimes where the perpetrator represents a danger to the public; i do not believe she has just given her police force carte blanc to slot anyone they see fit - there will stil be due process.

read the link 'murder capital'

I just wish our home secretary had a pair like hers.

Now, i'm off for lunch; unlike you, who went out to lunch a long time ago...
 
#15
furry_dude said:
My last reply to you before i follow ord sgt's sage advice and ignore your posts.

If you think she was refering to (relatively) 'minor' crimes then you are more dense than i thought.

I'm sure that these were not the crimes to which she refered, more the violent crimes where the perpetrator represents a danger to the public; i do not believe she has just given her police force carte blanc to slot anyone they see fit - there will stil be due process.

read the link 'murder capital'

I just wish our home secretary had a pair like hers.

Now, i'm off for lunch; unlike you, who went out to lunch a long time ago...
As I said, define acting. If someone is high on crystal meth, and brandishing a knife or gun, there are ways to stop them without killing them. If someone is in the middle of a crime that includes a victim, how does she propose they shoot just the criminal? Stronger enforcement and harsher sentences are the answer.
 
#16
This is a bad policy? No it is not. If it is supported by efficient training and I don't just mean target practice, then fine. How many peace officers in the US think twice, then three times and end up dead? Loads. In fact it was the subject of one of their law enforcement officer symposiums a couple of years back.

If you as a police officer come upon a violent criminal in the act, challenge them and are rebuffed, then you should be able to shoot to kill. It is hard enough to shoot someone when adrenaline is coursing into your veins and making a liquorice string out of the arms you posed into that snazzy rigid Weaver stance in training. anyone who has been mano a mano in that sense knows exactly what I mean.

Now there are a lot of problems to be ironed out of such a liberal approach to police on criminal engagements. I personally think that 99.9% of people killed by law enforcement forces in this type of scenario probably either justified it or even probably deserved it. STK policies can be a bit politically suspect, depending on who the targets are. If they are machete or firearm wielding perps, then shoot away officer, do your duty!
 
#17
joey_deacons_lad said:
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
Oh yeah, let us make the police the judge, jury and executioner. Our police are bad enough as it is but the SA police are a lot worse and many tend to be corrupt.
 
#18
KevinB said:
furry_dude said:
My last reply to you before i follow ord sgt's sage advice and ignore your posts.

If you think she was refering to (relatively) 'minor' crimes then you are more dense than i thought.

I'm sure that these were not the crimes to which she refered, more the violent crimes where the perpetrator represents a danger to the public; i do not believe she has just given her police force carte blanc to slot anyone they see fit - there will stil be due process.

read the link 'murder capital'

I just wish our home secretary had a pair like hers.

Now, i'm off for lunch; unlike you, who went out to lunch a long time ago...
As I said, define acting. If someone is high on crystal meth, and brandishing a knife or gun, there are ways to stop them without killing them. If someone is in the middle of a crime that includes a victim, how does she propose they shoot just the criminal? Stronger enforcement and harsher sentences are the answer.
I see you're still crayoning, all I can see is you crayoning bla bla, bla bla bla...

Hope you have nightmares about Mr Blow-Torch and Mr Pain :twisted:
 
#19
jest265 said:
joey_deacons_lad said:
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
Oh yeah, let us make the police the judge, jury and executioner. Our police are bad enough as it is but the SA police are a lot worse and many tend to be corrupt.
If that was the case, would the headlines be human rights violations not murder capital. yes i agree there have been cases in the past, especially pre and just after the apartied, but something must be going wrong...
 
#20
KevinB said:
furry_dude said:
KevinB said:
joey_deacons_lad said:
Police in South Africa were ordered yesterday to deal with criminals by "killing the bastards".
Susan Shabangu, the country's security minister, told officers not to worry about regulations, negotiations or warning shots.
Instead, police should use the guns given to them and go for the kill.
article in full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments
a very refreshing attitude to crime solving and she also ticks the correct boxes to be allowed into government.
Ridiculous. What if the 'bastards' they kill just happen to not be the criminals? :roll: Stricter enforcement and harsher sentencing is one thing, but her 'solution' is no solution at all.
This comming from a self confessed terrorist; you sir are a CNUT!!!
Stick to the topic. Do you really think a shoot to kill policy is a good one? Police are there to enforce the law, but not be the judge and jury and determine guilt/impose a sentence.
Yip, shoot to hurt doesnt quite sound right :roll:
 

Latest Threads