Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You're expressing precisely the view that Kerre described. Somehow people in uniform are lesser beings than you, less worthy of life, with a subordinate right to go home at the end of the working day just because they've got a uniform on and a duty to help the public.
Bollocks, I am. I'm expressing the view that someone who died, might rightly have expected some help.
I'm also expressing a widely held view that the police will be the cavalry that will come to save people if things go wrong. The police are pretty keen to be seen as the defenders of the general populace (esp. when they want greater powers), and with that desire comes an expectation that they will be there when they're needed. If they aren't going to live up to that, then maybe they should tell us and stop playing on an untruth so we know that we're on our own if something goes wrong.
If I'm out in the wops and crash, I could reasonably have an idea that it might take some time for emergency services to get to me. If I'm in the middle of the city, I would have no earthly reason to expect that someone wouldn't be along in fairly short order to help me out.
-
Because best practice is to restrict firearms use to a specially trained and selected cadre with the skills for such situations.
I'd always been told all sworn officers, who were current (had done training) could draw firearms. The decison to approve use of firearms rests with shift supervisor.
-
On another forum, when someone suggested that as a taxpayer I should expect the police to come charging to my rescue, I responded that I prefer that my tax dollars go to their salaries and pensions, not their department funerals. I see no reason to change that view.
Fine. If the police aren't going to come to peoples rescue, could they do the populace the courtesy of admitting that, and tell them they're on their own? At least that way people would have an idea of what to expect...
-
Fair enough, Russell. It is a somewhat sweeping generalisation. Kind of similar to the sweeping generalisations that the Police did the right thing not to go in earlier.
As I asked above, is the problem about the expectation that Police should have done more in this case? The key board commando crack annoyed me somewhat, hence my somewhat sarky reply.
I do believe the Police should have done more in this case. I've defended them previously on PAS when few others would, but in this case, I think time will prove that all sorts of things should have been done better than they were.
-
Like I said, at some point there is an obligation on the police to safe-guard the public. If that makes me a loony, so be it.
As for the keyboard commando thing, let me pose you this, why should anyone have faith in a police force who apparently will show up to investigate your murder, but won't necessarily guarantee that they will do anything much to stop you dying? It doesn't sound like much to be thankful for to me.
-
I dunno. How about, not leave some poor bastard to bleed to death?
-
Perhaps the problem the police face is that people expect them to, well, police things. The police are quite vocal about telling people not to take matters into their own hands and to call the police to deal with it.
That is fair enough and could be seen as a reasonable constraint on the citizenry, when there is a law enforcement agency there to do that, but at some point, surely that turns into a police obligation to deal with things quickly and efficiently?
Ideally that would be in a way where the victim of the crime is not left to bleed to death while the cavalry sort themselves out some distance away. I'd argue that if the police continually tell people not to do the job of the police, at least the police should try to make a reasonable effort of doing it.....
The man who shot Mr Singh looks very much like a cold blooded killer, and hopefully he will spend a very long time behind bars, along with his buddies. But in no way is leaving someone to bleed, when they could have been
a) gotten out, or
b) given first aid to try to stabilise a wound,a reasonable action on the part of the police. In this instance, the police failed Mr Singh, and in fact they screwed up, pure and simple.
-
Notice that Volvo drivers, stereotypically safety-conscious, don't get the same animosity, for example. They don't obstruct the view, they're not noted for hitting other cars high up, and their drivers anecdotally are cautious and careful.
Actually, quite a lot of motorcyclists used to consider volvo drivers the most dangerous things on the road. Their drivers were considered to be oblivious to their surroundings, and not aware of others around them.
-
whereas you don't need to be as big and heavy as an SUV to perform the functions they're used for or to get the safety advantages they offer.
Like the behemoths that are the Suzuki Samurai/Jimny, or the Honda CRV, or the Toyota RAV4, do you mean?
Let's face it, these are probably three of the more common SUV's around. The old work-horses, the Terrano, and the Surf aren't much bigger than a mid-size sedan. Even the biggies, the prados, bighorn, pajeros aren't much bigger than a large sedan.
Can we please stop implying that somehow 4wds are all bigger than the titanic, with the power to crush all in their path?
-
Steve, what I object to is getting patronised with the message 20 to 30 times a week. Short of catering for those with goldfish-like attention spans, I don't see that sort of frequency doing much except irritating the audience it is trying to reach, and putting large wads of dosh in the pockets of ad agencies and broadcasters.
Also, it really comes down to the individual to make wise choices, I get a bit uncomfortable with the idea of telling people how to think or what wise choices they should make. Anyway, this is all a bit off topic so I'll shut up on this and return you to the scheduled programming.