Riots in Tottenham, London! (NO RACIST COMMENTS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
buchtis said:
So is this a game now, of winning and losing? Oh dear, sort your life out please.

/blocked :)
Click to expand...

Lol, nice one, clearly evaded the point there!

You are losing an argument and just back out, at least defend your point?

Or are you going to cry that the Islamic community isn't defending it? :D
 
Nate Silvers said:
Yep I posted that yesterday, too many people watching the "plan" video on Youtube. Behring Breivik could have sparked it too with his 1500-page manifesto.
Click to expand...

Going to unfollow, it's not like their other stuff is distasteful I suppose, but support for these riots smacks of a clueless 14 year old boy with a chip on his shoulder.
 
Biohazard said:
I think there are wires crossed.

Dolph thinks we are talking about life threatening situations. It's not, it's the 'shoot all drug dealers' nonsense floating about in here.
Click to expand...

Fine. Here's what I think.

I think that the armed police could easily all wear small cameras so everyone could see exactly how it went down after the event, but they always refuse to do so. I am confused with regards to the reasoning of this but believe it may be because there are times when they do not want people to know what went down.

I think the police officer that went to hospital because 'he was shot', then was discharged from hospital with exactly ZERO injuries, should be punished.

I think the police officer that shot the first police officer's radio after the event should be punished.

I think the 'er, I felt threatened' line has the risk of being used incorrectly by police officers as a 'get out of jail free' card whenever they seriously mess up.

I think it is doubtful that this drug dealer formed the conclusion he could 'beat' 23 machine gun armed officers, with his single gun, when the event went down.

Anyone disagree with any of the above?
 
Last edited:
skippi90 said:
Why? Because they felt scared? They're supposed to be a trained armed unit that were dealing with one person.
Click to expand...

Again adding words, no-one said scared. But as you said, they are highly trained and so I don't think they wouldn't shoot for no reason (even the brazilian guy ran, jumped over a barrier and on to a tube train)... but you seem to think they would.
 
Biohazard said:
That ****** twitched, blow his head off!!! ;)
Click to expand...


IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!

sp010312v6.jpg
 
Biohazard said:
That ****** twitched, blow his head off!!! ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah you are so big and honourable.

I'd like to see the state of your underwear if you had to leave the comfort of your PC screen and confront a man with a loaded gun who the police have sent an armed unit after.

Nice to see liberal fruitcakes such as yourself and skippo90 policing this thread for any sign of someone talking any sense that might be politically incorrect.
 
britboy4321 said:
Fine. Here's what I think.

I think that the police could easily all wear small cameras so everyone could see exactly how it went down after the event, but they always refuse to do so. I am confused with regards to the reasoning of this but believe it may be because there are times when they do not want people to know what went down.

I think the police officer that went to hospital because he was shot, then was discharged from hospital with exactly ZERO injuries, should be punished.

I think the police officer that shot the first police officer's radio after the event, should be punished.

I think the 'er, I felt threatened' line has the risk of being used incorrectly by police officers as a 'get out of jail free' card whenever they seriously mess up.

I think it is doubtful that this drug dealer formed the conclusion he could 'beat' 23 machine gun armed officers, with his single gun, when the event went down.

Anyone disagree with any of the above?
Click to expand...

yeah, i do, you're an idiot
 
britboy4321 said:
Fine. Here's what I think.

I think that the police could easily all wear small cameras so everyone could see exactly how it went down after the event, but they always refuse to do so. I am confused with regards to the reasoning of this but believe it may be because there are times when they do not want people to know what went down.

I think the police officer that went to hospital because he was shot, then was discharged from hospital with exactly ZERO injuries, should be punished.

I think the police officer that shot the first police officer's radio after the event, should be punished.

I think the 'er, I felt threatened' line has the risk of being used incorrectly by police officers as a 'get out of jail free' card whenever they seriously mess up.

I think it is doubtful that this drug dealer formed the conclusion he could 'beat' 23 machine gun armed officers, with his single gun, when the event went down.

Anyone disagree with any of the above?
Click to expand...

Yawn.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
:rolleyes:
 
britboy4321 said:
Fine. Here's what I think.

I think that the police could easily all wear small cameras so everyone could see exactly how it went down after the event, but they always refuse to do so. I am confused with regards to the reasoning of this but believe it may be because there are times when they do not want people to know what went down.
Click to expand...

how about it would be far too expensive to give every police officer a camera in an already underfunded and overstretched police force
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom