How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 2:34pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I actually didn't agree that a random attack on a person was worse, I said it could be seen as different.
I don't believe that one killing is worse then another.
I believe all killings to be wrong unless allowed for by law, and even then I would have issues with some of them eg capital punishment

Now, I can see how people living in northern Ireland during the troubles could see things differently and I understand that, however I don't see that killing security forces can be 'better' then killing civilians.

I can understand that taking an absolutist mentality that all incidences of x y or z are equally wrong, even though I don't agree with it, and I appreciate the dropping of the insinuations that my position does implies any support for IRA actions.

I would highlight that your position is inherently contradictory; you think all killings are equally wrong, except when you don't. If you didn't take the stance that pushed some legal killings over into the equally wrong side of the argument, there would at least be the justification of legality, but really your position is no different to mine, you just put the bar in a different place based on your own moral judgement.

There is a degree of knowing the risks and willful involvement that make the murder of security forces less shocking than the murder of civilians who are not involved. Since it keeps getting dragged up with various insinuations, I am not saying this makes the murder of the willfully involved in any way right or morally justifiable.

I'd be curious where you stand on the Shoot to Kill policy that existed in NI given that you do not support Capital Punishment.

20-02-2021 2:53pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I can understand that taking an absolutist mentality that all incidences of x y or z are equally wrong, even though I don't agree with it, and I appreciate the dropping of the insinuations that my position does implies any support for IRA actions.

I would highlight that your position is inherently contradictory; you think all killings are equally wrong, except when you don't. If you didn't take the stance that pushed some legal killings over into the equally wrong side of the argument, there would at least be the justification of legality, but really your position is no different to mine, you just put the bar in a different place based on your own moral judgement.

There is a degree of knowing the risks and willful involvement that make the murder of security forces less shocking than the murder of civilians who are not involved. Since it keeps getting dragged up with various insinuations, I am not saying this makes the murder of the willfully involved in any way right or morally justifiable.

I'd be curious where you stand on the Shoot to Kill policy that existed in NI given that you do not support Capital Punishment.

I don't believe it is contradictory to believe that killing is wrong, except for when it is legal. I don't believe in capital punishment for a number of reasons, but I don't believe it is 'wrong' legally because it is legal. If that makes sense. Its a moral objection.

As for the shoot to kill policy, I'm not sure that it has been shown to be an actual policy, but I am inclined to belive the sources who say it existed, even if no evidence has been found, yet.
I am obviously against any policy where the objective is to kill suspects rather then arrest them and use due process

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 3:05pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't believe it is contradictory to believe that killing is wrong, except for when it is legal. I don't believe in capital punishment for a number of reasons, but I don't believe it is 'wrong' legally because it is legal. If that makes sense. Its a moral objection.

As for the shoot to kill policy, I'm not sure that it has been shown to be an actual policy, but I am inclined to belive the sources who say it existed, even if no evidence has been found, yet.
I am obviously against any policy where the objective is to kill suspects rather then arrest them and use due process

To be clear, the discussion was not whether the killing of security forces was wrong, I have not suggested otherwise at any point. The discussion is whether the killing of a civilian is worse.

It is contradictory to suggest that all killing is equally wrong unless it is legal and there is no moral difference between them, except when you disagree with one kind of killing that is legal. You've suggested that the only differentiating factor is whether it is legal or not, except you want to create exceptions for your own moral position for that one particular kind of legal killing which you do not agree with.

Either you're arguing that all killing is equal, except when allowed by law and my moral justification for why one is worse doesn't hold, or you're arguing that moral justification is a valid differentiating factor. You can't ride both horses.

That's without even touching a discussion about how that which is legal has at many times in our history not been the same as what is morally just, but that is probably moving too far into the abstract for this conversation.

20-02-2021 3:25pm

I see what you're saying a bout the morals etc, but I believe all unlawful killing is wrong.
Perhaps that is a better way of putting it?

Self defence, for example, is an exception. I don't see anything hypocritical about that, tbh.

I don't believe that killing civilians is or can be considered 'worse' then killing someone who happens to work as a policeman, for example, I find one just as bad as the other.

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 3:46pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I see what you're saying a bout the morals etc, but I believe all unlawful killing is wrong.
Perhaps that is a better way of putting it?

Self defence, for example, is an exception. I don't see anything hypocritical about that, tbh.

I don't believe that killing civilians is or can be considered 'worse' then killing someone who happens to work as a policeman, for example, I find one just as bad as the other.

Calling you a hypocrite would be wrong; your opinions are entirely consistent with your moral framework. I was pointing out that while it is different to my own, you do apply a moral framework, and even your own framework is more nuanced than legal = good, illegal = bad.

You're entitled to your own moral framework of course, but even within the law, we recognise that not all killings are the same, hence why we have a number of different charges from manslaughter to premeditated murder, and why within those different charges there is a significant degree of variation in the sentencing for those found guilty. As a society, we recognise that the world isn't black and white and saying all illegal murders are equally bad is a gross simplification.

To highlight another example, most people would see it as worse if someone was to abduct someone at random and murder them via a slow torture for no reason compared with a woman who had spent years being abused by her partner snapping and lashing out resulting in that partner falling down the stairs and breaking their neck. Both would be illegal, both would be wrong.....but I think most people would argue that the former is more wrong.

To be clear, because I'm sure someone will try to set up a new strawman from this example, this is not meant to be a comparison in any way to events in NI, neither of the above is meant to be representative of any parties involved in the situation in NI, it is purely to provide an example as to how not all illegal killings would be considered morally equivalent by most people.

downcow · 20-02-2021 3:48pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I did not at any time use the term legitimate target, nor did I say that it was right or moral to shoot your neighbour.

Your choice of language is very telling. If your point stood on its own, you wouldn't need to bring in the obviously emotive language regarding being shot in front of his daughter, trying to paint the average RUC/UDR man as a pillar of society, selfishly sacrificing for the good of his fellow man (realistically most of them were doing in because it was a job, and for every one like your heroically altruistic imaginary neighbour, there was one that was all too happy to at least make things awkward for those pesky taigs getting uppity).

What really takes the biscuit in your insane story is your attempt to paint people not involved in the conflict in any way as selfishly looking after themselves with no interest in helping their fellow man. You're honestly going to go with that? A bloke who has come to NI as part of the armed forces, trained and willing to take a life and paid handsomely for doing so is almost MORE worthy of your compassion than a fourteen year old girl walking to the shops?!

If that's seriously your line of reasoning, I won't be engaging any further, and I suggest you read the Geneva Convention.

I offered a simple comparison, where we can both agree on which side was in the right, to avoid accusations of our own biases interfering; do you think the death of an off duty Nazi soldier killed by a strategic bombing of a barracks is more justified than the death of a civilian totally uninvolved with the war, sitting in their home and caught up in the indiscriminate bombing of Dresden?

Of course my neighbour is imaginary. I was creating an example of what happened time and again in ni. And indeed to neighbours.
You and me diverge massively on attitude to ordinary police officers. No need for me to take apart what you said about them.

I was simply challenging your simplistic attitude that somehow it was not as bad to kill an off duty policeman than a civilian. Most societies in the world disagree with you and recognise what I am saying and give them special protection ie longer sentences if you interfere with them.

The Nazi soldier stuff is no comparison. I am talking about eg the two community police officers in Lurgan who most of the nationalist community massively respected, and the ira walking up behind them and shooting both dead.

Natterjack from Kerry · 20-02-2021 3:52pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Calling you a hypocrite would be wrong; your opinions are entirely consistent with your moral framework. I was pointing out that while it is different to my own, you do apply a moral framework, and even your own framework is more nuanced than legal = good, illegal = bad.

You're entitled to your own moral framework of course, but even within the law, we recognise that not all killings are the same, hence why we have a number of different charges from manslaughter to premeditated murder, and why within those different charges there is a significant degree of variation in the sentencing for those found guilty. As a society, we recognise that the world isn't black and white and saying all illegal murders are equally bad is a gross simplification.

To highlight another example, most people would see it as worse if someone was to abduct someone at random and murder them via a slow torture for no reason compared with a woman who had spent years being abused by her partner snapping and lashing out resulting in that partner falling down the stairs and breaking their neck. Both would be illegal, both would be wrong.....but I think most people would argue that the former is more wrong.

To be clear, because I'm sure someone will try to set up a new strawman from this example, this is not meant to be a comparison in any way to events in NI, neither of the above is meant to be representative of any parties involved in the situation in NI, it is purely to provide an example as to how not all illegal killings would be considered morally equivalent by most people.

Its angels on a head of a pin - a pointless argument. NI terrorists murdered, full stop. There is no excuse or mitigating of it - terrorism is terrorism, and so unacceptable that gradations dont apply. As pointless as a football player offside by a couple of yards, arguing with the ref that he shouldnt have been whistled up because he could have been 10 yards offside. They are criminals and the enemy of civilisation.

downcow · 20-02-2021 3:53pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Who the IRA considered targets would be a question you'd be better having with someone who was a member of the IRA. Thankfully, to use another distasteful quote that might upset Rob, I am not and have never been a member of the IRA.

Would you agree with my example? That if I punched you in the midst of a heated argument that while still illegal and wrong, it would be different to me punching a random granny walking down the street? If you were to read a newspaper article about a person being punched during a heated argument and someone punching an old woman just minding her own business going to pick up her newspaper, would you have the very same reaction? I don't think most people would.

And if a police officer turned up to separate you both and you punched her on the jaw, which do you think the court would take most seriously?

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 4:04pm

downcow wrote: »

Of course my neighbour is imaginary. I was creating an example of what happened time and again in ni. And indeed to neighbours.
You and me diverge massively on attitude to ordinary police officers. No need for me to take apart what you said about them.

I was simply challenging your simplistic attitude that somehow it was not as bad to kill an off duty policeman than a civilian. Most societies in the world disagree with you and recognise what I am saying and give them special protection ie longer sentences if you interfere with them.

The Nazi soldier stuff is no comparison. I am talking about eg the two community police officers in Lurgan who most of the nationalist community massively respected, and the ira walking up behind them and shooting both dead.

My simplistic attitude?! You've just tried to portray civilians not involved in the conflict as selfish so and sos who didn't care enough about their fellow citizens!

The legal arguments for increased sentencing for murdering of police officers are certainly interesting, but few of them are focused on the killing of an officer being more immoral than a civilian.

Feel free to, 'take apart' what I said about ordinary police officers at your own leisure. I stand by what I said given the context of policing in NI during the Troubles. I stated that most RUC and UDR members were ordinary people who joined because it was a job. I highlighted that portraying them as entirely made up of altruistic heroes, totally selfless and dedicated to fairly protecting all members of both of our communities is about as honest as portraying them all as bigots determined to put down those pesky taigs. Various shades of both existed within the forces, but as I already said, I'd vouch the majority sat in the middle, just doing their job.

downcow wrote: »

And if a police officer turned up to separate you both and you punched her on the jaw, which do you think the court would take most seriously?

Probably the assault on the police officer, but I'd still feel that the unprovoked assault on an innocent granny going to get her newspaper was worse.

20-02-2021 4:07pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Calling you a hypocrite would be wrong; your opinions are entirely consistent with your moral framework. I was pointing out that while it is different to my own, you do apply a moral framework, and even your own framework is more nuanced than legal = good, illegal = bad.

You're entitled to your own moral framework of course, but even within the law, we recognise that not all killings are the same, hence why we have a number of different charges from manslaughter to premeditated murder, and why within those different charges there is a significant degree of variation in the sentencing for those found guilty. As a society, we recognise that the world isn't black and white and saying all illegal murders are equally bad is a gross simplification.

To highlight another example, most people would see it as worse if someone was to abduct someone at random and murder them via a slow torture for no reason compared with a woman who had spent years being abused by her partner snapping and lashing out resulting in that partner falling down the stairs and breaking their neck. Both would be illegal, both would be wrong.....but I think most people would argue that the former is more wrong.

To be clear, because I'm sure someone will try to set up a new strawman from this example, this is not meant to be a comparison in any way to events in NI, neither of the above is meant to be representative of any parties involved in the situation in NI, it is purely to provide an example as to how not all illegal killings would be considered morally equivalent by most people.

Actually, there are only two charges, manslaughter or murder. Nothing in between, although I know there are arguments for 'less premeditated' murder charges. Right now, there isn't.

Edit, sorry I didn't read all your post correctly!
The victim of domestic violence, killing her abuser, could be seen as self defence. It would, depending on the circumstances, still be treated as murder, until a court decision would be made.
I concede that the general public would be much more sympathetic towards her, rather then a random murderer

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 4:09pm

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Its angels on a head of a pin - a pointless argument. NI terrorists murdered, full stop. There is no excuse or mitigating of it - terrorism is terrorism, and so unacceptable that gradations dont apply. As pointless as a football player offside by a couple of yards, arguing with the ref that he shouldnt have been whistled up because he could have been 10 yards offside. They are criminals and the enemy of civilisation.

Would be really useful if my argument wasn't equally critical of those terrorists; one of the examples I used for the most heinous of murders was IRA bombing of civilians.

Try to keep up.

RobMc59 · 20-02-2021 4:22pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Calling you a hypocrite would be wrong; your opinions are entirely consistent with your moral framework. I was pointing out that while it is different to my own, you do apply a moral framework, and even your own framework is more nuanced than legal = good, illegal = bad.

You're entitled to your own moral framework of course, but even within the law, we recognise that not all killings are the same, hence why we have a number of different charges from manslaughter to premeditated murder, and why within those different charges there is a significant degree of variation in the sentencing for those found guilty. As a society, we recognise that the world isn't black and white and saying all illegal murders are equally bad is a gross simplification.

To highlight another example, most people would see it as worse if someone was to abduct someone at random and murder them via a slow torture for no reason compared with a woman who had spent years being abused by her partner snapping and lashing out resulting in that partner falling down the stairs and breaking their neck. Both would be illegal, both would be wrong.....but I think most people would argue that the former is more wrong.

To be clear, because I'm sure someone will try to set up a new strawman from this example, this is not meant to be a comparison in any way to events in NI, neither of the above is meant to be representative of any parties involved in the situation in NI, it is purely to provide an example as to how not all illegal killings would be considered morally equivalent by most people.

You lost the discussion when you used punching different people as an example having different degrees of acceptability imo.The comments about the Geneva Convention didn't apply either as was pointed out to you.
Your continued refusal to admit you probably got it wrong speaks volumes.

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 4:28pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

You lost the discussion when you used punching different people as an example having different degrees of acceptability imo.The comments about the Geneva Convention didn't apply either as was pointed out to you.
Your continued refusal to admit you probably got it wrong speaks volumes.

Well thanks a million for your contribution, Rob. All killing is morally equal then so, and your army shooting an off duty IRA man not engaged in breaking any laws at that specific moment is just as bad as the IRA bombing a pub in Birmingham.

bubblypop wrote: »

Actually, there are only two charges, manslaughter or murder. Nothing in between, although I know there are arguments for 'less premeditated' murder charges. Right now, there isn't.

And, not to be argumentative but you're example above about random abduction & violence V domestic violence of years is way off.
There is no way anyone could see one as worse then the other.

The point is that SENTENCING is different, even with the same charges, so legally we recognise that not all murders are equal.

.....no one could see one as worse than the other?

I suggest you randomly ask ten people whether they think a killing from a random abduction and torture is worse than a spur of the moment/breaking point killing commited by someone who has been a victim of domestic violence for an extended period of time. I'd estimate that at least 8 will say that the former is worse. No one would dispute that both are wrong, no one would argue that both are illegal, but I very much doubt that most people would say the two are equally wrong.

20-02-2021 4:41pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

All killing is morally equal then so, and your army shooting an off duty IRA man not engaged in breaking any laws at that specific moment is just as bad as the IRA bombing a pub in Birmingham.

The point is that SENTENCING is different, even with the same charges, so legally we recognise that not all murders are equal.

.....no one could see one as worse than the other?

I suggest you randomly ask ten people whether they think a killing from a random abduction and torture is worse than a spur of the moment/breaking point killing commited by someone who has been a victim of domestic violence for an extended period of time. I'd estimate that at least 8 will say that the former is worse. No one would dispute that both are wrong, no one would argue that both are illegal, but I very much doubt that most people would say the two are equally wrong.

The first part is true. They are both as bad as each other, the difference being there are more people killed in the pub, but the intention is the same.

The second part actually refers to my post that I edited, so apologies for that.
But you didn't say anything about sentencing in your post, you said there a various offences for killing, which there are not. There are only two

Natterjack from Kerry · 20-02-2021 4:49pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Well thanks a million for your contribution, Rob. All killing is morally equal then so, and your army shooting an off duty IRA man not engaged in breaking any laws at that specific moment is just as bad as the IRA bombing a pub in Birmingham.

bubblypop wrote: »

The first part is true. They are both as bad as each other, the difference being there are more people killed in the pub, but the intention is the same.

I would disagree that the first part is true, and that they are not as bad as each other.

The army shooting the off duty IRA man is a system failure of the state doing its job. It was not the intention of the state to kill civilians, even if it happened. It was collateral damage in the effort to counter terrorism. In short, if there were no terrorism, it would not have happened.

Bombing a pub in Birmingham is far worse - this is a deliberate choice by those doing the bombing to operate outside they law and decide to take human life. It is a far worse event.

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 4:54pm

bubblypop wrote: »

The first part is true. They are both as bad as each other, the difference being there are more people killed in the pub, but the intention is the same.

The second part actually refers to my post that I edited, so apologies for that.
But you didn't say anything about sentencing in your post, you said there a various offences for killing, which there are not. There are only two

I see your edit now, I used that particular example because something very similar happened in my own community, the person was charged and served time, but I know how sentiments in the community were around it.

On the next point, I did specifically mention sentences in my post;

and why within those different charges there is a significant degree of variation in the sentencing for those found guilty.

Also, I'd highlight that the existence of two offenses for killing would support my point that not all illegal killings are the same, so I'm not sure how pointing this out helps your point?

I think that you agree that some forms of illegal killing are viewed as morally worse now, and this is recognised legally via the existence of two different charges and a great degree of variability in sentencing even among those two charges?

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 4:57pm

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I would disagree that the first part is true, and that they are not as bad as each other.

The army shooting the off duty IRA man is a system failure of the state doing its job. It was not the intention of the state to kill civilians, even if it happened. It was collateral damage in the effort to counter terrorism. In short, if there were no terrorism, it would not have happened.

Bombing a pub in Birmingham is far worse - this is a deliberate choice by those doing the bombing to operate outside they law and decide to take human life. It is a far worse event.

I would agree that the bombing of a pub in Birmingham is worse, Natterjack (I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you).....but you accused me of dancing on the head of a pin for making the point that not all killings are equal?

20-02-2021 4:58pm

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

The army shooting the off duty IRA man is a system failure of the state doing its job. It was not the intention of the state to kill civilians, even if it happened. It was collateral damage in the effort to counter terrorism. In short, if there were no terrorism, it would not have happened.
.

It obviously was the intention of the state, if the army (the state) shot unarmed persons.
The state, in particular, should conduct its activities legally.

20-02-2021 5:06pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I think that you agree that some forms of illegal killing are viewed as morally worse now, and this is recognised legally via the existence of two different charges and a great degree of variability in sentencing even among those two charges?

Some people may view some unlawful killing as morally worse. In your example, as I have said, the killing of the offender by the victim of domestic violence could be viewed as self defence, in which case not unlawful.
Manslaughter is the killing of someone, murder is premeditated, so obviously sentencing is different, as the deliberate and planned killing of someone does not allow for mitigating circumstances.

State forces killing civilians or terrorist groups killing state employees are both, in my mind, just as unjustified as each other and, just as wrong.

I don't think we will agree on this one?

Natterjack from Kerry · 20-02-2021 5:11pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I would agree that the bombing of a pub in Birmingham is worse, Natterjack (I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you).....but you accused me of dancing on the head of a pin for making the point that not all killings are equal?

To clarify, I am agreeing with the general principal of manslaughter/murder distinction, but not at all in the oft argued by SF/IRA people about 'legitimate' targets and there being a distinction between the RUC officer and the bystander in a pub.

But regard any people killed by the state, as neither murder nor manslaughter - rather as consequences of the actions to counter the terrorists themselves. Whether the puller of the trigger was a member of the state forces or not, and acted correctly or not according to its directions, is irrelevant - he was put in that position by the state countering terrorism, not because of his own self generated motivation to kill people. It is not murder at all - it is the self defence of the state against the outside the law.

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 5:25pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Some people may view some unlawful killing as morally worse. In your example, as I have said, the killing of the offender by the victim of domestic violence could be viewed as self defence, in which case not unlawful.
Manslaughter is the killing of someone, murder is premeditated, so obviously sentencing is different, as the deliberate and planned killing of someone does not allow for mitigating circumstances.

State forces killing civilians or terrorist groups killing state employees are both, in my mind, just as unjustified as each other and, just as wrong.

I don't think we will agree on this one?

The person in the domestic violence incident was found guilty and sentenced, as I said it was a real world example.

Regarding sentencing, even within the individual charges, sentencing is variable. Not all murder convictions have the same sentence as other murder charges, not all manslaughter charges have the same sentence as other manslaughter charges, so even within the two groups there is clearly an acknowledgement that not all murders are the same and not all manslaughter is the same.

While we may not agree on your last point (and I'd highlight that I did not differentiate between state forces killing civilians or terrorist groups killing civilians, lest I have to fend off further accusations that my position is somehow a defense of the actions of the IRA), at least we've moved to a position of agreement that it would be an oversimplification to make a blanket black and white statement that all killing is equally wrong.

20-02-2021 5:25pm

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

. It is not murder at all - it is the self defence of the state against the outside the law.

So we should arm all gardai and let them off culling the criminals from our streets?
No need for courts, or due process

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 5:27pm

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

But regard any people killed by the state, as neither murder nor manslaughter - rather as consequences of the actions to counter the terrorists themselves. Whether the puller of the trigger was a member of the state forces or not, and acted correctly or not according to its directions, is irrelevant - he was put in that position by the state countering terrorism, not because of his own self generated motivation to kill people. It is not murder at all - it is the self defence of the state against the outside the law.

I'd be interested in how you reconcile that opinion with the fact that members of those state forces were charged and convicted of murder during the Troubles?

I guess it doesn't really matter what you regard as anything very much.

20-02-2021 5:29pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Regarding sentencing, even within the individual charges, sentencing is variable. Not all murder convictions have the same sentence as other murder charges, not all manslaughter charges have the same sentence as other manslaughter charges, so even within the two groups there is clearly an acknowledgement that not all murders are the same and not all manslaughter is the same.
.

This is not true
While manslaughter does have varying sentences, depending on the circumstances of the killing, mitigating reasons etc.
There is no such thing for murder charges. Sentences do not vary.
All murder convictions (in this jurisdiction)
carry an automatic life imprisonment penalty.

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 5:36pm

bubblypop wrote: »

This is not true
While manslaughter does have varying sentences, depending on the circumstances of the killing, mitigating reasons etc.
There is no such thing for murder charges. Sentences do not vary.
All murder convictions (in this jurisdiction)
carry an automatic life imprisonment penalty.

Apologies, I should've been clear. Actual sentences served vary heavily.

downcow · 20-02-2021 6:27pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Let me make it very clear; the murder of members of the British Army was wrong. The murder of innocent civilians, in particular children was worse (regardless of who the aggressor was). The IRA attacking members of the security forces was wrong, the bombing of a pub full of innocent civilians in Birmingham was worse.

I completely disagree. In both cases innocent people’s children are turned into orphans

downcow · 20-02-2021 6:35pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'd be curious where you stand on the Shoot to Kill policy that existed in NI given that you do not support Capital Punishment.

I think you will find there is no police force in the world thar has a shoot to injure policy. When any police officer shoots then the intention is to kill.
So I have always thought this was a strange argument.
I would be pretty sure the Roi police are told that when they have to shoot then the aim at the kill areas ?

Fionn1952 · 20-02-2021 6:56pm

downcow wrote: »

I completely disagree. In both cases innocent people’s children are turned into orphans

That can certainly be true, which is why I wholly agree that both are wrong. I don't expect you'll change your mind on the matter, nor will I, so we can probably move on.

downcow wrote: »

I think you will find there is no police force in the world thar has a shoot to injure policy. When any police officer shoots then the intention is to kill.
So I have always thought this was a strange argument.
I would be pretty sure the Roi police are told that when they have to shoot then the aim at the kill areas ?

As you're well aware, the Shoot to Kill policy in NI refers to the alleged policy of killing suspects rather than attempting to apprehend them. While isn't the most precise of terminology, that is the commonly used term for it.

The Gardai, and every police force in the civilised world are told to employ lethal force only as a last resort. You may think these people deserved death, but I and most other civilised people believe in due process.

20-02-2021 8:27pm

downcow wrote: »

I think you will find there is no police force in the world thar has a shoot to injure policy. When any police officer shoots then the intention is to kill.
So I have always thought this was a strange argument.
I would be pretty sure the Roi police are told that when they have to shoot then the aim at the kill areas ?

They do not aim at the 'kill area'
No police officer intends to kill.
As a last resort, gardai aim at largest mass, which is the torso. They are trained to shoot to stop. Not shoot to kill.
But you know the shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland was a different policy altogether

downcow · 20-02-2021 8:44pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

That can certainly be true, which is why I wholly agree that both are wrong. I don't expect you'll change your mind on the matter, nor will I, so we can probably move on.

As you're well aware, the Shoot to Kill policy in NI refers to the alleged policy of killing suspects rather than attempting to apprehend them. While isn't the most precise of terminology, that is the commonly used term for it.

The Gardai, and every police force in the civilised world are told to employ lethal force only as a last resort. You may think these people deserved death, but I and most other civilised people believe in due process.

Well here we go. Here’s the problem clear above.
The implication that most of the people shot by the security forces could have been apprehended instead.
If I am not mistaken, you are the very guy suggested it was a war that was happening in the north. But that aside, do you think it was wrong to shoot those attacking loughgal police station?

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Comments