|
14 Feb
9:46am, 14 Feb 2024
49,391 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Just to say in reaction to Dave W's post, I have the utmost respect for those in the armed services and for those who serve in the police too. Tough jobs and hard and diligent work done by the majority in those services, so respect to them.
Regarding the one, killer (apologies, terrible pun!) scenario posed by SPR: (not the trolley, philosophical, hypothetical scenario of the runaway train and switching between two different, innocent victims, that's just an academic contrivance, useful for first year university debates!)
A deranged killer with a gun or knife or other weapon capable of inflicting immediate serious injury or death. I think you have convinced me, in that scenario, the use of opposing lethal force to immediately stop that person, is necessary.
So then of course if this is the only exception that I am conceding, then lots of problems arise with my simple and oh so perfect principle.
1. who should be the people who wield the weapon and make the decision. The answer is the police of course. But what if they are also at risk of discharging firearms incorrectly and killing the innocent? The only mitigation I can think is good training, strong oversight, review of all incidences where used etc. These are all in place already today, and yet there are still failures Jean Charles de Menezes, Harry Stanley etc.
2. if it is OK to use force to stop one lone gun wielder in a school full of kids (undeniable?), why is it different for an army of invaders facing a town full of civilians? Why wouldn't you deploy an opposing army to defend them?
I'm going to have a go at answering 2. after I get off my next call(s).
|
|
14 Feb
10:05am, 14 Feb 2024
10,152 posts
|
Northern Exile
I have been following this thread with great interest, particularly as, like Dave W, I am probably one of the few people on FE to have actually fought for my country and have the scars to prove it.
I have lots to say, however perhaps my thoughts are best kept to myself for the moment. What I will say is that I don't believe you can take the position you have [HappyG] and then publicly state that you have the utmost respect for the Armed Forces and Police. No you don't. What are, quite simply, is fortunate to live in a benign and tolerant country that will protect you and your family despite your weak-kneed pacifism. That's not a personal dig by the way, more a gentle observation about how lucky you are.
|
|
14 Feb
10:21am, 14 Feb 2024
84,547 posts
|
Diogenes
We live in an imperfect world where it is accepted that armed forces are required to maintain peace and civilisation. Just like the NRA argument about the personal right to bear arms, it doesn't stand up to examination.
If armed response worked then it wouldn't be required. What it does is enforce the rule of the powerful over the individual and the weak. It is a tool of the state, and means of control and suppression.
I've always wondered about the motivation of police who choose to join the armed response unit. The motivation must be either financial or the desire to use weapons. I don't believe there is any altruistic motive to protect, that's just a bullshit excuse.
|
|
14 Feb
10:28am, 14 Feb 2024
10,154 posts
|
Northern Exile
........ The motivation must be either financial or the desire to use weapons. I don't believe there is any altruistic motive to protect, that's just a bullshit excuse.
Dear me. Is that the equivalent of lobbing a phosphor grenade and then running away? 
|
|
14 Feb
10:40am, 14 Feb 2024
84,548 posts
|
Diogenes
It's a bit like being a bomb disposal office, what sane person wants to do that?
|
|
14 Feb
10:57am, 14 Feb 2024
10,155 posts
|
Northern Exile
Someone who wants to do good and save others from harm?
|
|
14 Feb
11:05am, 14 Feb 2024
23,371 posts
|
3M
I think we have to remember that many people do join the "civilian" services (police, emergency medical, fire, coastguard) at least initially out of a desire to help others. That suggests a large degree of altruism does exist in them (and I don't think they would qualify as particularly "well paid" for what responsibility they carry). Whether that survives for most or it ever becomes "just a job" I don't know.
And if the "bad guys" are armed, and have no compunction about using those weapons, then I think I'd rather have someone who probably joined a police force for "good" reasons willing to intervene on my behalf.
Re the bomb disposal, I think that's a bit of the "from each according to their ability" coming into play - if you have the aptitude, skills, and mindset to put your life on the line for someone else's safety, I suspect it is something you just "do".
|
|
14 Feb
11:13am, 14 Feb 2024
49,394 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Fair challenge NE. I feel like I can respect the individuals (I have family as most of us do, who were in armed forces and police), even if I don't agree for the need for the bodies at a state level.
And I guess I just need to take "weak-kneed" on the chin!
I do recognise that I am fortunate that I live in a peaceful place at a time of peace for this place. I believe a lot of that is to do with international dialogue, institutions, co-operation and understanding. Not just because "UK's weapons and army are more powerful than another country's weapons and army". I absolutely accept that I may be completely wrong in this belief. That's part of the purpose of this discussion thread. To educate myself where I am wrong.
Thanks all for your inputs.
|
|
14 Feb
11:24am, 14 Feb 2024
84,550 posts
|
Diogenes
And I guess I just need to take "weak-kneed" on the chin!
Well, it's not like you are going to retaliate
[I guess my input was a bit like lobbing a phosphor grenade. It wasn't intended as such, just a bit of abstract philosophising.]
|
|
14 Feb
11:44am, 14 Feb 2024
16,880 posts
|
Dave W
Oh dear, Dio. What a shame that you hold such cynical views.
But people join ARV's for any number of reasons. It's hard graft, and the responsibilities are enormous. And if, in that split second in incredibly tense situations you get it wrong, then you can go through a world of shit.
But if you didn't have them, then you would be into the realms of the powerful enforcing their rule over the weak. Do you really think that if ARV's didn't exist that no-one else would arm themselves to get what they want. They already do, all the time. We're back in the realms of "Ideal World" thinking. And as much as we would like to, that's not the world where we live.
|
