Why don't police use deadly force against protesters who are clearly violating laws and endangering public safety and government leaders, such as at the G8 Summit? If you just opened up on those hooded hoodlums with automatic weapons and helicopter gunships, there would be a lot of less of an incentive for future disturbances.
2007-06-06 06:53:39 · 12 answers · asked by Luey 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I'm much less of a Republican than a Fascist.
2007-06-06 07:06:36 · update #1
I'm not against peaceful protest. I'm all for using an iron fist to ensure the rule of law.
2007-06-06 07:08:33 · update #2
I'm an anti-anarchist, if there is such a thing.
2007-06-06 07:11:46 · update #3
Wow! Hitler really did survive WWII.
2007-06-06 07:02:32 · answer #1 · answered by gromit801 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is not a serious question....
Protesters at least in the states have the right to protest.
If things get out of hand and a few of the protesters become violent or disobey the police commands they will have to deal with the conseqeunces of that. But to kill them. I think in the states at least you would start a civil war. Even people that disagreed with the protesters would support them and their rights to publicly protest something.
If you like this type of thing move to Iran, Syria, certain African countries. Try out living under a despot or a theocracy and see how much you like it.
2007-06-06 07:08:13 · answer #2 · answered by dlee_75 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so a techniques from what i've got considered the protesters have not been violent - purely an annoyance. they have brought about $7.5 million money in harm up there already. and a few of them are sending threatening e-mails. i'm shocked that regulation enforcement has no longer reacted with stress yet. i think of they could all get fines for defacing public assets if something. yet no - do no longer use stress against them except they themselves grow to be violent. they have a precise to PEACEABLY deliver at the same time. till they're violent, enable em be.
2016-10-29 08:24:13 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A bit extreme there. Look, most of the time these protests go smoothly. Occasionally they go bad, and if that happens lethal force should be the last option. Rubber bullets, tear gas, water hose, dogs, police shield charge, thats (99.999999%)non lethal and just as effective. Using lethal force would likely kill many innocents who just wanted to protest peacefully. There are enough deaths with the nonlethal ones I mentioned before.
2007-06-06 06:58:30 · answer #4 · answered by Serpico7 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a little harsh! I wouldn't have a problem going back to the day when they could be clubbed and otherwise treated. That's the way they're treating the police. It would take care of them pretty well that way. It used to.
2007-06-06 06:59:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can only use deadly force when your life or the life of others are in jeopardy and we are talking being held at gun point.
2007-06-06 07:20:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why don't you hear what they scream about.
And protesters are part of democracy.
I agree for strong action be made for those who become hoodlums.
2007-06-06 06:59:47 · answer #7 · answered by Khala 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
deadly force is only warranted if said police officer 's life is in danger (ie, he is about to be killed).
deadly force IS NEVER an answer to protestors.
2007-06-06 06:59:08 · answer #8 · answered by arus.geo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes this will end the out of controll protesters
2016-09-21 23:16:28 · answer #9 · answered by almostthere 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush only arrests people who actually do their jobs, such as border patrol agents and soldiers. He doesn't want to offend criminals and deviants.
2007-06-06 07:00:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋