David of Derby

I refuse to believe armed officers in the States are trained to go for wounding shots - that's stupid. When you're in a firefight you put the other guy down. You may not want to kill him but an incapacitating shot just can't be relied on, for lots of reasons. It's the double-tap in the body T, I'm afraid, after the old "armed police, do exactly as I say!" warning gets shouted out. When he fires, he's had his chance.

So what's the problem Buck? Take the Roma kids into care so they can get decent opportunities. Better than living on the streets with destitute parents. Or just deport them - they're not Finnish citizens, they're not the Finnish government's responsibility. No nation-state has to take in destitute immigrants that become a burden on the state; they're Romanian or Bulgarian citizens, their own governments should be giving them benefits and helping them into work. Why villify the Finns for acting to protect themselves from this burden and for acting to benefit children they've got no obligation towards?

When you're an armed response officer and you're fired upon, you're trained to return fire and nuetralise the assailant. That means putting them down in the shortest possible time so they're no longer a threat to you, your comrades and the public at large. Unfortunately these armed officers were in the wrong house, but the right action was to kill the householder immediately upon his opening fire. The right action for the householder was to threaten the "intruders" with his shotgun until he was either forced to fire or the police, that his wife had called, arrived to take charge. He shouldn't have fired on the intruders before working out what was going on. If the armed cops had been as competent as you claim he wouldn't have lived through that mistake - which would have been tragic, but just that, a mistake. On his part.

Woah, Axxman. The police are worthy of respect. These particular officers, who bungled a simple operation, are probably not. Let's see, what were they trying to do? Enter a suspect's house and arrest him. Bad intell sent them to the wrong address, ok, not their fault. They enter the house and are confronted by one man with a weapon largely ineffective against their body armour. A firefight ensues, one man against at least eight, and they fail to nuetralise him. He's unarmoured, he's one man, opposed by a whole SWAT team with automatic weapons, and allegedly, anyway, CQB training. They need to spend more time on the range and in the killing house, I think. Then they might be able to arrest a suspect if they get sent to the right house next time...

Is there anything to back up those claims? Sources?

Got to admire the bloke's guts, though. He comes down the stairs with a shottie and takes on an Entire SWAT team. Most guys would have chucked the weapon and surrendered to eight blokes with SMGs... There again, that would have been the smart thing to do...

No one can see the future, no one can predict how someone else will change and ultimately, no one can know another person completely. Saddling yourself with a legally-mandated, one-way marriage commitment is stupid, there has to be a get-out clause. Some spouses turn out to be violents, drunks, cheats, thieves, etc, and sometimes people just change, especially in the case of people getting married young. What's served by forcing young people to stay in marriages that were mistakes? If anyone here's seen Babylon 5, remember the scene where Londo Mollari is talking about his father's arranged marriage - he finds him crying one day and asks why, and the elder Mollari says that his dancing shoes no longer fit, but it doesn't matter, because he's forgotten how to dance. Londo then argues against forcing a young relative into an arranged marriage when he loves someone else. He says they should be allowed to dance while they remember how. It's not much different to forcing someone to stay in a bad marriage if you think about it.

Tagged as in, walked up to them and touched them on the shoulder?

That's true, but life isn't a film, my dear lady. If those were British Armed Response officers they'd have had an ear-bashing...

Depends on which side of the Atlantic your on. We honor our war dead with a 21 gun salute. It's already been established that it's a three volley salute...

It does seem pretty out there. The only problem I have with women wearing trousers is the ones who won't wear skirts at all!

I was going to comment on the US refusing to dip their flag in the interests of diplomacy and generally not observing proper form, but it wouldn't have been very diplomatic.

No worries...

How is it that a SWAT team couldn't, presumably of six-ten men, couldn't hit one man armed with a shotgun? Why do these people deserve medals, exactly?

Twenty-one gun salute? You mean when the soldiers fire the rifles into the air? That's not a twenty-gun salute. A salute, of any number of guns, is done with cannons. From ships. A twenty-one gun salute is for royalty alone.

That sounds real suitable!! It's eminently suitable for its intended purpose. Look up "Number 2 Dress." Yes, British soldiers wear trousers (not pantaloons) in the field. Even the women. My comment was rather tongue-in-cheek. Sorry to be so subtle...

A proper military uniform has a female version. British Number 2 Dress has a skirt for female soldiers.

Anyone that views Buddhism as a religion is missing the point. It's a philosophy, a way of looking and thinking about the world. Buddhists are pretty harmless as far as I'm concerned. They don't know Christ, but in that they're no different to most other people, and most of them try to live good lives. As an aside, can anyone explain to me why so people here write "G-D" instead of God?

Thanks.

Thanks Ricky...

Hello ladies and gentlemen, I volunteered to go on the Intercessions rota at church, and on the 31st August it will be my turn for the first time. I have to write my own prayers, and at the appropriate time, go up to the lectern and lead the whole congregation in the Intercessions. I'm really quite nervous, even though I've read the Old Testament lesson in church before, including a rather lengthy passage from Exodus at Easter. I have a prayer book lent to me by one of the ministers to show me the proper form for the prayers and to tie in with the cycle of lessons, but if anyone could offer any tips, advice or encouragement, that would be great. As an aside I also agreed to train to be an altar server. I swear the vicar will have me as an assistant curate before he's done...

So you now act like conspirators? Bravo. Now your surveillance has probably been increased because of that.

Perhaps that's the case. How sad that healthcare in the US is all private. Abortions done on the NHS in the UK have always had this information supplied, as with all operations and treatments.

The fact this guy was on trial for a criminal offence means the state was right to put him under surveillance. These people are not fluffy bunnies, they're subversives, and putting them under surveillance isn't some heinous sin.

Yeah, I saw that they closed the clinic themselves. My question was, why won't they work under these legal terms? If what they're doing is ok - and in their minds it must be else they wouln't do it - why not comply with the law? Personally I've no issue with abortion and don't think people should be forbidden from having them, within reasonable legal constraints. This law from South Dakata seems quite reasonable. Why aren't the doctors performing the operation as reasonable?