Lock and load. 1/17/2005
So, we have a discharge of a deadly weapon by an enforcement officer in a public place, resulting in an innocent bystander being hurt. Collateral damage, as the American military puts it. I read in the papers this morning that the bystander was in a quandry over the cost of hospitalisation, which he could not afford to pay for.
He has apparently received letters of apology from the enforcement department concerned, but letters of apology, unfortunately, are not recognised as legal tender by any healthcare facility. Various quarters have been calling for guns to be withdrawn from enforcement officers, except the Police, as they feel that there is no call for such officers to be armed with deadly weapons.
The question is, why does an enforcement officer going after VCD peddlers in the street require a gun? Agreed, some of these peddlers tend to be violent when confronted with arrest. But I’ve noticed that enforcement raids are carried out with large numbers of officers. Agreed, I’ve been in violent situations before, which were resolved without the use of guns. But there are certain situations where a gun would have been a useful thing to have. They aren’t called ‘equalizers’ for nothing.
At the end of it, it has to be that strong controls are put in place.
- Posted in : General
- Author : thesnark
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?