The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Should police be allowed to shoot illegal migrants at the border?

Scroll to see replies

yes.
It's not gonna happen though because the gov't is not gonna pay for that, that training, the weapons, the labour, psh
Original post by 0to100
yes.
It's not gonna happen though because the gov't is not gonna pay for that, that training, the weapons, the labour, psh


Wow, it would be so irrational and inhumane to just shoot them though...


Posted from TSR Mobile
[QUOTE=kangsterf;68261658]No, the war is their problem. It's their own country, if they were true patriots they would try to improve the standard of living in their own countries instead of taking advantage of our country.

So you're saying that helpless children and families in countries that are at war should try and stop the war going on? Smh. They are helpless and there is barely anything they can do to stop this, they don't have weapons etc to do so! Honestly think about it if England or somewhere similar this was happening, would anyones family want to stay to try and 'improve the standard of living' if homes were being bombed and people constantly being killed? I doubt a lot of people would stay to 'attempt' to stop this
Original post by RossB1702
Wow, it would be so irrational and inhumane to just shoot them though...


Posted from TSR Mobile


The question says allowed. They should have the legal right to do so if necessary, I stand by that
No one at least not me is saying, each time you see one, shoot. But basically yes they should be allowed aka if the illegals get out of hand in the country and/or whilst trying to get in physically, and an officer has shot them...there should be at least an investigation to prove it justifiable. These days it's not even up for discussion, even when the illegal was being dangerous.
Original post by 0to100
The question says allowed. They should have the legal right to do so if necessary, I stand by that
No one at least not me is saying, each time you see one, shoot. But basically yes they should be allowed aka if the illegals get out of hand in the country and/or whilst trying to get in physically, and an officer has shot them...there should be at least an investigation to prove it justifiable. These days it's not even up for discussion, even when the illegal was being dangerous.


Of course they should be shot if someone pulls a knife or gun and attempts murder. I was thinking more on the context if someone just tries to cross over and are resisting arrest and they are just shot down like an animal for fleeing their war ridden country.
Original post by Reue
If a country refuses entry and someone tries to get in how is that any different to being invaded? Shoot them
a one man invasion?
Original post by RossB1702
Wow, it would be so irrational and inhumane to just shoot them though...Posted from TSR Mobile
ikr, some people are just plain evil
Original post by Reue
If a country refuses entry and someone tries to get in how is that any different to being invaded? Shoot them


wow :shock:

i 'd say rubber bullets or taser.
Imagine it roles reversed, how would you feel if you were escaping a war zone and wanted to desperately make a better life for yourself and your family, but you risked the chance of being lethally shot by what is meant to be a civilised country! We're not the yanks, we shouldn't shoot then ask questions later ;D
Reply 89
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by User1212
a one man invasion?


So it would seem.
Reply 90
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by HucktheForde
wow :shock:

i 'd say rubber bullets or taser.


Both of which can be leathal
Original post by Reue
Specifically rerferring to those not claiming asylum or have already been denied. Attempting to enter after that is no different from an invasion and should be treated as such.


Invasion would imply that they pose an immediate threat, and they don't.
Reply 92
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by CTLevers
Imagine it roles reversed, how would you feel if you were escaping a war zone and wanted to desperately make a better life for yourself and your family, but you risked the chance of being lethally shot by what is meant to be a civilised country! We're not the yanks, we shouldn't shoot then ask questions later ;D


If their asylum claim has been refused then they are likely not escaping a war zone.

As for making a better life? Doesnt give you the right to waltz in to any country of your choosing.
Reply 93
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by _gcx
Invasion would imply that they pose an immediate threat, and they don't.


Id rather not take the risk. These are people we have refused asylum to, weve told them that they have no right to enter and that we do not want them entering our country. If they keep trying to enter again and again, perhaps putting our lifeboat men at risk as they continually have to go into the channel to rescue them from their inflatable boats..

At what point do we deem it enough and start enforcing our boarders with force? Or do we not, ever?
Yes, of course. They need to be shown we're serious otherwise they'll just pour in like they do now because there aren't any consequences. Heck, it's even the opposite since they're fed, given blankets, etc. and here they go again, another attempt might be more lucky.
Original post by #ChaosKass
Well then why can't they try and build a better life for themselves in their own countries rather than running away like cowards?


Didn't you run away from my statement in a previous topic like a coward as well?
Reply 96
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by Plum1998
So you're saying that helpless children and families in countries that are at war should try and stop the war going on? Smh. They are helpless and there is barely anything they can do to stop this, they don't have weapons etc to do so! Honestly think about it if England or somewhere similar this was happening, would anyones family want to stay to try and 'improve the standard of living' if homes were being bombed and people constantly being killed? I doubt a lot of people would stay to 'attempt' to stop this


I expect your great grandfather stayed and fought in the war threatening his family.

If families are escaping war then then should go to the refugee safety areas. Continuing to risk your lives by ilegally swarmimg across europe gains no sympathy.
Original post by Reue
Id rather not take the risk. These are people we have refused asylum to, weve told them that they have no right to enter and that we do not want them entering our country. If they keep trying to enter again and again, perhaps putting our lifeboat men at risk as they continually have to go into the channel to rescue them from their inflatable boats..

At what point do we deem it enough and start enforcing our boarders with force? Or do we not, ever?


So we should execute people who have any chance of being an immediate threat? Are you implying that immigrants are, essentially, less valuable than anyone else? Do they not have a right to a fair trial like everyone should? Why is violating border rules, such a "disgusting crime", worthy of immediate execution? Relative to other crimes, is it that much of a "big deal"? Sure, long-term economic and social ramifications, one could argue, but otherwise, not really.

Sure, the borders should be patrolled in some manner, but force is only necessary when the other party is armed, with firearms or otherwise, or otherwise poses an immediate threat. If they do not pose an immediate threat, there's no reason to end their life over such a meaningless ordeal. Force, in my opinion, should only be used to protect others. So, if, for example, someone tries to enter the border, armed, force may be necessary, as one is protecting others from harm. This includes security personnel and people living beyond the border. However, force isn't necessary when it's a lone person, probably not armed, that can be arrested or apprehended with relative ease.

Execution of said people would call for international attention. The UK would be seen as an aggressor, and could potentially lose the trust of other countries, and the people of other countries. Ultimately, that would cause a definite social and, potentially, economic impact.
Original post by Reue
If a country refuses entry and someone tries to get in how is that any different to being invaded? Shoot them


That's a human rights violation.
Original post by kangsterf
No, the war is their problem. It's their own country, if they were true patriots they would try to improve the standard of living in their own countries instead of taking advantage of our country.


If there was a war in your county, how would you feel if someone told you that? Patriotism is a toxic concept, and should never be encouraged. The grouping of individuals, the feeling of superiority including xenophobia, pretty much every "ism", etc., will be the reason why world peace may never be achieved.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you