Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera...

[GabonX]

It is the photograph that has dominated the world's front pages, casting an astonishing light on the fresh-faced killers who brought terror to the heart of India's most vibrant city. Now it can be revealed how the astonishing picture came to be taken by a newspaper photographer who hid inside a train carriage as gunfire erupted all around him.


Sebastian D'Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, whose offices are just opposite the city's Chhatrapati Shivaji station, heard the gunfire erupt and ran towards the terminus. "I ran into the first carriage of one of the trains on the platform to try and get a shot but couldn't get a good angle, so I moved to the second carriage and waited for the gunmen to walk by," he said. "They were shooting from waist height and fired at anything that moved. I briefly had time to take a couple of frames using a telephoto lens. I think they saw me taking photographs but theydidn't seem to care."


The gunmen were terrifyingly professional, making sure at least one of them was able to fire their rifle while the other reloaded. By the time he managed to capture the killer on camera, Mr D'Souza had already seen two gunmen calmly stroll across the station concourse shooting both civilians and policemen, many of whom, he said, were armed but did not fire back. "I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.


"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."


But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."


As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D'Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. "I couldn't believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn't run, we told them to stay put."


The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 086308.ece

[HapSmo19]

The police probably would've shot him.

[spurgistan]

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on. Think about that for a second. Now, the response of the Mumbai police was not indicative of a police force which should be prepared for events like this, but it is still no time for vigilanteism. Do you guys know anything except what Hollywood tells you?

And gabon, it's good to know you'll be armed in case armed extremists come to your house demanding you surrender your family. And stand in a group while you mow them down, totally unprepared for any sort of armed resistance. God, the things people waste their money on... a semi-auto shotgun? Jeez, do you plan on running into the Terminator, or something?

[Iliad]

So an alive photographer wishes he had a gun so he could try to fight extremely proffesional terrorists who are trained, while the police are storming the hotel? Damn that man is not grateful to be alive.

[HapSmo19]

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on. Think about that for a second. Now, the response of the Mumbai police was not indicative of a police force which should be prepared for events like this, but it is still no time for vigilanteism. Do you guys know anything except what Hollywood tells you?

For the life of me, I cant think of a better time for vigilanteism(which doesn't even apply to this scenario).
Lemme see,....there are psychos with machine guns mowing down men, women and children. You have a gun and know how to use it. What do you do? Offer to buy them a mocha latte' and talk about what's bothering them? Please.

[Frigidus]

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on. Think about that for a second. Now, the response of the Mumbai police was not indicative of a police force which should be prepared for events like this, but it is still no time for vigilanteism. Do you guys know anything except what Hollywood tells you?

For the life of me, I cant think of a better time for vigilanteism(which doesn't even apply to this scenario).
Lemme see,....there are psychos with machine guns mowing down men, women and children. You have a gun and know how to use it. What do you do? Offer to buy them a mocha latte' and talk about what's bothering them? Please.

So you take on the professional assassins/mercenaries/terrorists with your pistol and a sense of justice? You'd be blown away in an instant, you'd be lucky just to take one of them with you.

[Neoteny]

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on. Think about that for a second. Now, the response of the Mumbai police was not indicative of a police force which should be prepared for events like this, but it is still no time for vigilanteism. Do you guys know anything except what Hollywood tells you?

For the life of me, I cant think of a better time for vigilanteism(which doesn't even apply to this scenario).
Lemme see,....there are psychos with machine guns mowing down men, women and children. You have a gun and know how to use it. What do you do? Offer to buy them a mocha latte' and talk about what's bothering them? Please.

So you take on the professional assassins/mercenaries/terrorists with your pistol and a sense of justice? You'd be blown away in an instant, you'd be lucky just to take one of them with you.

Psh. Pistol? I carry my M249 with me at all times. Just in case there is a terrorist attack. I'd say forming a blazing sword would have been more appropriate in that situation, however.

[GabonX]

The police probably would've shot him.

The police weren't shooting at anybody. I doubt that they would have fired at the one person who fired at the terrorists.

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on. Think about that for a second. Now, the response of the Mumbai police was not indicative of a police force which should be prepared for events like this, but it is still no time for vigilanteism. Do you guys know anything except what Hollywood tells you?

For the life of me, I cant think of a better time for vigilanteism(which doesn't even apply to this scenario).
Lemme see,....there are psychos with machine guns mowing down men, women and children. You have a gun and know how to use it. What do you do? Offer to buy them a mocha latte' and talk about what's bothering them? Please.

So you take on the professional assassins/mercenaries/terrorists with your pistol and a sense of justice? You'd be blown away in an instant, you'd be lucky just to take one of them with you.

Psh. Pistol? I carry my M249 with me at all times. Just in case there is a terrorist attack. I'd say forming a blazing sword would have been more appropriate in that situation, however.

Did you know that the reason the Japanese gave for not invading the mainland of the United States durring World War 2 was because they knew that Americans had guns? It is well known by historians...

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on. Think about that for a second. Now, the response of the Mumbai police was not indicative of a police force which should be prepared for events like this, but it is still no time for vigilanteism. Do you guys know anything except what Hollywood tells you?

And gabon, it's good to know you'll be armed in case armed extremists come to your house demanding you surrender your family. And stand in a group while you mow them down, totally unprepared for any sort of armed resistance. God, the things people waste their money on... a semi-auto shotgun? Jeez, do you plan on running into the Terminator, or something?

I find it discouraging that you would call defending oneself and exercising one's rights vigilanteism. As the events of the last several days illustrate, police do not and cannot grant absolute security, so then why would you not try to prepare yourself? I know from your other posts that you are concerned with civil liberties so I cannot understand why you would ridicule people for exercising the only one which can gaurantee the others. Thomas Jefferson himself called it a "right and duty to be at all times armed" which is a very relevant statement in concern to these events.

[GabonX]

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on. Think about that for a second. Now, the response of the Mumbai police was not indicative of a police force which should be prepared for events like this, but it is still no time for vigilanteism. Do you guys know anything except what Hollywood tells you?

For the life of me, I cant think of a better time for vigilanteism(which doesn't even apply to this scenario).
Lemme see,....there are psychos with machine guns mowing down men, women and children. You have a gun and know how to use it. What do you do? Offer to buy them a mocha latte' and talk about what's bothering them? Please.

So you take on the professional assassins/mercenaries/terrorists with your pistol and a sense of justice? You'd be blown away in an instant, you'd be lucky just to take one of them with you.

Let's not go overboard calling these guys "professionals." They knew how to operate kalashnikov rifles (so do I) who went about shooting from the hip and the only reason they were as successful as they were is due to the lack of opposition.

Unless you have some requisite knowledge of firearms please don't claim to. If their are two men firing at a group of people who are hidden and one of them unexpectedly returns fire with a pistol of signifigant stopping power, it's very likely that the element of surprise would lead to the assailants would be stopped. One man with a gun is largely the same as another and just because one has a bigger gun, it doesn't make him bullet proof.

[GabonX]

By the way, isn't it somewhat ironic that the only way to enforce the removal of guns from the general populace is by having an armed police force? ie it takes guns to take guns away...

Just a thought

[Neoteny]

In frigid's defense, your article is the one that called them "terrifyingly professional." I noticed the firing from the hip as well, and assumed that the judgment on "professionalism" was based more on their aggressiveness and lack of remorse rather than their accuracy. I also question your statement that a lone pistol wielder would stop me, particularly if both myself and my buddy were riding with Kalishnikov's. I'd probably stop walking around firing from the hip like an idiot, but it likely wouldn't discourage me (assuming I were crazy, and wanted to kill as many people as possible of course). I'd probably coordinate some sort of suppressive fire/flanking maneuver that would give us the advantage. Anyhow, yes, if the people were armed, the gunners may not have killed as many people.

Anyhow, what are the gun laws in India? I'll have to plead ignorance on that one, but until it's more clear, I can't really place any further judgment on the situation.

[spurgistan]

I'd say it's usually a good bet to say that people who have carried out a well-organized attack have better training than you do. Nothing reflective on your value as a person, or whatever, but these militants obviously knew what they were doing.

But seriously, let's take this from the cops point of view. You don't know a lot. You know you have a hostage situation. For one thing, you need to establish a broad perimeter around the area, something the local cops obviously didn't do (I remember some CNN reporter talking about she could almost walk into the lobby) The next is to identify who are friendlies and who are enemies. The easiest way for this step to happen is if enemies are people who don't have uniforms but have guns. That's why we have uniforms. Then, the next step is to work to get hostages out. This is obviously complicated by people going in who are not working as part of the overall effort (the type of the people who have a death wish) Not that any time is really the time for vigilanteism, but this would have really screwed things up.

[Dancing Mustard]

Jeez, do you plan on running into the Terminator, or something?

I'm looking for Sarah Connor. I was told she's here.

[Juan_Bottom]

That would be the rational outcome. Hell, if I'm a cop, I shoot anybody with a gun I see in a situation like this where nobody could possibly have any idea what's going on

You're taught not to do that. Though these police officer don't seem to be trained for anything. Plus:

The police weren't shooting at anybody. I doubt that they would have fired at the one person who fired at the terrorists.

God, the things people waste their money on... a semi-auto shotgun?

That's really not all that crazy-or expensive. Besides, if you're foing to get into a firefight don't you want to be better armed than the other guy?

For the life of me, I cant think of a better time for vigilanteism(which doesn't even apply to this scenario).
Lemme see,....there are psychos with machine guns mowing down men, women and children. You have a gun and know how to use it. What do you do? Offer to buy them a mocha latte' and talk about what's bothering them? Please.

Seconded, if not then, then when?

So you take on the professional assassins/mercenaries/terrorists with your pistol and a sense of justice? You'd be blown away in an instant, you'd be lucky just to take one of them with you.

Absolutly. I don't know about you, but I would feel a strong sense of obligation and duty. Think about all the people that could have been saved if the gunmen were at least forced to flee?
Three men standing on an open platform are an easy target. ESPECIALLY when you have the element of suprise.

I find it discouraging that you would call defending oneself and exercising one's rights vigilanteism. As the events of the last several days illustrate, police do not and cannot grant absolute security, so then why would you not try to prepare yourself? I know from your other posts that you are concerned with civil liberties so I cannot understand why you would ridicule people for exercising the only one which can gaurantee the others. Thomas Jefferson himself called it a "right and duty to be at all times armed" which is a very relevant statement in concern to these events.

I can't fault you. You are well within your rights (America) to take those men down.

They knew how to operate kalashnikov rifles (so do I) who went about shooting from the hip and the only reason they were as successful as they were is due to the lack of opposition.

ANYONE can operate an AK-47. We've all seen children do it.
Lack of opposition is the reason all of these shootings are successful IMO.

I also question your statement that a lone pistol wielder would stop me, particularly if both myself and my buddy were riding with Kalishnikov's. I'd probably stop walking around firing from the hip like an idiot, but it likely wouldn't discourage me (assuming I were crazy, and wanted to kill as many people as possible of course). I'd probably coordinate some sort of suppressive fire/flanking maneuver that would give us the advantage.

Take that same scenario, and now imagine that you two are standing close to each other and don't expect to be shot at. Anyone who can stomach to hold a gun steady could easily empty a clip on both of you before you were able to return fire.

I'd say it's usually a good bet to say that people who have carried out a well-organized attack have better training than you do. Nothing reflective on your value as a person, or whatever, but these militants obviously knew what they were doing.

That's not exactly true. The Columbine shooters carried out a well-coordinated attack, but had no traing at all.

But seriously, let's take this from the cops point of view. You don't know a lot. You know you have a hostage situation.

Seems to me that they just coward in a corner. But to be fair, our police do the exact same thing. Everytime we have a shooting here in the states, the cops are extremely cautious about moving in. But at least we have the perimeter thing down.

The next is to identify who are friendlies and who are enemies. The easiest way for this step to happen is if enemies are people who don't have uniforms but have guns. That's why we have uniforms.

During that L.A. bank robbery where the two shooters had full body armor there were dozens of detectives on the scene, at least one (that I can recall) was shot. These guys were all dressed business casual.
Anyway my point is that when the sh*t hits the fan you won't care who has your back.

Then, the next step is to work to get hostages out. This is obviously complicated by people going in who are not working as part of the overall effort (the type of the people who have a death wish) Not that any time is really the time for vigilanteism, but this would have really screwed things up.

It is also screwed up by the fact that they are executing everyone. Here in the states, I'm pretty sure that our police have to move in, rather than witness executions.

I'm looking for Sarah Connor. I was told she's here.

Yeah, her screen name is Deli--something. Anyway, good luck.

[Juan_Bottom]

But anyway, I'm just argueing the validity of taken action. It sounds bad for the police, but it could also be that they just weren't trained, or even that they were slowly moving in like we would. But I do give the witness the benifit of the doubt. Is the tape there?

Anyone else see this?
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Fre ... &From=News

British-born Pakistanis were among the Mumbai terrorists, Indian government sources claimed today, as the death toll rose to at least 150.

As many as seven of the terrorists may have British connections and some could be from Leeds and Bradford where London's July 7 bombers lived, one source said

One security official said: 'There is growing concern about British involvement in the attacks.'

I don't believe it, but I found it interesting that as many as 7 of the militants were British.

[Snorri1234]

If:

The police weren't shooting at anybody. I doubt that they would have fired at the one person who fired at the terrorists.

Then why on earth were the terrorists shot?

[Snorri1234]

But anyway, I'm just argueing the validity of taken action. It sounds bad for the police, but it could also be that they just weren't trained, or even that they were slowly moving in like we would.

I don't think most cops are trained for terrorists attacks. Which is why I don't think it would've really helped if a bunch of civilians had a gun and started shooting.

[jonesthecurl]

It read to me as if the guy were saying, "The police weren't shooting. I don't understand why not. If I'd had a gun I'd have used it." i.e. he was bemoaning the lack of police action rather than seriously saying he should have been carrying a gun. It certainly sounds as if the police were badly prepared for the situation.

If he hadn't had a camera, he'd probably not have been there - he's a photographer, not a gunslinger.

I doubt he now regularly carries a gun.

btw, someone remarked that they don't know what India's gun laws are. Nor do I. Anyone?

[Pedronicus]

Home > Arms & the Man > Gun Ownership in India
Gun Ownership in India
gun ownership india graphic

By Abhijeet Singh
Colonial Roots of Gun-Control

I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner - but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.

To trace the roots of India's anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire.

An example of British thinking in colonial times:

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

And thoughts (on this subject) of the man who wanted to rule the world:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)

The leaders of our freedom struggle recognised this, even Gandhi the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence had this to say about the British policy of gun-control in India:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
Post Independence

India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government's innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the "Licensing Authorities", in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Also the policy of throttling private arms manufacturing was continued even after independence. Limits on the quantity and type of arms that could be produced by private manufacturers were placed - ensuring that the industry could never hope to be globally competitive and was instead consigned to producing cheap shotguns, of mostly indifferent quality, in small quantities. A citizen wishing to purchase a decent firearm depended solely on imports, which were a bit more expensive but vastly superior in quality.
More Recently

This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates - products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase.

[Dancing Mustard]

Even if that guy had a gun, it would have been wrong for him to fire at the terrorists. For anybody who isn't a law enforcement official to kill or maim another human being without a prior fair-trial to determine guilt is a gross afront to justice and liberty. If he'd shot at the terrorists, then he ought to be liable for the same punishment as them (death or life-imprisonment).

[KoolBak]

So spurgistan, what is your background with firearms that gives you the right to boldly make the claims you do?

And as for a semi-automatic shotgun, it makes for getting off the second and third round much faster than a pump action, increasing your odds of success on a long range shot while bird hunting. Ask the millions of people that use them...."Terminator" for gods sake....I think it is you that is over influenced by Hollywood......

[pimpdave]

Jeez, do you plan on running into the Terminator, or something?

I'm sorry, but this is just plain offensive. The T-800, created and distributed by Cyberdyne Systems, was designed to function in a combat environment.

As was shown in the promotional documentary, it requires the T-800 being subjected to a minimum of 3 vehicle crashes that would prove fatal to anything human, 1 rampage through a police station, approximately 80 pipebombs, thousands of rounds of ammunition fired by soon to be terminated humans to stop a T-800, and a hydraulic press with a one liner.

One semi-automatic shotgun against a T-800?

Simply offensive.


You're terminated motherfucker.

[The1exile]

If he'd shot at the terrorists, then he ought to be liable for the same punishment as them (death or life-imprisonment).

Hey now, let's be serious. If he only shot to wound then at worst we're looking at a charge of attempted murder with mitigating circumstances and probably only SVOBH.

[GabonX]

If:

The police weren't shooting at anybody. I doubt that they would have fired at the one person who fired at the terrorists.

Then why on earth were the terrorists shot?

It took three days for the police to shoot ten people even though they out numbered the terrorists and had access to better weapons. In that same time the terrorists were able to kill hundreds.

It read to me as if the guy were saying, "The police weren't shooting. I don't understand why not. If I'd had a gun I'd have used it." i.e. he was bemoaning the lack of police action rather than seriously saying he should have been carrying a gun. It certainly sounds as if the police were badly prepared for the situation.

If he hadn't had a camera, he'd probably not have been there - he's a photographer, not a gunslinger.

I doubt he now regularly carries a gun.

Probably not. If however more people in Mumbai did this kind of thing would be impossible. It doesn't how powerful a weapon you have so long as everyone around you has something. This material safety as opposed to illusion.

Even if that guy had a gun, it would have been wrong for him to fire at the terrorists. For anybody who isn't a law enforcement official to kill or maim another human being without a prior fair-trial to determine guilt is a gross afront to justice and liberty. If he'd shot at the terrorists, then he ought to be liable for the same punishment as them (death or life-imprisonment).

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on any forum. Seriously..

..If I see somebody commiting an act of extreme violence and I have the ability to stop it, I don't need a commity for moral support. Lives would be lost, and hundreds were last week. In addition there are Good Samaritan laws in many places which specifically encourage such actions. It's pretty sick that you would advocate "death or life-imprisonment" for someone who tries to help an innocent person in immediate peril.


I thought this was funny and relevant to the discussion.

The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Crime:

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?


Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:

BANG!


Texan's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... RELOAD!!!!!

Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"

Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Daughter: "Nice grouping Daddy!"

[Dancing Mustard]

Even if that guy had a gun, it would have been wrong for him to fire at the terrorists. For anybody who isn't a law enforcement official to kill or maim another human being without a prior fair-trial to determine guilt is a gross afront to justice and liberty. If he'd shot at the terrorists, then he ought to be liable for the same punishment as them (death or life-imprisonment).

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on any forum. Seriously..

Calm down Gabon. Nobody is judging you for your upbringing, please try to remain civil and calm.

..If I see somebody commiting an act of extreme violence and I have the ability to stop it, I don't need a commity for moral support. Lives would be lost, and hundreds were last week. In addition there are Good Samaritan laws in many places which specifically encourage such actions. It's pretty sick that you would advocate "death or life-imprisonment" for someone who tries to help an innocent person in immediate peril.

I am advocating death or life-imprisonment for anybody who takes the life of another human being without giving that person the benefit of a fair trial. What right has any man to kill another if he has not been proven to be guilty of a heinous crime? Who are we to appoint ourselves judges, juries and executioners and to mette out violence to those who we feel are committing wrongdoing?

To shoot anybody is to murder. The situation is entirely irrelevant, murder remains and will always remain murder. It will always remain a crime.

I'm not saying that those terrorists shouldn't be punished for their crimes. I am in full support of the notion of bringing them to justice and helping to rehabilitate them so that they are able to re-enter society as productive human beings. But to hand out the right to maim and murder to every man in the street, entirely bypassing all forms of law and undermining the law enforcement authorities is something which no civilised nation can possibly allow.