May 24, 2009

To kill or be killed



-->
The speed in which the police managed to solve many of the robbery cases lately by hunting the criminals down and in some dangerous cases, shoot to kill, certainly deserved to be applauded by all. Although our streets are still not totally safe yet, the breakthrough in solving the many robbery cases has brought some relief to many of us.
(read here for some of the violent cases solved: here and here and here and here and here)

There are still many hard core criminals who have in their possessions, guns and dangerous weapons and will not hesitate to kill the victims if their demands for cash and valuables are not met.

There were several cases in which the police had shoot-outs with these criminals and many of them were killed on the spot. Apparently, there are some quarters who have questioned the police on the need to kill instead of arresting the criminals.
In some countries, there are special hit squads to permanently eliminate the hard core criminals to specifically reduce the crime rates and to provide a sense of security to the people.

Under such circumstances, when the police are confronted with such dangerous criminals who will not hesitate to kill, do you think the police should kill first or be killed or to wait for the right time to arrest them?

By killing these hard core criminals, don’t you think our country will be safer?
To arrest these criminals and sentenced them to jail will do injustice to our society. Firstly, they have committed dangerous crimes and would have either killed or maimed their victims and secondly, once they are released, they will most probably rob and kill again. And it certainly will be a waste of the taxpayers’ money to feed them.

It will be an uphill task for the police to act against crimes without the help and support of the people. We need to be vigilant at all times and if there is a slightest hint of an intended robbery, the police must be informed or as the police used to call, tip-off.

With the current economic uncertainties and the possibility of retrenchments and high unemployment, we better brace ourselves against a higher crime rate.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remember this, Dead Man Tells No Lies! Killing the "criminal" will close the case as there is no case to fight in court and even if they had killed some innocent ones, who knows!

donplaypuks® said...

The odd shout-out kill is acceptable.

But if it becomes the norm or occurs too frequently, we must be suspicious.

Are our police becoming vigilantes and judge, jury and executors themselves?

cancan said...

I am not too sure whether the police are given instructions to shoot to kill the hardcore and dangerous criminals.

But looking at it, many criminal cases seemed to be solved in this manner.

lkh said...

According to my personal past experience, local police is capable to tackle crime if they want to. They are in fact excellent in fighting crimes.
No doubt they are infamously corrupted, but their ability to control social illness of criminality is reasonably good.
I still can remember vividly one of friends from Kelantan was killed by police because if his involvement of killing someone for money. Without this incident of taking place no one had known that he was a killer for money.
Police had conducted sneaky investigation secretly about him for 5 years before gunning him down. When evident is strong and sure, the police didn't want catch him to send him to court but to take him to be terminated by their own judgment.
Of course I couldn't have the chance to read all those police reports about him, only his family had told me about it then I came to realize it was true that he was a killer for hire. His family had confirmed it and signed the document of his killing by police.