[ad_1]
A skilled thief, supported by his wife, a kidnapper, killed two people in Onești. Moroșan, Death in the Carpathians, escaped alive from the confrontation with the Police. The law enforcement officers tried, and lo and behold, they managed not to end his life, they shot the murderer with rubber balls, after hours of unsuccessful fruitlessness.
If we talk about law enforcement and we are disappointed with the result, shouldn’t we start looking at the incident directly from the law?
Does the law protect the police when they draw their weapons or bandits? How many kilograms of paper does a bullet contain? Exactly how many pounds of paper should the arresting officer fill with a stolen car if he fires a cartridge into the air. I don’t say if it hits the bastard. So the policeman needs not only A4 papers, but also bank papers, signed by Isărescu, to pay his lawyers.
What are the procedures in case of hostage-taking, of an incident like Onești’s? Are there laws, are there rules, are they known to the police? Or do you go for inspiration, leave the use of the weapon to the appreciation of the agent and, if it goes well, praise the bosses on TV, if it ends badly, you pay whoever pulled the trigger?
In Onești’s case, police chiefs say the assailant was not believed to turn violent. It is still debated whether or not he had a criminal record, if theft or driving under the influence were predictors, etc.
It is criminal to sit back, questioning whether someone who took the gun will turn violent, take two innocent hostages, and threaten to kill them. In the case of the drunk who killed two girls in speeding, a trial is needed for a conviction, for the court to decide if he is guilty, if he drank or not, how fast he went, if the brakes worked. Unfortunately, only justice can be done, the crime has been committed, it can no longer be prevented with the intervention of the Police.
In a life or death case, as in Onești, there is no time for trial: the killer condemned himself when he drew his knife and threatened two people. Being a joke, being a medical case, his bad luck. The solution is the same. If he is injured or dies during the intervention, only the family regrets it: it is important to escape from the victims, to protect the lives of those threatened by the murderer.
The death penalty is not acceptable in a civilized society, from a moral point of view, nor does it have any effect on reducing crime. Punishment means condemnation, after a trial, over the course of years. When it comes to choosing between the risk to the life of the victim and the life of the aggressor, I believe that the police officer should not hesitate for a second.
Of course, to protect their functions, to come out clean, the leaders of IGPR, the so-called investigators of the tragedy in One estánti, are not looking for the failures of the system, that they had to leave Bucharest, with themselves. But he apologizes: that it was the dirty balcony window and he could not have hit the sniper, who made a mistake with one of the victims, attacked Moroșan in front of the police, etc.
We cannot even say that they are deceiving us, when they foolishly state that “it was too risky to fire ammunition of such caliber between blocks”. Well, next time, beg the criminals to take hostages in the field.
This article is an opinion.
[ad_2]
