• German police should shoot refugees, says leader of AfD party Frauke Petry
    35 replies, posted
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/german-police-should-shoot-refugees-says-german-party-leader-a6844611.html[/url] [quote]German border police should shoot at refugees entering the country illegally, the head of far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) has said. Frauke Petry’s remarks have been condemned by politicians and a police union chief, who said firing at refugees would be a suspension of the rule of law. Officers must "use firearms if necessary" to “prevent illegal border crossings", Ms Petry told the regional newspaper Mannheimer Morgen in an interview. "Armed force is there as a last resort", said Ms Petry, according to a translation by Reuters. "No policeman wants to fire on a refugee and I don't want that either." But "police must stop refugees entering German soil", she said.[/quote] The last time we used shooting as a last resort on borders was at the iron curtain in Berlin. This is the party of the "concerned citizens". Most people agree though that this is a publicity stunt. The lowest and most despicable one surely but still a publicity stunt.
What level of force should you use to keep your borders?
Do we really have to post news about the AfD? Frauke Petry is just crazy, even the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany, far-right party) said they are nuts. :v:
What a title on that article. If Refugees/Immigrants refuse to comply with border police (or whomever it would be) and the police are unable to stop them through other means, shooting potentially dangerous individuals who are willing to ignore the law seems reasonable. It isn't like Germany is right next to a warzone anyway; anyone who is crossing into Germany is leaving a country where they were equally safe.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49663840][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/german-police-should-shoot-refugees-says-german-party-leader-a6844611.html[/url] The last time we used shooting as a last resort on borders was at the iron curtain in Berlin. This is the party of the "concerned citizens". Most people agree though that this is a publicity stunt. The lowest and most despicable one surely but still a publicity stunt.[/QUOTE] Killuah, you're quite taking this out of context, just like everyone seems to. Even right-wing media are wording it like you are. [b]What really happened though;[/b] 1. The question was asked how far the protection of the national borders should be taken. 2. She then referred to the law, and said that armed protection of the border was an option that is already IN the law and that it would be a serious option. 3. You're calling AfD Hitler now for saying the law that already exists should be enforced or whats is your deal here? And even IF she still would've said [b]"LETS SHOOT ALL IMMIGRANTS DEAD YAY, SIEG HEIL FUHRER PETRY"[/b], then still you don't get to equate everyone who is critical of the current immigrationpolitics with her. So no, you dont get to say "This is what the 'concerned citizens' want. You should take people with concerns more seriously, especially when there have been massive incidents already. Even though you called the people who warned it WOULD happen "xenophobe racists". You are playing a dirty dirty game again. I am quite sure, you thought "Shit now the xenophobe racists will have something to bitch about" after reading about the sexual assaults in Cologne, Frankfurt, Hamburg, München, Finland, Sweden etc. Instead of "What horrible what happened to those women. Oh man maybe I was wrong, and at least a more than an irrelevant part of these people hold women-unfriendly views."
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;49663896]Do we really have to post news about the AfD? Frauke Petry is just crazy, even the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany, far-right party) said they are nuts. :v:[/QUOTE] The reason why I posted the article is because I expected [QUOTE=DaMastez;49663898]What a title on that article. If Refugees/Immigrants refuse to comply with border police (or whomever it would be) and the police are unable to stop them through other means, shooting potentially dangerous individuals who are willing to ignore the law seems reasonable. It isn't like Germany is right next to a warzone anyway; anyone who is crossing into Germany is leaving a country where they were equally safe.[/QUOTE] [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Rumbler;49663915]Killuah, you're quite taking this out of context, just like everyone seems to. Even right-wing media are wording it like you are. What really happened though; He was asked how far the protection of the national borders should be taken. He then referred to the law, and said that armed protection of the border was an option that is already IN the law and that it would be a serious option. You're calling him Hitler now for saying the law should be enforced or whats is your deal here?[/QUOTE] HE is a SHE One click on the source dude. One click. And would you stop this weird Hitler thing?
[QUOTE=Killuah;49663917] HE is a SHE One click on the source dude. One click. And would you stop this weird Hitler thing?[/QUOTE] Calm down mate, I already edited it before I read your thing. I know about the AfD, and I know about frau Petry. I can't say I agree with everything they say either, however I have that with every single political party I've ever heard of. But you're here trying to make outright malicious claims in the title again, and you're the one who brought up the WW2 thing by referring to "the last time we defended with force, was the iron curtain." Like the situation of a division between twee geopolitical forces established in a post-global-war is in anyway comparable to the massive migration that's going on currently.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49663917] HE is a SHE One click on the source dude. One click. And would you stop this weird Hitler thing?[/QUOTE] Nice counter-arguments you got there. I wonder why you don't make a thread about the bomb (or similar) placed on the ICE high-speed track from Hannover to Berlin, which could have killed hundreds. Oh, I know why, because it was done be left-extremists.
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49663915]2. She then referred to the law, and said that armed protection of the border was an option that is already IN the law and that it would be a serious option.[/QUOTE] Well here is the point where this woman is wrong, indeed the law she is talking about, from 1961, rules the use of weapons for federal officers but it is very strict and outlines exactly when firing a weapon is actually permitted. (Source: [URL="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/uzwg/BJNR001650961.html"]Gesetz über den unmittelbaren Zwang bei Ausübung öffentlicher Gewalt durch Vollzugsbeamte des Bundes (UZwG)[/URL] § 10 and § 11, sorry its in German)) Crossing the border without proper documents (meaning illegal) doesn't allow the use weapons or deadly force. Only if a person with a firearm or explosive would try to cross the border illegally would allow such force, otherwise they are just getting detained and worst case is 1 year in prison which probably won't happen as they just get sent back. A refugee that tries to cross the border is no valid reason to let the police use their weapons to stop them. It is simply not allowed by law.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;49663978]Well here is the point where this woman is wrong, indeed the law she is talking about, from 1961, rules the use of weapons for federal officers but it is very strict and outlines exactly when firing a weapon is actually permitted. (Source: [URL="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/uzwg/BJNR001650961.html"]Gesetz über den unmittelbaren Zwang bei Ausübung öffentlicher Gewalt durch Vollzugsbeamte des Bundes (UZwG)[/URL] § 10 and § 11, sorry its in German)) Crossing the border without proper documents (meaning illegal) doesn't allow the use weapons or deadly force. Only if a person with a firearm or explosive would try to cross the border illegally would allow such force, otherwise they are just getting detained and worst case is 1 year in prison which probably won't happen as they just get sent back. A refugee that tries to cross the border is no valid reason to let the police use their weapons to stop them. It is simply not allowed by law.[/QUOTE] See these are points that actually contribute to the discussion. Thank you for pointing that out, I appreciate it. In that case, we got to the point AfD is being typical again, and they are wrong about it being the current law. Killuah still has no reason to pretend she was calling for police officers to start shooting illegal bordercrossers left and right, as if she'd like that. That's not what she said at all. Stop spreading lies to support your agenda Killuah.
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49663947]Calm down mate, I already edited it before I read your thing. I know about the AfD, and I know about frau Petry. I can't say I agree with everything they say either, however I have that with every single political party I've ever heard of. But you're here trying to make outright malicious claims in the title again, and you're the one who brought up the WW2 thing by referring to "the last time we defended with force, was the iron curtain." Like the situation of a division between twee geopolitical forces established in a post-global-war is in anyway comparable to the massive migration that's going on currently.[/QUOTE] The title is from the article. Again. One click. And the iron curtain is not a WW2 thing. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Firewarrior;49663954]Nice counter-arguments you got there. I wonder why you don't make a thread about the bomb (or similar) placed on the ICE high-speed track from Hannover to Berlin, which could have killed hundreds. Oh, I know why, because it was done be left-extremists.[/QUOTE] Wasn't even a counter argument and what does the ICE have to do with this? What's even your point? That I don't post all articles I ever read? That I only post the ones I care about? If so, yes. True. I do. This is SH on Facepunch, not AP. That the ICE thing is important? If so, ok yes. Make a thread. why change the subject?
That article is name is INCREDIBLY sensationalist. The title of this subforum is a joke everyone.
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49663995] Stop spreading lies to support your agenda Killuah.[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1494081&highlight=]the fact that this post is made by you, the person that made this thread is a hypocrisy so rich that my tastebuds just can't handle it[/url]
[QUOTE=Killuah;49663917]The reason why I posted the article is because I expected[/QUOTE] If someone is crossing a border illegally they are committing a crime. If someone crossing a border illegally when they are already in a perfectly safe country, then you aren't breaking the law because your life is in danger, but rather because you're trying to improve your life (which, fair enough). If someone crossing a border illegally by force when their life isn't in danger they are someone who is dangerous. Further, they are also showing a disregard for the law of the country they are illegally entering. Personally, those are not the type of people I would want in my country; they have already shown they are dangerous and are willing to disregard the law, who is to say what they will do once in the country. If it comes down to shooting them or letting them in, I would absolutely support the former. Further, there's a massive difference between saying you support shooting persons to maintain border security as a last resort and saying you support randomly shooting people (in this case refugees) just because.
Dunno, I am okay with it. It's not like the police in Germany has never shot anyone who commited a crime.
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49663995] Stop spreading lies to support your agenda Killuah.[/QUOTE] Dude, you just got the gender of the person in the OP wrong and when it was pointed out you said "oh I knew" and called the Iron Curtain a "WW2 thing". Like... come on. [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DaMastez;49664008]If someone is crossing a border illegally they are committing a crime. If someone crossing a border illegally when they are already in a perfectly safe country, then you aren't breaking the law because your life is in danger, but rather because you're trying to improve your life (which, fair enough). If someone crossing a border illegally by force when their life isn't in danger they are someone who is dangerous. Further, they are also showing a disregard for the law of the country they are illegally entering. Personally, those are not the type of people I would want in my country; they have already shown they are dangerous and are willing to disregard the law, who is to say what they will do once in the country. If it comes down to shooting them or letting them in, I would absolutely support the former. Further, there's a massive difference between saying you support shooting persons to maintain border security as a last resort and saying you support randomly shooting people (in this case refugees) just because.[/QUOTE] We usually don't shoot people for crimes. Police is only allowed to shoot in self defense and even the police union chief [quote] said firing at refugees would be a suspension of the rule of law[/quote] Are none of you guys reading it? [editline]3rd February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DMGaina;49664016]Dunno, I am okay with it. It's not like the police in Germany has never shot anyone who commited a crime.[/QUOTE] Yeah but usually not FOR that crime. Usually in self defense.
[QUOTE=Killuah;49664027]Dude, you just got the gender of the person in the OP wrong and when it was pointed out you said "oh I knew" and called the Iron Curtain a "WW2 thing". Like... come on. [/QUOTE] I love it so much that these are the only faults you can find with my post <3 I know it's hard for you get called out for your malignant intepretations of in reality quite benign comments of political parties you don't like.
I'm voting AfD.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;49664054]I'm voting AfD.[/QUOTE] Oh wow you must really want concentrationcamps full with dead refugees then you dirty filthy nazi pig. Or something. What I think is important is WHY you vote, not WHAT you vote. I'd be completely in favor of people having to fill out a 10-question questionaire and if you can't be right 6 out of 10, you apparently have no idea what the party you're voting for thinks and wants, and your vote shouldn't count. If the AfD has your choice, after a well researched period of choicemaking, then go ahead. You should be free to vote AfD all you want. They're not the racist, neo-nazi scum that Killuah is making them out to be.
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49664044]I love it so much that these are the only faults you can find with my post <3 I know it's hard for you get called out for your malignant intepretations of in reality quite benign comments of political parties you don't like.[/QUOTE] Benign? They are using the same slogans as the NeoNazi parties. One of their higher ups announced his opinion that the European race must be protected from the expansionist African race
[QUOTE=Killuah;49664102]Benign? They are using the same slogans as the NeoNazi parties. One of their higher ups announced his opinion that the European race must be protected from the expansionist African race[/QUOTE] If NeoNazi's say the world is round, then they aren't wrong just because they are NeoNazi's. The way you reason is so completely assbackwards. I hate neo-nazi's too, but saying borders need to be defended, armed if needed, is not neo-nazism, and if neo-nazi's say the same that still doesn't make the idea neo-nazism either.
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49664135]If NeoNazi's say the world is round, then they aren't wrong just because they are NeoNazi's. The way you reason is so completely assbackwards. I hate neo-nazi's too, but saying borders need to be defended, armed if needed, is not neo-nazism, and if neo-nazi's say the same that still doesn't make the idea neo-nazism either.[/QUOTE] the nazis liked animal rights time to repeal animal rights laws
I wasn't talking about guilt by association but the very slogans they share, the race one being exemplary, but I guess you didn't want to respond to that. Ok.
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49663995]Stop spreading lies to support your agenda Killuah.[/QUOTE] haha now that's the best one i've heard all week
[QUOTE=Rumbler;49664135]If NeoNazi's say the world is round, then they aren't wrong just because they are NeoNazi's. The way you reason is so completely assbackwards. I hate neo-nazi's too, but [B]saying borders need to be defended, armed if needed, is not neo-nazism[/B], and if neo-nazi's say the same that still doesn't make the idea neo-nazism either.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately nowadays that's how it's perceived.
Lets not pretend NeoNazis didn't want all "foreigners" out of the country and heavy border protection before the Refugee crisis. [t]http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/img.php?img=20034220&format=1[/t] 1980 [t]http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/img.php?img=vlt08401&format=1[/t] 1970 "Social Asylum Seekers back to their home countries" Same terminology as 45 years later. Somehow we still became one of the most likeable and richest countries in the world.
The EU just needs to change its laws so that not everyone who enters a country's borders is given immediate rights. The right of non-citizens to stay should be earned not granted. This should be especially clear now that we've seen some of the horrible behavior displayed by some refugees.
No one is saying "kill all refugees" This is sensationalism, and propaganda. She's saying that firearms may be used as a last resort for border control...
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49664694]No one is saying "kill all refugees" This is sensationalism, and propaganda. She's saying that firearms may be used as a last resort for border control...[/QUOTE] if it's a situation the German police would usually use a gun for then nobody is objecting to that, the response shouldn't (and doesn't) change just because a fence is involved. [I]which is exactly why shooting people for "border control" alone is stupid[/I]. German law clearly states a threat that would actually warrant a gun needs to be present before they're brought out. that won't change and i doubt the German police would be comfortable using them if it did.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49664391]The EU just needs to change its laws so that not everyone who enters a country's borders is given immediate rights. The right of non-citizens to stay should be earned not granted. This should be especially clear now that we've seen some of the horrible behavior displayed by some refugees.[/QUOTE] Luckily we have human rights and our constitution stating that this won't happen. At least in Germany.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.