U.K Police Shoot to Kill......

[Knarfan]

It was a comparison between similarly useless vitriol. Wasn't a topic switch. Just two similar lines of logical fallacy.

Don't like the phrase "blatant bungle"? Oh? Now overemotional garbage is forwned upon?

"Blatant bungle" ? Marginal at best . Overemotional garbage is frowned upon? just like the efforts of law enforcement to keep society safe ? ah ?

 

[Tgace]

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3636610

British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he's "desperately sorry" about the killing, but said the police were working in "very, very difficult circumstances." Blair says it's every Briton's duty to come forth with any information on those behind two waves of bombings in London, and says if police hadn't acted and the man turned out to be a terrorist, authorities would have been criticized for not doing enough.

Ain't it the truth?

 

[Knarfan]

So true & well put by prime minister Blair . One thing that I think we are learning from this is that like the victims of the terrorist attacks , the athorities are also easy targets . Although I think that the pendulem has finally swung in favor of any potential future victims of terrorism, thanks to the tireless efforts of the authorities . Now it's the authorities who are walking on egg shells . Funny how things change when a real human being makes a mistake . I'm glad that at least some people can see the differance .

 

[Marginal]

"Blatant bungle" ? Marginal at best .

That was the point. If you don't get it, you're a terrorist and a traitor to the US. Who wants cops to die.

Overemotional garbage is frowned upon? just like the efforts of law enforcement to keep society safe ? ah ?

Same overemotional garbage. If you question a cop, then you hate all law enforcement officers enganged in an effort to keep a society safe....

English may not be your first language, but please recognize how mindless your statement is. All you're really saying is, "I disagree with your point of view. Shut up."

 

[Tgace]

Theres a difference between saying "The policy used by the London police needs to be changed" and saying [sarcasm]"well he jumped a turnstile so I guess its OK to shoot him" [/sarcasm]. Which as a supervisor is the diffrence between calling a person into my office and talking about a mistake they made and yelling at them about it in public. One shows reason, the other makes you look like an ***.

The "im sure he has respect..." shot is just a sarcastic expression about how the people who seem to want to convict the police as wrong instantly always seem to try to use that expression. The Cops here werent wrong IMO. The policy may have been, but if they were within policy they werent "wrong".

 

[michaeledward]

I'm certain that knowing the police weren't "wrong", in your opinion, will be tremendously meaningful to the family of the dead guy.

And good call in recognizing sarcasm. My sarcasm may make me look like an ***, but no more so than the idjit who said "you're either with us, or your with the terrorists".

I wonder if this Brazilian Nation is going to be the last victim in the "global war on terror" of the first victim in the "global struggle against violent extremism".

I wonder if that will make a difference to his family, either?

 

[MisterMike]

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3636610

British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he's "desperately sorry" about the killing, but said the police were working in "very, very difficult circumstances." Blair says it's every Briton's duty to come forth with any information on those behind two waves of bombings in London, and says if police hadn't acted and the man turned out to be a terrorist, authorities would have been criticized for not doing enough.

Ain't it the truth?

Exactly. With the anti-Bush/Blair crowd, danged if ya do, danged if ya don't.

That's why I rank most of them right up there with the ranks of lemmings.

 

[Tgace]

So.... should those cops be fired or perhaps tarred and feathered for doing what they were expected to do? Will that make the family feel better? What oh law enforcement swamis do you all say should have been done in that situation? Will all "real" bombers stop and follow police orders? What leads you to believe that these officers acted negligently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/international/europe/25london.html

The commissioner also raised the possibility that more potential suspects could be killed in the mass transit system, as armed officers are forced to make split-second decisions on whether a suspicious person who does not heed police warnings represents an immediate lethal threat and should be shot in the head.

"It wasn't just a random event, and the most important thing to recognize is that it is still happening out there," Sir Ian said Sunday in an interview with Sky News TV. He added, "Somebody else could be shot."

Adding to the anxiety in the country, he said that the four suspects who fled after attempted bombings last Thursday in London, which came two weeks after the July 7 attacks, were probably still somewhere in Britain.

Portraying the working environment of his police officers as "terrifying," he said that "there is no point shooting at somebody's chest, because that is where the bomb is likely to be."

 

[Tgace]

The whole "why did they shoot for the head" thing is silly in and of itself. In any "shoot" situation you are acting to stop the threat as quickly as possible. The only reason we dont routinely aim for the head is because its damn tough to hit.

 

[Tgace]

First of all this guy was a suspect under survelliance by the Police. He left his house and got onto a bus. At that point back-up was called - logical as he's on a bus with a large number of people on it. He was then seen leaving the bus and going onto the Underground. At that point, it was necessary to stop him as this posed a threat. When confronted by police he ran(?), jumped over the ticket barriers, down the escalator and on to the platform, then on to a train.

This guy was wearing a winter coat, yes, on a hot and humid day on an underground system which is like a sauna. The guy didn't stop, he's a suspect, over the past two weeks he knew major incidents have occured on the tube, he's in a tube station running desperately for a train...if this guy was trying to protect himself he's done it in the most irrational way possible. To anyone it would seem obvious that this guy had something to hide and a desperate need to get on a train - which are the hallmarks of someone operating with an agenda and above the law. This guy also knew English.

I genuinely believe that the Police act to protect the public and do not get up in the morning wanting to shoot anyone.

 

[BushidoUK]

There was a lot of argument about this guy may have reacted because plain clothed officers could have been anyone with guns.
It has now been confirmed by several witnesses that the police officers in question were wearing POLICE baseball caps and shouted 'stop armed police'

This gentleman, who spoke excellent English, decided to vault a turnstile and run towards a known terrorist target, namely a tube train. He forced the police's hand.

I believe the police made the right choice, the lesser of the 2 evils.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Police shoot to kill and that is final! Its always a headshot no matter who the person is! If its a child with a gun that they cannot tell if its fake or not and points it at an officer, you do realise that that officer has to shoot? No to wound, but to kill? That is the measure of their resolve. Its a harsh world out there.

Going off topic a bit, but in essence whats done is done, everything was implimented and the police DID THEIR JOB as they had been trained to, unfortunately at the cost of an innocent mans life. There is nothing to be learned here, IMO I see no reason to change policy.

It is no the family that I feel the most sorrow for, it is the Police Officer who shot the guy. He/she will be under investigation, probably kept in a cell due to regulations with alot of time to think about what has happened.
That officer knows that even though they did their duty they shot an innocent man, that cannot be be comprended with by anything. To have that hanging over your head for the rest of your life is going to change you.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Let me see if I have this correctly. There's some guy running toward me, and behind him there's a cop ready to open fire? and there's the possibly of my child getting shot? Never. Whether or not it was some stupid kid, or a real bomber, I'd be moving my family and myself to a safer area. If the cop shot and killed my child because he/she thought the person evading was a bomber... I guess I have to wonder who's the bigger danger, in the end.

While I respect your attempt to alter the question, you didn't dodge it very well. The police didn't miss. Do you want him to allow the bomber to get close enough to detonate his device or not? Shoot/No Shoot.

Also, when a situation like this does really happen, and your at home sitting on your couch watching your TV you hear that the police had a clear shot at the bomber, but didn't shoot, allowing the bomber to detonate his bomb killing 30 people, are we going to here how the stupid, incompetent cops can't do their job? Of course we are.

Arm chair quaterbacks are called that for a reason...because the closest thing they usually get to these type of decisions is their arm chair...in front of the TV...watching some fantasy program. They're usually the people who start a sentence like "well they should of..." or "well I would've"...would've what? Been sitting on your couch when this went down?

 

[OUMoose]

While I respect your attempt to alter the question, you didn't dodge it very well. The police didn't miss. Do you want him to allow the bomber to get close enough to detonate his device or not? Shoot/No Shoot.

Also, when a situation like this does really happen, and your at home sitting on your couch watching your TV you hear that the police had a clear shot at the bomber, but didn't shoot, allowing the bomber to detonate his bomb killing 30 people, are we going to here how the stupid, incompetent cops can't do their job? Of course we are.

Arm chair quaterbacks are called that for a reason...because the closest thing they usually get to these type of decisions is their arm chair...in front of the TV...watching some fantasy program. They're usually the people who start a sentence like "well they should of..." or "well I would've"...would've what? Been sitting on your couch when this went down?

I wasn't trying to dodge the question at all. In your hypothetical "arm chair" example, it wasn't a clear shot.

Now in the real-life example of what happened, I've seen mention in this thread about how surveillance saw him getting on a bus, then to the train station. Why wasn't he pulled aside before he could get to the station? If he was wearing a heavy parka in the middle of summer, why didn't anyone else take notice? Wouldn't that seem strange to you? I guess as martial artists, we tend to take notice of strange occurances in our surroundings, and perhaps we take that for granted. :idunno:

 

[sgtmac_46]

I wasn't trying to dodge the question at all. In your hypothetical "arm chair" example, it wasn't a clear shot.

Now in the real-life example of what happened, I've seen mention in this thread about how surveillance saw him getting on a bus, then to the train station. Why wasn't he pulled aside before he could get to the station? If he was wearing a heavy parka in the middle of summer, why didn't anyone else take notice? Wouldn't that seem strange to you? I guess as martial artists, we tend to take notice of strange occurances in our surroundings, and perhaps we take that for granted. :idunno:

Your status as a martial artist doesn't give you insight in to counter-terrorist practices anymore than my status allows me to fly the space shuttle. I am confident that what the officers did, they felt was immediately necessary to save human lives. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I learn otherwise.

As for my question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot in my scenerio, it didn't seem that difficult. I asked a direct question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot the suicide bombing subject before he reached you and your family and detonate his bomb. A simple yes or no would suffice. If you'd like to add a qualifer, by all means do so, but provide a direct yes or no answer.

 

[OUMoose]

Your status as a martial artist doesn't give you insight in to counter-terrorist practices anymore than my status allows me to fly the space shuttle. I am confident that what the officers did, they felt was immediately necessary to save human lives. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I learn otherwise.

I never said it did, but I do give more scrutiny to my surroundings than many people I talk to. In this instance, I'd try to make sure my family was safe by getting out of there. If you consider that "counter-terrorism", so be it. I call it "common sense".

As far as what transpired with the officers, I too am sure they did what they felt was best, and I am glad to hear no innocents were injured. I guess I'm just curious where the line between judicious(sp?) action and reckless endangerment gets fuzzy, and if it will disappear?

As for my question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot in my scenerio, it didn't seem that difficult. I asked a direct question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot the suicide bombing subject before he reached you and your family and detonate his bomb. A simple yes or no would suffice. If you'd like to add a qualifer, by all means do so, but provide a direct yes or no answer.

The only absolute I know of is the fact that I'm going to die someday (and i'm not entirely sure of it ). Past that, everything else is shades of grey. I'm sorry, but without being in that train station first hand, I can't answer with a heavy-handed yes/no.

 

[Tgace]

Dodge....

Again, all the critics crying FOUL...what would you have preferred the police had done in this situation?

 

[Tgace]

I guess as martial artists, we tend to take notice of strange occurances in our surroundings, and perhaps we take that for granted. :idunno:

Someone who takes martial arts classes 1-2 times a week has more "awareness" than a cop who has to be concerned for his safety and be alert for others commiting crimes as a full time job? Please.

 

[Knarfan]

That was the point. If you don't get it, you're a terrorist and a traitor to the US. Who wants cops to die.

Same overemotional garbage. If you question a cop, then you hate all law enforcement officers enganged in an effort to keep a society safe....

English may not be your first language, but please recognize how mindless your statement is. All you're really saying is, "I disagree with your point of view. Shut up."

English is my first language

. Nothing wrong with questioning a cop or anyone else for that matter , but the way I see it people want it both ways . You want to throw your little sarcastic remarks out there without really anything to back it up . you want to push ,but when somone starts pushing back you don't like it . Let me give you a new example . One of your profound quots in your last post was ,[ quote] "English may not be your first language , but please recognize how mindless your statement is . All your really saying is , "I disagree with your point of veiw so shut up." So lets break it down : #1 saying that english may not be your first language ... we have the sarcasm (are you saying that I am stupid or may not understand somthing because english is not my first language )? We also have the lack of facts to back up your sarcastic remark . (how could you possibly know this , you don't know me) ? #2 "but please recognize how mindless your statment is " . All your really saying is , "I disagree with your point of veiw so shut up". (Thanks for letting me know how mindless my statement is , I know your not trying to be sarcastic )? Marginal, I wasn't really saying I disagree with your point , so shut up . (What I was really trying to say was , I disagree with your point of veiw ,because of your lack of understanding & facts ) ! Wow! I think we finally understand each other now ? BTW , I really think that everybody is entitled to their point of veiw , I just think under the circumstances we should give the good guys a break & the benefit of the doubt . Wheather you like it or not , it may be the time to take a side & make a stand for whats really right . The police are not perfect , but like soldiers , they are fighting for us & putting their lives on the line .

 

[michaeledward]

Dodge....

Again, all the critics crying FOUL...what would you have preferred the police had done in this situation?

I don't know.

But, we have one supposition and one fact before us.

1. The Police policy is 'correct' (supposition)
2. An innocent man is dead (fact)

If the police policy is 'correct', then we can expect to have more corpses on our hands; corpses not belonging to terrorist.

How many corpses are acceptable before the policy can be questioned?

How many corspes are required before we demand a change in policy?

Seems to me, that the terrorists have already won. Our society is not terrorized from within. We are so afraid of what 'might' happen, we are willing to take an irreversible action.

It saddens me. It angers me.

But, it doesn't surprise me.