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

[OUMoose]

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.

I thought we were talking from the standpoint of a bystander, not a LEO...

 

[Corporal Hicks]

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?

You got a better idea? or policy? because I sure as hell would like to hear it?!

 

[Dan G]

See the link below. One of the (rather unsuccessful) "suicide bombers" was arrested using a tazer. He had a rucksack with him, but he was in a house not running madly down the tube. Whoever performed the arrest must have felt that they were risking their lives, however as the public was not in danger they took a chance.

Judge it how you like, I for one respect the courage shown by those involved in the arrest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4720027.stm

Dan:asian:

 

[Dan G]

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.

I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "our society" I don't understand what you mean when you say "We are so afraid of what 'might' happen, we are willing to take an irreversible action."

Are you from the UK?

“I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair told Sky Television.

Asked if the instructions were to shoot to kill if police believed a suspect was a suicide bomber, he said: “Correct. They have to be that.”

“It’s still happening out there, there are still officers having to make those calls as we speak. ... Somebody else could be shot,” Blair added.

We have been informed of the potential consequences of the current policy (fact)

An innocent man has been killed (fact)

It may happen again (possibility)

Point is we have been given a choice, and we will make a decision about policy.

It is highly likely the current Police policy will be supported (supposition)

I respect your right to question UK policy, and I think it valuable that you do so, but from your profile it seems you live in New Hampshire USA, not Hampshire UK. The solidarity is appreciated but please be careful when you speak for others!
Sounds rather "Imperialist" which kind of freaks me out here as until recently at least that has been something of a British speciality. (BTW We still have the best villains in Hollywood!)

Keep posting and keep criticising, you are clearly an intelligent man with his heart in the right place - just don't speak for us over here please!

Respectfully,

Dan

 

[michaeledward]

You got a better idea? or policy? because I sure as hell would like to hear it?!

Hollywood, in a similar situation had a suggestion to take under advisement: more body bags.

 

[Dan G]

Hollywood, in a similar situation had a suggestion to take under advisement: more body bags.

errrm... having spent the past 6 months working outside of the usual legal stuff putting together a contingency plan for my employer in the event that a large scale terrorist incident hit London, my research tells me that we are rather well supplied.

Thanks for the concern though.

Dan

 

[michaeledward]

I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "our society" I don't understand what you mean when you say "We are so afraid of what 'might' happen, we are willing to take an irreversible action."

Are you from the UK?


We have been informed of the potential consequences of the current policy (fact)

An innocent man has been killed (fact)

It may happen again (possibility)

Point is we have been given a choice, and we will make a decision about policy.

It is highly likely the current Police policy will be supported (supposition)

I respect your right to question UK policy, and I think it valuable that you do so, but from your profile it seems you live in New Hampshire USA, not Hampshire UK. The solidarity is appreciated but please be careful when you speak for others!
Sounds rather "Imperialist" which kind of freaks me out here as until recently at least that has been something of a British speciality. (BTW We still have the best villains in Hollywood!)

Keep posting and keep criticising, you are clearly an intelligent man with his heart in the right place - just don't speak for us over here please!

Respectfully,

Dan

Got it.

Of course, there is some speculation that one of the causes for the rise in these type of attacks is because of the war formerly known as 'Global War on Terrorism'. You may have heard that the citizens of New Hampshire are involved in that activity; as are the citizens of Great Britain. 93 of your fellow citizens have died in Iraq over the last two years. While I usually attempt to be very careful about linking causalities, I do not think it is unreasonable for the free people of Great Britain, and the free people of the u.s. of a. to think of themselves as 'one people', in this instance. Certainly, the Prime Minister has often been closer to the President than the President's shadow over the last 4 years.

Odd, I am offended whenever an innocent dies. So, take it as a show of unity, if you will, but under that definition, I also share unity with more than 25,000 Iraqi's (according to Iraqbodycount.net).

Or, if you prefer, you might look to Star Trek: The Next Generation - 'The Drumhead' - where Captain Picard tells Mr. Worf, that constant vigilence is required to maintain our freedoms.

 

[Marginal]

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 .

Not really. I'm just calling BS on folks who say, "If you question a cop, then you want cops to die."

So lets break it down : #1 saying that english may not be your first language ...

That's just because you tend to use odd syntax. It's an international forum, so I try not to presume.

Marginal, I wasn't really saying I disagree with your point , so shut up .

You were. All you were doing (from what I could tell at least) was making a bad attempt at mocking my post. Your followup doesn't disabuse me of this notion.

Wow! I think we finally understand each other now ?

Not really.

The police are not perfect , but like soldiers , they are fighting for us & putting their lives on the line .

So in other words, never question anything they (the police of soldiers) do. If you do, you've irreparably undermined the efforts of the protectors.

 

[Dan G]

Got it.

Of course, there is some speculation that one of the causes for the rise in these type of attacks is because of the war formerly known as 'Global War on Terrorism'. You may have heard that the citizens of New Hampshire are involved in that activity; as are the citizens of Great Britain. 93 of your fellow citizens have died in Iraq over the last two years. While I usually attempt to be very careful about linking causalities, I do not think it is unreasonable for the free people of Great Britain, and the free people of the u.s. of a. to think of themselves as 'one people', in this instance. Certainly, the Prime Minister has often been closer to the President than the President's shadow over the last 4 years.

Odd, I am offended whenever an innocent dies. So, take it as a show of unity, if you will, but under that definition, I also share unity with more than 25,000 Iraqi's (according to Iraqbodycount.net).

Or, if you prefer, you might look to Star Trek: The Next Generation - 'The Drumhead' - where Captain Picard tells Mr. Worf, that constant vigilence is required to maintain our freedoms.

Not too good on Star Trek - but I've always liked the quote:
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
First person to use it was an Irish politician called John Philpot Curran - although Andrew Jackson and Wendell Philips used it later. (I always thought it was Jefferson came up with it - but thanks to the power of broadband I stand corrected)

I entirely respect your beliefs on the war in Iraq and your right to express them - and I acknowledge that our government has been closely involved with the war since the outset.

I entirely respect your feelings about loss of life with all factions in that war.

Both issues are entirely distinct from the way in which the UK chooses to deal with an immediate domestic terrorist threat carried out by UK citizens.

My views on UK foreign policy are entirely distinct from my views on domestic security. Even if there is a causal link, it is immaterial to the resolution of immediate problems.

My personal belief is that it is absolutely vital for dissenting views to be expressed in extreme situations - it is fundamental to an informed and free society - whether or not I share those beliefs is immaterial to me.

However, active dissent is best served by careful and intellectually rigorous argument. The more unpopular a view is the more important it is to articulate it with accuracy and eloquence. Many of your arguments are more widely supported than you may realise. I suspect that careful and persuasive presentation may achieve interesting results.

I think you'll like the way Jackson used the eternal vigiliance line:

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

For me the quote I like is another one by Curran:

"assassinate me you may; intimidate me you cannot!"

Keep dissenting, it does serve a purpose.

Dan

 

[Tgace]

Questioning is different from pillorying.

 

[Tgace]

Who are you "offended" at when the innocent dies? Whos "fault" was it in your opinion?

 

[michaeledward]

Who are you "offended" at when the innocent dies?

Just because it doesn't seem right, we are, after all, supposed to be a civilized society.

P.S. let me clarify.

I have always felt that Liberalism is the belief that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; the point of view that 'we are all in this together', 'together everyone achieves more', etc, etc.

So, the taking of one of the individuals that contributes to the whole, weakens us all.

 

[michaeledward]

From the Guardian:

Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday July 28, 2005
The Guardian

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.[/font]
​

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html

 

[Dan G]

Basically the article can be summarised as:

Newspaper reports that family says that police admit that X happened.

Or alternatively They say that they say that they say X.

Doesn't mean anything yet.

It will be interesting to see what develops.

Dan

 

[Tgace]

non-answer.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

From the Guardian:

Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket


[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier[/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday July 28, 2005
The Guardian

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.[/font]

​

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html

Ok, this is a newspaper report, ok, just because it says in nice Bulky writing "Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket " does not mean automatically that he wasnt wearing a bulky jacket. I wasnt there though so I wouldnt know!!!
What I do know (not for a fact though) is that newspapers like stories!

"He did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police" his COUSIN (Cousin right? Yeah Cousin? Biased? Do you think? Was he there??? Tell me that?).
The fact he didnt jump it or did, the fact is he still ran, and he's still dead!

Regards

 

[Macy5]

I have to say, at least police is doing their real job, instead of giving out tickets and eating doughnuts.
Most become cops because the can't do anything else and have no brain for education. Not because they are brave, the research have been done.
We all know it. Sorry to say it, soldiers I deeply respect, police---nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[Tgace]

This whole situation reminds me of the unfortunately more and more common situation seen here in the US where a person points a cell phone at a cop after a chase and he gets shot down. Then the hue and cry of "Cops shoot (race of choice inserted here) man for pointing cell phone!" "Man shot X times for having cell phone!" etc. etc. Nevermind the fact that the guy lead a high speed chase, ran, refused to obey commands under gunpoint and reached into his pocket and pointed a black object at officers. It was only a cell phone and cops should be arrested, fired, abuse of power yadda yada. I (admittedly biased because I am one) tend to give the officer the benefit of the doubt unless evidence is presented otherwise that they were negligent. If they were negligent (or intentionally broke the law/policy) then have at them.

The bottom line is, regardless of the bulk of his jacket or if he jumped a turnstile or not, if this man had obeyed the police (who from one source Ive read were wearing "police" markings and badges when they confronted him) and not ran this wouldnt have happened.

 

[Tgace]

I have to say, at least police is doing their real job, instead of giving out tickets and eating doughnuts.
Most become cops because the can't do anything else and have no brain for education. Not because they are brave, the research have been done.
We all know it. Sorry to say it, soldiers I deeply respect, police---nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Judging from your typing your brain for education appears to be lacking as well.

 

[Macy5]

OH boy someone with a cop picture is speaking.

Do you want to be a cop when your grow up?

Or you like men in uniforms?

or may be doughnuts?

Somehow I knew that you would reply to this,
so if you are a cop, do you keep your hands behind your back permenantly?